SCO Lawyers Ambush IBM Witness

Mr. E. writes "In a sneaky legal maneuver, SCO's lawyers managed to ambush an IBM witness into having to give a no-holds-barred deposition in front of an unrelated court in another state. After SCO was limited in what they could depose Mr. Otis Wilson about by the Utah court, the company blindsided IBM with last-second subpoenas before a North Carolina court. IBM's lawyer was on vacation at the time, didn't give prior notice to big blue, and now they've won the right to ask him anything they want. They've asked him about whether he has a criminal record, about ex-wives, etc. and they have four hours in which to do so. According to PJ of Groklaw, 'I'd say [Magistrate Judge Brooke Wells] has thrown poor Mr. Wilson to the wolves in North Carolina and told him it's his own fault.' SCO, of course, is fishing for something — anything — they can use to stave off IBM's Motion for Summary Judgement which is fast approaching, and if they can somehow trip up Mr. Wilson, they might be able to do just that. However, there was at least one line of cold comfort in Magistrate Well's order '[T]he court wishes to note that its decision should not be viewed as any type of invitation to reopen the discovery process.'"

Comments

Theres motherf*ckin snakes in the Court!!!

[LiquidCoooled]

Seriously, SCO must be salivating at the prosect of this, its like a one last gasp hope.

One minor point though, how come IBM only have 1 lawyer, didn't they have a breeding program in the 60s and 70s?

Re:Theres motherf*ckin snakes in the Court!!!

[Kesch]

Really? I thought underhanded almost unethical manuvers were just signs of having good lawyers.

Re:Theres motherf*ckin snakes in the Court!!!

[Meshach]

I guess that depends on how "good" is defined ;)

Saddly that comment (even though it is a joke) reflect some truth in this matter. When I see laywers waiting until someone goes on vacation then springing some underhanded motion on them - that seems pretty low too me. It may be technically ethical but shows a real lack of character (or a sense or deperation).

Unfortunatly actions like that are often respected in situations like this one.

He could just refuse to answer those questions...

[Tweekster]

Sure he COULD get into trouble, in reality he wont.

And since when does IBM have one lawyer ?

Don't ever think of representing yourself in court

[Beryllium Sphere(tm)]

That isn't what the victim did in this case, but look at the nature of the maneuvering: "The problem, according to Judge Wells, is that Mr. Wilson submitted himself to the North Carolina court by submitting a motion to quash there." In other words, you can get yourself in trouble by saying "go away" in the same place that someone said "come here!".

If you ever get the idea that law is a logic system and you can handle a court case without an experienced and street-smart lawyer, remember that you might be up against dirty tricks from veterans who are on their home turf. Never fight a wizard in his keep. Always remember how bad it can be just to have your lawyer on vacation.

What does this accomplish?

[ZachPruckowski]

I mean really, all SCO can do is be an ass to an IBM guy. I mean, they wouldn't need to pull something like this to ask remotely relevant questions, and since IBM isn't gonna settle to save this guy some embarassment, all SCO gets to do is what they always do: be petty, retarded dumbasses.

Re:He did it to himself...

[LinuxGeek]

Yes, he (Mr. Watson) went to a NC judge about a flawed subpoena from SCO that ordered him to appear the next day at an unspecified location.

8. Although counsel for SCO had provided a copy of a subpoena that purported to require Mr. Wilson to appear for a deposition on January 27, 2006 (with no location for the deposition specified), counsel for SCO did not provide me or file with the Utah court a return of service for that subpoena. Mr. Normand did not inform me that Mr. Wilson had been served with that subpoena until the day before the January 26 telephone conference, and less than two days before SCO purportedly intended to depose Mr. Wilson. Because of this, and because IBM objected to SCO taking Mr. Wilson's deposition, we had not made arrangements to appear for the deposition on January 27.

My understanding from several legal professionals that I know is that you can safely ignore a defective subpoena and Mr. Watson may have been better off if he had ignored it completely instead of going before a NC court. He threw himself into the shark pool with no protection and the SCO attorneys swam in for the kill.

The SCO gang seem to be very skilled liars and even appear to derive great satisfaction while doing so.