I should have prefaced that by saying "when only suggested to one of the parties (in this case, according to the PACER, eDigital) that one of the parties (EDIG) should be notified of and consider ADR, is notified of the ADR process, and the other party is not (and has not requested same) then it could be an indication that the court has already said "you (EDIG) won't win, or you might win, but the court would rather not hear your case."

Again, this would be of the premise that only one party has been notified that the court 'suggests' ADR, IAW (in accordance with) the rules of the court.

If the other party has already notified the court they would seriously like to proceed with ADR, (possibly knowing that DM likely has sights on them as well) then they would not be notified, as the court would already be aware of the fact that party is fully cognizant of the rules and opportunity for ADR.

Also, IMO, "Suggesting" one side settle is implied in ADR, by name.

By definition, can there be a "resolution" to a "dispute" without some kind of "settlement" (or series thereof) ?