More Discovery in SCO v. IBM and SCO Files Proposed Memo on Scheduling Order - Pacer Entries

Wednesday, June 02 2004 @ 07:45 AM EDT

Contributed by: PJ

Pacer is listing four more documents that we hope to have for you later today, indicating more discovery activity in the IBM case:

5/28/04 163 Memorandum RE: Discovery filed by SCO Grp (tsh)
[Entry date 06/01/04]

5/28/04 164 Ex parte motion by SCO Grp for leave to file overlength
reply memo in support of pla's Motion to Amend the
Scheduling Order (tsh) [Entry date 06/01/04]

5/28/04 -- Proposed document from SCO Grp entitled Pla's Reply Memo
in Support of Motion to Amend the Scheduling Order (tsh)
[Entry date 06/01/04]

5/28/04 165 Certificate of service by SCO Grp re: Pla's Response to
Dft's Fourth Set of Interrogatories (tsh)
[Entry date 06/01/04]

This tells us, assuming the entries are accurate, that IBM has served SCO with another set of interrogatories, their fourth, which SCO has responded to, and that SCO has filed its Reply Memorandum in Support of its Motion to Amend the Scheduling Order, which if you recall is their effort to delay some more. The Memorandum is longer than normally allowed, so they are also asking the judge to permit it, despite its length, by means of an ex parte motion, and that is why it is listed as a proposed Memo instead of just a Memo. Here is the definition of an ex parte motion, from Law Dictionary, 2d Edition, by Steven H. Gifis:

"Lat: in behalf of, on the application of, one party, by or for one party. An ex parte judicial proceeding is one brought for the benefit of one party only, without notice to or challenge by an adverse party. It refers to an application made by one party to a proceeding in the absence of the other. Thus, an ex parte injunction is one having been granted without the adverse party having had notice of its application. An uncontested application where notice was given is not ex parte."

SCO also has apparently filed a Memorandum regarding discovery. I haven't a clue what that entry is. I could guess, but why not just wait until we see it?

192 comments



http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=20040602074542369