SCO's Motion to Dismiss has been denied in Delaware.
The judge has also stayed any further activity in the Red Hat case until after the IBM case in Utah is resolved, unless things get bogged down there. Both sides have to file a letter every 90 days letting her know how things are progressing in the IBM matter. The judge will lift the stay if things don't hop along in a reasonable fashion in Utah. Considering how long it took for this overworked judge to rule on this motion, I don't see the order as a delay at all. The big news is, SCO lost and, sooner or later, they must face the music with respect to Red Hat's charges. There is no escape now. And if they drag their heels in Utah, it can have consequences not only there but also in Delaware. The court records on Pacer tell the story, with documents to follow tomorrow:
4/6/04 34 MEMORANDUM ORDER denying [8-1] motion to Dismiss; case is stayed pending resolution of Utah litigation between SCO and IBM; parties shall each submit a letter every 90 days as to the status of the Utah litigation; if the Utah litigation is not proceeding in an orderly and efficient fashion the court may reconsider the stay ( signed by Judge Sue L. Robinson ) copies to: cnsl. (rd) [Edit date 04/06/04]
4/6/04 -- Per Court's Order of 4/6/04 the following motions are moot:
mooting [30-1] motion To Supplement the Record, mooting [17-1] motion For Enlargment of Time to Respond to Pltf's First Set of Interrogatories and First Request for Production of Documents and Things, mooting [15-1] motion to Stay Discovery Pending Resolution of Motion to Dismiss (rd)
You can find all the motions that have been mooted on our Legal Docs page, along with the complete record of all the motions and responding documents.
The basic overview is this: Red Hat's Complaint, which is the document SCO tried to dismiss, was answered by SCO with a Motion to Dismiss. Then Red Hat amended its brief.
This was followed by a series of motions, which are the ones the judge has mooted:
For convenience, I am reproducing the Red Hat section from the Legal Docs page here:
Red Hat v SCO
[ back to Top ]