ACER:

This Motion is made on the grounds that the deposition topics seek highly relevant information pursuant to Defendants’ damages claims, in particular should they advance a lost sales and lost profits theory, and relate to their document retention related to the products they allege practice the asserted claims. Defendants have refused to nominate a witness for these topics.

Plaintiffs certify, pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(a)(1), that they have attempted to meet and conferred with Defendants in good faith in an effort to resolve this dispute before filing this motion.

Defendants, however, have failed to adequately respond to Defendants request for a meet-and-confer and have refused to identify a witness for deposition on the four disputed topics.

This Motion is based on this Notice, the Memorandum of Points and Authorities in support thereof, a Rule 37-2 Statement therein, the Declaration of Harold H. Davis in support thereof, as well as any further materials, evidence or arguments to be presented either at or before the hearing on this Motion, and any other materials or evidence the Court deems proper.

Dated: February 4, 2013 K&L GATES

Attorney for Acers states: I also requested a meet-and-confer on the issue. Attached as

Exhibit 8 is a true and correct copy of the January 29, 2013 e-mail I sent.

12. TPL never responded to the request for a meet and confer.

Is it possible that TPL may have addressed this with other attorneys from previous depositions and feels that it does not have to comply?