<one is about the Acer daughter board schematics evidence production>

IMO the reason we would need the schematics of the daughter board is because that is the suspected location of the second clock. None of our initial complaints specify where the second clock is and all contain statements similar to this one on the Aspire AS5755.

Note:

The SATA communication system utilizes embedded timing signals which

indicates the presence of a second clock, which is independent of the CPU clock

In all liklihood, the initial complaint does not need to be that specific. We may know or be fairly sure where it is, but that is what discovery is for.

In our case, there is no reason for a second clock to be connected to the I/O port unless to practice the 336. Schematics showing the second clock connected to the I/O port would be the smoking gun for all intents and purposes. Can't imagine any basis for the court allowing Acer not to produce as long as our motion to compel is timely, which I believe it to be. And Acer surely knows this. So IMO, the foot dragging is simply to obtain a temporary delay for some reason.

Opty