DPRoberts/Cass,

Now how about uploading docs 94, 95 and 96? Why should we both have to pay for the same thing when you already have them? You're here to help us right? You do have them dontcha? LMAO.

Doc 93:

Pursuant to Rule 56(f) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Defendant e.Digital Corporation (“e.Digital”), by and through its counsel, moves the Court to either deny as premature or to continue Plaintiff’s motion for partial summary judgment pending discovery. Defendant’s should be given an opportunity to conduct discovery (1) as to whether Washington or California has the most significant relationship to the 2002 NDA; (2) as to extrinsic evidence that will affect the scope and validity of the 2002 NDA; (3) as to whether the 2002 NDA was supported by proper consideration as to make it binding and enforceable; (4) as to the reasonableness of the time restraint and geographic scope of the 2002 NDA; (5) as to Wencor’s acquisition of APS and whether digEcor has standing to sue for breach of the 2002 NDA; (6) as to customer confusion in relation to Plaintiff’s claim for a permanent injunction; and (7) as to the affidavits of J.Brent Wood, Mohammet Oraz, Karen Woolley, and William Boyer. While e.Digital believes that the Court can deny Plaintiff’s summary judgment motion on the record before it, e.Digital believes that further discovery is necessary before the Court could consider granting Plaintiff’s summary judgment motion. <?xml:namespace prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:of... />

This motion is accompanied by a Memorandum in Support of Motion for Continuance Pursuant to Rule 56(f) and the Rule 56(f) Declaration of Samuel C. Straight filed herewith.

DATED this 5th day of June, 2007.

RAY QUINNEY & NEBEKER P.C.