From: Al Petrofsky < a...@petrofsky.org>
Subject: Otis Wilson subpoena proceedings in North Carolina
Date: 16 Aug 2006 23:38:58 -0700
Organization: The Vegetable Liberation Front
Message-ID: < email@example.com>
User-Agent: Gnus/5.09 (Gnus v5.9.0) Emacs/21.2
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
X-Cache: nntpcache 3.0.1 (see http://www.nntpcache.org/)
Xref: g2news2.google.com alt.os.linux.caldera:213
Otis Wilson worked in AT&T's licensing department twenty years ago.
He was deposed as a witness about the UNIX contracts in the BSDI suit
in 1992, and his June 2004 deposition was a much discussed piece of
evidence in the briefing about IBM's motion for summary judgment on
SCO's contract claims. (That motion was denied in February 2005
without prejudice to it being renewed if and when discovery ever ends
in the SCO v. IBM case. The current scheduled date for the possibly
mythical End of Discovery is September 22, 2006. This is the fifth
date that's been scheduled for that event. On the original schedule,
the End of Discovery was to arrive on October 22, 2004.)
IBM's filing in Utah today reveals that there's been an ongoing
proceeding in North Carolina, since April, about SCO's desire to
depose Otis Wilson a second time. See:
I had never noticed that this proceeding existed. It had never been
mentioned by SCO at sco.com/scoip. It had apparently also escaped the
notice of sco.tuxrocks.com and of groklaw.net. Here's a docket
listing of what's occurred over in the Middle District of North Carolina:
There was a hearing on May 30 before U.S. Magistrate Judge P. Trevor
Sharp, and on May 31 he ordered that Wilson appear for a second
deposition. He added that:
The only limitation imposed upon the deposition is that SCO may
depose Mr. Wilson for no greater length of time than 4 hours.
This appears to conflict with the minutes of the conference before
Magistrate Judge Wells in Utah back in January, which said:
As to Mr. Wilson - he is not to be subjected to any questions other
than reasonable inferences re: new information ONLY.
How to resolve that conflict is the subject of IBM's filing today.
I've added a section about the May 30 hearing, with links to all the
motions that were heard, here:
I also added this update to the section about the January 26
As the minutes reflect, no electronic nor stenographic record of
the conference was made. For conflicting accounts of what
occurred, see the Normand declaration and Shaughnessy declaration
that were later filed in conjunction with the 2006-05-30 hearing in
North Carolina about the Wilson deposition.
Below is the text of Judge Sharp's order.
pdftotext -layout -htmlmeta Wilson-subpoena-15.pdf -