I agree.  We would want to have it moved to EDT..they on the other hand would want to keep it in California given the more structured ADR process (conjecture on my part in this regard).  They clearly want to go this route (ADR) and use a public forum (the courts) to bring their attempts at negotiation into the light for all to see..with the hope that others may join in their struggle..like the reverse of consolidated asbestos litigation against one / multipe defendants..this thing will end in the same way as the last..settlement with a NDA..the question is how much money will we spend to get there..perhaps the California route may be more cost effective..i.e. ADR versus full blown litigation right off the bat..at least the ADR process has defined timetables..as opposed to "open" negotiations between the parties that have been ongoing for over a year..