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.'"
Theres motherf*ckin snakes in the Court!!! (Score:5, Insightful)
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!!! (Score:4, Interesting)
Pulling some underhanded almost unethical manuver like this really shows that SCO is coming undone at the seams.
Re:Theres motherf*ckin snakes in the Court!!! (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Theres motherf*ckin snakes in the Court!!! (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
Was SCOX tipped off by NSA?
Re:Theres motherf*ckin snakes in the Court!!! (Score:5, Informative)
No, it's technically legal. It's by no means ethical.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
No, it's technically legal. It's by no means ethical.
Well, it may or may not be considered "technically ethical" based on the strict definition of "ethics" as a system of rules or principles that attempts to define "morality". On the other hand, "technically moral" is just an oxymoron. See this movie [imdb.com] for a good illustration of the difference.
That said, I do agree that what SCO did is neither ethical nor moral.
Lawyer joke #2837283 (Score:2)
A) A 10% discount on his services for doing the Will.
Dont even ask what prosecuting DA lawyers give. I just feel sorry for their wifes, oh the pain for them in bed.
Re:Theres motherf*ckin snakes in the Court!!! (Score:5, Informative)
Well, that depends on how you define "unethical." In my opinion, my lawyer(s) not doing everything they are empowered to do to help me win my case is unethical. This guy, and IBM, have their own lawyers; they can handle their clients, while SCO's lawyers do what they can to help SCO.
It's like when people ask defense attorneys how they could defend people who almost certainly committed the crime. It's easy - we believe in an adversarial justice system, and the other side already has a lawyer who is obligated to prove his case.
Re:Theres motherf*ckin snakes in the Court!!! (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
Haha. You make a great distinction, actually. It is legal, clearly. It could be construed as ethical because lawyers are supposed to zealously represent their clients - it's how the advocacy system attempts to resolve disputes over conflicting interests. SCO's lawyers are representing their interests by exploiting an evidentiary opportunity. B
Re: (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.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Any criminal activity is deamd outside a lawyers power. Droping nukes on a courtroom breaks a few laws.
In other words: "Anything" and "Anything within my power" are 2 vastly diferent statements.
Or at least, that's what I would say if this darned hook wasn't lodged in my gum. At least the bait was yumy.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Pulling some underhanded almost unethical manuver like this really shows that SCO is coming undone at the seams.
"Captain's Log, 2368.7: Alien's posing as castaways on Anilorac 5 have turned out to be "attorneys" from a planet Cheron and claim to be have been in pursuit of another alien in sickbay found aboard a lost shuttle for the past 50,000 years. They have taken control of the Enterprise with something they called "Writs" and have used "Powers of Attorneys" to disable the Enterprise's self-destruc
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
It was a tragic period the explains a lot about IBM in the 1980's
Re:Theres motherf*ckin snakes in the Court!!! (Score:4, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
The fifth amendment does not apply to civil proceedings, and it only applies to clear instances of self-incrimination regardless, not unsubstantiated speculations.
Re: (Score:2)
The other problem SCO faces is time, no new discovery means just that. SCO does not get extra time to follow up leads here.
SCO still faces a major problem in their suit, they have failed to state their claim with specificity. They might just possibly avoid summary judgement but they would have to come
Re:Theres motherf*ckin snakes in the Court!!! (Score:5, Informative)
got a source?
Fifth Amendment protections apply wherever and whenever an individual is compelled to testify. The U.S. Supreme Court has ruled that the privilege against self-incrimination applies whether the witness is in Federal or state court (see Malloy v. Hogan, 378 U.S. 1 (1964)), and whether the proceeding itself is criminal or civil (see McCarthy v. Arndstein, 266 U.S. 34 (1924)). [wikipedia.org]
now fifth probably doesn't apply to him because he is likely being compelled to incriminate IBM, not himself, which should not be protected no matter how much stock he has.
Re:Theres motherf*ckin snakes in the Court!!! (Score:5, Informative)
I think what it probably boiled down to was the Wilson didn't want to go to Utah to file the motion to quash, so Shaughnessy filed in NC, thinking that when the judge in N.C. came across the motion, he'd call Shaughnessy to find out what it was all about. Except Shaughnessy was on vacation when that happened, and well, the rest is history.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
It Could've Been Worse... (Score:5, Funny)
He could just refuse to answer those questions... (Score:5, Insightful)
And since when does IBM have one lawyer ?
Re:He could just refuse to answer those questions. (Score:2)
Re:He could just refuse to answer those questions. (Score:5, Funny)
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?
Re: (Score:2)
t=0
SCO lawyer: Did IBM steal any code?
t=+10 seconds
Wilson: Hmmm, let me thing about that...
t=+3hrs 45 seconds
Wilson: Well i think you will find...
t=+4hrs
IBM lawyer: Thats time for today, see you next time shall we?
Just get IBM to pay him $1million (Score:2)
will pay 1million in gold coins (ie NO tax trail, Oh did I just break the patriot act? wow who cares, im not in usa, and ill never visit either)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:He could just refuse to answer those questions. (Score:5, Informative)
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.
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: (Score:3, Insightful)
Personally, I'm a pain in the ass and would just refuse certain questions and if I had to go to jail on contempt charges, so be it, but you can be most assured it would not be in vain for the
IANAL (Score:2, Interesting)
I would love to read what other
Re:IANAL (Score:5, Funny)
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"
Badgers? (Score:2)
Badgers? We don't need no stinkin Badgers!
"$600 please" (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
He did it to himself... (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:He did it to himself... (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:He did it to himself... (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Saddam should call SCo for lawyers (Score:2)
Failing that, someone would make sure they 'retire' early.
Now who is going to get the SCO vs real humans movie rights deal.
IBM's Lawyer? (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:IBM's Lawyer? (Score:5, Informative)
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
Stupidity VS bribery (Score:3, Funny)
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 mak
Re:IBM's Lawyer? (Score:5, Informative)
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.
Interesting. (Score:2)
Interesting. I was basing my statement on Shaughnessy's declaration:
And Wells's order:
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
So, an attorney who represents IBM went on vacation without telling his employer, and now his employer can ask with whatever questions it wishes. Which leads me to wonder why he went on vacation without telling his employer, and why his employer wants to depose him.
Some days I just wish peo
scog went to nc first, not olsin (Score:2)
sum.zero
Re: (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
Re: (Score:2)
and then you would need to have that lawyer on staff to
make sure it was enforced, and that new lawyer would probably
ask the lawyer that was the target of this action to write
it for him as a professional courtesy, that would that
document mean then?
Sssllloowww.... (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (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 harde
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Not 1 lawyer, just sneaky tricks (Score:4, Insightful)
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.
I Miss SCO-A-Day News (Score:3, Funny)
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?
Re: (Score:2)
Don't ever think of representing yourself in court (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
I don't have any trouble (Score:5, Funny)
Re:I don't have any trouble (Score:4, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
Actually, he's just got a bunch of goons and a ready teleport. I'm writing this idea down.
Your Honour.. (Score:4, Funny)
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"
Re: (Score:2)
Why can't the poor shmuck... (Score:3, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
I'm certainly no lawyer, so don't quote me on this, but...
I don't believe you are allowed to testify if you do not let both sides depose you. There's no secret evidence or testimony, based on the Constitutional right "to be confronted with the witnesses against him; [and] to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor"
(The somewhat-exception is rebuttal witnesses.)
Re: (Score:2)
You can only get away with doing that if you're involved in national level politics in some deeply icky way.
What does this accomplish? (Score:5, Insightful)
legal procedure or fierce battle? (Score:3, Funny)
I love it when a boring legal procedure takes such epic proportions. The narrator really knows his job!..
Advice for Mr. Wilson (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
Wait... (Score:3, Insightful)
Let's wait for the outcome of this. I rather doubt we need to make too much of the "they can ask ANYTHING" part of this - if we do let's wait for the actual event. Certainly SCO has done enough to anger the geek community without us needing to throw any more fuel on the fire. Only pursue them for the poor behavior they have actually demonstrated - I can't imagine why we would need anything else.
Re:Wait... (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
On the other hand, if he answered all of those questions already honestly and in the negative, it would still seem to me like a waste of time. If they already tried that attack (it was allowed in circumstances where they DIDN'T have free reign? Wow) and he met it, why would they think it would succeed the second time around, when he's even more prepared for it having heard it the first time?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Because asking embarassing questions is a time-honored way for lawyers/police to upset and frustrate the interview subject. The hope is that once the person isn't thinking logically and carefully, they can be tricked into saying someth
Re:Wait... (Score:5, Interesting)
SCOX DELENDA EST!!
It's a Trap! (Score:3, Funny)
I bet they already arranged his flight [snakesonaplane.com] to North Caroilina, too!
Article Text (Score:2, Funny)
I sense some exaggeration (Score:2)
Unlikely - I'm sure the rules of evidence still apply to a deposition, so these questions would still be impermissible on grounds of lack of relevance. The Groklaw article does not say they have asked these things, but that they could - on the latter it seems to me Groklaw is likely wrong.
Groklaw also makes some allegations of abuse of process that don't appear to be matched by the re
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
4 Hours (Score:2)
(LAMENESS FILTER FILLER: ABCDEFGHIJKLMNOPQURSTUVWXYZ)
I know I'm posting a little late... (Score:2)
Can he get up on the witness stand and complain to the judge how his sore throat he woke up with that morning is killing him, and he'd be happy to testify -
But... *scribble* *scribble*
would have to *erase* *erase*
write *line out* *re-write last two sentences*
his testimony *writes to the bailiff - Can I get another eraser, please?*
out?
don't ask daddy ask mommy defense (Score:3, Insightful)
He should take some meds (Score:2)
Ad hominem? (Score:2)
seems like the judge is at fault (Score:2)
What's the problem? (Score:2)
Re:Duh... I don't know (Score:4, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
A slashdotter got a blow job once. Is this a hypothetical example? Or else, why isn't it an article the front page?
But seriously, I think the GP is not so much off-topic, but interesting for the case. A bit of a lawyer can probably get a mathematician to declare on oath that 6 is 5, and prove how that is linked to any case they might be i
It is contempt, and not the first time. (Score:2)
1) Otis was not given adequate notice, at least 20 days is required. The courts chose to ignore that technicallity.
2) Wells had previously ordered no new discovery. In allowing this new discovery, she also stated that it can not be used for discovery - which makes absolutely no sense.
3) This is a very obvious end-run around the order of the court. BS&F has said "F**K YOU!" to the court, in no uncertain terms.
Well