From al Mon Jul 12 07:56:08 2004 Date: Mon, 12 Jul 2004 07:55:02 -0700 Message-Id: <200407121455.HAA15846@radish.petrofsky.org> From: Alva Las Vegas Petrofsky <alva-las-vegas@petrofsky.org> To: Pamela Jones <pj@groklaw.net> Subject: My presence at the hearing today; Audio and video recordings FYI, I'm in Las Vegas, so you can expect at least one eyewitness report this afternoon. Also, I should have an audio recording of the hearing by the end of the week, for the low, low price of $26, from which we can make our own transcript. (We still might want to fork over the dough for an official transcript at some point, but it will be nice to be able to make an initial unofficial transcript without having to wait for a court reporter). See yahoo post below for some other bits of information. -al Subject: Live from Vegas I started driving to Las Vegas much later than planned yesterday. I haven't slept, but the good news is that I made it here, and my hotel room's internet connection works. I hope once I shower and re-apply caffeine I'll be mentally acute enough to get down the gist of the hearing, and I'll try to report this afternoon. The better news is that I've learned that audio recordings are made of all Judge Jones's hearings, and these recordings are made available to anyone without much hassle (in contrast to the Utah district, but that's another story ...). I've confirmed this by actually ordering and receiving a recording of a recent motion hearing before Judge Jones in a randomly selected civil case. (I meant to make that available so that people could listen to his voice this morning and hear his style, but I ran out of time.) I should have this morning's recording by the end of the week. By the way, I should be able to get audio, and maybe even video, from the Michigan (SCO v Daimler) hearing next week. (Getting any recordings from Utah is an ongoing uphill battle.)
From pj@groklaw.net Mon Jul 12 09:06:04 2004 Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v613) In-Reply-To: <200407121455.HAA15846@radish.petrofsky.org> References: <200407121455.HAA15846@radish.petrofsky.org> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed Message-Id: <34CA4EB8-D41D-11D8-B113-003065E871D4@groklaw.net> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit From: Pamela Jones <pj@groklaw.net> Subject: Re: My presence at the hearing today; Audio and video recordings Date: Mon, 12 Jul 2004 12:04:51 -0400 To: Alva Las Vegas Petrofsky <alva-las-vegas@petrofsky.org> X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.613) Cool!! If you can send it as mp3, I can let folks download it. But send me some proof, please, that the court allows this, something you got in writing, or a name I can call to verify. On Jul 12, 2004, at 10:55 AM, Alva Las Vegas Petrofsky wrote: > FYI, I'm in Las Vegas, so you can expect at least one eyewitness > report this afternoon. > > Also, I should have an audio recording of the hearing by the end of > the week, for the low, low price of $26, from which we can make our > own transcript. (We still might want to fork over the dough for an > official transcript at some point, but it will be nice to be able to > make an initial unofficial transcript without having to wait for a > court reporter). > > See yahoo post below for some other bits of information. > > -al > > Subject: Live from Vegas > > I started driving to Las Vegas much later than planned > yesterday. I haven't slept, but the good news is that I > made it here, and my hotel room's internet connection works. > I hope once I shower and re-apply caffeine I'll be mentally > acute enough to get down the gist of the hearing, and I'll > try to report this afternoon. > > The better news is that I've learned that audio recordings > are made of all Judge Jones's hearings, and these recordings > are made available to anyone without much hassle (in > contrast to the Utah district, but that's another story > ...). I've confirmed this by actually ordering and > receiving a recording of a recent motion hearing before > Judge Jones in a randomly selected civil case. (I meant to > make that available so that people could listen to his voice > this morning and hear his style, but I ran out of time.) I > should have this morning's recording by the end of the week. > > By the way, I should be able to get audio, and maybe even > video, from the Michigan (SCO v Daimler) hearing next week. > (Getting any recordings from Utah is an ongoing uphill > battle.) >
From al Mon Jul 12 15:26:05 2004 Date: Mon, 12 Jul 2004 15:25:23 -0700 Message-Id: <200407122225.PAA18806@radish.petrofsky.org> From: Allayed Petrofsky <allayed@petrofsky.org> To: pj@groklaw.net In-reply-to: <34CA4EB8-D41D-11D8-B113-003065E871D4@groklaw.net> (message from Pamela Jones on Mon, 12 Jul 2004 12:04:51 -0400) Subject: Report from AutoZone hearing References: <200407121455.HAA15846@radish.petrofsky.org> <34CA4EB8-D41D-11D8-B113-003065E871D4@groklaw.net> > If you can send it as mp3, I can let folks download it. But send me > some proof, please, that the court allows this, something you got in > writing, or a name I can call to verify. I've ordered the recording already, and hope to have it by the end of the week. The only proof I have that it's okay to redistribute it is the same proof that it's okay to redistribute the paper records: the court freely gives copies to anyone who asks, without imposing any restrictions on reproduction. You can see the district's recording FAQ at: http://www.nvd.uscourts.gov/nvd/courtinfo.nsf/4058319f31b87647882565cd0067716d (I'm not sure what kind of funny business is going on with that huge random number in the URL. If it doesn't work, go to www.nvd.uscourts.gov, click on "General Court Information", and then on "FAQ".) The phone number of the recordings department is 702 464 5434. Below is my initial report from the hearing. -al 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 is to be paid for it, and monetary damages are never considered irreparable (they can always be paid later, with interest). AutoZone also tried to persuade the judge that this single round of discovery would inevitably become a protracted, highly contested, and frustrating process that goes nowhere and wastes everyone's time (i.e., just like the SCO v. IBM discovery process), but Judge Jones seemed confident that he could keep this to a simple 60-day process, and that the potentional for a mere 60-day waste of time is not that big a deal. Overall, I like Judge Jones. He seemed to be on top of things and to have a nice ability to cut to the chase. The hearing only took thirty minutes. On the issue of the venue change, he said AutoZone's statistics about Tennessee being faster than Nevada were out of date. Nevada has recently increased its number of judges by two (he's one of them, just added in December) and he's got plenty of time: he could even schedule this case for trial as soon as next month, if the parties are ready.
Coryright 2004