Would it surprise you to find out that it turns out that apparently one of the jurors is related to one of SCO's prior corporate officers? Novell noticed the similarity in names, according to our reporter today, MSS2, only after jury selection was over. I gather the juror said nothing about it.

MSS2 has just sent me his first report of day 2 of the jury trial in SCO v. Novell, with more to come. If that detail surprises you, you may be new. And we have lots more goodies for you. We begin with SCO's opening argument by Stuart Singer. All I can say after reading it is maybe you needed to be there. Or SCO must be a slow learner or Mr. Singer never reads Groklaw, or ... well, see what you think.

I have a question. If I lived in Utah, could my relatives appropriately sit on this jury? Shouldn't they at least mention the connection? You think?

The parties are still going back and forth over pre-trial issues, specifically over the jury instructions and the verdict form. We may see even more on this, because jury instruction and the verdict form come at the very end, so there is still time to try to get it just right. Not that either side will be entirely happy with the result. SCO, of course, wants the last word.

But in truth, the wording of these documents does matter a lot, so it's typical to have quite a lot of discussion on exactly how to phrase things. After all, when the jury is deciding, they will be reading that wording, and going over it with a fine-tooth comb on any issues where they don't immediately agree, most likely. You've seen what a mess the unclear wording in the appeals court ruling created, so imagine if the jury were to be confused into thinking they *have* to rule a certain way if they actually don't, based on a misreading of an unclear phrase.

I thought it was funny yesterday that the parties couldn't come up with a proposed introduction to give the judge to read, so he wrote his own, and when they handed up one they'd finally been able to agree on, he decided to just use his own anyway. It was too late. I expect that incident was inspirational to both parties. And as you'll see in a minute, they are really trying on the jury instructions, with Novell putting the model instructions and both parties' competing phrasing all in one document, so the judge has it all in one place. And then Novell says SCO wants to file its own also.

My, if we think we're having trouble keeping up, how'd you like to be Judge Ted Stewart? Or Sterling Brennan, for that matter? So many filings already, and more today. Proposed exhibit and witness lists, a Memorandum of Authorities Regarding Excusing Potential Jurors Having Knowledge Pertaining to this Dispute -- the one I'm going to read first -- and another responding to SCO's Objection to Board Minutes and a letter from Brennan to the court. And then one more motion in limine denied. Judge Stewart has denied Novell's motion asking for a further, and broader, ruling on its already successful motion in limine #4. He views is as rearguing a point Novell lost already in the denied Request for Judicial Notice of Prior Factual Findings, and he's not going to change his mind. Of course, that's what appeals are for. And now Novell is fully positioned.

Happily, cpeterson was able to attend this morning's session.

Update: It looks like that will be all the news for today. They are keeping the public in the hall mainly, to fit all the prospective jurors in, so unless there is something unexpected, tune in tomorrow.

Also, I see questions about what's hearsay within hearsay and things like that, so here are all the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure -- meaning the rules you follow for civil trials in federal district courts, and you'll find every other kind of applicable rule linked on the Utah District Court's Rules page. There are local rules as well, and then judges have their preferences, if you recall the judge's marching orders the other day. If you dig and learn something interesting, please share it in your comments. Thanks.

Novell has asked the Court to rule further on their Motion in Limine No. 4 [PDF; text]. The Court had previously issued a ruling [PDF] granting that Motion, but Novell now asks for further ruling, stating that "[t]he Court addressed this issue solely in the context of SCO's covenant of good faith claim. However, Novell's motion covered all of SCO's claims, including slander of title. The Court's prior ruling did not expressly address other claims, so Novell requests the Court to rule on the issue that was left open by its prior order."

SCO's Chapter 11 Trustee Edward Cahn bragged at Friday's bankruptcy hearing that he had won all the Daubert motions and most of the motions in limine in Utah. However, Judge Stewart has just reversed himself with regard to Novell's Motion in Limine No. 2 and No. 3 and has now granted them.

If you look at the chart we've prepared you can see that and if you do the math, you'll see that Novell was denied on six of its motions in limine, but it won on five, and in won in part and was denied in part on 8.

It also wouldn't be true to say that SCO won all its motions in limine. SCO was denied without prejudice on one, denied outright on another, denied in part and granted in part on one, granted on two, and one was taken under advisement. SCO did prevail in the three Daubert motions. Just setting the record straight.

In reversing himself on Novell's two motions in limine in his recent order [PDF], I think he made a mistake in describing Novell's press releases, however. It's fundamental to what exactly are the disputed copyrights. So I thought I'd take the time to explain.

We need a volunteer to cover the first day of trial. Our volunteer has the flu, so it's a crisis. This will be the day they pick the jury and possibly also do the opening statements, about the most important day of the week.

Further, I don't think there will be a transcript of the jury picking, so if we don't have anyone, we'll never know what happened.

So if there is any way you can attend, this is your moment. Monday, bright and early and it ends by a little after lunch. 3/8/2010 08:30 AM in Room 142 before Judge Ted Stewart.

Please try. If you email me, I can give you more detailed instructions.