A big difference is that SCO spend years in "discovery" always claiming that some sort of evidence was just around the corner. The only reason that judges allow

A big difference is that SCO spend years in "discovery" always claiming that some sort of evidence was just around the corner. The only reason that judges allowed that charade to go on was out of an extreme abundance of caution (probably too much). > Making claims one is unable to substantiate and dragging a case through discovery is normally considered an abuse of the legal system A judge can decide to kill said "fishing expedition" too. It's not like these fishing expeditions just "happen" and once initiated are unstoppable. If it was ludicrous, then the judge should have denied it.