Slashdot Mirror
AutoZone Granted Limited Stay in SCO Copyright Case
michael path writes "From Yahoo: Judge Robert C. Jones on Monday denied AutoZone's request to transfer its copyright case with The SCO Group from Nevada to a Tennessee court, but also granted a limited stay to the auto parts chain."
According to Groklaw, this is not true. They say the issue of transfer is undecided. That is different than denied AutoZone's request to transfer.
"Who are in control, they are not in control of anything - they don't even control themselves!" - Glen Beck
This isn't exactly correct. SCO *only* gets to do discovery related to a preliminary injunction. The judge told them not to bother with the discovery if they're not going to try for a preliminary injuction - which sets a trap for them. If they pursue an injuction then they have to go forth and try to prove that the stay would cause them massive harm. The stay will continue unless SCO decides to admit to more than they have been prepared to.
Autozone drags SCO to Tennessee because:
Autozone is headquartered there
They don't spend a zillion dollars hiring a Nevada law firm or sending their attorneys there
It's less distracting to the business
"I'd rather be a lightning rod than a seismometer." -Ken Kesey
A recording of the hearing (30 minutes, 29 MB) is at sco.petrofsky.org/autozone-2004-07-12.mp3 and www.users.cloud9.net/~terrapn/Courtroom%207D%20-%2 012-07-2004.mp3
I know the first URL won't survive much of a slashdotting, not sure about the second. Please mirror it somewhere better if you're so inclined. (No, this is not a bootleg recording. I obtained it from the clerk on Tuesday.)
Below are the notes I wrote on Monday after attending the hearing. One correction: at the hearing, the judge did not actually make any order on either motion, but my understanding was that in the aftermath of the hearing he would issue orders denying the motion to transfer venue and granting the motion to stay (with, as an exception to the stay, an opportunity for SCO to move for a preliminary injunction, and to conduct one round of discovery to attempt to support such an injuction).
No orders have yet been issued, so it's impossible to say *exactly* what they will be. The official minutes of the hearing were written on Wednesday, and are not yet available either, but the heavily abbreviated caption to the minutes is now showing on the court's (subscription-only) docket access site and reads like so:
dtd 7/12/04: CT Recorder: Lilia Abarca De Carter: Re: Hrg on mtn for stay (#10) & mtn to transfer (#9), ORD case is stayed for 90 dys, Ptys will be allowed disc as to issue of prelim injunct. Cnsl directed to prepare ord for CT sign. cpys dist
It appears that the court may be neither officially granting nor denying the venue change at this time. It appears that all the activity contemplated at the hearing (the preliminary injunction process and the submitting of letters every 90 days) will occur in the Nevada district, so my understanding is that the venue change has in effect been denied for now, but the court may revisit it when the stay is lifted, without the motion having to be made again.
Here are my initial notes, posted Monday at finance.messages.yahoo.com
Subject: Venue change denied, stay mostly granted
AutoZone's motion for a change of venue (to Tennessee) was denied. The case will stay in Nevada.
Judge Jones said he will follow Judge Robinson's lead and stay the case indefinitely, like the Red Hat case was, with the parties to send him updates on all the other actions every 90 days.
However, he will give SCO a chance to file a motion for a preliminary injunction to be in effect during the stay, and he will allow one round of discovery to facilitate such a motion.
That is, if SCO believes that it will be irreparably harmed during the stay, it may ask for an order that, during the stay, AutoZone is not to engage in whatever the harmful activity is. SCO will have thirty days to propound any discovery requests (interrogatories, document requests, or depositions) that are necessary for its preliminary injunction motion, and AutoZone will have thirty days to respond to them.
The case will be stayed indefinitely, pending other cases, regardless of the outcome of SCO's request (should it decide to make one) for a preliminary injunction, which would just describe what things (if any) AutoZone needs to refrain from doing until the stay is ended.
AutoZone asked the judge to reconsider the part about the preliminary injunction, pointing out that SCO has never sought a preliminary injunction (which has quite stringent requirements) against anyone, and that it's very difficult to imagine that SCO could show sufficient grounds for a preliminary injunction, because the only thing SCO wants with respect to the infringing conduct i