Plaintiff e.Digital Corporation (“e.Digital”) hereby moves the Court, pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(a), to clarify three provisions in the Amended Scheduling Order entered on December 14, 2010. (Dkt. No. 329). In particular, e.Digital seeks clarification regarding:

1) Section 6(g)(4), regarding e-discovery cost shifting/sharing, which otherwise is governed by Rule 26(b)(2);

2) Section 8(b)(3), regarding time limits for depositions of the attorneys who prosecuted the patents-in-suit; and

3) Section 8(b)(5), regarding time limits for depositions of other third parties.

--------------

With regard to the court's amended scheduling order that says EDIG has to pay defendants e-discovery costs. I think the court simply made a mistake in stating the requesting party (EDIG) shall pay the producing party's (Defendants) costs in producing the discovery. As DM pointed out in Doc 346, the Defendants have not shown an undue burden or cost in providing the requested e-discovery, which is a requirement in overcoming Rule 26(b)(2) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and consequently, making EDIG pay for e-discovery. IMO, this was simply a "clerical error, oversight or omission that led the Court to enter the Amended Scheduling Order in a way that did not resolve the parties disputes with respect to the subject matter of the [above] three provisions". I sincerely think the court will realize its mistake and change the Scheduling Order appropriately.