SCO Grp v. Novell Inc

Filing 821

APPENDIX to 819 Memorandum (NOT to motion), Memorandum (NOT to motion) filed by Plaintiff SCO Group. (Hatch, Brent)

SCO Grp v. Novell Inc

Doc. 821

APPENDIX A Novell's Privilege Objections During Select Depositions May 10, 2007 Deposition of Gregory Jones Subject of Inquiry As a general matter, communications between Novell and outside counsel regarding the negotiation of the APA. Discussions with Mr. Braham regarding anything beyond the information in his declaration. Novell's efforts (in connection with SuSe Linux deal) to consider whether Linux would implicate the APA or TLA. Line & Page 14:15-15:24 87:23-88:19 205:18-206:9; 223:18-226:12

April 27, 2007 Deposition of Aaron Alter Subject of Inquiry Nature of Mr. Alter's/Mr. Braham's/Wilson Sonsini's discussions with David Bradford as Novell General Counsel. Discussions between Wilson Sonsini and Novell in 1995 regarding the prospect of retaining intellectual property in UNIX and UnixWare. At time the APA and TLA were executed, did Novell regard as unreasonable the limitations set forth on how Novell could use the licensed technology in Novell's products? Discussions between Novell counsel (or Mr. Braham) on one hand and Mr. Alter on the other when this litigation first arose. Line & Page 13:3-9 45:9-18; 46:6-12; 48:6-10 107:9-15

15:10-17

February 8, 2007 Deposition of Joseph LaSala Subject of Inquiry Mr. LaSala's view as to whether SCO had right to copy or reproduce source code. Novell's efforts to find signed copy of Amendment No. 2. Timing of Novell/IBM joint defense agreement. Stone employment termination. His view of the merits of SCO v. IBM. Line & Page 14:7-15:8 32:9-33:6 60:18-61:23 81:13-88:21 98:12-100:9

Dockets.Justia.com

His understanding as to whether anyone at Novell spoke to drafters of Amendment No. 2. How it came to pass that he executed a SCO v. IBM declaration Whether it would be useful to [speak] to anyone who negotiated the Agreements. Whether Novell executives spoke with SCO regarding Novell's agreements. Whether Novell considered using 4.16(b) waiver discretion (all such instances after litigation was contemplated). Whether there was misappropriated UNIX code in Linux Conversations with Mr. Messman after February 25, 2003 regarding SCO-related issues. If Novell considered directing SCO to waive its claims even with respect to UNIX code supplied by AT&T to licenses.

121:10-122:1 150:13-17 171:17-172-6 184:14-21 203:23-204:21 214:1-6 230:10-23 257:3-260:5

May 16, 2007 Deposition of Joseph LaSala Subject of Inquiry Conversations with Novell in-house lawyers with respect to issues in the litigation. Reasons and bases for Novell's public statements claiming copyright ownership. Novell's analysis as to whether the UNIX copyright owner would have viable claims against IBM. The extent to which Mr. LaSala was involved in discussions concerning Novell's June 6, 2003 press release. Communications between IBM or its outside counsel and Novell or its outside counsel. Knowledge of internal discussions between Novell employees regarding the subject of the APA. Line & Page 8:16-19 12:3-19 24:20-28:6 40:22-41:23; 44:23-45:3 73:3-74:7; 120:19-125:1 146:13-148:3

January 26, 2007 Deposition of Gregory Jones

Line of Inquiry Whether AT&T transferred UNIX copyrights to Novell in the early 1990s. Mr. Jones's knowledge of the transaction documents between AT&T and Novell. Whether all of the patents related to the UNIX business transferred from AT&T to Novell. Whether Novell believes that it holds patents to the UNIX business. Whether Novell was concerned about competition from any one particular company at the time of the APA. Who negotiated the APA for Novell? Whether Novell and Santa Cruz entered into any memorandum of understanding prior to the APA. Who, in his view, actually drafted the APA. Who at Novell reviewed the APA before it was signed. Who at Novell approved the APA. To whom were Ed Chatlos and Ty Mattingly of Novell reporting in connection with the APA. Whether the APA was drafted with an understanding that there would be an amendment to it. Whether he was aware of an operating agreement being signed in conjunction with the APA. Whether Novell entered into an agreement with IBM in 1996 which purported to give IBM a buyout. Whether he has an understanding of the basic terms of Amendment No. 2. Whether he was familiar with the General Release of Claims Agreement between Santa Cruz and Novell in 1996. Whether he worked on the General Release of Claims Agreement. Whether he knew who negotiated the General Release of Claims Agreement. Questions about his recollection of Amendment No. X generally. His understanding of whether Amendment No. X contains a buyout. Whether Mr. Jones thinks that Section 4.16 of the APA is subject to only one interpretation. Whether he had ever sat down and read through Amendment No. X.

Line & Page 25:7-24 26:12-28:12 28:24-29:11 30:25-31:4;40:22-41:24 56:5-14 73:4-13 74:19-75:5 75:17-20 76:8-11 76:12-18 76:19-77:7 81:3-21 83:10-17 89:12-17 100:10-17 103:22-104:18 104:19-21 104:22-24 107:7-18 116:25-117:13 123:19-124:10 129:7-14

Whether he knew if Novell and Santa Cruz had communicated in 1996 about Novell's alleged waiver rights under Section 4.16 of the APA. Whether Novell could have alleged its waiver rights under Section 4.16 in 1996. Whether Mr. Jones could recall if any controversy arose between Novell and Cray Computers. His view of any rights that Novell could have invoked in the Cray controversy. Whether the declaration he signed in September 2006 was the product of conversations with a third party. Where he got the information in the declaration that is not based on his personal knowledge. Whether he knew when IBM and Novell entered into their joint defense agreement. Whether he had personal knowledge concerning the negotiations of the sale of assets from Novell to Santa Cruz. Discussions he had with a businessperson at Novell in response to a letter he received from Chris Sontag at SCO.

131:13-132:9 132:10-23 135:11-16 140:2-141:12 142:8-15; 146:17-147:8 164:12-166:10; 167:3-25 148:8-11 160:11-161:4 199:11-20; 200:17-201:17