Slashdot Mirror
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.'"
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?
liqbase
The poor guy's search history might've been released by AOL.
Sure he COULD get into trouble, in reality he wont.
And since when does IBM have one lawyer ?
The phrase "more better" is acceptable English. suck it grammar Nazis
The whole point, while I understand, is that he went to a North Carolina judge versus Judge Wells and the North Carolina judge didn't understand the case and opened the witness up to whatever SCO wanted for 4 hours. While this plays well for SCO, it really is the poor guys fault for finding a lawyer and a judge who shouldn't have stuck their nose in the business.
D.O.U.O.S.V.A.V.V.M.
He'd... better... talk... reeeaaaallll... sssllllloooooowwwwww....
SCO pulled a fast one and got away with it - this time. Doesn't mean that they'll win, but it sounds like they just might be able to drag it out a bit longer, unfortunately.
They were the good ol' days when we had something to laugh about on a daily basis -- whether Darl issued another encyclical, DiDio and the Yank-and-Grope guys threw more FUD, or when they outed Linux as the secret love child of Santa Claus and the tooth fairy. Good times. Even watching SCO stock tank was fun. Did their earnings go down yet? Did their strange math make it seem like they're getting new money coming in? Has the SEC looked into their supposed pump/dump scheme yet? Hella good times.
Now we're down to some lawyers having their way with a guy for 4 hours. That doesn't even make reality TV, guys. Really. So la-dee-da...just let me know to whom I write this check for $699 for my copy of Ubuntu, mmmkay?
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.
SCO Attorney: "Let the record show that Mr. Wilson likes chocolate ice cream, baseball and buys his underwear at J.C. Penney. Which I think speaks for itself in regards to the nefarious activities of IBM!!!"
Judge: "I'd say it speaks volumes what a loonie lot you are. I find for IBM"
A feeling of having made the same mistake before: Deja Foobar
I would love to read what other /. readers who actually are lawyers think.
Money money money money money money money money money money money money money...
Lawsuit, Lawsuit!
Money money money money money money money money money money money money money...
Lawsuit, Lawsuit!
Money money money money money money money money money money money money money...
Lawsuit, Lawsuit!
Money money money money money money money money money money money money money...
A judge! Juuudge! Juuudge! Ooooooh, it's a judge! It's some
.
Money money money money money money money money money money money money money...
Lawsuit, Lawsuit!
Money money money money money money money money money money money money money...
Lawsuit, Lawsuit!
Money money money money money money money money money money money money money...
Lawsuit, Lawsuit!
Money money money money money money money money money money money money money...
A judge! Juuudge! Juuudge! Ooooooh, it's a judge! It's some...
/ to the tune of "Badger badger badger"
The article summary is poorly worded. Shaughnessy (the lawyer) was the only one that was part of an earlier teleconference and could rebut (from first hand knowledge) SCO's account. And he had no idea what was going on because Wilson (the retired guy who's being disposed) had taken it to an unrelated court in another state (presumably, the state where he lives) without telling the right people. So it was, I gather, just him and SCO's lawyers, and he let them tell the court that Shaughnessy really wasn't representing him anyway, being IBM's lawyer and not his.
Even the best lawyer can't be expected to hear an ex-employee starting to stick their foot in it in an other state, dive into a phone booth, come out in a cape and fly to the other side of the country in time to stop them. Heck, even the NSA would be hard pressed to pull it off.
The moral of the story: if you're involved in a multi-year litigation with known bad apples, don't do random stuff at the bidding of the opponent's lawyers without at least telling your own side's lawyers.
--MarkusQ
...just keep repeating "I don't remember" to any question he doesn't want to answer for 4 hours? I mean, ok, so he gives his address, the names of his kids, the type of car he drives... the obvious stuff. The stuff he can't get wrong. But, for things where he could get tripped up on, can't he simply say "I can't remember"?
There is no such thing as bad weather - only inappropriate clothing.
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.
If they have only 4 hours to depose you, talk v-e-r-y s-l-o-w-l-y. Your name is Otis so no one can hold that against you -- plus you are in North Carolina so no one will notice...
Strange women lying in ponds distributing swords is no basis for a system of government.
fighting a wizard in his keep. I just have my rouge hide in the shadows for a critical hit in round 3, my warrior hacks away with his axe, the Ranger with his bow, one wizard heals, one protects and one casts Gotterdamurung every turn. I find the same strategy works aganst lawyers, only they've got more HP.
Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
You must not have read the transcript of his prior deposition where SCO/Caldera DID in fact ask him about ex-wives, criminal records, if he had ever been fired from a job for misconduct, etc.
Wilson (the retired guy who's being disposed) had taken it to an unrelated court
No, SCO filed first in the unrelated North Carolina state court to force the deposition to take place there, thereby arming the hidden legal trap they had set. When Wilson responded to that court, he walked into the trap. The judge in that court closed the trap by changing the deposition rules set by the original federal court, instead of just ordering the deposition take place in the manner that the federal court directed.
This modification of rules essentially removed the content restrictions from the deposition. This allows SCO to ask Wilson about anything, including new subjects that were not introduced in the original discovery of facts phase in the SCO vs IBM case, which has (or was supposed to have) ended. This means that SCO has a chance to use this deposition as an extension of the discovery phase, thereby allowing SCO to further delay the SCO vs IBM case, and delay even explaining exactly and specifically what their case is about.
The federal judge who set the initial rules for the deposition ruled that the deposition should be allowed to proceed because the state judge substituted a time restriction of 4 hours for the original restriction on content that stated no new subjects were to be introduced in the deposition (Wilson had been deposed previously). The federal judge's ruling went further and seemed to criticize Wilson for actually responding to the state court's order. Imagine that, actually responding to a court order directed AT YOU!
There's more, but the fact is that it was SCO that took it to the state court, not Wilson.
3 things about computers: they're alive, they're self-aware, and they hate your guts.
nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself
This is a civil case, not criminal. The way depositions work is that you answer all the questions asked and note objections at the time -- the judge will review objections after the fact and decide which portions of the deposition are admissible. But you can't refuse to answer questions wihtout risking contempt of court. Because of this, depositions are a favorite method of attorneys to harrass innocent people.
It seems like a sucky way to do things, but the alternative would be to perform all depositions with a judge there, which would probably require a hundred thousand new judges and every case would take even longer, or depositions would each take years to finish because every objection would have to stop the interview and then you'd wait for a ruling and then schedule another deposition to continue.
Recursive: Adj. See Recursive.
SCO seem to be irritating the judge in Utah. IBM could try playing this card and get the North Carolina court (and judge) found in contempt of the Utah court for trying to alter the proceedings of the original case with this new nonsense of a case
You can do that, right?
Alternatively, he could just alternate between "I can't hear you", "I don't understand you", "I don't understand the question", "do you mean this or that?", answering something other than 'yes' or 'no' to a yes/no question, "sorry, pardon? I was distracted by that fly/laybird/pigeon", "I don't remember" and having his own lawyer shout 'objection' a lot.
Mix that up with a good dose of verbal acrobatics, a unscheduled power cut, dozens of toilet breaks, a quick dose of flu/chicken pox/bubonic plague, myriad bomb/fire alarms, the whole case getting lost due to a mysterious computer error, the electrical frequency in the building being increasing - making the clocks go 50% faster, a convenient paper cut and the SCO lawyers going down with food poisoning. The four hours will fly by!
IANAL, can you tell?
FGD 135
You didn't see the initial transcript. They asked about his marital history, military service, arrest record, etc. Reason? Otis Wilson was *THE* AT&T UNIX contracts manager, signed off both IBM and Sequent's contracts, and his previous testimony knocks SCOX's "derivative works" argument into the sewer from whence it came. The SCOundrels are attempting to trip him up under grilling to discredit it. If you read the first transcript, though, he kept calm and collected while skewering all of SCOX's arguments, which apparently infuriated the SCOX attorney to no end.
SCOX DELENDA EST!!
He knows something. He is THE guy who signed off on the original IBM/AT&T/Sequent licenses.
IANAL, but I know of a person (an actual friend of an actual relative, someone I know) who knew that while the questions can be wide ranging in scope, so can the answers. They can't limit you to yes or no answers only. You can be as verbose and detailed and wide ranging as you want in your answers, like explaining in great detail how that day in 5th grade math led you, in a very round about way including your college years, to the decision you made on what line of code to write in that program. The person I know "answered" just a handful of questions for over two months before the lawyers finally just gave up.
This was some time ago, and I can't remember if it was a deposition or an actual trial.