|
|
| SCO's Sealed Reply Memo Stays That Way |
 |
|
Friday, September 08 2006 @ 10:36 AM EDT
|
Pacer has SCO's sealed Reply Memorandum in Support of Objections to Order listed now , but it looks like it's staying sealed. A couple of exhibits attached to the document are now available on Pacer, but the Reply Memorandum is sealed, as is the Declaration of Brent O. Hatch. Here's the Pacer listing:
765
Filed: 09/06/2006
Entered: 09/07/2006
Sealed Document
Docket Text: **SEALED DOCUMENT** Reply Memorandum in Support of [726] [724] Objections to Order granting in part IBMs motion to limit SCOs claims, filed by Plaintiff SCO Group. (blk, ) Additional attachment(s) added on 9/7/2006 (blk, ).
766
Filed: 09/06/2006
Entered: 09/07/2006
Sealed Document
Docket Text: **SEALED DOCUMENT**DECLARATION of Brent O. Hatch re [765] Reply Memorandum in Support of Objections to Order filed by Plaintiff SCO Group. (blk, ) It's not impossible that there might still be a redacted version, but not currently. The exhibits are principally cases, which unfortunately I can't share with you due to copyright concerns regarding Westlaw materials. However, there is an Appendix A, listing SCO's version of discovery events, and we'll do a text version of that for you shortly.
|
|
|
|
| Authored by: feldegast on Friday, September 08 2006 @ 10:55 AM EDT |
If needed
---
IANAL
My posts are ©2004-2006 and released under the Creative Commons License
Attribution-Noncommercial 2.0
P.J. has permission for commercial use.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Acrow Nimh on Friday, September 08 2006 @ 11:03 AM EDT |
and don't forget those clickies...
---
Any horticultural action not involving a chainsaw isn't gardening...[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: elcorton on Friday, September 08 2006 @ 12:31 PM EDT |
It's not impossible that there might still be a redacted version,
but not currently. Recall Kimball's ruling [438] on G2's
Motion
to Intervene: All future dispositive motions and
memoranda that
are filed under seal shall be publicly filed with all confidential
information
redacted. SCO's objections are not a
dispositive motion, but the
parties seem to have interpreted this language to
refer to all memoranda, not
just those relating to dispositive motions. [ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, September 08 2006 @ 02:03 PM EDT |
Will there be oral arguments for this motion? Doing a quick review of the
original objection, I do not see a request for oral arguments.
Or will the next thing we will see on this issue be Judge Kimball's ruling?[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: sproggit on Friday, September 08 2006 @ 03:49 PM EDT |
Let's be entirely immodest for a moment and ask the obvious question.
Suppose that Darl McBride and the other players within The SCO Group, their
Legal Team or other loyal hangers-on have got to the point where they are sick
and tired of PJ completely and almost effortlessly dismantling every argument
they try to make - before they even get the chance to argue it before the
Court.
As a result of this frustration on their part [and amidst hearty cheers of
Groklawrians the world over] TSG adopt a new strategy in which pretty much
everything they file is now under seal, which is achieved by placing in each
document a certain amount of specific information over which they can claim a
"sensitive" nature [perhaps something contractually to do with IBM,
with the 'vulnerable' information something IBM would prefer kept confidential,
for example.
I suspect that PJ would describe this as "gaming the system" and she
has written in length about the way that Judges and Courts will presume that the
legal representatives of parties in litigation, acting as agents of the court,
will not stoop to such "underhand" tactics.
I'm wondering how long that presumption will last.
In fact, I'm trying to remember the last time that The SCO Group files something
of substance with the Court that _wasn't_ filed under seal and later re-issued
in redacted form.
With slightly-more-than-just-idle curiosity, does anyone else have experience of
a case or cases like this where such a significant portion of submissions were
entered in this way?
For an "open" system of law, it seems to have quite a few dark
corners...[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
|
|
