Not much discussion about it. My thought is why was it necessary for a new joint motion? Why couldn't TPL submit something that says they do not oppose what was submitted?

It is my belief that the Js are in a pact in order to avoid losing any more defendants. Which is why we haven't seen any additional Js cave in. With that in mind, the negoitiations for settlemet $ needed to be completed for all three Js which was time consuming. But I think that monetary damages may have been worked out by the end of the 30 day stay. Problem arises in getting all 3 Js to agree on who is to make statements, wording of any prs, what is to be included in any prs, timing of payments, etc etc. Hence the defendants request for additional stay. Sealed Exhibit was proposed monetary agreements. Judge Ward says to the Js that unless motion is a joint motion for stay, I will assume that plaintiffs think you might be foot dragging for purpose of delay. Js convince TPL to go along with motion. My guess is that it is probably costing the Js more each day it drags on. Like interest on the principle. All IMHO Opty