[{"data":1,"prerenderedAt":-1},["ShallowReactive",2],{"detail-sidebar-cat-0-en-105":3,"doc-seo-291472-105":59,"doc-detail-291472-en":131},{"code":4,"msg":5,"data":6},0,"success",[7,13,18,23,28,33,38,43,48,51,55],{"id":8,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":9,"category_name":10,"show_sort_weight":11,"slug":12},1,"Document","Story & Novel",90,"story-novel",{"id":14,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":9,"category_name":15,"show_sort_weight":16,"slug":17},2,"Literature",80,"literature",{"id":19,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":9,"category_name":20,"show_sort_weight":21,"slug":22},4,"Exam",70,"exam",{"id":24,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":9,"category_name":25,"show_sort_weight":26,"slug":27},5,"Comic",60,"comic",{"id":29,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":9,"category_name":30,"show_sort_weight":31,"slug":32},6,"Technology",50,"technology",{"id":34,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":9,"category_name":35,"show_sort_weight":36,"slug":37},7,"Healthcare",40,"healthcare",{"id":39,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":9,"category_name":40,"show_sort_weight":41,"slug":42},8,"Research & Report",30,"research-report",{"id":44,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":9,"category_name":45,"show_sort_weight":46,"slug":47},9,"Religion & Spirituality",20,"religion-spirituality",{"id":46,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":9,"category_name":49,"show_sort_weight":46,"slug":50},"World Cup","world-cup",{"id":52,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":9,"category_name":53,"show_sort_weight":52,"slug":54},10,"Lifestyle","lifestyle",{"id":56,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":9,"category_name":57,"show_sort_weight":24,"slug":58},19,"General","general",{"code":4,"msg":60,"data":61},"ok",{"site_id":62,"language":63,"slug":64,"title":65,"keywords":66,"description":67,"schema_data":68,"social_meta":124,"head_meta":126,"extra_data":128,"updated_unix":130},105,"en","response-to-respondents-motion-to-reschedule-hearing-date-federal-trade-commission","Response to Respondent's Motion to Reschedule Hearing Date - Federal Trade Commission","","This document constitutes an official legal response filed by the Complaint Counsel of the Federal Trade Commission regarding Docket No. 9327. It addresses the Respondent's Motion to Reschedule Hearing Date, noting that the motion has become moot following the issuance of a Draft Scheduling Order by Administrative Law Judge D. Michael Chappell on October 2, 2008. The filing confirms that the Complaint Counsel does not object to the trial date proposed by the judge and intends to collaborate with the Respondent's counsel to address the court's scheduling requirements. The document includes a formal certificate of service detailing the delivery of these materials to the Secretary of the FTC, the Administrative Law Judge, and the Respondent's legal counsel, William L. Rikard, Jr., on October 3, 2008. This correspondence reflects procedural efforts to align with judicial directives in the ongoing regulatory enforcement action.",{"@graph":69,"@context":123},[70,84,106],{"@type":71,"itemListElement":72},"BreadcrumbList",[73,77,79,82],{"item":74,"name":75,"@type":76,"position":8},"https://docshare.wps.com","Home","ListItem",{"item":78,"name":9,"@type":76,"position":14},"https://docshare.wps.com/document/",{"item":80,"name":40,"@type":76,"position":81},"https://docshare.wps.com/document/research-report/",3,{"item":83,"name":65,"@type":76,"position":19},"https://docshare.wps.com/document/response-to-respondents-motion-to-reschedule-hearing-date-federal-trade-commission/291472/",{"url":83,"name":65,"@type":85,"image":86,"author":91,"headline":65,"publisher":94,"fileFormat":97,"inLanguage":63,"description":67,"dateModified":98,"datePublished":99,"encodingFormat":97,"isAccessibleForFree":100,"interactionStatistic":101},"DigitalDocument",{"url":87,"@type":88,"width":89,"height":90},"https://docshare.wps.com/thumbnails/response-to-respondents-motion-to-reschedule-hearing-date-federal-trade-commission/291472.png","ImageObject",300,407,{"name":92,"@type":93},"Kyle","Person",{"url":74,"name":95,"@type":96},"DocShare","Organization","application/pdf","2026-10-19","2026-09-17",true,{"@type":102,"interactionType":103,"userInteractionCount":105},"InteractionCounter",{"@type":104},"ViewAction",12,{"@type":107,"mainEntity":108},"FAQPage",[109,115,119],{"name":110,"@type":111,"acceptedAnswer":112},"Why does the Complaint Counsel consider the Respondent's Motion to Reschedule Hearing Date moot?","Question",{"text":113,"@type":114},"The motion is considered moot because the office of Judge Chappell issued a Draft Scheduling Order on October 2, 2008, which effectively superseded the request.","Answer",{"name":116,"@type":111,"acceptedAnswer":117},"What is the position of the Complaint Counsel regarding the trial date proposed by the judge?",{"text":118,"@type":114},"The Complaint Counsel has no objection to the trial date proposed by Judge Chappell in the Draft Scheduling Order.",{"name":120,"@type":111,"acceptedAnswer":121},"How was the response served to the parties involved?",{"text":122,"@type":114},"The response was served via hand delivery to the Secretary of the FTC and the Administrative Law Judge, and via electronic mail to the Respondent's legal counsel, William L. Rikard, Jr.","https://schema.org",{"og:url":83,"og:type":125,"og:title":65,"og:site_name":95,"og:description":67},"article",{"robots":127,"canonical":83},"index,follow",{"doc_id":129,"site_id":62},291472,1789645403,{"code":4,"msg":5,"data":132},{"doc_id":129,"user_id":133,"nickname":92,"user_avatar":134,"doc_module":4,"category_id":39,"category_name":40,"doc_title":65,"doc_description":67,"doc_content":135,"file_id":136,"file_url":137,"file_type":138,"file_size":139,"view_count":105,"is_deleted":4,"is_public":8,"is_downloadable":8,"audit_status":8,"page_count":14,"language":140,"language_code":63,"site_id":62,"html_lang":63,"table_of_contents":141,"faqs":142,"seo_title":143,"seo_description":67,"update_tm":130,"read_time":24,"preview_page_count":4},3985741905716,"https://ap-avatar.wpscdn.com/davatar_994ba38a5ba835b3df7d355c54d3ed8d","Respectfully subnrtted  \nJ.Robert RobertsonComplaint CounselBureau of CompetitionFederal Trade Commission600 Pennsylvania Ave,NW(H-374)Washington,DC 20580Telephone:(202)326-2008Facsimile:(202)326-2214rrobertson@ftc.gov  \nUNITED STATES OF AMERICABEFORE THE FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION  \nIn the Matter of  \nDocket No.9327  \nPUBLIC  \n# RESPONSE TO RESPONDENT’SMOTION TORESCHEDULE HEARING DATE\n\nComplaint Counsel has received the October 2,2008 Draft Scheduling Order from JudgeChappell's office.Thus,it appears that Respondent's Motion to Reschedule Hearing Date isnow moot.Complaint Counsel has no objection to the trial date proposed by the Judge.Complaint Counsel disagrees with many of the statements made in Respondent's Motion,but inlight of the Judge's Draft Scheduling Order,we will confer with Respondent's counsel and worktogether to respond to the Order.  \nDated:October 3,2008  \n# CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE\n\nI hereby certify that on October 3,2008,I filed via hand and electronic mail delivery anoriginal and two copies of the foregoing Response to Respondent's Motion to RescheduleHearing Date with:  \nDonald S.Clark,SecretaryOffice of the SecretaryFederal Trade Commission  \n600 Pennsylvania Avenue,NW,Rm.H-135Washington,DC 20580  \nI hereby certify that on October 3,2008,I served via hand delivery two copies of theforegoing Response to Respondent's Motion to Reschedule Hearing Date with:  \nThe Honorable D.Michael ChappellAdministrative Law JudgeFederal Trade Commission600 Pennsylvania Avenue,NWWashington,DC 20580  \nI hereby certify that on October 3,2008,I served via electronic mail delivery a copy ofthe foregoing Response to Respondent's Motion to Reschedule Hearing Date with:  \nWilliam L.Rikard,Jr.  \nParker,Poe,Adams &Bernstein,LLP401 South Tryon Street,Suite 3000Charlotte,North Carolina 28202williamrikard@parkerpoe.com  \nBy:        \nLinda CunninghamFederal Trade Commission600 Pennsylvania Avenue,NWWashington,DC 20580Telephone:(202)326-2638lcunningham@ftc.gov","cbCaiosfHxAoZRkH","https://ap.wps.com/l/cbCaiosfHxAoZRkH","pdf",92481,"English","# Response to Respondent's Motion to Reschedule Hearing Date\n## Certificate of Service","[{\"question\":\"Why does the Complaint Counsel consider the Respondent's Motion to Reschedule Hearing Date moot?\",\"answer\":\"The motion is considered moot because the office of Judge Chappell issued a Draft Scheduling Order on October 2, 2008, which effectively superseded the request.\"},{\"question\":\"What is the position of the Complaint Counsel regarding the trial date proposed by the judge?\",\"answer\":\"The Complaint Counsel has no objection to the trial date proposed by Judge Chappell in the Draft Scheduling Order.\"},{\"question\":\"How was the response served to the parties involved?\",\"answer\":\"The response was served via hand delivery to the Secretary of the FTC and the Administrative Law Judge, and via electronic mail to the Respondent's legal counsel, William L. Rikard, Jr.\"}]","Response to Respondent's Motion to Reschedule Hearing Date - Federal Trade Commission | PDF"]