So then does that mean that digEcor needs to produce the documents as requested?

Request No. 2. A copy of all versions of the microcode of the digEplayer XT, in all
forms (source, binary and executable) including but not limited to all insertions, deletions,
modifications, change logs, and comments.

Request No. 3. All engineering plans and design documents for the digEplayer XT,
including but not limited to schematics, bills of materials, mechanical drawings, software
specifications, and interface specifications.

Request No. 4 [This request was erroneously labeled as the second Request No. 3]. Any
and all documents that constitute, refer, or relate to any Communications you have had with
DeCuir, Inc., Wolf Electronix, Triad Engineering, or VPI Engineering, or any employee, agent or
officer thereof. [This request is objectionable to the extent it seeks production of documentation
requested in Request no. 2 or 3.]

Sounds like with these items, along with Clark's affadavit, this case will be 'settled' soon.

Especially with DM looking at ALL infringers.... on contigency, no less.

Can digEcor say the same?