With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". its right of judicial review, PLM was required to file the instant lawsuit before this Court within sixty days of the TTAB ruling. See 15 U.S.C. § 1071(b). Although PLM is nominally the “plaintiff and counter-defendant” on the case caption, it is Prolacto who initiated the overall legal dispute here. Moreover, Prolacto has elected to cross-appeal to this Court for further review of the TTAB’s findings, as well as assert stand-alone causes of action under federal law and D.C. common law. Thus, Prolacto has availed itself of not only United States law, but of District of Columbia law. A party that chooses to initiate litigation and invoke the legal protections of the forum should expect to appear for deposition in that jurisdiction. See Cobell v. Norton, 213 F.R.D. 43, 47 (D.D.C.2003) (<HOLDING>); see also Dollar Sys., Inc. v. Tomlin, 102

A: holding that plaintiff failed to offer sufficient evidence to support a finding that a similar position existed after his termination
B: holding evidence was sufficient to convict for robbery where two men approached an elderly man on the street grabbed both his arms and demanded his wallet
C: holding that an elderly named representative class member failed to present sufficient evidence that his health problems require holding his deposition in montana rather than washington dc
D: holding that because plaintiff failed to allege invidious discrimination based upon his membership in a protected class his equal protection claim failed at its inception
C.