SCO Grp v. Novell Inc
MEMORANDUM in Opposition re 642 MOTION in Limine No. 17 to Exclude Certain Testimony from Ty Mattingly for Lack of Personal Knowledge and Violation of Parol Evidence Rule filed by Plaintiff SCO Group. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1)(Hatch, Brent)
Brent O. Hatch (5715) firstname.lastname@example.org Mark F. James (5295) email@example.com HATCH, JAMES & DODGE, PC 10 West Broadway, Suite 400 Salt Lake City, Utah 84101 Telephone: (801) 363-6363 Facsimile: (801) 363-6666 David Boies (admitted pro hac vice) firstname.lastname@example.org Robert Silver (admitted pro hac vice) email@example.com Edward Normand (admitted pro hac vice) firstname.lastname@example.org BOIES SCHILLER & FLEXNER LLP 333 Main Street Armonk, New York 10504 Telephone: (914) 749-8200 Facsimile: (914) 749-8300 Attorneys for Plaintiff, The SCO Group, Inc.
Stuart Singer (admitted pro hac vice) email@example.com Sashi Bach Boruchow (admitted pro hac vice) firstname.lastname@example.org BOIES SCHILLER & FLEXNER LLP 401 East Las Olas Blvd. Suite 1200 Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33301 Telephone: (954) 356-0011 Facsimile: (954) 356-0022
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF UTAH THE SCO GROUP, INC., by and through the Chapter 11 Trustee in Bankruptcy, Edward N. Cahn, Plaintiff/Counterclaim-Defendant, vs. NOVELL, INC., a Delaware corporation, Defendant/Counterclaim-Plaintiff. SCO'S OPPOSITION TO NOVELL'S MOTION IN LIMINE NO. 17 TO EXCLUDE CERTAIN TESTIMONY FROM TY MATTINGLY FOR LACK OF PERSONAL KNOWLEDGE AND VIOLATION OF PAROL EVIDENCE RULE Civil No. 2:04 CV-00139 Judge Ted Stewart
Novell seeks to preclude SCO from offering certain testimony of Ty Mattingly on the grounds that Mr. Mattingly did not participate in negotiating the APA or Amendment No. 2. Novell adopts an unduly restrictive interpretation of the law and of the nature of Mr. Mattingly's experience and testimony. 1 Mr. Mattingly was the Vice President for Strategic Relations at Novell at the time of the APA. (Ex. 1 at 10-11.) He also participated in the APA negotiations, as the personal liaison of Novell CEO Robert Frankenberg with the Novell negotiating team. (Id.) In the summer of 1995, Mr. Mattingly and the rest of the Novell deal team met with Santa Cruz representatives, including Jim Wilt and Geoff Seabrook, for a series of meetings lasting "probably a month and a half to two months." (Id. at 20.) He "was very heavily involved" in the negotiation of the APA, "interfacing between Bob Frankenberg and the SCO team and participating in the meetings that we would have at times with Alok Mohan and Doug Michels." (Id. at 22-23.) Mr. Mattingly testified to his "firm belief" and intent that SCO had acquired the UNIX business "lock-stockand-barrel," including the software, and including the copyrights. (Id. at 29-32.) Such testimony is admissible. Mr. Mattingly has personal knowledge of the business negotiators' intent concerning the transaction, because he participated in the negotiations. His testimony constitutes relevant extrinsic evidence of the circumstances in which the APA was drafted; of the negotiations that occurred leading up to the execution of the APA; of the object, nature, and subject matter of the APA; and of circumstances helping to explain the execution and meaning of Amendment No. 2. SCO Group, Inc. v. Novell, Inc., 578 F.3d 1201, 1211, 1217 (10th Cir. 2009). His testimony is integral to helping the factfinder place itself in the same
This is the sixth of Novell's eight similar motions (Motions in Limine Nos. 12-19) regarding witness testimony. SCO sets forth the controlling law governing the admissibility of such testimony in its Memorandum in Opposition to Novell's Motion in Limine No. 12, and hereby incorporates that discussion.
situation in which the parties found themselves in negotiating and executing the APA. Consistent with well-established California law, the Tenth Circuit has necessarily rejected the argument that only the testimony of the individuals who negotiated the language of the APA or Amendment No. 2 is relevant. Novell's arguments go to the weight of Mr. Mattingly's testimony, not its relevance.
SCO respectfully submits, for the reasons set forth above, that the Court should deny Novell's Motion in Limine No. 17.
DATED this 19th day of February, 2010.
By: /s/ Brent O. Hatch HATCH, JAMES & DODGE, P.C. Brent O. Hatch Mark F. James BOIES, SCHILLER & FLEXNER LLP David Boies Robert Silver Stuart H. Singer Edward Normand Sashi Bach Boruchow Counsel for The SCO Group, Inc.
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I, Brent O. Hatch, hereby certify that on this 19th day of February, 2010, a true and correct copy of the foregoing SCO'S OPPOSITION TO NOVELL'S MOTION IN LIMINE NO. 17 was filed with the court and served via electronic mail to the following recipients: Sterling A. Brennan David R. Wright Kirk R. Harris Cara J. Baldwin WORKMAN | NYDEGGER 1000 Eagle Gate Tower 60 East South Temple Salt Lake City, UT 84111 Thomas R. Karrenberg Heather M. Sneddon ANDERSON & KARRENBERG 700 Bank One Tower 50 West Broadway Salt Lake City, UT 84101 Michael A. Jacobs Eric M. Aker Grant L. Kim MORRISON & FOERSTER 425 Market Street San Francisco, CA 94105-2482 Counsel for Defendant and Counterclaim-Plaintiff Novell, Inc. By: /s/ Brent O. Hatch Brent O. Hatch HATCH, JAMES & DODGE, P.C. 10 West Broadway, Suite 400 Salt Lake City, Utah 84101 Telephone: (801) 363-6363 Facsimile: (801) 363-6666
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?