Microsoft Corp. has found a silver lining in one of its many court battles.
Nationally, the software giant may be reeling because of a devastating antitrust ruling by a Chicago federal judge, and it recently settled a huge suit by Orem-based Caldera Inc., which embeds the competing Linux computer system in household appliances. Microsoft braced for a flood of copycat lawsuits expected to be filed by computer groups after the Caldera settlement.But now Microsoft has succeeded in quashing a subpoena seeking documents in the Caldera suit. U.S. District Chief Judge Dee Benson ruled that a subpoena issued in February must not be enforced.
A party in a lawsuit may require someone to give information under a subpoena, but if an objection is filed a judge can rule that the subpoena need not be answered.
The Caldera subpoena was filed on behalf of Paul A. Deiter of Pensacola, Fla., who apparently hopes to begin a class-action lawsuit against Microsoft using some of the same allegations that were raised in the Caldera case. Among his lawyers is Michael D. Hausfeld, Washington, D.C., one of the country's most famous class-action lawyers.
The Feb. 15 subpoena was filed against Caldera. In the words of a Microsoft court brief, it "seeks essentially every document in Caldera's possession relating to the case of Caldera Inc. vs. Microsoft."
One court document written by Salt Lake lawyer Robert A. Peterson, representing Deiter, says that Microsoft may have settled the Caldera suit for "between $275 and $500 million." The higher figure was twice as much as the upper end of an estimate reported in the Deseret News when the case ended in January.
The Utah subpoena was delivered to Caldera on Feb. 23. Two days later, Microsoft filed a motion in federal court in Salt Lake City to quash it.
Microsoft attorneys claimed the subpoena was overly broad and attempted to get documents that might not lead to admissible evidence.
"Mr. Deiter is currently pursuing a putative class-action lawsuit against Microsoft in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia," wrote Benson. That suit is before Judge Royce C. Lamberth.
Benson wrote in his analysis that Deiter claimed Microsoft may destroy or fail to produce certain information from the Caldera suit, under a court protective order.
"Mr. Deiter's argument that this court must uphold the subpoena because Microsoft is somehow known to destroy or withhold documents is also unsubstantiated," Benson wrote. "Discovery (the process by which parties get information in a civil suit) in the Deiter case is set to commence.
"It is inappropriate for Mr. Deiter to speculate that Microsoft will illegally destroy or withhold documents" in the case.
Federal rules allow the court to quash any subpoena relating to information that is privileged, protected, a trade secret "or other sensitive commercial information," Benson added.
The Caldera case was subject to a protective court order, and the material involves sensitive trade secrets and commercial information, he wrote. "The Caldera subpoena is appropriately quashed."