|
SCO's Ex Parte Motion For Leave to File Overlength Memo re Motion to Compel - as text |
|
Saturday, August 28 2004 @ 09:15 PM EDT
|
Here's SCO's Ex Parte Motion for Leave to File Over-Length Memorandum. This is in connection with their "renewed" motion to compel discovery.
*************************
Brent O. Hatch (5715)
Mark F. James (5295)
HATCH, JAMES & DODGE
[address, phone, fax]
Robert Silver (admitted pro hac vice)
BOIES, SCHILLER & FLEXNER
[address, phone, fax]
Stephen N. Zack (admitted pro hac vice)
Mark J. Heise (admitted pro hac vice)
BOIES, SCHILLER & FLEXNER LLP
[address, phone, fax]
Attorneys for The SCO Group, Inc.
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF UTAH
THE SCO GROUP, INC.,
Plaintiff/Counterclaim-
Defendant,
vs.
INTERNATIONAL BUSINESS
MACHINES CORPORATION,
Defendant/Counterclaim-
Plaintiff.
|
EX PARTE MOTION FOR LEAVE
TO FILE OVER-LENGTH
MEMORANDUM
Civil No. 2:03CV0294 DAK
Honorable Dale A. Kimball
Magistrate Judge Brooke C. Wells
|
Plaintiff/Counterclaim-Defendant The SCO Group ("SCO") hereby moves the Court
pursuant to District Court Rule 7-1(e) for leave to file an overlength Reply Memorandum in
Support of Plaintiff/Counterclaim-Defendant SCO's Renewed Motion to Compel.
As SCO must address multiple issues and must explain and place many issues in context
for the court, SCO respectfully requests leave to file an over-length memorandum. The
argument section of SCO's Reply Memorandum is approximately 16 pages in length. SCO has
endeavored to be as concise as possible, but respectfully submits that the excess length is
necessary to fully address the issues.
DATED this 26th day of August, 2004.
(signature)
HATCH, JAMES & DODGE, P.C.
Brent O. Hatch
Mark F. James
BOIES, SCHILLER & FLEXNER LLP
Robert Silver, Esq. (admitted pro hac vice)
Stephen N. Zack (admitted pro hac vice)
Mark J. Heise (admitted pro hac vice)
Attorneys for The SCO Group, Inc.
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
Plaintiff, The SCO Group, hereby certifies that a true and correct copy of EX PARTE
MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE OVER-LENGTH MEMORANDUM was served on
Defendant International Business Machines Corporation on this 26th day of August, 2004, by
U.S. mail, postage prepaid to:
Alan L. Sullivan, Esq.
Todd M. Shaughnessy, Esq.
Snell & Wilmer, L.L.P.
[address]
Copy to:
Evan R. Chesler, Esq.
Cravath, Swaine & Moore LLP
[address]
Donald J. Rosenberg, Esq.
[address]
Attorneys for Defendant/Counterclaim-Plaintiff IBM Corp.
(signature)
|
|
Authored by: MadScientist on Saturday, August 28 2004 @ 09:29 PM EDT |
---
One of the main reasons the Roman Empire fell was because of the lack of the
numeral '0'. This meant they were unable to terminate their C programmes
correctly.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
- Trolls, astroturfers and their ilk here please - Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, August 28 2004 @ 09:47 PM EDT
- Trolls, astroturfers and their ilk here please - Authored by: Dark on Sunday, August 29 2004 @ 04:49 AM EDT
- Trolls, astroturfers and their ilk here please - Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, August 29 2004 @ 05:07 AM EDT
- exit status of (mumblypeg) is (X,XIV,II,I) - Authored by: publius_REX on Sunday, August 29 2004 @ 07:04 AM EDT
- programs, you doofus [n/t] - Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, August 29 2004 @ 03:44 PM EDT
|
Authored by: overshoot on Saturday, August 28 2004 @ 09:36 PM EDT |
In case people don't know what "OT" means [ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: NastyGuns on Saturday, August 28 2004 @ 09:41 PM EDT |
If there are any corrections, place them here please. --- NastyGuns,
"If I'm not here, I've gone out to find myself. If I return before I get back,
please keep me here." Unknown. [ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: snorpus on Saturday, August 28 2004 @ 09:52 PM EDT |
For not having anything to say that they haven't said a dozen times already,
SCO/BSF sure need a lot of pages to say it in. --- 73/88 de KQ3T ---
Montani Semper Liberi [ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: dmscvc123 on Saturday, August 28 2004 @ 10:48 PM EDT |
SCO sure does like to use that phrase. So to put things in context for SCO, you
claimed you had evidence prior to the lawsuit, then you claimed to have
mountains of evidence after having done a deep dive with three teams and now
you've refused to turn over that alleged evidence that you already claim to
have, you say it will take you thousands of years to get the evidence you
already say you have and you ask IBM for even more evidence without
demonstrating to the judge any proof for getting additional evidence despite
your claims for over a year to have the evidence.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, August 28 2004 @ 11:16 PM EDT |
There seems to be a consistent number of requests for filing overlength memos in
this case.
Which begs the question... why have the rule in the first place? Is it simply a
"short-leash" that the judge can exercise if he/she is annoyed enough
with either side?[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, August 28 2004 @ 11:42 PM EDT |
...tell us what's in these 16 pages! :-) [ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, August 29 2004 @ 01:03 AM EDT |
SCO files to request permission to introduce fans and smoke canisters into the
courtroom in order to obscure who may be placing huge bags of fertilizer in
front of both IBM and the Judge.
:)
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: SammyTheSnake on Sunday, August 29 2004 @ 10:23 AM EDT |
I note that in this filing, SCO uses defferential phrasing for the first time
I've noticed. People have commented earlier (PJ included, IIRC) that, while IBM
have consistently used phrasing like "IBM respectfully requests...",
SCO has been rather less tactful.
This time, SCO seems to be "saying it with flowers" a little more.
Is this significant? Probably not...
Cheers & God bless
Sam "SammyTheSnake" Penny[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
|
|