|
Authored by cpeterson on Jun 23, 2015 4:19:37 GMT
Dkt. 1153:
Since parties were given the choice of a) agree on a mediator, or b) be assigned a mediator regardless of agreement, they picked a mediator.
So now we get a new judge - and he's up on the seventh floor, so we're taking the glass elevator whether we like it or not. In fact, his courtroom is on the same floor as Magistrate Judge Wells' court - so close. I'm disappointed.
|
|
|
Authored by wayneborean on Jun 23, 2015 14:46:41 GMT
Dkt. 1153: Since parties were given the choice of a) agree on a mediator, or b) be assigned a mediator regardless of agreement, they picked a mediator. So now we get a new judge - and he's up on the seventh floor, so we're taking the glass elevator whether we like it or not. In fact, his courtroom is on the same floor as Magistrate Judge Wells' court - so close. I'm disappointed. Is there a date on the mediatin? Wayne
|
|
|
Authored by cpeterson on Jun 23, 2015 18:35:45 GMT
Nope, that was the entirety of the docket entry (Groklaw is still keeping up with the docket in the SCO v IBM timeline [is that you, PJ?] so I'm watching there, lacking Pacer). The next deadline was for the parties to "reconcile facts" on 782 - 30 days from June 11 makes July 11, but that's a Saturday, so I'm thinking July 13th.
Sometime before then, I expect Judge Warner to specify what form he expects parties' homework to be in, and when he'll be checking it.
|
|
swmech
Veteran Member
Posts: 152
|
Authored by swmech on Jun 23, 2015 18:59:05 GMT
... same floor as Magistrate Judge Wells' court - so close. I'm disappointed. Close enough for easy consultation, perhaps? Or will Wells run away screaming if he tries?
|
|
|
Authored by wayneborean on Jun 25, 2015 13:00:07 GMT
Nope, that was the entirety of the docket entry (Groklaw is still keeping up with the docket in the SCO v IBM timeline [is that you, PJ?] so I'm watching there, lacking Pacer). The next deadline was for the parties to "reconcile facts" on 782 - 30 days from June 11 makes July 11, but that's a Saturday, so I'm thinking July 13th. Sometime before then, I expect Judge Warner to specify what form he expects parties' homework to be in, and when he'll be checking it. Should we be OCDimg those? Wayne
|
|
|
Authored by cpeterson on Jun 25, 2015 19:01:15 GMT
Please pardon my obtuseness - but I'm not sure what that means. Could you clarify?
|
|
Bubba
Guest
|
Authored by Bubba on Jun 25, 2015 20:34:05 GMT
I believe he meant OCR
|
|
|
Authored by wayneborean on Jun 26, 2015 10:44:41 GMT
Please pardon my obtuseness - but I'm not sure what that means. Could you clarify? OCR. I really shouldn't post while half asleep. Wayne
|
|
|
Authored by cpeterson on Jun 26, 2015 17:43:12 GMT
Everything I have access to is already in text format. Is there more we could be getting?
|
|
|
Authored by cpeterson on Jul 8, 2015 5:40:16 GMT
Docket #1155 is up (in Groklaw's timeline): "Well, boss," says Judge Warner, "they don't seem too interested in talkin' to each other." And it only took a month to figure that out. Judge Warner - shouldn't that have been obvious just from the case number, which indicates the case started in '03? So I guess it's back to Judge Nuffer to see what comes of the reconciliation of facts on 782. I'm still expecting that to happen next week. However, I just went to Groklaw, read the article posted with 782, and the comments - many bemoaning the fact that it might get dragged out another two MONTHS. Yep. That was in September 2006.
|
|
|
Authored by wayneborean on Jul 8, 2015 16:12:01 GMT
"Well, boss," says Judge Warner, "they don't seem too interested in talkin' to each other." And it only took a month to figure that out. Judge Warner - shouldn't that have been obvious just from the case number, which indicates the case started in '03? So I guess it's back to Judge Nuffer to see what comes of the reconciliation of facts on 782. I'm still expecting that to happen next week. However, I just went to Groklaw, read the article posted with 782, and the comments - many bemoaning the fact that it might get dragged out another two MONTHS. Yep. That was in September 2006. ROFL. Jarndyce v. Jarndyce revisited. i'll make a bet right now that the case is still ongoing in 2023. Wayne
|
|
|
Authored by cpeterson on Jul 14, 2015 19:45:25 GMT
Docket # 1156 is now up on Groklaw. I'll let you go over there and tickle their server's hit counter, so they know they're still important. Maybe someday PJ will peek out; I keep hoping. That is not a direct quote; but, I don't think I missed any of Amy Sorenson's salient points. I remember Judge Nuffer needling both sides with something on the order of "Oh, come on - you guys could do this before lunch if you put your minds to it!". So they're well aware of not meeting the Judge's expectations, although we could probably drum up a pretty good guess of who's firmly anchored to an untenable position.
|
|
|
Authored by cpeterson on Jul 15, 2015 4:48:21 GMT
Aaaand - thanks, says Judge Nuffer, but - no. That won't cut it. Docket #1157 is entered as a non-document text only entry. "A notice of failure is insufficient." Judge Nuffer, are you still standing at your desk with a big grin? OK, SCO and IBM, you're still on the conveyor belt, it's still going over the edge, and you have one week (less the time we've spent swotting email back & forth) to finish your homework or Boom! --> (unspecified consequence). (Except the consequence isn't really unspecified: The District of Utah Civil Rules 56-1 contains a reference to 7-1, the general rules for motions and memoranda - which contains DUCivR 7-1(d) Failure to respond: "Failure to respond timely to a motion may result in the court's granting the motion without further notice."
All you have to do is nothing, and you lose.) But, hey, SCO will try anything once, right?
|
|
|
Authored by wayneborean on Jul 15, 2015 14:29:39 GMT
Brent Hatch Edward Normand Jason Cyrulnik Stuart Singer David Boies Mark James David Marriott Evan Chesler Alan Sullivan
Ah, those familiar names!
And the good judge is going to prove that a judge's gavel beats nuclear weapons any time!
Wayne
|
|
|
Authored by cpeterson on Jul 21, 2015 21:40:35 GMT
Let the fun ensue. We have now docket # 1158, filed by SCO, captioned Judge Nuffer demanded a joint submission, and this isn't. The attached letter from Jason Cyrulnik explains why SCO wasn't able to sync up with IBM and get the joint submission filed. Fingers duly pointed; I have no doubt another submission will arrive from IBM with a differing point of view. This submission's preface reads as follows: I think section 3 was probably the sticking point. Judge Nuffer had requested (emphasis mine.) But what does remaining mean, anyway? SCO looked in their opposition brief, and lo and behold, those items were still in there. File 'em. It appears that they do not agree that the findings in Novell are in any way an impediment to SCO still claiming all rights to all of the SVr4 code. Remember, I Am Not A Lawyer, but it looks to me like they are saying they don't have to relinquish any of those claims because IBM can't rebut them with evidence adduced in this case. Another possible problem with this filing is that SCO's opposition brief (docket # 909), the source of the item 3 entries, was redacted; this filing isn't, so quite a bit of that material is now opened up. I don't know if that's a problem. Waiting now to see what happens next...
|
|