The K-Edge TT Mount for Garmin computers is compatible with Garmin Edge 200, 500, 510, 800, 810 & Forerunner 310XT, 910XT computers.Available August 1st, the mount will retail for $74.99 K-Edge just announced their newest computer mount, a time trial mount compatible with 22.2mm extensions. The innovation here is that the K-Edge TT Mount, to accommodate Garmin’s 1/4 turn interface with narrow bar extensions, twists instead of the computer, allowing it to be used between narrow extensions. Pics, colors, weight and more after the break. The K-Edge TT Mount has a modest reach and drop, which combined with the aforementioned mechanism which allows the mount to twist instead of the computer, keeps it in line with bar extensions. Available in black, gunmetal, or red, the K-Edge TT mount is made from CNC 6061-T6 anodized aluminium and weighs 37.5 grams.
Related Shows Tickets are now on sale for the Broadway-premiere production of Edward Albee’s Pulitzer-winning work Three Tall Women. The play will begin previews on February 27, 2018 with an opening set for March 29 at the Golden Theatre.Considered Albee’s most personal work, Three Tall Women is the portrait of a woman in life’s final act. The Broadway production stars Tony winner Laurie Metcalf, Oscar winner Glenda Jackson and Tony nominee Alison Pill. Tony winner Joe Mantello directs.Three Tall Women made its New York premiere at the Vineyard Theatre in 1994. In addition to winning the Pulitzer Prize for Drama, the play received the New York Drama Critics Circle, Lucille Lortel and Outer Critics Circle awards for Best Play.The design team for Three Tall Women includes Miriam Buether (scenic design), Ann Roth (costume design) and Brian MacDevitt (lighting design). Three Tall Women Laurie Metcalf(Photo: Emilio Madrid-Kuser) View Comments Show Closed This production ended its run on June 24, 2018
Stonewood Farm, Orwell photo.Vermont Business Magazine The Vermont Agency of Agriculture, Food & Markets (VAAFM) is pleased to announce five Local Food Market Development (LFMD) Grants, totaling $50,000, awarded to support projects that will assist Vermont farmers, businesses, and food system service providers in reaching new markets with an institutional or other wholesale focus in Vermont. This year the agency has partnered with the High Meadows Fund who contributed an additional $20,000 to augment the $30,000 from the Vermont Legislature for this grant initiative. “The strong program similarities between the VAAFM’s Local Food Market Development Grant Program and the priorities of philanthropic partners’ agricultural initiatives, provides an opportunity to grow economic success for Vermont farm and food businesses, while providing quality food to more Vermont markets,” says Secretary Anson Tebbetts. “We are proud to establish this partnership with the High Meadows Fund to develop new opportunities for Vermont producers.”Projects were selected by an independent review committee out of 15 applications, totaling requests of nearly $140,000. FY18 grantees include:Last Resort Farm(link is external) – Monkton, VTMountain Home Farm(link is external) – Tunbridge, VTStonewood Farm(link is external) – Orwell, VTFood Connects(link is external) – Brattleboro, VTNortheast Organic Farming Association of Vermont (NOFA-VT)(link is external) – Richmond, VTAll five grantees will receive $10,000 for projects that will improve access to institutional and wholesale market expansion by improving quality, efficiency, and food safety with the goal of mitigating the financial risks associated with scaling up to meet new market demands.For more information on the LFMD grant program, please visit: www.agriculture.vermont.gov/producer_partner_resources/funding_opportunities/vaafm_funding/local_food_market(link is external)For more information about the High Meadows Fund at the Vermont Community Foundation, visit: www.highmeadowsfund.org(link is external)Source: AAFM 3.28.2018
Abruzzo is ready to offer up its wonderful and pristine landscape to endurance sport enthusiasts. The area is surrounded by national parks and will welcome athletes with open arms thanks to ‘the renowned warmth of its inhabitants.’ The favourable geographic position, one hour and a half from Rome and easily reachable from other major towns, is a further plus for the region.The organisers point out that the atmosphere of the XTERRA event in Scanno is unique thanks to the presence of the lake by the same name, which with its green colour is one of the widest mountain basins in Italy. Looking at it from above, the water basin has a particular heart shape. As the XTERRA rollercoaster picks up speed in Europe, the organisers of XTERRA Abruzzo – Italy are looking to win over hearts and minds with this picturesque venue.XTERRA Abruzzo – Italy on 19-21 July is a European championship event and awards fifteen top athletes a slot for the XTERRA World Championship, which takes place in Maui on 27 October 2013.www.xterra-abruzzo.comwww.visitabruzzo.co.uk The off-road tri series phenomenon of XTERRA is scaling up in Europe with a new event in Abruzzo, Italy, tapping into the growing sport of triathlon in the country. XTERRA Abruzzo – Italy is part of the European XTERRA tour and offers up to 15 slots for the XTERRA World Championship in Maui, Hawaii.Born in 1996 on the beaches of Maui, Hawaii – XTERRA currently features more than one hundred events across the globe, a public of 4.5 million people and about 45,000 participants from over 65 countries. This year the international festival of off-road triathlon lands for the first time in one of the greenest regions in Europe and in the characteristic village of Scanno (L’Aquila).The event is scheduled for the weekend of 19-21 July and involves 1.5K of swimming, 31.5K by mountain bike and a trail run of 10.4K.Following an ‘athlete engagement model’ developed in other countries, such as the UK, where XTERRA England is building momentum, the local race organisers in Italy are partnering with a leading XTERRA athlete to help design the course.The race itinerary for XTERRA Abruzzo – Italy has been planned by Nicolas ‘Nic’ Lebrun, the Frenchman who is a symbol for the off-road discipline.As noted by the organisers, ‘In the world of XTERRA both professional and amateur athletes, united in a great community, compete in order to promote a healthy and active lifestyle in the open air, with no age restrictions.’The shared objective is to travel, explore and meet new people and stay active through physical exercise by following the XTERRA motto ‘Live more’. Related
Related Shoka has today announced the launch of Shoka Bell, a ‘smart cycling bell that brings modern tools to modern cyclists’. Launched via a Kickstarter crowd-funding campaign, Shoka Bell combines a navigation system, front light, security alarm and bell into a single unit that can be mounted on a handlebar.Users can connect the bell to a smartphone via Bluetooth and enter a destination. Shoka Bell will then guide the rider to their destination with ‘clear turn by turn directions… choosing the safest route every time.’Daniel Falus, CEO and Founder of Shoka said “Cycling is a fantastic way to get around; it’s eco-friendly, cheap and healthy too, but it hasn’t really changed in a hundred years. With Shoka Bell we’re taking cycling into the future, every cyclist should be able to navigate safely and by building a community that shares its knowledge, Shoka Bell can create the best routes for everyone. We are excited to bring this to the Kickstarter community and can’t wait to get Shoka Bar onto everyone’s handlebars.”Shoka Bell features eight sounds: honk for a car, a polite ding for pedestrians, and riders can even record their own message. There is an automatic volume control that adjusts the ringtone volume to surrounding noise. Through the app, custom ringtones can be created and even more sounds are available to download for free.Every time a Shoka Bell is rung, it’s shared with the Shoka community and, the company adds that, collectively users will warn other cyclists of dangerous junctions and difficult routes. Shoka Bell will alert riders to upcoming problem areas with a visible series of 72 LED lights on the top of the device.‘Shoka Bell always chooses the safest route, simply enter the destination in the companion app and Shoka Bell guides you turn by turn using clear arrow signals.’Shoka Bell will alert the user if their bike is moved. The clamp that is permanently attached to the bars acts as a motion sensor. If any movement is felt Shoka Bell will ring and light up to alert the user wirelessly up to 250m away.Shoka Bell is also a front light. Designed specifically for the city, the 8 front facing LEDs are ‘bright enough to get you noticed whilst not being blinding for other cyclists or drivers.’ The light is adaptive to the time of day and flashes faster at night; and it is brighter in the day to help ensure the light can be seen even in sunlight.Specification:Sound: Up to 105dBBattery life: more than 200 hoursWeight: 110gSize: 80x55x41mmLight: High-brightness front LEDsConnection: Bluetooth LE 4.1Range: Up to 250mAccelerometerLight sensorMicrophoneMagnetic mount800mAh LiPo batteryMicro USB-B connector for chargingShoka Bell will be available in six colours: blue, yellow, green, black, red and purple and features a metallic construction. It’s ‘fully weather-proof and lasts for up to a week on a full charge’. Shoka Bell will be shipping to backers in Spring 2017.www.shokabell.com
The Shawnee Chamber of Commerce has opened up applications for its 2019 Shawnee Tomorrow Leadership program. Since 1989, the program has provided aspiring community leaders with an overview of the education, health care, economic development, community service and city, county and state government systems serving the community. Participants much submit an application by Nov. 16. The program, which will run from January to May 2018, costs $1,000 in tuition. More information is available on the chamber website here.
Discovery rules for electronically stored information The Florida Bar’s Civil Procedure Rules Committee has submitted to the Supreme Court an out-of-cycle report proposing rule amendments to address discovery of electronically stored information. The committee proposes amendments to rules 1.200 (Pretrial Procedure); 1.201 (Complex Litigation); 1.280 (General Provisions Governing Discovery); 1.340 (Interrogatories to Parties); 1.350 (Production of Documents and Things and Entry upon Land for Inspection and Other Purposes); 1.380 (Failure to Make Discovery; Sanctions); and 1.410 (Subpoena). The court invites all interested persons to comment on the proposed amendments, which are reproduced in full below, as well as online at www.floridasupremecourt.org/decisions/proposed.shtml. An original and nine paper copies of all comments must be filed with the court on or before October 17, with a certificate of service verifying that a copy has been served on Kevin David Johnson, Committee Chair, Thompson Sizemore Gonzalez & Hearing P.A., 201 N Franklin Street, Suite 1600, Tampa 33602-5110, as well as a separate request for oral argument if the person filing the comment wishes to participate in oral argument, which may be scheduled in this case. The committee chair has until November 7 to file a response to any comments filed with the court. Electronic copies of all comments also must be filed in accordance with the court’s administrative order In re Mandatory Submission of Electronic Copies of Documents, Fla. Admin. Order No. AOSC04-84 (Sept. 13, 2004). IN THE SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA IN RE: AMENDMENTS TO THE FLORIDA RULES OF CIVIL PROCEDURE – ELECTRONIC DISCOVERY, CASE NO. SC11-1542. RULE 1.200. PRETRIAL PROCEDURE (a) Case Management Conference. At any time after responsive pleadings or motions are due, the court may order, or a party by serving a notice may convene a case management conference. The matter to be considered shall be specified in the order or notice setting the conference. At such a conference the court may:(1) – (4) [No Change] (5) consider the possibility of obtaining admissions of fact and voluntary exchange of documents and electronically stored information, and stipulations regarding authenticity of documents and electronically stored information; (6) consider the need for advance rulings from the court on the admissibility of documents and electronically stored information; (7) discuss as to electronically stored information, the possibility of agreements from the parties regarding the extent to which such evidence should be preserved, the form in which such evidence should be produced, and whether discovery of such information should be conducted in phases or limited to particular individuals, time periods, or sources;( 5 8 ) schedule disclosure of expert witnesses and the discovery of facts known and opinions held by such experts;( 6 9 ) schedule or hear motions in limine;( 7 10 ) pursue the possibilities of settlement;( 8 11 ) require filing of preliminary stipulations if issues can be narrowed;( 9 12 ) consider referring issues to a magistrate for findings of fact; and( 10 13 ) schedule other conferences or determine other matters that may aid in the disposition of the action. (b) – (d) [No Change] Committee Notes 1971 – 1992 Amendment. [No Change] 2012 Amendment. Subdivisions (a)(5) to (a)(7) are added to address issues involving electronically stored information. Court Commentary [No Change] RULE 1.201. COMPLEX LITIGATION (a) [No Change] (b) Initial Case Management Report and Conference. The court shall hold an initial case management conference within 60 days from the date of the order declaring the action complex.(1) At least 20 days prior to the date of the initial case management conference, attorneys for the parties as well as any parties appearing pro se shall confer and prepare a joint statement, which shall be filed with the clerk of the court no later than 14 days before the conference, outlining a discovery plan and stating:(A) – (I) [No Change] (J) the possibility of obtaining agreements among the parties regarding the extent to which such electronically stored information should be preserved, the form in which such information should be produced, and whether discovery of such information should be conducted in phases or limited to particular individuals, time periods, or sources;( J K ) suggestions on the advisability and timing of referring matters to a magistrate, master, other neutral, or mediation;( K L ) a preliminary estimate of the time required for trial;( L M ) requested date or dates for conferences before trial, a final pretrial conference, and trial;( M N ) a description of pertinent documents and a list of fact witnesses the parties believe to be relevant;( N O ) number of experts and fields of expertise; and( O P ) any other information that might be helpful to the court in setting further conferences and the trial date.(2) – (3) [No Change] (c) The Case Management Order. The case management order shall address each matter set forth under rule 1.200(a) and set the action for a pretrial conference and trial. The case management order also shall specify the following:(1) Dates by which all parties shall name their expert witnesses and provide the expert information required by rule 1.280(b)( 4 5 ). If a party has named an expert witness in a field in which any other parties have not identified experts, the other parties may name experts in that field within 30 days thereafter. No additional experts may be named unless good cause is shown.(2) – (6) [No Change] (d) [No Change] Committee Notes 2012 Amendment. Subdivision (b)(1)(J) is added to address issues involving electronically stored information. RULE 1.280. GENERAL PROVISIONS GOVERNING DISCOVERY (a) [No Change] (b) Scope of Discovery. Unless otherwise limited by order of the court in accordance with these rules, the scope of discovery is as follows: (1) – (2) [No Change] (3) Electronically Stored Information. A party may obtain discovery of electronically stored information in accordance with these rules. ( 3 4 ) Trial Preparation: Materials. Subject to the provisions of subdivision (b)( 4 5 ) of this rule, a party may obtain discovery of documents and tangible things otherwise discoverable under subdivision (b)(1) of this rule and prepared in anticipation of litigation or for trial by or for another party or by or for that party’s representative, including that party’s attorney, consultant, surety, indemnitor, insurer, or agent, only upon a showing that the party seeking discovery has need of the materials in the preparation of the case and is unable without undue hardship to obtain the substantial equivalent of the materials by other means. In ordering discovery of the materials when the required showing has been made, the court shall protect against disclosure of the mental impressions, conclusions, opinions, or legal theories of an attorney or other representative of a party concerning the litigation. Without the required showing a party may obtain a copy of a statement concerning the action or its subject matter previously made by that party. Upon request without the required showing a person not a party may obtain a copy of a statement concerning the action or its subject matter previously made by that person. If the request is refused, the person may move for an order to obtain a copy. The provisions of rule 1.380(a)(4) apply to the award of expenses incurred as a result of making the motion. For purposes of this paragraph, a statement previously made is a written statement signed or otherwise adopted or approved by the person making it, or a stenographic, mechanical, electrical, or other recording or transcription of it that is a substantially verbatim recital of an oral statement by the person making it and contemporaneously recorded. ( 4 5 ) Trial Preparation: Experts. Discovery of facts known and opinions held by experts, otherwise discoverable under the provisions of subdivision (b)(1) of this rule and acquired or developed in anticipation of litigation or for trial, may be obtained only as follows:(A)(i) interrogatories a party may require any other party to identify each person whom the other party expects to call as an expert witness at trial and to state the subject matter on which the expert is expected to testify, and to state the substance of the facts and opinions to which the expert is expected to testify and a summary of the grounds for each opinion.(ii) Any person disclosed by interrogatories or otherwise as a person expected to be called as an expert witness at trial may be deposed in accordance with rule 1.390 without motion or order of court.(iii) A party may obtain the following discovery regarding any person disclosed by interrogatories or otherwise as a person expected to be called as an expert witness at trial:1. The scope of employment in the pending case and the compensation for such service.2. The expert’s general litigation experience, including the percentage of work performed for plaintiffs and defendants.3. The identity of other cases, within a reasonable time period, in which the expert has testified by deposition or at trial.4. An approximation of the portion of the expert’s involvement as an expert witness, which may be based on the number of hours, percentage of hours, or percentage of earned income derived from serving as an expert witness; however, the expert shall not be required to disclose his or her earnings as an expert witness or income derived from other services.An expert may be required to produce financial and business records only under the most unusual or compelling circumstances and may not be compelled to compile or produce nonexistent documents. Upon motion, the court may order further discovery by other means, subject to such restrictions as to scope and other provisions pursuant to subdivision (b)( 4 5 )(C) of this rule concerning fees and expenses as the court may deem appropriate.(B) A party may discover facts known or opinions held by an expert who has been retained or specially employed by another party in anticipation of litigation or preparation for trial and who is not expected to be called as a witness at trial, only as provided in rule 1.360(b) or upon a showing of exceptional circumstances under which it is impracticable for the party seeking discovery to obtain facts or opinions on the same subject by other means.(C) Unless manifest injustice would result, the court shall require that the party seeking discovery pay the expert a reasonable fee for time spent in responding to discovery under subdivisions (b)( 4 5 )(A) and (b)( 4 5 )(B) of this rule; and concerning discovery from an expert obtained under subdivision (b)( 4 5 )(A) of this rule the court may require, and concerning discovery obtained under subdivision (b)( 4 5 )(B) of this rule shall require, the party seeking discovery to pay the other party a fair part of the fees and expenses reasonably incurred by the latter party in obtaining facts and opinions from the expert.(D) As used in these rules an expert shall be an expert witness as defined in rule 1.390(a). ( 5 6 ) Claims of Privilege or Protection of Trial Preparation Materials. When a party withholds information otherwise discoverable under these rules by claiming that it is privileged or subject to protection as trial preparation material, the party shall make the claim expressly and shall describe the nature of the documents, communications, or things not produced or disclosed in a manner that, without revealing information itself privileged or protected, will enable other parties to assess the applicability of the privilege or protection. (c) [No Change] (d) Limitations on Discovery of Electronically Stored Information. (1) A person may object to discovery of electronically stored information from sources that the person identifies as not reasonably accessible because of burden or cost. On motion to compel discovery or for a protective order, the person from whom discovery is sought must show that the information sought or the format requested is not reasonably accessible because of undue burden or cost. If that showing is made, the court may nonetheless order the discovery from such sources or in such formats if the requesting party shows good cause. The court may specify conditions of the discovery, including ordering that some or all of the expenses incurred by the person from whom discovery is sought be paid by the party seeking the discovery. (2) In determining any motion involving discovery of electronically stored information, the court must limit the frequency or extent of discovery otherwise allowed by these rules if it determines that (i) the discovery sought is unreasonably cumulative or duplicative, or can be obtained from another source or in another manner that is more convenient, less burdensome, or less expensive; or (ii) the burden or expense of the discovery outweighs its likely benefit, considering the needs of the case, the amount in controversy, the parties’ resources, the importance of the issues at stake in the action, and the importance of the discovery in resolving the issues. ( d e ) Sequence and Timing of Discovery. Except as provided in subdivision (b)( 4 5) or unless the court upon motion for the convenience of parties and witnesses and in the interest of justice orders otherwise, methods of discovery may be used in any sequence, and the fact that a party is conducting discovery, whether by deposition or otherwise, shall not delay any other party’s discovery. ( e f ) Supplementing of Responses. A party who has responded to a request for discovery with a response that was complete when made is under no duty to supplement the response to include information thereafter acquired.[From SC08-2443 – Effective 10-1-11: ( f g ) Court Filing of Documents and Discovery. Information obtained during discovery shall not be filed with the court until such time as it is filed for good cause. The requirement of good cause is satisfied only where the filing of the information is allowed or required by another applicable rule of procedure or by court order. All filings of discovery documents shall comply with Florida Rule of Judicial Administration 2.425. The court shall have the authority to impose sanctions for violation of this rule.] Committee Notes 1972 – 1996 Amendment. [No Change][From SC08-2443 – Effective 10-1-11: 2011 Amendment. [No Change] 2012 Amendment. Subdivisions (b)(3) and (d) are added to address discovery of electronically stored information. The parties should consider conferring with one another at the earliest practical opportunity to discuss the reasonable scope of preservation and production of electronically stored information. These issues may also be addressed by means of a rule 1.200 or rule 1.201 case management conference. Under the good-cause test in subdivision (d)(1), the court should balance the costs and burden of the requested discovery, including the potential for disruption of operations or corruption of the electronic devices or systems from which discovery is sought, against the relevance of the information and the requesting party’s need for that information. Under the proportionality and reasonableness factors set out in subdivision (d)(2), the court must limit the frequency or extent of discovery if it determines that the discovery sought is excessive in relation to the factors listed. In evaluating the good cause or proportionality tests, the court may find its task complicated if the parties know little about what information the sources at issue contain, whether the information sought is relevant, or how valuable it may be to the litigation. If appropriate, the court may direct the parties to develop the record further by engaging in focused discovery, including sampling of the sources, to learn more about what electronically stored information may be contained in those sources, what costs and burdens are involved in retrieving, reviewing, and producing the information, and how valuable the information sought may be to the litigation in light of the availability of information from other sources or methods of discovery, and in light of the parties’ resources and the issues at stake in the litigation. Court Commentary [No Change] RULE 1.340. INTERROGATORIES TO PARTIES (a) – (b) [No Change] (c) Option to Produce Records. When the answer to an interrogatory may be derived or ascertained from the records (including electronically stored information) of the party to whom the interrogatory is directed or from an examination, audit, or inspection of the records or from a compilation, abstract, or summary based on the records and the burden of deriving or ascertaining the answer is substantially the same for the party serving the interrogatory as for the party to whom it is directed, an answer to the interrogatory specifying the records from which the answer may be derived or ascertained and offering to give the party serving the interrogatory a reasonable opportunity to examine, audit, or inspect the records and to make copies, compilations, abstracts, or summaries is a sufficient answer. An answer shall be in sufficient detail to permit the interrogating party to locate and to identify, as readily as can the party interrogated, the records from which the answer may be derived or ascertained, or shall identify a person or persons representing the interrogated party who will be available to assist the interrogating party in locating and identifying the records at the time they are produced. If the records to be produced consist of electronically stored information, the records shall be produced in a form or forms in which they are ordinarily maintained or in a reasonably usable form or forms. (d) [No Change] (e) Service and Filing. Interrogatories shall be arranged so that a blank space is provided after each separately numbered interrogatory. The space shall be reasonably sufficient to enable the answering party to insert the answer within the space. If sufficient space is not provided, the answering party may attach additional papers with answers and refer to them in the space provided in the interrogatories. The interrogatories shall be served on the party to whom the interrogatories are directed and copies shall be served on all other parties. A certificate of service of the interrogatories shall be filed, giving the date of service and the name of the party to whom they were directed. The answers to the interrogatories shall be served upon the party originally propounding the interrogatories and a copy shall be served on all other parties by the answering party. The original or any copy of the answers to interrogatories may be filed [From SC08-2443 – Effective 10-1-11: in compliance with Florida Rule of Judicial Administration 2.425 and rule 1.280( f g )] by any party when the court should consider the answers to interrogatories in determining any matter pending before the court. The court may order a copy of the answers to interrogatories filed at any time when the court determines that examination of the answers to interrogatories is necessary to determine any matter pending before the court. Committee Notes 1972 – 1988 Amendment. [No Change][From SC08-2443 – Effective 10-1-11: 2011 Amendment. [ No Change]] 2012 Amendment. Subdivision (c) is amended to provide for the production of electronically stored information in answer to interrogatories and to set out a procedure for determining the form in which to produce electronically stored information. Court Commentary [No Change] RULE 1.350. PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS AND THINGS AND ENTRY UPON LAND FOR INSPECTION AND OTHER PURPOSES (a) Request; Scope. Any party may request any other party (1) to produce and permit the party making the request, or someone acting in the requesting party’s behalf, to inspect and copy any designated documents , including electronically stored information, writings, drawings, graphs, charts, photographs, phono-records, and other data compilations from which information can be obtained, translated, if necessary, by the party to whom the request is directed through detection devices into reasonably usable form, that constitute or contain matters within the scope of rule 1.280(b) and that are in the possession, custody, or control of the party to whom the request is directed; (2) to inspect and copy, test, or sample any tangible things that constitute or contain matters within the scope of rule 1.280(b) and that are in the possession, custody, or control of the party to whom the request is directed; or (3) to permit entry upon designated land or other property in the possession or control of the party upon whom the request is served for the purpose of inspection and measuring, surveying, photographing, testing, or sampling the property or any designated object or operation on it within the scope of rule 1.280(b). (b) Procedure. Without leave of court the request may be served on the plaintiff after commencement of the action and on any other party with or after service of the process and initial pleading on that party. The request shall set forth the items to be inspected, either by individual item or category, and describe each item and category with reasonable particularity. The request shall specify a reasonable time, place, and manner of making the inspection or performing the related acts. The party to whom the request is directed shall serve a written response within 30 days after service of the request, except that a defendant may serve a response within 45 days after service of the process and initial pleading on that defendant. The court may allow a shorter or longer time. For each item or category the response shall state that inspection and related activities will be permitted as requested unless the request is objected to, in which event the reasons for the objection shall be stated. If an objection is made to part of an item or category, the part shall be specified. When producing documents, the producing party shall either produce them as they are kept in the usual course of business or shall identify them to correspond with the categories in the request. A request for electronically stored information may specify the form or forms in which electronically stored information is to be produced. If the responding party objects to a requested form, or if no form is specified in the request, the responding party must state the form or forms it intends to use. If a request for electronically stored information does not specify the form of production, the producing party must produce the information in a form or forms in which it is ordinarily maintained or in a reasonably usable form or forms. The party submitting the request may move for an order under rule 1.380 concerning any objection, failure to respond to the request, or any part of it, or failure to permit the inspection as requested. (c) [No Change] (d) Filing of Documents. Unless required by the court, a party shall not file any of the documents or things produced with the response. Documents or things may be filed [From SC08-2443 – Effective 10-1-11: in compliance with Florida Rule of Judicial Administration 2.425 and rule 1.280( f g )] when they should be considered by the court in determining a matter pending before the court. Committee Notes 1972 – 1980 Amendment. [No Change] [ From SC08-2443 – Effective 10-1-11: 2011 Amendment. [No Change]] 2012 Amendment. Subdivision (a) is amended to address the production of electronically stored information. Subdivision (b) is amended to set out a procedure for determining the form to be used in producing electronically stored information. RULE 1.380. FAILURE TO MAKE DISCOVERY; SANCTIONS (a) – (d) [No Change] (e) Electronically Stored Information; Sanctions for Failure to Preserve. Absent exceptional circumstances, a court may not impose sanctions under these rules on a party for failing to provide electronically stored information lost as a result of the routine, good-faith operation of an electronic information system. Committee Notes 1972 – 2005 Amendment. [No Change] 2012 Amendment. Subdivision (e) is added to make clear that a party should not be sanctioned for the loss of electronic evidence due to the good-faith operation of an electronic information system; the language mirrors that of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 37(e). Nevertheless, the good-faith requirement contained in subdivision (e) should prevent a party from exploiting the routine operation of an information system to thwart discovery obligations by allowing that operation to destroy information that party is required to preserve or produce. In determining good faith, the court may consider any steps taken by the party to comply with court orders, party agreements, or requests to preserve such information. RULE 1.410. SUBPOENA (a) – (b) [No Change] (c) For Production of Documentary Evidence. A subpoena may also command the person to whom it is directed to produce the books, papers, documents (including electronically stored information), or tangible things designated therein, but the court, upon motion made promptly and in any event at or before the time specified in the subpoena for compliance therewith, may (1) quash or modify the subpoena if it is unreasonable and oppressive, or (2) condition denial of the motion upon the advancement by the person in whose behalf the subpoena is issued of the reasonable cost of producing the books, papers, documents, or tangible things. If a subpoena does not specify a form for producing electronically stored information, the person responding must produce it in a form or forms in which it is ordinarily maintained or in a reasonably usable form or forms. A person responding to a subpoena may object to discovery of electronically stored information from sources that the person identifies as not reasonably accessible because of undue costs or burden. On motion to compel discovery or to quash, the person from whom discovery is sought must show that the information sought or the form requested is not reasonably accessible because of undue costs or burden. If that showing is made, the court may nonetheless order discovery from such sources or in such forms if the requesting party shows good cause, considering the limitations set out in rule 1.280(d)(2). The court may specify conditions of the discovery, including ordering that some or all of the expenses of the discovery be paid by the party seeking the discovery. A party seeking a production of evidence at trial which would be subject to a subpoena may compel such production by serving a notice to produce such evidence on an adverse party as provided in rule 1.080(b). Such notice shall have the same effect and be subject to the same limitations as a subpoena served on the party. (d) – (h) [No Change] Committee Notes 1972 – 1996 Amendment. [No Change] 2012 Amendment. Subdivision (c) is amended to address the production of electronically stored information pursuant to a subpoena. The procedures for dealing with disputes concerning the accessibility of the information sought or the form for its production are intended to correspond to those set out in Rule 1.280(d). September 15, 2011 Regular News Discovery rules for electronically stored information
The New York Times:A Times article recently debated whether young people are more narcissistic than previous generations, mentioning Facebook as a possible factor. And a University of Michigan study, published in June, seems to support this theory.Are social media like Facebook turning us into narcissists?Read the discussion: The New York Times More of our Members in the Media >
Share The study builds on groundbreaking Stanford animal research that fundamentally has changed how scientists think about how motor cortical neurons work to control movements. “The earlier research with animals showed that many of the firing patterns that seem so confusing when we look at individual neurons become clear when we look at large groups of neurons together as a dynamical system,” Pandarinath said.Previously, researchers had two theories about how neurons in the motor cortex might control movement: One was that these neurons fired in patterns that represent more abstract commands, such as “move your arm to the right,” and then neurons in different brain areas would translate those instructions to guide the muscle contractions that make the arm move; the other was that the motor cortex neurons would actually send directions to the arm muscles, telling them how to contract.But in an animal study published in Nature in 2012, Shenoy and his colleagues reported finding that much more is going on: Motor cortical neurons work as part of an interconnected circuit — a so-called dynamical system — to create rhythmic patterns of neural activity. As these rhythmic patterns are sent to the arm, they drive muscle contractions, causing the arm to move.“What we discovered in our preclinical work is evidence of how groups of neurons coordinate and cooperate with each other in a very particular way that gives us deeper insight into how the brain is controlling the arm,” Shenoy said.He and his colleagues wanted to know whether neurons fired similarly in humans.Recording human brain activityTo conduct the study, the researchers recorded motor cortical brain activity of two research participants with the degenerative neurological condition called amyotrophic lateral sclerosis, or ALS. The condition, which also is known as Lou Gehrig’s disease, damages neurons and causes patients to lose control over their muscles.The participants, a 51-year-old woman who retained some movement in her fingers and wrists and a 54-year-old man who could still move one of his index fingers slightly, are participants in the BrainGate2 trial, which is testing a neural interface system allowing thoughts to control computer cursors, robotic arms and other assistive devices.These participants had electrode arrays implanted in their brains’ motor cortex for the trial. That allowed researchers to record electrical brain activity from individual neurons while the participants moved or tried to move their fingers and wrists, which were equipped with sensors to record physical movement. Typically, such mapping in humans can only occur during brain surgery.The participants’ implants provided an “opportunity to ask important scientific questions,” Shenoy said. The researchers found that the ALS patients’ neurons worked very similarly to the preclinical research findings.Researchers now plan to use their data to improve the algorithms that translate neural activity in the form of electrical impulses into control signals that can guide a robotic arm or a computer cursor. LinkedIn Share on Facebook Email Stanford University researchers studying how the brain controls movement in people with paralysis, related to their diagnosis of Lou Gehrig’s disease, have found that groups of neurons work together, firing in complex rhythms to signal muscles about when and where to move.“We hope to apply these findings to create prosthetic devices, such as robotic arms, that better understand and respond to a person’s thoughts,” said Jaimie Henderson, MD, professor of neurosurgery.A paper describing the study will be published online June 23 in eLife. Henderson, who holds the John and Jene Blume-Robert and Ruth Halperin Professorship, and Krishna Shenoy, PhD, professor of electrical engineering and a Howard Hughes Medical Institute investigator, share senior authorship of the paper. The lead author is postdoctoral scholar Chethan Pandarinath, PhD. Share on Twitter Pinterest
LinkedIn Email In new research published in Psychoneuroendocrinology, scientists have shown that loving-kindness meditation has a positive impact at the cellular level. The study examined how different types of meditation influenced telomere length, an indicator of physiological aging.Telomeres are the end caps of DNA on our chromosomes, which help in DNA replication and get shorter over time.“Chronological age and biological age are not identical. The former is measured in years, whereas the latter is often indexed by telomere length,” the authors of the new study explained. “Telomeres progressively shorten with cell division (i.e., aging) in general, but may also be replenished, or lengthened, by the enzyme telomerase.” For their 12-week long study, the researchers recruited 176 participants between 35-64 years old from Durham and Orange County of North Carolina. All of the participants reported having little to no meditation experience.The participants were randomly assigned to a 6-week loving-kindness meditation workshop, a 6-week mindfulness meditation workshop, or a waitlist control group. To measure telomere length, the researchers collected blood samples from the participants at the beginning and end of the study.While the mindfulness meditation workshop helped the participants to cultivate a nonjudgmental attitude and focus on the present moment, the loving-kindness meditation workshop helped the participants to cultivate warm and friendly feelings towards others.Overall, telomere length tended to shorten for everyone. “However, the daily practice of loving-kindness meditation appeared to buffer against that attrition,” the researchers said. Participants in the loving-kindness group “showed no significant telomere shortening over time.”“Whereas participants in the mindfulness group, on average, showed significant telomere shortening over time, those changes were intermediate between the loving-kindness meditation and waitlist control groups,” the researchers added.The study is not the first to find a relationship between meditation and telomere length.Research published in the journal Cancer in 2014 found that telomeres maintained their length in breast cancer survivors who practiced mindfulness meditation. Additionally, a 2018 study in the journal Brain, Behavior, and Immunity found that telomere length actually increased in meditation retreat participants after three weeks.But the new study was the first to compare loving-kindness meditation and mindfulness meditation.The underlying mechanism that links meditation and the aging process is still unclear. The participants provided daily emotion reports throughout the study, but changes in positive and negative emotions had no relationship to changes in telomere length.The study, “Loving-kindness meditation slows biological aging in novices: Evidence from a 12-week randomized controlled trial“, was authored by Khoa D. Le Nguyen, Jue Lin, Sara B. Algoe, Mary M. Brantley, Sumi L. Kim, Jeffrey Brantley, Sharon Salzberg, and Barbara L. Fredrickson. Share on Twitter Share Share on Facebook Pinterest