SCO Lawyers Ambush IBM Witness 199
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.'"
IANAL (Score:2, Interesting)
I would love to read what other
Re:Theres motherf*ckin snakes in the Court!!! (Score:4, Interesting)
Pulling some underhanded almost unethical manuver like this really shows that SCO is coming undone at the seams.
Why can't the poor shmuck... (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:IBM's Lawyer? (Score:3, Interesting)
Even if they did only have one lawyer, he deserves a vacation. (And yes I know that there are more lawyers involved and the he was only needed here because of his specific history in the case.)
However, as with almost 100% of the people in the IT industry, why didn't he have a contact phone number. I have a cell phone that people can contact me at, even on vacation. 99.99% of the time, work respects my vacation and does not call. Those times they do, they are really stuck. It is part of the job, and the higher up the tree you get (or the closer to the root depending on how you like to look at it ;-), the more so. Now I am not saying lawyers suffer the same kind job 'realities' (for want of a better word) as IT folk, but when a guy who is one of the active lawyers defending against a multi-billion dollar law suit goes missing, even while on vacation... I would be thinking about whether his long term career plans at IBM are being revisited right now.
Re:Sssllloowww.... (Score:3, Interesting)
However, four hours can stretch into a pretty long time when it's just a bunch of people sitting there asking you questions; I don't think you can really take up quite that much time by filibustering.
The real problem with an open deposition like this, as opposed to one where the topics or even questions are set out beforehand, is that it's a lot harder to prepare the witness for one; SCO's lawyers' goal is probably just to get him to slip up and say something that they can use to further delay proceedings. If the guy's not careful, it could definitely happen.
Throwing the game vs. Embarrassing yourself (Score:3, Interesting)
Because there are lots of easier ways to "throw the game" than submitting yourself to hours of interrogation about your arrest history, prior relationships, etc. He could, for example, have done it just be being a little too rabidly pro-IBM in the deposition as originally outlined (responding with things like "While I wouldn't claim that IBM invented electricity, they were certainly the first to make good use of it!").
Besides, no one is saying that he's stupid (by all accounts, he's not), just that he was perhaps a little too trusting. It is, after all, a little difficult to get your mind around just how underhanded SCO really is. He can be forgiven for assuming that they really aren't as underhanded as laywers in the movies, when (as it turns out) they're worse.
--MarkusQ
Re:Wait... (Score:5, Interesting)
SCOX DELENDA EST!!
Re:He did it to himself... (Score:2, Interesting)
If this guy made any mistakes, he was lead into them by SCO's lawyers.
Re:He could just refuse to answer those questions. (Score:4, Interesting)
This was some time ago, and I can't remember if it was a deposition or an actual trial.
Re:IANAL (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Interesting. (Score:1, Interesting)
Amen to that!
Btw, Fed. R. Civ. P. 45(c)(3)(A) provides: "On timely motion, the court by which a subpoena was issued shall quash or modify the subpoena if it
Re:Theres motherf*ckin snakes in the Court!!! (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Theres motherf*ckin snakes in the Court!!! (Score:3, Interesting)
By the way, your opinion is not shared by the ABA's Model Code of Professional Responsibility or my own state (Texas) code. Springing something on opposing counsel when you have been notified of his vacation is not only unethical, but sanctionable.