Story is slightly wrong

SCO isn't asking in this motion for the court to find or "reel in" Pamela Jones.

Here is what is happening.

1. They want to question (depose) PJ about issues related to the SCO v Novell case. They have been wanting to do this since late January.

2. They currently have until about the end of May to find and question ("depose") PJ in SCO v Novell. It is up to them to go and find, and officially tell ("serve") PJ, before they can do the questioning session ("deposition"). Apparently they have been unable to serve PJ - but it seems possible that they may be looking in the wrong place - see PJ's comments on Groklaw.

3. SCO is now asking that whatever the PJ questions/answers come from the PJ deposition, can also be used as evidence in the SCO vs IBM case,

What they haven't explained is:

(a) Why questions/answers of PJ, about matters that took place years ago, should be allowed in the IBM case. The deadline for depositions in SCO vs IBM passed over a year ago

(b) Why they asking to add questions/answers of PJ to SCO vs IBM, now, in April -- when they could have asked in January

They do however:

(c) Say they are going to look really hard for PJ, and if they don't find her, that they may LATER ask for the court to serve her some other way..... but this part is actually incidental to the current motion which is simply about adding PJ's questions/answers at the deposition as evidence to SCO vs IBM