With that, I like the fact that e.Digital legal seems to consider that they do group....

"Plaintiff's counsel responded on February 18, 2010, with a completely different proposed schedule--one that does "not include separate Markman deadlines because [Plainttff] doles] not think they are necessary, as jPlaintiff s counsel] previewed at the prior Status Conferences." (Exh. D, e-mail (emphasis added); Exh. E, Plaintiffs proposed schedule.) Plaintiff's counsel stated in a later e-mail on February 18, 2010, that they "intend to serve some initial discovery next week ..." preferably Monday, February 22, 2010. (Exh. F, e-mail.) Plaintiff made no effort to incorporate any part of Defendants' proposed schedule into Plaintiff s proposal. Instead, Plaintiff summarily rejected Defendants' proposed claim construction schedule, arguing that "exchanging claim terms and meeting and conferring on claim terms before most of the Defendants have even answered" would not be appropriate. (Exh. D; but cf Exh. A, at 21:20-22 (suggesting that the parties consider exchanging positions on substantive issues prior to answering the complaint))

doni