[This is the text-encoded version posted at scofacts.org of the document whose image is found here: pdf.
Please notify al@scofacts.org of any discrepancies between this version and the image.
Scofacts is not endorsed by the "SCO Group" Delaware corporation, nor by any of the registered owners of "SCO" trademarks.
RCS revision info: $Id: IBM-438.html,v 1.1 2005/05/01 01:03:01 al Exp $
The initial scofacts revision was based on the groklaw.net version. ]

      FILED
U.S. DISTRICT COURT

2005 APR 28 P 4:51

DISTRICT OF UTAH
BY:______________
   DEPUTY CLERK



IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF UTAH

CENTRAL DIVISION

___________________

THE SCO GROUP, INC., 

Plaintiff/Counterclaim-Defendant, 

vs. 

INTERNATIONAL BUSINESS
MACHINES CORPORATION, 

Defendant/Counterclaim-Plaintiff.

___________________

ORDER

Case No.  2:03CV294 DAK

___________________



This matter is before the court on G2 Computer Intelligence, Inc.'s
("G2's) Motion to Intervene and Motion to Unseal Court's File.  CNET
Networks, Inc. ("CNET") and Forbes Inc. ("Forbes") have also joined in
the motion.  A hearing on the motion was held on April 26, 2005.  At
the hearing, G2, CNET, and Forbes were represented by Andrew H. Stone.
International Business Machines Corp. was represented by Amy Sorenson,
and The SCO Group was represented by Brent O. Hatch.  Before the
hearing, the court considered carefully the memoranda and other
materials submitted by the parties.  Since taking the motions under
advisement, the court has further considered the law and facts
relating to the motion.  Now being fully advised, the court renders
the following Order.

The court declines to allow G2, CNET, and/or Forbes to intervene in
this case.  The court, however, sets forth the following requirements
and admonitions to minimize the risk of


overdesignating confidential documents, thereby maximizing the
public's accessability to the documents filed in this case:

(1) Counsel for both IBM and SCO shall review the documents filed thus
far in this action to determine whether any such documents may be
unsealed.  Counsel shall notify the court on or before May 27, 2005 as
to which documents may be unsealed.

(2) All future dispositive motions and memoranda that are filed under
seal shall be publicly filed with all confidential information
redacted.  Additionally, all non-confidential supporting exhibits
shall be publicly filed;

(3) After May 27, 2005, the court will award reasonable attorneys'
fees to any party that successfully challenges the opposing party's
designation of a document as confidential after such document has been
filed with the court and after having provided the party seeking
confidentiality at least ten days to remove the confidential
designation;

(4) Although the court does not have the resources to monitor whether
each sealed document is appropriately sealed, the court hereby
notifies the parties that if the court, in its regular consideration
of future motions, becomes aware that material documents are
improperly filed under seal, the court may issue an order to show
cause why a particular document was filed under seal and may impose
monetary sanctions for improper sealing of a document.

CONCLUSION

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that G2, CNET, and Forbes' Motion 

				  2


to Intervene and Unseal Court's Files is DENIED.  The court has set
forth several requirements and admonitions to minimize the risk of the
parties improperly filing documents under seal.

DATED this 28th day of April, 2005. 

BY THE COURT:

[s/ Dale A. Kimball]
--------------------
DALE A. KIMBALL
United States District Judge

				  3