This was just prior to his asking if they wanted a mediator to help settle:

THE COURT:

I'M GLAD YOU BROUGHT THAT LAST POINT UP,

BECAUSE IT SEEMS TO ME ONE WAY I COULD RESOLVE THIS

ISSUE WOULD BE TO ADOPT, PERHAPS, THE MORE NEUTRAL

LANGUAGE ABOUT WHO PREVAILED AND IN WHOSE FAVOR,

BUT LEAVE FOR ANOTHER DAY THE QUESTION OF THAT –

WOULD THAT BE ACCEPTABLE TO YOU?

MS. KEEFE:

I WOULD BE FINE WITH THAT, YOUR HONOR,

ABSOLUTELY.AND, OBVIOUSLY, THAT'S AN ISSUE THAT

ONLY COMES UP IF IT COMES UP IN THE CONTEXT OF COSTS

OR ANYTHING LIKE THAT, AND WE CAN DEAL WITH THAT LATER.

THE PART THAT HAS TO BE REMEDIED IS THAT THE JUDGMENT

HAS TO REFLECT 890.

BUT THE POINTS THAT WE'RE ARGUING ABOUT RIGHT NOW -

-I MEAN, OBVIOUSLY, WE PREFER OUR LANGUAGE, THEY

PREFER THEIR LANGUAGE. THEY'RE ACTUALLY PROBABLY BOTH

ACCURATE, BUT YOUR HONOR IS GOING TO HAVE TO EVENTUALLY

DEAL WITH WHAT THAT LANGUAGE MEANS LATER ANYWAY, AND

WE CAN RESOLVE THAT THEN.

Case5:08-cv-00882-PSG Document738 Filed03/03/14 Page24 of 29