While we wait.

If we assume there was no settlement at the end of 30 day stay, and the stay was for settlement negotiations, then why would the defendants request an additional stay on their own. Did their attorneys actually think that the judge would OK an additional stay w/o TPL being on board? And if the addtional stay was for further settlement negotiations, why would't TPL join the motion? They eventually did.

Possible answer. Monetary damages settled during 30 day stay. But the Js do not have agreement on other things. Wording of settlement, who makes statements, timing of payments etc As example NEC $ amount might be quite small compared to the others. NEC might prefer their cost made public. The other 2 want a rolled up number. TPL says we want settlement made public, either separate amts or rolled up, just let us know when you guys agree. Hence the defendants motion with sealed exhibit containing monetary agreements. Js must have felt joint motion was necessary, or TPL declined as the matter did not pertain to them. However Judge Ward demands the motion be joint. That way he is reasonably assured this is not foot dragging and TPL can not complain later. And that's where we are now. Waiting for the Js to agree on all the peripheral stuff. Good story? Opty