<As i said before we were waiting to here which way the judge would rule on the Pacer info pulled and suggested to be used against us pertaining to the More case vs. PTSC found on the California courts.>

Actually I think it had to do with wether the court could force certain witnesses to testify about things that are confidential and covered by attorney/client relationship. There was a deposition being given which promped a phone call to the court in which Ward said the party must answer the questions. Subsequently Ward indicated that we had not invoked the attorney/client privlege before the scheduled deposition, but apparently willing to consider it before any new depositions. It was presumed that the trial will go whichever way the judge decided with respect to that point. And while judge Ward never made any decision, no one seemed to think he could possibly rule against us.

Now would Ward go to the parties and inform them of which way he was going to rule in order to extract a settlement? If he ruled against us, that means he was going to allow privileged attorney/client communication into the trial, which would have a high possibility of getting reversed. I think from his perspective a settlement w/o the decision is best for him, the court and the parties. I presume that is what we got.

Opty