Source: http://www.groklaw.net/articlebasic.php?story=20070109211416629
Timestamp: 2019-04-20 23:15:44+00:00

Document:
Pacer shows activity in SCO v. IBM. Specifically, SCO tries again to get around the court's recent decision to confine SCO's claims and strike allegations in excess of the list of allegedly misused materials on the table by the December 22, 2005 deadline. SCO has filed a Motion to Amend/Correct its December 2005 Submission [PDF]. Here's the Memorandum in Support [PDF].
What SCO wouldn't give for a time machine to go back and 'Amend/Correct' their December 2005 submission! It miscalculated, and now it is scrambling like mad. SCO has already filed objections to that order, so you could call this a SCO supplemental move to supplement their earlier efforts to find some way to get this material they didn't put on the table in time into the litigation. It's about the materials SCO tried to introduce via experts reports.
Plaintiff, The SCO Group, Inc. (“SCO”), by and through undersigned counsel, submits this Memorandum in Support of its Motion to Amend Its December 2005 Submission.
SCO seeks to amend its December 2005 Submission of “misused material” to incorporate certain evidence and analysis from SCO’s expert reports filed in May 2006. As the Court is aware, a dispute exists between the parties over whether certain theories and evidence relied upon in the expert reports was required to have been presented in the disclosure of alleged misused material submitted in December 2005. SCO has filed, contemporaneously with this Motion to Amend, its Objections to the Magistrate Judge’s Order granting IBM’s Motion to Confine SCO’s Claims to, and Strike Allegations in Excess of, the Final Disclosures. The Court recently vacated the February 2007 trial date in this matter. The trial date has not been reset and the Court has made clear this matter will not be tried prior to the September 2007 trial in the SCO v. Novell action. Thus, it is entirely appropriate that this dispute over whether certain expert theories needed to be identified in the December 2005 Submission instead of the May 2006 expert reports be rendered moot by the Court allowing this amendment to the December Submission and granting IBM any reasonable additional discovery necessary to defend against this additional material.
May 2006, or whether that submission can be amended to include the supplemental material. SCO submits that in light of the removal of this case from the trial calendar, there is no bona fide reason to reject an amendment to the December Submission to include that information – especially where the information was disclosed to IBM through expert reports served in May, 2006.
A. The Supplemental Material is Fully Disclosed and Analyzed in SCO’s Expert Reports.
The material and expert analysis that SCO seeks to add to its December 2005 Submission is fully set forth in the May 2006 expert reports of Evan Ivie, Marc Rochkind, and Thomas Cargill (Exhibits 1, 2, and 3, respectively), and thus is known to IBM from those reports.
In the December Submission, SCO identified the entire JFS file system as misused material, and also identified JFS as a derivative of UNIX System V. SCO further provided examples of technology within JFS that proved its derivation from UNIX System V. SCO identified JFS in this manner because IBM’s disclosure of the entire JFS file system to Linux breached IBM’s software license agreement in that JFS is derived from UNIX System V.
In the December Submission, SCO identified certain testing files that IBM improperly contributed to assist with the development and commercial hardening of Linux. Consistent with that identification, Mr. Rochkind concluded in his May 2006 expert report that IBM contributed this testing technology to Linux and that it was highly valuable to the maturation of Linux for commercial uses.
System calls are specific words developers have come up with to talk to an operating system. The words prompt the operating system to perform certain tasks, such as stopping a process that is being carried out by the operating system. In its December Submission, SCO identified numerous UNIX System V system calls that have been implemented in Linux in violation of SCO’s UNIX copyrights. These were all the misused system calls SCO had discovered at the time it filed the December Submission.
misappropriation of SCO’s material” (Opp’n at 12; SCO’s Fifth Point). Here again, SCO misstates IBM’s proposal. IBM proposes only that the Court impose deadlines for the parties to identify the Allegedly Misused Material. IBM’s proposal requires neither that the parties rely on experts nor that any experts that might be used by parties finalize their expert reports before the close of all fact discovery. Under IBM’s proposal, the parties’ experts would need to reach final conclusions before the close of fact discovery only with respect to the identification of the source code and other material that is at issue in this case.
Thus, SCO acted in good faith when it assembled its December 2005 Submission and May 2006 expert reports. Although SCO adheres to its position that inclusion of these theories and evidence was not required in the December Submission – as set forth in the Objections filed by SCO to the Magistrate Judge’s Order granting IBM’s Motion to Confine SCO’s Claims to, and Strike Allegations in Excess of, the Final Disclosures – in the alternative, SCO seeks leave to supplement its December Submission with those portions of the expert reports described above that are in issue. See Scott v. IBM Corp., 196 F.R.D. 233, 247 n.9 (D.N.J. 2000) (holding that, “simply because [evidence] was untimely discovered and turned over does not warrant its exclusion,” and permitting such evidence where the plaintiff had shown no bad faith in the revelation of the additional evidence). SCO asks the Court to consider this Motion in conjunction with the arguments and precedent set forth in SCO’s foregoing Objections.
Material Would Not Prejudice IBM.
of this material since it was set forth in SCO’s expert reports in May 2006. Thus, IBM has plenty of time to analyze and respond to the material.
Moreover, IBM’s expert reports already respond to several of the categories of enumerated information – reflecting that IBM well understood that the December 2005 Submission covered those items. For example, with respect to JFS, which SCO identified in Item 1 of the December Submission, IBM experts responded with a defense, but did not respond to the specific examples SCO did give in its December Submission showing that JFS was derived from System V. Thus, IBM’s defenses regarding JFS would be in no way impacted by the proposed supplemental material, which is simply additional examples of the derivation, of the same type as those that were already disclosed. However, if IBM wanted to respond specifically to this material, though it did not do so previously, it would have ample time to do so in the many months prior to trial.
The proposed supplemental evidence in Marc Rochkind’s testing analysis shows: (1) the technology area in which a certain programmer worked, and (2) that two terms for a technology are synonyms. IBM has not indicated whether it disputes this basic evidence. If IBM does not dispute it, no prejudice is created by its inclusion. If IBM does dispute this evidence, it is difficult to fathom how IBM could require more than ten months to analyze these simple points.
additional calls named in Thomas Cargill’s report. However, if IBM did wish to respond specifically to these additional system calls, it already has had more time between the May 2006 reports and the present to consider these items than the approximate seven months IBM would have had between December 2005 and the date its responsive expert reports were due. In addition, IBM will have at least as much time following this amendment being accepted and the time any trial is held.
Regarding Dr. Cargill’s structural theory of Linux copyright infringement, IBM had long understood that SCO had brought such a claim – indeed, well before the December Submission – so there should be no surprise to IBM by its inclusion in Dr. Cargill’s expert report. Furthermore, IBM has ample time in the now-extended trial schedule to formulate a defense to Dr. Cargill’s analysis. Consistent with Tenth Circuit law, Dr. Cargill’s May 2006 report analyzed the structure of Linux and UNIX. His analysis shows the structural similarity of Linux and UNIX, shows the expressive nature of the structures involved, and shows why it is protectible subject matter under copyright law. This analysis, as argued at greater length in the Objections, is one that Tenth Circuit law requires be conducted in a copyright case, and its application by SCO’s experts cannot be a surprise to IBM. Further, the analysis, as provided by Tenth Circuit law, does not include a line by line analysis of Linux and UNIX. Thus, to respond to this analysis, IBM also would not have to perform a line by line analysis of Linux, and would have ample time to prepare such a defense before trial.
D. SCO Would Be Prejudiced by Denial of the Motion.
to be considered where a party did not make full disclosure of its expert’s conclusions, and holding that “all of the above factors favor leniency” where other party had not suffered any prejudice because of time to prepare before trial).
For the reasons stated herein and in SCO’s above-referenced Objections, SCO respectfully requests that its Motion to Amend Its December 2005 Submission be granted.
DATED this 9th day of January, 2007.
2 Cf. Karbon v. Turner, No. 91-C-337, 1991 WL 319976 at *2 (E.D. Wis. Dec. 16, 1991) (unpublished decision) (holding that “relaxation of the scheduling order” would not unduly prejudice defendants or interfere with the administration of justice because the trial date was six months away and they had adequate time to complete discovery) (Ex. 6); Wolfson v. Lewis, 168 F.R.D. 530, 533 (E.D. Pa. 1996) (granting motion to amend where defendant would suffer no prejudice due to continuance of trial date); Pub. Serv. Co. of N.H. v. Westinghouse Elec. Corp., 685 F. Supp. 1281 (D.N.H. 1988).

References: v. 
 v. 
 V. 
 V. 
 V.

 v. 
 V. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.