Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Pastimes : Business Wire Falls for April Fools Prank, Sues FBNers -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Blue Snowshoe who wrote (2701)	5/26/1999 7:50:00 PM
From: TideGlider	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 3795

Hey watch out for the flood of people that are glad the Orthodox Jewish Community has sued AZNT. For Trademark Infringement. I expect Cindy here soon to explain how AZNT was dead wrong and should never have listed and marked the Stevia product as Kosher. There is a financial gain for doing so at passover. That makes it a real problem. They where warned from what I have seen and failed to comply. I hope those opposed to this sort of thing don't go overboard. After all it was only to sell the product to Jews during Passover. Unless there is another reason for marking it in such a manner. I believe those Orthodox Jews were reasonable. They acted to protect their people from the markings that would deceive them. The poor consumers knew nothing about little bits and pieces of here and there law, they merely relied on the markings to set the table before there loved ones for the celebration sacred Seder. I for one cannot say that this was actually done by AZNT. However, there was a warning posted in March I believe. Apparently it went without reaction. That is probably the "heart of the law. I will have to check back to be sure. Glad I didn't place it on my table. TG TG

To: Blue Snowshoe who wrote (2701)	5/26/1999 8:12:00 PM
From: Bill Ulrich	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 3795

News from today: &#147On May 17, 1999, Pro Se Defendants Jeffrey S. Mitchell and William Ulrich filed an ex parte motion to enlarge time to respond to Plaintiff Business Wire's complaint (Docket #4). Defendants seek a thirty-day extension of their May 17, 1999 deadline. On May 24, 1999, Plaintiff filed a letter brief in opposition to Defendants' motion. Plaintiff does not object to a two-week extension of the deadline, but argues, without identifying any prejudice from a 30-day extension, that Defendants' request is excessive. &#147Plaintiff also requests that the Court, pursuant to Civil Local Rule 16-3(a), lift the stay on discovery for the limited purpose of allowing Plaintiff to issue subpoenas on certain third parties to get the address of Defendant Shell, who resides in Italy. Plaintiff states that it has been unable to obtain her address despite diligent efforts. &#147Accordingly, in consideration of the moving and opposing papers and the relevant authority, and good cause appearing, the Court enters the following order. &#147(1) Defendants' ex parte motion is GRANTED. Defendants shall respond to Plaintiff's complaint no later than June 17, 1999. &#147(2) Although Plaintiff's request may very well have merit, Rule 16-3(b) specifies that a party seeking relief from the stay of formal discovery must proceed under Civil Local Rule 7-10. That rule in turn requires the moving party to give three days notice, attempt to meet and confer on the request and then file an expedited motion. Plaintiff has not done so. &#147This Court will deem Plaintiff's letter to provide the required notice to Defendants. The Court orders the parties to meet and confer promptly on this issue. Defendants should seriously consider stipulating to what appears to be a reasonable request on the facts as stated by Plaintiff. If the parties do not stipulate, Plaintiff may file an expedited motion on or after May 28, 1999 (provided it has made a reasonable effort to meet and confer). Defendants shall have two (2) court days to respond pursuant to Rule 7-10(d). The Court will then proceed in accordance with Rule 7-10(e).&#148 Elizabeth D. LaPorte United States Magistrate Judge _______________________________ **note from MrB: this is the full, complete, and unedited text, provided without editorial, and filed as a matter of public record in the United States District Court, Northern District of California.