"Judge asked for a status report.Youngwirth (?) edig attorney on the phone said that they were engaging in discovery with all the defendants.They are in a “meet and confer process with almost all of the defendants.”Judge asked if we were on schedule for the Markman as set and edig attorney said simply, yes."

“meet and confer process" ?

They weren't giving it, so they went and got it.... per judge Watanabe order...

lol....looks as if the proposals ventured are not a problem....IMO it all comes back to...

"11. OTHER SCHEDULING ISSUES
A. Identify those discovery or scheduling issues, if any, on which counsel, after a
good-faith effort, were unable to reach an agreement.

None."

When do the proposals get consideration.....they where part and parcel of this meeting?

What pacer numbers are missing....lol, the judge must have already given direction.



"Youngwirth asked if the judge had the “proposed case management” schedule in front of him.The judge said no he did not.Youngwirth pushed a bit and said it looked like there were some problems.He said that the defendants are asking the plaintiff to share in the cost of e-discovery and noted that the defendants must show that the discovery is causing an “undue burden” which they have not shown. He continued to say that sharing the cost of e-discovery was brought up for the first time in the draft of the case management schedule and that the plaintiff is objecting to sharing the cost. One of the defendant’s lawyer (Cohen?) said that they disagreed with the plaintiff on this point but that he believed that the judge did not want to hear arguments on this.(This was clearly the case based on body language and tone from the judge)."



Defendants did ask, I read it....lol....body language of the judge shoud be against (Cohen?) for his "disagreed" comment.

Whatever....

doni