American Licorice Company v. Total Sweeteners, Inc. et al

Filing 115

STIPULATION AND ORDER re 114 STIPULATION WITH PROPOSED ORDER Regarding Plaintiff American Licorice Company's Responses to Defendant Total Sweeteners, Inc.'s Requests for Admissions, Set One filed by American Licorice Company. Signed by Judge Edward M. Chen on 2/17/15. (bpf, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 2/17/2015)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7

Lauren M. Michals, State Bar No. 184473
[e-mail]
Scott S. Shepardson, State Bar No. 197446
[e-mail]
Shady E Joulani, State Bar No. 287910
[e-mail]
NIXON PEABODY LLP
One Embarcadero Center, 18th Floor
San Francisco, CA 94111-3600
Tel: [phone]
Fax: [phone]
Attorneys for Plaintiff
AMERICAN LICORICE COMPANY

8
9

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

10

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

11
12

AMERICAN LICORICE COMPANY,

13

Plaintiff,

14
15
16

Case No. 3:13-cv-01929-EMC
JOINT STIPULATION AND
[PROPOSED] ORDER RE PLAINTIFF
AMERICAN LICORICE COMPANY’S
RESPONSES TO DEFENDANT
TOTAL SWEETENERS, INC.’S
REQUESTS FOR ADMISSIONS, SET
ONE

vs.
TOTAL SWEETENERS, INC. dba BATORY
FOODS, INC. and DOES 1 through 10
Inclusive,
Defendants.

17
18
19

Judge: Hon. Edward M. Chen
TOTAL SWEETENERS, INC., individually
and doing business as BATORY FOODS,

Courtroom: 5

20
Third-party Plaintiff,
21
vs.
22
23
24
25

SAVANNAH SUGAR REFINERY, a
subsidiary of IMPERIAL SUGAR
COMPANY; IMPERIAL SUGAR
COMPANY; IMPERIAL DISTRIBUTING,
INC.; DOMINO FOODS, INC.; and ROES 1
through 10, inclusive,

26

Third-party Defendants.

27
28

JOINT STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER RE
PLAINTIFF AMERICAN LICORICE COMPANY’S
RESPONSES TO DEFENDANT TOTAL SWEETENERS,
INC.’S REQUESTS FOR ADMISSIONS, SET ONE
4850-8780-5217.1

1

CASE NO. 3:13-CV-01929-EMC

1

Pursuant to Civil Local Rule 7-12, Plaintiff American Licorice Company (hereafter

2

“Plaintiff”) and Defendant and Third-Party Plaintiff Total Sweeteners, Inc., individually and

3

doing business as Batory Foods, Inc. (hereafter “Defendant”) by and through their respective

4

counsel enter into the following stipulation:

5
6
7

WHEREAS, Defendant’s counsel contends it served on Plaintiff’s counsel Defendant
Total Sweeteners, Inc.’s Requests for Admissions, Set One, on June 6, 2014.
WHEREAS, Plaintiff has no record of receiving Defendant’s Requests for Admissions,

8

Set One, until counsel for Defendant contacted counsel for Plaintiff by e-mail regarding the same

9

on or about November 25, 2014.

10
11
12

WHEREAS, Defendant provided Plaintiff with proof of service, and confirmed that other
parties had received the Requests for Admission at issue.
WHEREAS, after meeting and conferring, Plaintiff responded to Defendant’s Requests

13

for Admissions, Set One, on December 31, 2014, despite having no record of being formally

14

served with this set of Requests for Admission.

15
16
17

WHEREAS, Plaintiff and Defendant have met and conferred regarding the status of
Defendant’s Requests for Admissions, Set One.
THEREFORE, Plaintiff and Defendant stipulate that Plaintiff is not deemed to have

18

admitted, any of the matters contained in Defendant’s Requests for Admissions, Set One as a

19

result of failure to respond to that discovery.

20

THEREFORE, Plaintiff and Defendant stipulate that the operative responses and

21

objections to Defendant’s Requests for Admissions, Set One, are those that were served on

22

Defendant on December 31, 2014.

23

IT IS SO STIPULATED:

24
25
26
27
28

JOINT STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER RE
PLAINTIFF AMERICAN LICORICE COMPANY’S
RESPONSES TO DEFENDANT TOTAL SWEETENERS,
INC.’S REQUESTS FOR ADMISSIONS, SET ONE
4850-8780-5217.1

2

CASE NO. 3:13-CV-01929-EMC

1

Dated: February 12, 2015

NIXON PEABODY LLP

2
3

By: /s/ Shady E. Joulani
Lauren M. Michals
Scott S. Shepardson
Shady E Joulani
Attorneys for Plaintiff
AMERICAN LICORICE COMPANY

4
5
6
7

Dated: February 12, 2015

GORDON & REES LLP

8
9

By: /s/ Richard R. Ames
Mordecai D. Boone
Richard Ames
Attorneys for Defendant
TOTAL SWEETENERS, INC.,
individually and doing business as
BATORY FOODS

10
11
12
13

2/17/15

UNIT
ED

Dated:

TA

D

RDERE

OO
IT IS S

RT
U
O

15
16

ISTRIC
TC

PURSUANT TO STIPULATION, IT IS SO ORDERED: TES D

S

14

ER

21

A

H

20

FO

RT

19

n

M. Che

LI

dward
Judge E

NO

18

R NIA

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

17

N

F
D IS T IC T O
R

C

22
23
24
25
26
27
28

JOINT STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER RE
PLAINTIFF AMERICAN LICORICE COMPANY’S
RESPONSES TO DEFENDANT TOTAL SWEETENERS,
INC.’S REQUESTS FOR ADMISSIONS, SET ONE
4850-8780-5217.1

3

CASE NO. 3:13-CV-01929-EMC