There's still some life in Vivitar.

DEFENDANT AND COUNTERCLAIMANT VIVITAR CORPORATION’S

eDigital Corporation v. Avid Technology, Inc., et al Civil Action No. 2:08-cv-00093 DF-CE (the “Avid Litigation”). A true and correct copy of the Docket Control Order for the Avid Litigation is attached hereto as Exhibit A. Said unopposed motion is based on the arguments below.

Plaintiff e.Digital (“e.Digital”) presently is pursuing two causes before this Court based on allegations of infringement of the same patents – this action and the Avid Litigation. Vivitar has already moved this Court on June 26, 2008 (Rec. Doc. 30) to consolidate and reassign this cause with the Avid Litigation so that both cases can be heard on a common schedule by the same judge -- Judge Folsom. Vivitar’s motion to consolidate is opposed by e.Digital and it is still pending before this Court. Coordinating the schedule for compliance with Rules 4-2 and 4-3 in the two cases as requested in this motion, will particularly promote efficiency since the patents in the two actions (and, presumably, most, if not all, of the claim construction issues) are similar, if not identical.

An extension of time for compliance with Patent Local Rules 4-2 and 4-3 will also give Vivitar Corporation time to obtain new counsel, as per this Court’s order dated December 18, 2008 (Rec. Doc. 51).

Additionally, since Claim Construction briefing in this cause does not begin until January 2010 (and does not begin in the Avid Litigation until August 2009), there will be no prejudice to either party or to the progression of the case by moving these deadlines.

Counsel for Vivitar has spoken to Matthew Yungwirth, counsel for e.Digital, regarding this matter. Mr. Yungwirth has indicated that e.Digital does not oppose this motion. Accordingly, the Court should grant this unopposed motion based on the points argued above. A Proposed Order is enclosed.

Respectfully submitted,

WANG, HARTMANN, GIBBS & CAULEY, P.L.C