You said"

"I sincerely think the court will realize its mistake and change the Scheduling Order appropriately."

AGREED...

It is clear there has been a clreical mistake. Costs of litigation are borne by each party. It is unusual that the Court will allow unristricted discovery over defendnt's objection that it will be costly, ( in essence saying they should heve thought about the "Costs" before they engaged in infringing activities), and then turn around and say that EDIG has to pay defendants for such costs. By doing so, the Court in essence has granted defendant's Motion, which I thought was not the case...

After the case is concluded the wining party is usually permitted to reover some "costs" which are pretty well defined by Statute. And they are permitted to file a "memorandum of costs" to recover such costs. But, there is no provision in Statute or Case law that a plaintiff can be saddled with the burden of paying for the "costs" of defendants upfront thus scuttling their ability to proceed with "unristricted discovery"...

Any such ORDER is a FINAL ORDER and is appealable on its face. That is what DM is doing. Giving he Court to change it as a clrecial error, and if not changed, DM is going to the 9th Circuit Court of Appeal on it...

Gil...