Wechat 2 3 26 Equals

• Wechat 2 3 26 Equals Pounds
• Wechat 2 3 26 Equals Many
• Wechat 2 3 26 Equals 1
• Wechat 2 3 26 Equals Inches

To the Editor Yu X & Yang R, and others have reported on asymptomatic transmission of SARS‐CoV‐2 at the familial level. 1-3 We also note multiple reports of SARS‐CoV‐2–associated superspreading events (SSEs) arising from mass gatherings; however, the extent of transmission from asymptomatic carriers at these events has not been characterized. 4, 5 Observational studies reporting a. The friend's WeChat account you provided may not be qualified: Enter the phone number for a WeChat user who meet the conditions below to unblock your account: 1) If you registered your account outside of mainland China, you can ask either a mainland China user or a user outside of mainland China to help confirm your identity, but the.

For instance, if you want to transform the sea breeze into a martini, you would pour 1 part cranberry juice, 1/2 part vodka, and 3/4 part grapefruit juice. You might do this with 1 1/2 ounces cranberry juice, 3/4 ounce vodka, and just over 1 ounce of grapefruit juice. 36 pounds is equal to a mid-size microwave 40 pounds equals a 5-gallon bottle of water or an average human leg 44 pounds equals an elephant's heart 50 pounds equals a small bale of hay 55 pounds equals a 5,000 BTU air conditioner 60 pounds equals an elephant's penis 66 pounds equals the fats and oils an average American eats in a year.

DISCOVERY ORDER

Re: ECF No. 18

LAUREL BEELER, Magistrate Judge.

INTRODUCTION

The plaintiffs, who use the mobile-messaging application WeChat, challenge the constitutionality of Executive Order 13943, which — according to the plaintiffs — prohibits the use of WeChat starting on September 20, 2020.1 (The defendants contend at least in part that the issues are not ripe until the Secretary of Commerce issues a final order.2) The plaintiffs moved for a preliminary injunction that is noticed for a hearing on September 17, 2020.3 The parties dispute the plaintiffs' entitlement to early discovery about the factual bases for the executive order.4 The court can decide the issue without oral argument. Civ. L. R. 7-1(b). On this record, the court denies the request.

STATEMENT

WeChat is a popular mobile application used in the United States and around the world.5 It allows its users to send text and voice messages, make phone calls, have video conference, share photos and posts, comment on other users' posts, make payments, and use other integrated apps.6

On August 6, 2020, President Donald J. Trump issued Executive Order 13943, 'Addressing the Threat Posed by WeChat, and Taking Additional Steps to Address the National Emergency with Respect to the Information and Communication Technology and Services Supply Chain.'7 It prohibits 'any transaction that is related to WeChat by any person, or with respect to any property, subject to the jurisdiction of the United States.'8 It says the following about its effective date:

In their complaint, the plaintiffs claim that the Executive Order violates the First Amendment's guaranty of freedom of speech, the Fifth Amendment's equal-protection and due-process clauses, and the Religious Freedom Restoration Act, and they also challenge the Executive Order as ultra vires on several grounds, including the President's allegedly exceeding his authority under the International Economic Emergency Powers Act and not complying with other statutes.10

Movavi video editor 5 plus 5 1 1 download free. The plaintiffs want expedited discovery for 'all evidence that support[s] the factual bases for the issuance of Executive Order 13943,' and the government opposes the discovery.11 All parties have consented to the court's jurisdiction.12

Wechat 2 3 26 Equals Pounds

GOVERNING LAW

A court may authorize expedited discovery before the Rule 26(f) conference for the parties' and witnesses' convenience and in the interest of justice. Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(d). Courts within the Ninth Circuit generally consider whether a plaintiff has shown 'good cause' for early discovery. See, e.g., IO Grp., Inc. v. Does 1-65, No. 10-CV-4377-SC, 2010 WL 4055667, at *2 (N.D. Cal. Oct. 15, 2010); Semitool, Inc. v. Tokyo Electron Am., Inc., 208 F.R.D. 273, 275-77 (N.D. Cal. 2002); Tex. Guaranteed Student Loan Corp. v. Dhindsa, No. 10-CV-0035, 2010 WL 2353520, at *2 (E.D. Cal. June 9, 2010); Yokohama Tire Corp. v. Dealers Tire Supply, Inc., 202 F.R.D. 612, 613-14 (D. Ariz. 2001) (collecting cases and standards). 'Good cause may be found where the need for expedited discovery, in consideration of the administration of justice, outweighs the prejudice to the responding party.' Semitool, 208 F.R.D. at 276.

Courts weigh five factors to determine whether good cause exists for expedited discovery: '(1) whether a preliminary injunction is pending; (2) the breadth of the discovery requests; (3) the purposes for requesting the expedited discovery; (4) the burden on the defendants to comply with the requests; and (5) how far in advance of the typical discovery process the request is was made.' Hudson Martin Ferrante St. Witten & Demaria, PC v. Forsythe, No. 16-06551-BLF (SVK), 2017 WL 550242, at *1 (N.D. Cal. Feb. 10, 2017) (cleaned up). In weighing the five factors, the court considers 'the reasonableness of the request in light of all the surrounding circumstances.' Id.

ANALYSIS

The plaintiffs' request is broad: 'all evidence that support the factual bases for the issuance of Executive Order 13943.'13 They then limited the request to 'documents' that were 'generated through August 6[, 2020].'14 They want the discovery to respond to the government's opposition, in part because the First Amendment claim requires the government to justify the restriction, and they anticipate that the government will argue that threats to national security justify the Executive Order.15 The defendants oppose the discovery on grounds that include the following: (1) the President's reasons for issuing the Executive Order are not reviewable and are likely to be privileged, and (2) the proper approach is to wait for the Secretary's final action and challenge that final action under the Administrative Procedures Act.16 The defendants also agreed that they would not rely on any documents in their opposition that are not publicly available.17

On this record and argument, the court does not find good cause for early discovery. The defendants filed their opposition, and on quick review, it relies on public information (as promised). Navigating issues of privilege on the current schedule is not practicable. The interplay between the Executive Order and final agency action also militates in favor of this approach. Finally, the existing record allows consideration of the issues at the September 17, 2020 hearing.

CONCLUSION

The court denies the plaintiff's request for expedited discovery. This disposes of ECF No. 18.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DISCOVERY ORDER

Re: ECF No. 18

LAUREL BEELER, Magistrate Judge.

INTRODUCTION

The plaintiffs, who use the mobile-messaging application WeChat, challenge the constitutionality of Executive Order 13943, which — according to the plaintiffs — prohibits the use of WeChat starting on September 20, 2020.1 (The defendants contend at least in part that the issues are not ripe until the Secretary of Commerce issues a final order.2) The plaintiffs moved for a preliminary injunction that is noticed for a hearing on September 17, 2020.3 The parties dispute the plaintiffs' entitlement to early discovery about the factual bases for the executive order.4 The court can decide the issue without oral argument. Civ. L. R. 7-1(b). On this record, the court denies the request.

STATEMENT

WeChat is a popular mobile application used in the United States and around the world.5 It allows its users to send text and voice messages, make phone calls, have video conference, share photos and posts, comment on other users' posts, make payments, and use other integrated apps.6 Monologue 1 0 – quick and easy notes act 3.

Wechat 2 3 26 Equals Many

On August 6, 2020, President Donald J. Trump issued Executive Order 13943, 'Addressing the Threat Posed by WeChat, and Taking Additional Steps to Address the National Emergency with Respect to the Information and Communication Technology and Services Supply Chain.'7 It prohibits 'any transaction that is related to WeChat by any person, or with respect to any property, subject to the jurisdiction of the United States.'8 It says the following about its effective date:

In their complaint, the plaintiffs claim that the Executive Order violates the First Amendment's guaranty of freedom of speech, the Fifth Amendment's equal-protection and due-process clauses, and the Religious Freedom Restoration Act, and they also challenge the Executive Order as ultra vires on several grounds, including the President's allegedly exceeding his authority under the International Economic Emergency Powers Act and not complying with other statutes.10

The plaintiffs want expedited discovery for 'all evidence that support[s] the factual bases for the issuance of Executive Order 13943,' and the government opposes the discovery.11 All parties have consented to the court's jurisdiction.12 Core temp portable.

GOVERNING LAW

A court may authorize expedited discovery before the Rule 26(f) conference for the parties' and witnesses' convenience and in the interest of justice. Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(d). Courts within the Ninth Circuit generally consider whether a plaintiff has shown 'good cause' for early discovery. See, e.g., IO Grp., Inc. v. Does 1-65, No. 10-CV-4377-SC, 2010 WL 4055667, at *2 (N.D. Cal. Oct. 15, 2010); Semitool, Inc. v. Tokyo Electron Am., Inc., 208 F.R.D. 273, 275-77 (N.D. Cal. 2002); Tex. Guaranteed Student Loan Corp. v. Dhindsa, No. 10-CV-0035, 2010 WL 2353520, at *2 (E.D. Cal. June 9, 2010); Yokohama Tire Corp. v. Dealers Tire Supply, Inc., 202 F.R.D. 612, 613-14 (D. Ariz. 2001) (collecting cases and standards). 'Good cause may be found where the need for expedited discovery, in consideration of the administration of justice, outweighs the prejudice to the responding party.' Semitool, 208 F.R.D. at 276.

Courts weigh five factors to determine whether good cause exists for expedited discovery: '(1) whether a preliminary injunction is pending; (2) the breadth of the discovery requests; (3) the purposes for requesting the expedited discovery; (4) the burden on the defendants to comply with the requests; and (5) how far in advance of the typical discovery process the request is was made.' Hudson Martin Ferrante St. Witten & Demaria, PC v. Forsythe, No. 16-06551-BLF (SVK), 2017 WL 550242, at *1 (N.D. Cal. Feb. 10, 2017) (cleaned up). In weighing the five factors, the court considers 'the reasonableness of the request in light of all the surrounding circumstances.' Id.

Wechat 2 3 26 Equals 1

ANALYSIS

The plaintiffs' request is broad: 'all evidence that support the factual bases for the issuance of Executive Order 13943.'13 They then limited the request to 'documents' that were 'generated through August 6[, 2020].'14 They want the discovery to respond to the government's opposition, in part because the First Amendment claim requires the government to justify the restriction, and they anticipate that the government will argue that threats to national security justify the Executive Order.15 The defendants oppose the discovery on grounds that include the following: (1) the President's reasons for issuing the Executive Order are not reviewable and are likely to be privileged, and (2) the proper approach is to wait for the Secretary's final action and challenge that final action under the Administrative Procedures Act.16 The defendants also agreed that they would not rely on any documents in their opposition that are not publicly available.17

On this record and argument, the court does not find good cause for early discovery. The defendants filed their opposition, and on quick review, it relies on public information (as promised). Navigating issues of privilege on the current schedule is not practicable. The interplay between the Executive Order and final agency action also militates in favor of this approach. Finally, the existing record allows consideration of the issues at the September 17, 2020 hearing.

CONCLUSION

The court denies the plaintiff's request for expedited discovery. This disposes of ECF No. 18.

Wechat 2 3 26 Equals Inches

IT IS SO ORDERED.