Clerk

Describes motivation process for creativity with emphasis on intrinsic motivation by Corey K Katir

NOTICE TO BIDDERS NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN THAT sealed bids will be received in the office of the Tuolumne County Community Resources Agency at the A.N. Francisco Building, Fourth Floor, 48 W. Yaney, (mail: 2 South Green Street) Sonora, California until 2:15 p.m. on June 7, 2012 (“Bid Date”) after which said bids will be publicly opened and read in the Third Floor Conference Room at 48 West Yaney, in accordance with the contract documents referred to as: Special Districts Pavement Rehabilitation 2012 Contract No. #1640 Any bid received after the time and date listed above will be returned unopened. Bids are required for the entire work described in accordance with the provisions of the contract documents on the proposal forms furnished therein, and in accordance with these Special Provisions and with the Standard Specifications and Standard Plans published by the State of California Department of Transportation (Caltrans), dated May 2006. DESCRIPTION OF WORK: The work to be done consists, in general, of rehabilitating pavement surfaces in various County Service Areas with either an asphalt rubber cape seal or crack sealing on existing pavement and other related items of work. No pre-bid meeting is scheduled for this project. Any communications relative to this project should be directed in writing to: Sharon Mikesell, Engineering Technician Community Resources Agency; Special Districts Administration 2 South Green Street Sonora, CA 95370 CONTRACT DOCUMENTS: Plans, specifications, proposal forms, and reduced plans for bidding this project may be examined or obtained at the Community Resources Agency, located at 48 West Yaney Street (mail to: 2 S. Green St.), Sonora, California 95370 (209-533-5601). A non-refundable charge of $25.00 will be made for each document set. COMPLETION OF WORK: The Bidder is referred to Section 8 of the Special Provisions which allows 35 working days for completion of the work. Liquidated damages of $600 per calendar day will be assessed for each day of delay in completion of the work. QUANTITY OF WORK: The quantities shown in the proposal forms are approximate only and given as a basis for the comparison of bids. The County of Tuolumne does not expressly or by implication assert that the actual amount of work will correspond herewith and reserves the right to increase or decrease the amount of any portion of the work or to omit portions of the work as may be deemed necessary. BID SECURITY: All bids shall be accompanied by cash or a certified or cashiers check payable to the order of the County of Tuolumne amounting to ten percent (10%) of the bid or a bond in said amount payable to the County as liquidated damages. Said amount shall be retained by, or said bond shall become payable to, the County if the bidder depositing same does not, within ten (10) working days after written notice that the contract has been award- ed to him, enter into a contract with the County. BONDS: The successful bidder shall furnish a payment bond and a performance bond, each in the amount of one hundred (100) percent of the contract price, and a maintenance warranty bond in an amount equal to twenty five (25) percent of the contract price. ADDENDUMS TO BID DOCUMENTS: The Engineer may issue addendums to the project plans and specifications as he deems necessary to modify the project documents prior to opening of bids. Addendums will be in writing and may modify the content of the project documents as well as the date that bids are accepted by the County. LOCAL VENDORS: The County encourages bidders to consider using local vendors when putting together their proposals. Be advised that the inclusion or exclusion of local vendors will not be taken into consideration when the County reviews the submitted bid proposals. CONTRACTOR LICENSE REQUIRED: The successful bidder, before contract award, shall possess a current Class A Engineering Contractor or Class C-12 Earthwork & Paving Contractor license issued by the State of California Licensing Board. Failure of the bidder to obtain the required license before award of the contract shall constitute a failure to execute the contract and shall result in the forfeiture of the security of the bidder. WAGE RATES: Pursuant to Section 1773 of the Labor Code, the general prevailing wage rates in the County in which the work is to be done have been determined by the Director of the California Department of Industrial Relations. These wages are set forth in the General Prevailing Wage Rates for this project, available at the County of Tuolumne Community Resources Agency and available from the California Department of Industrial Relations Internet web site at http://www.dir.ca.gov. BUY AMERICA REQUIREMENT: This project is subject to the Buy America provisions of the Surface Transportation Assistance Act of 1982 as amended by the Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act of 1991. PAYMENT RETENTION: Upon the Contractors request, the County will make payment of funds withheld from progress payments, pursuant to the requirements of Public Contracts Code section 22300 if, the Contractor deposits, in escrow with the County Treasurer or with a bank acceptable to the County, securities eligible for the investment of State of California funds under Government Code section 16430 or bank or savings and loan certificates of deposit in accordance with the conditions of the Special Provisions. AWARD OF CONTRACT: The award of the contract, if it is to be awarded, will be to the lowest responsible bidder whose proposal complies with all the requirements prescribed, such award, if made, will be made within sixty (60) days after the opening of the proposals. The award of the contract will be subject to the availability of funds. The County of Tuolumne reserves the right to reject any or all bids and to waive any irregularities in the bidding. Alicia Jamar Chief Deputy Clerk of the Board of Supervisors Dated: 05/15/2012 Publication Dates: May 18 & 31, 2012 The Union Democrat, Sonora, CA 95370

NOTICE TO BIDDERS NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN THAT sealed bids will be received in the office of the Tuolumne County Community Resources Agency at the A.N. Francisco Building, Fourth Floor, 48 W. Yaney, (mail: 2 South Green Street) Sonora, California until 2:00 p.m. on June 7, 2012 (“Bid Date”) after which said bids will be publicly opened and read in the Third Floor Conference Room at 48 West Yaney, in accordance with the contract documents referred to as: Jamestown Landfill Storm Damage Repair Any bid received after the time and date listed above will be returned unopened. Bids are required for the entire work described in accordance with the provisions of the contract documents on the proposal forms furnished therein, and in accordance with these Special Provisions and with the Standard Specifications and Standard Plans published by the State of California Department of Transportation (Caltrans), dated May 2006. DESCRIPTION OF WORK: The work to be done consists, in general, of providing all material, labor, and equipment necessary to construct reinforced shotcrete facing anchored to soil nails. Work shall include, but not limited to: Mobilization, developing site acess, removing and replacing existing pipe, clearing and grubbing, slope facing, geocomposite drains behind shotcrete facing and in trenches, shotcrete drainage inlet, and plastic pipe downdrain. PRE-BID INFORMATION AND COMMUNICATIONS: A mandatory pre-bid meeting will be scheduled on Friday June 1, 2012 from 2:00pm-3:00pm at the Jamestown Landfill, Campo Seco Terrace, Jamestown, California. Bidders shall address any questions in writing to the County. The County will circulate the questions, along with written responses, to the bidders list by email. Except for questions that might render the award of this contract invalid, the County will not respond to any questions submitted five (5) days prior to the Bid Date. Any oral responses to questions are not binding on the County. Any communications relative to this project should be directed in writing to: Tanya Allen, P.E., Senior Civil Engineer Community Resources Agency 2 South Green Street Sonora, CA 95370 CONTRACT DOCUMENTS: Plans, specifications, proposal forms, and reduced plans for bidding this project may be examined or obtained at the Community Resources Agency, located at 48 West Yaney Street (mail to: 2 S. Green St.), Sonora, California 95370 (209-533-5601). A non-refundable charge of $25.00 will be made for each set of specifications and half size set. A non-refundable $30.00 charge will be made for each set of full size plans. COMPLETION OF WORK: The Bidder is referred to Section 8 of the Special Provisions which allows 30 working days for completion of the work. Liquidated damages of $950 per calendar day will be assessed for each day of delay in completion of the work. QUANTITY OF WORK: The quantities shown in the proposal forms are approximate only and given as a basis for the comparison of bids. The County of Tuolumne does not expressly or by implication assert that the actual amount of work will correspond herewith and reserves the right to increase or decrease the amount of any portion of the work or to omit portions of the work as may be deemed necessary. BID SECURITY: All bids shall be accompanied by cash or a certified or cashiers check payable to the order of the County of Tuolumne amounting to ten percent (10%) of the bid or a bond in said amount payable to the County as liquidated damages. Said amount shall be retained by, or said bond shall become payable to, the County if the bidder depositing same does not, within ten (10) working days after written notice that the contract has been awarded to him, enter into a contract with the County. BONDS: The successful bidder shall furnish a payment bond and a performance bond, each in the amount of one hundred (100) percent of the contract price, and a maintenance warranty bond in an amount equal to twenty five (25) percent of the contract price. ADDENDUMS TO BID DOCUMENTS: The Engineer may issue addendums to the project plans and specifications as he deems necessary to modify the project documents prior to opening of bids. Addendums will be in writing and may modify the content of the project documents as well as the date that bids are accepted by the County. LOCAL VENDORS: The County encourages bidders to consider using local vendors when putting together their proposals. Be advised that the inclusion or exclusion of local vendors will not be taken into consideration when the County reviews the submitted bid proposals. CONTRACTOR LICENSE REQUIRED: The successful bidder, before contract award, shall possess a current Class A Engineering Contractor license issued by the State of California Licensing Board. Failure of the bidder to obtain the required license before award of the contract shall constitute a failure to execute the contract and shall result in the forfeiture of the security of the bidder. WAGE RATES: Pursuant to Section 1773 of the Labor Code, the general prevailing wage rates in the County in which the work is to be done have been determined by the Director of the California Department of Industrial Relations. These wages are set forth in the General Prevailing Wage Rates for this project, available at the County of Tuolumne Community Resources Agency and available from the California Department of Industrial Relations Internet web site at http://www.dir.ca.gov. BUY AMERICA REQUIREMENT: This project is subject to the Buy America provisions of the Surface Transportation Assistance Act of 1982 as amended by the Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act of 1991. PAYMENT RETENTION: Upon the Contractors request, the County will make payment of funds withheld from progress payments, pursuant to the requirements of Public Contracts Code section 22300 if, the Contractor deposits, in escrow with the County Treasurer or with a bank acceptable to the County, securities eligible for the investment of State of California funds under Government Code section 16430 or bank or savings and loan certificates of deposit in accordance with the conditions of the Special Provisions. AWARD OF CONTRACT: The award of the contract, if it is to be awarded, will be to the lowest responsible bidder whose proposal complies with all the requirements prescribed. Such award, if made, will be made within sixty (60) days after the opening of the proposals. The award of the contract will be subject to the availability of funds. The County of Tuolumne reserves the right to reject any or all bids and to waive any irregularities in the bidding. Alicia Jamar Chief Deputy Clerk of the Board of Supervisors Dated: May 15, 2012 Publication Dates: May 18 & June 1, 2012. The Union Democrat, Sonora, CA 95370

LUKE T. FREDERICI CA BAR #266128 NV BAR 12367 HAWKINS, FOLSOM & MUIR One East Liberty St. -Suite 416, Reno, NV 89501 Phone: (775) 786-4646, Fax: (775) 786-7334 Email: lukefed1123@yahoo.com ATTORNEY FOR: BILLY G. PETERS SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF TUOLUMNE 41 W. Yaney Avenue, Sonora, CA 95370 Probate Division ESTATE OF: LESTER JAMES PETERS, also known as LESTER J. PETERS DECEDENT NOTICE OF PETITION TO ADMINISTER ESTATE OF: LESTER JAMES PETERS, also known as LESTER J. PETERS CASE NUMBER PR-10828 1. To all heirs, beneficiaries, creditors, contingent creditors, and persons who may be otherwise interested in the will or estate, or both, of: LESTER JAMES PETERS, also known as LESTER J. PETERS 2. A Petition for Probate has been filed by: BILLY G. PETERS in the Superior Court of California, County of: Tuolumne. 3. The Petition for Probate requests that BILLY G. PETERS be appointed as personal representative to administer the estate of the decedent. 5. THE PETITION requests authority to administer the estate under the independent Administration of Estates Act. (This authority will allow the personal representative to take many actions without obtaining court approval. Before taking certain very important actions, however, the personal representative will be required to give notice to interested persons unless they have waived notice or consented to the proposed action.) The independent administration authority will be granted unless an interested person files an objection to the petition and shows good cause why the court should not grant the authority. 6. A HEARING on the petition will be held in this court as follows: Date: June 8, 2012, Time: 8:30 a.m. in Dept 3, at 60 N. Washington St. Sonora, CA 95370 7. IF YOU OBJECT to the granting of the petition, you should appear at the hearing and state your objections or file written objections with the court before the hearing. Your appearance may be in person or by your attorney. 8. IF YOU ARE A CREDITOR or a contingent creditor of the deceased, you must file your claim with the court and mail a copy to the personal representative appointed by the court within four months from the date of first issuance of letters as provided in section 9100 of the California Probate Code. the time for filing claims will not expire before four months from the hearing date noticed above. 9. YOU MAY EXAMINE the file kept by the court. If you are a person interested in the estate, you may file with the court a Request for Special Notice (form DE-154) of the filing of an inventory and appraisal of estate assets or of any petition or account as provided in Probate Code section 1250. A Request for Special Notice form is available from the court clerk. Petitioner: 22500 Ferretti Rd, Groveland, CA 95321 Phone: (209) 962-7396 Filed May 11, 2012, By: Donna Benz, Clerk Publication Dates: May 18, 22, 25, 2012. The Union Democrat, Sonora, CA 95370

KATHLENE D. ENNI 13852 Cedro Ct. La Grange, CA 95329 (209) 852-0288 myladyke@gmail.com SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA, COUNTY OF TUOLUMNE 41 West Yaney Avenue Sonora, CA 95370 PETITION OF: KATHLENE DORENDA ENNI -FOR CHANGE OF NAME ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE FOR CHANGE OF NAME CASE NO. CV 57463 TO ALL INTERESTED PERSONS: Petitioner KATHLENE D. ENNI filed a petition with this court for a decree changing names as follows: Present name: KATHLENE DORENDA ENNI Proposed name: KATHY ENNI THE COURT ORDERS that all persons interested in this matter shall appear before this court at the hearing indicated below to show cause, if any, why the petition for change of name should not be granted. NOTICE OF HEARING: 7-12-2012, 9:30 a.m, Dept 3, 60 N. Washington St. Sonora, CA 95370. A copy of this Order to Show Cause shall be published at least once each week for four successive weeks prior to the date set for hearing on the petition in the following newspaper of general circulation, printed in this county: The Union Democrat. By: Donald Segerstrom Judge of the Superior Court Date: May 14, 2012 FILED: May 14, 2012 By: Donna Benz, Clerk Publication Dates: May 18, 25 and June 1, 8, 2012 The Union Democrat, Sonora, CA 95370

Jordan Scott Hensley 20361 Bay Meadow Dr. Sonora, CA 95370 (209-531-8986 hensley.jordan@ ymail.com SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA, COUNTY OF TUOLUMNE 41 West Yaney Avenue Sonora, CA 95370 PETITION OF: JORDAN SCOTT HENSLEY FOR CHANGE OF NAME ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE FOR CHANGE OF NAME CASE NO. CV 57437 TO ALL INTERESTED PERSONS: Petitioner JORDAN SCOTT HENSLEY filed a petition with this court for a decree changing names as follows: Present name: Jordan Scott Hensley Proposed name: Jordan Hensley Speelman THE COURT ORDERS that all persons interested in this matter shall appear before this court at the hearing indicated below to show cause, if any, why the petition for change of name should not be granted. NOTICE OF HEARING: 6-28-2012, 9:30 a.m, Dept 3, 60 N. Washington St. Sonora, CA 95370. A copy of this Order to Show Cause shall be published at least once each week for four successive weeks prior to the date set for hearing on the petition in the following newspaper of general circulation, printed in this county: The Union Democrat. By: Donald Segerstrom Judge of the Superior Court Date: May 03, 2012 FILED: May 03, 2012 By: Donna Benz, Clerk Publication Dates: May 11, 18, 25 and June 1, 2012 The Union Democrat, Sonora, CA 95370

FICTITIOUS BUSINESS NAME STATEMENT TUOLUMNE COUNTY CLERK & AUDITOR – CONTROLLER 2 S. Green St. Sonora, CA 95370 (209) 533-5573 FILE NO. 2012000205 Date: 5/8/2012 01:52P DEBORAH RUSSELL, CLERK & AUDITOR – CONTROLLER The following Person(s) is (are) doing business as: Fictitious Business Name (s): SECOND 2 NONE Street address of principal place of business: 14841 Mono Way Sonora, CA 95370 Name of registrant: Daily, Crystal 3243 Kansas Ave. Modesto, CA 95358 Registrant has not yet begun to transact business under the fictitious business name or names listed above. This Business is conducted by an individual. s/ Crystal Daily NOTICE- This statement expires five years from the date it was filed in the office of the County Clerk. A new FBN statement must be filed no more than 40 days from expiration. The filing of this statement does not of itself authorize the use in the state of a fictitious business name in violation of the rights of another under federal, state, or common law (B & P Code 1411 et seq.) CERTIFICATION I hereby certify that the foregoing is a correct copy of the original statement on file in my office. Deborah Russell, County Clerk & Auditor-Controller, By: Theresa K. Badgett, Deputy Publication Dates: May 11, 18, 25 and June 1, 2012 The Union Democrat, Sonora, CA 95370

FICTITIOUS BUSINESS NAME STATEMENT TUOLUMNE COUNTY CLERK & AUDITOR – CONTROLLER 2 S. Green St. Sonora, CA 95370 (209) 533-5573 FILE NO. 2012000204 Date: 5/8/2012 01:25P DEBORAH RUSSELL, CLERK & AUDITOR – CONTROLLER The following Person(s) is (are) doing business as: Fictitious Business Name (s): RAYDENS RINDS Street address of principal place of business: 11355 Columbia Vlg Dr. Apt. C Sonora, CA 95370 Name of registrant: A) St. Lawrence, Eric 11355 Columbia Vlg Dr. Apt. C Sonora, CA 95370 B) St. Lawrence, Sharmayne 11355 Columbia Vlg Dr. Apt. C Sonora, CA 95370 Registrant has not yet begun to transact business under the fictitious business name or names listed above. This Business is conducted by a husband and wife. s/ Eric St. Lawrence s/ Sharmayne NOTICE- This statement expires five years from the date it was filed in the office of the County Clerk. A new FBN statement must be filed no more than 40 days from expiration. The filing of this statement does not of itself authorize the use in the state of a fictitious business name in violation of the rights of another under federal, state, or common law (B & P Code 1411 et seq.) CERTIFICATION I hereby certify that the foregoing is a correct copy of the original statement on file in my office. Deborah Russell, County Clerk & Auditor-Controller, By: Theresa K. Badgett, Deputy Publication Dates: May 11, 18, 25 and June 1, 2012 The Union Democrat, Sonora, CA 95370

FICTITIOUS BUSINESS NAME STATEMENT TUOLUMNE COUNTY CLERK & AUDITOR – CONTROLLER 2 S. Green St. Sonora, CA 95370 (209) 533-5573 FILE NO. 2012000189 Date: 5/1/2012 11:24A DEBORAH RUSSELL, CLERK & AUDITOR – CONTROLLER The following Person(s) is (are) doing business as: Fictitious Business Name (s): RELAX SOLE MASSAGE Street address of principal place of business: 13769 Mono Way #K Sonora, CA 95370 Name of registrant: New Star HC, Inc. 513 W. Emerson Ave. Apt. A, Monterey Park, CA 91754 Articles of Corporation: #C3332288 CA Registrant has not yet begun to transact business under the fictitious business name or names listed above. This Business is conducted by a corporation. New Star HC, Inc. s/ Jing Chen-CEO NOTICE- This statement expires five years from the date it was filed in the office of the County Clerk. A new FBN statement must be filed no more than 40 days from expiration. The filing of this statement does not of itself authorize the use in the state of a fictitious business name in violation of the rights of another under federal, state, or common law (B & P Code 1411 et seq.) CERTIFICATION I hereby certify that the foregoing is a correct copy of the original statement on file in my office. Deborah Russell, County Clerk & Auditor-Controller, By: Theresa K. Badgett Deputy Publication Dates: May 4, 11, 18, 25, 2012 The Union Democrat, Sonora, CA 95370

FICTITIOUS BUSINESS NAME STATEMENT File No. 2012000164 The following person(s) is (are) doing business as: Supercuts #90807, 13541 LAKEWOOD BLVD #200, Downey, CA 90242 Supercuts Corporate Shops, Inc., 7201 Metro Blvd, Minneapolis, MN 55439 This business is conducted by a Corporation The registrant(s) commenced to transact business under the fictitious business name or names listed above on N/A. I declare that all information in this statement is true and correct. (A registrant who declares as true information which he or she knows to be false is guilty of a crime.) Supercuts Corporate Shops, Inc. S/ Brent Moen, Vice President, This statement was filed with the County Clerk of Tuolumne County on 04/17/2012. NOTICE-This Fictitious Name Statement expires five years from the date it was filed in the office of the County Clerk. A New Fictitious Business Name Statement must be filed before that time. The filing of this statement does not of itself authorize the use in this state of a Fictitious Business Name in violation of the rights of another under Federal, State, or common law (See Section 14411 et seq., Business and Professions Code). County Clerk By , Deputy CNS-2291995# Publication dates: 4/27, 5/4, 5/11, 5/18/12 The Union Democrat, Sonora, CA 95370

FICTITIOUS BUSINESS NAME STATEMENT TUOLUMNE COUNTY CLERK & AUDITOR – CONTROLLER 2 S. Green St. Sonora, CA 95370 (209) 533-5573 FILE NO. 2012000180 Date: 4/24/2012 12:01P DEBORAH RUSSELL, CLERK & AUDITOR – CONTROLLER The following Person(s) is (are) doing business as: Fictitious Business Name (s): WATER WHEEL PIZZA PARLOR & SALOON Street address of principal place of business: 22265 Parrots Ferry Rd Sonora, CA 95370 Name of registrant: A) Minners, Arend 130 Bourbin Street Sonora, CA 95370 B) Maisel, Brad 130 Bourbin Street Sonora, CA 95370 The registrant has not yet begun to transact business under the fictitious business name or names listed above. This Business is conducted by co-partners. s/ Arend Minners s/ Brad Maisel NOTICE- This statement expires five years from the date it was filed in the office of the County Clerk. A new FBN statement must be filed no more than 40 days from expiration. The filing of this statement does not of itself authorize the use in the state of a fictitious business name in violation of the rights of another under federal, state, or common law (B & P Code 1411 et seq.) CERTIFICATION I hereby certify that the foregoing is a correct copy of the original statement on file in my office. Deborah Russell, County Clerk & Auditor-Controller, By: Elisha Bundesen Deputy Publication Dates: April 27 and May 4, 11, 18, 2012 The Union Democrat, Sonora, CA 95370

FICTITIOUS BUSINESS NAME STATEMENT TUOLUMNE COUNTY CLERK & AUDITOR – CONTROLLER 2 S. Green St. Sonora, CA 95370 (209) 533-5573 FILE NO. 2012000148 Date: 4/9/2012 08:40A DEBORAH RUSSELL, CLERK & AUDITOR – CONTROLLER The following Person(s) is (are) doing business as:Fictitious Business Name (s): YOSEMITE JOINT REPLACEMENT AND ORTHOPEDIC CENTER Street address of principal place of business: 680 Guzzi Lane Ste 102 Sonora, CA 95370 Business mailing address: SRMC-Clinic Services 1000 Greenley Rd, Sonora, CA 95370 Name of registrant: Sonora Regional Medical Center 1000 Greenley Rd., Sonora, CA 95370 Articles of Incorporation A0611371 CA The registrant will commence to transact business under the fictitious business name or names listed above on 5/1/2012. This Business is conducted by a corporation. Sonora Regional Medical Center s/ Jeff Eller, President NOTICE- This statement expires five years from the date it was filed in the office of the County Clerk. A new FBN statement must be filed no more than 40 days from expiration. The filing of this statement does not of itself authorize the use in the state of a fictitious business name in violation of the rights of another under federal, state, or common law (B & P Code 1411 et seq.) CERTIFICATION I hereby certify that the foregoing is a correct copy of the original statement on file in my office. Deborah Russell, County Clerk & Auditor-Controller, By: Elisha Bundesen Deputy Publication Dates: April 27 and May 4, 11, 18, 2012 The Union Democrat, Sonora, CA 95370

In re Online DVD Rental Antitrust Litig., No. M 09-2029 PJH, 2012 WL 1414111 (N.D. Cal. Apr. 20, 2012)

Plaintiffs moved for review of the clerk’s taxation of costs, including those related to electronic discovery.  Noting the recent decision of the Third Circuit in Race Tires America Inc. v. Hoosier Racing Tire Corp, which narrowly interpreted 28 U.S.C. § 1920(4) and which vacated a lower court’s approval of many costs related to electronic discovery, the California court nonetheless declined to disallow the costs related to electronic discovery in this case: 

The court declines to disallow remaining costs on the grounds argued by plaintiffs (e.g., TiFF conversion costs; copying/”blowback” costs purportedly not documented; document productions purportedly not delivered; professional fees re visual aids).  Furthermore, although the court takes note of the Third Circuit’s well-reasoned opinion in Race Tires Am., Inc. v. Hoosier Racing Tire Crop., ––– F.3d ––––, 2012 WL 887593 (3d Cir. Mar.16, 2012), the court concludes that in the absence of directly analogous Ninth Circuit authority, and in view of the court’s prior order in connection with the Blockbuster subscriber plaintiffs’ motion for review of the clerk’s taxation of costs, broad construction of section 1920 with respect to electronic discovery production costs—under the facts of this case—is appropriate.  See also Taniguchi v. Kan Pacific Saipan, Ltd., 633 F.3d 1218, 1221 (9th Cir.2011) (although the court is restricted in awarding costs to the categories enumerated in § 1920, “[d]istrict courts are free to interpret the meaning of the cast of categories listed within § 1920”).

Following adjustments to the clerk’s original award to omit disallowed costs, the total award to Netflix equaled $710,194.23.

A copy of the order is available here.

United Factory Furniture Corp. v. Alterwitz, No. 2:12-cv-00059-KJD-VCF, 2012 WL 1155741 (D. Nev. Apr. 6, 2012)

Here, the court granted plaintiff’s motion to compel mirror-imaging of defendants’ personal computers for the purpose of preservation where plaintiff alleged that defendants had wrongfully accessed its computer systems using the personal computers at issue, where plaintiff asserted that defendants’ ongoing use of the computers would result in the loss of relevant data, and where the court determined that in light of the circumstances of the case (and following analysis of the relevant factors) the need for mirror-imaging outweighed the burden.

This case was filed under interesting circumstances: defendants were terminated from United Factory Furniture Corporation (“UFFC”) upon UFFC’s discovery that they were wrongfully accessing the company’s information systems and manipulating data, among other things.  Following that termination, defendant Alterwitz filed suit against UFFC.  While that litigation was pending, UFFC became concerned that defendants continued to access its information systems using a “back door” to the company server that was set up by defendant Green (Alterwitz’s husband), whose prior employment with UFFC involved managing and maintaining its computer server and network services.  These fears were exacerbated by defendant Alterwitz’s statement that she knew “what is being written in company emails” and her production of emails which were neither sent to, nor from, defendant Alterwitz or her husband.  Closer investigation confirmed that tampering with UFFC’s information systems was ongoing.  Thus, UFFC filed its own action, which underlies the opinion summarized here.

Fearful of the loss of relevant information, UFFC filed a motion seeking a preliminary injunction/preservation order and an order compelling the creation of mirror-images of defendants’ personal computers.  Initially, the court found that there was good cause to permit expedited discovery.  Taking up the motion for a preliminary injunction/preservation order, the court determined that no such injunction was necessary where defendants were already under an obligation to preserve relevant evidence and because the court would grant the motion to compel mirror-imaging.

Turning then to the motion for mirror-imaging, UFFC was particularly concerned that ongoing use of the computer equipment at issue would result in information being overwritten or lost.  Defendants objected, arguing that taking mirror-images of their personal computers would be unduly intrusive and would violate the federal rules because discovery had not yet commenced.  “Considering the circumstances of this case,” the court disagreed and found mirror-imaging to be “appropriate to maintain the status quo.”  The court’s analysis also weighed the benefit and burden of the requested imaging considering 1) the needs of the case, 2) the amount in controversy, 3) the importance of the issues at stake, 4) the potential for finding relevant material, and 5) the importance of the proposed discovery in resolving the issues.  The court determined that all factors weighed in favor of mirror-imaging.  The court also noted plaintiff’s willingness to bear the costs associated with the imaging.

Accordingly—and recognizing the defendants’ privacy interests—the court outlined a protocol which would result in the mirror-imaging of defendants’ personal computers and other functional electronic devices by a neutral examiner who would be subject to a protective order and would serve as an officer of the court.  The resulting mirror-images would then be secured in the Clerk’s Office vault.  The mirror-images would remain there unless UFFC had reason to believe that spoliation had occurred, at which time a motion to compel access would have to be filed.  If no such motion was filed, the mirror-images would be disposed of upon resolution of the action.

A copy of the order is available here.

Race Tires Amer., Inc. v. Hoosier Racing Tire, Corp., 674 F.R.D. 158 (3d Cir. 2012)

On appeal, the Third Circuit vacated the District Court’s approval of taxable costs related to electronic discovery and remanded with instruction to re-tax in accordance with this opinion.  Specifically, the court concluded that the relevant vendors’ charges “would not qualify as fees for ‘exemplification’” and that “of the numerous services the vendors performed, only the scanning of hard copy documents, the conversion of native files to TIFF, and the transfer of VHS tapes to DVD involved ‘copying’” and were thus recoverable.

Following the District Court’s grant of the defense summary judgment motions, the Clerk for the District Court considered the Bills of Costs submitted by the defendants and ultimately concluded that “electronic discovery costs would be consider[ed] … taxable, as opposed to just … the cost of litigating.”  In response, Plaintiff filed a Motion to Appoint a Special Master Regarding E-Discovery Issues and a Motion to Review Taxation of Costs.  “[O]n May 6, 2011, the District Court declined to appoint a Special Master and affirmed the Clerk’s taxation of the electronic discovery vendor charges.”  In so deciding, the court “essentially found that ‘the steps the third-party vendor(s) performed appeared to be the electronic equivalent of exemplification and copying.’”  Plaintiff timely appealed.

The question presented on appeal was whether 28 U.S.C. § 1920(4) “authorizes the taxation of an electronic discovery consultant’s charges for data collection, preservation, searching, culling, conversion, and production as either ‘exemplification [or] the . . . making [of] copies of any materials where the copies are necessarily obtained for use in this case.’”  “[W]hether a particular expense falls within the purview of section 1920, and thus may be taxed in the first place, is an issue of statutory construction, subject to de novo review.”

In short, the court held that none of the work performed by the vendors would qualify as “exemplification” and that only “the scanning of hard copy documents, the conversion of native files to TIFF, and the transfer of VHS tapes to DVD, involved ‘copying.’”  Briefly summarizing its underlying analysis, the court stated:

Neither the language of § 1920(4), nor its history, suggests that Congress intended to shift all the expenses of a particular form of discovery— production of ESI—to the losing party.  Nor can such a result find support in Supreme Court precedent, which has accorded a narrow reading of the cost statute in other contexts.  See, e.g., Crawford Fitting Co., 482 U.S. at 442.  Although there may be strong policy reasons in general, or compelling equitable circumstances in a particular case, to award the full cost of electronic discovery to the prevailing party, the federal courts lack the authority to do so, either generally or in particular cases, under the cost statute. FN12

FN12. Cost-shifting may be effected during the course of litigation, either by agreement or pursuant to court order issued under the authority of Fed.R.Civ.P. 26.  After litigation, cost-shifting may be ordered as a sanction for vexatious conduct that reflects bad faith, as opposed to “misunderstanding, bad judgment, or well-intentioned zeal.”  LaSalle Nat’l Bank v. First Conn. Holding Grp., LLC, 287 F.3d 279, 289 (3d Cir.2002) (citations omitted).

Accordingly, the court determined that “none of the charges imposed by [defendant] DMS’s vendor are taxable” and also reduced the award in favor of defendant Hoosier from $125,580.55 to $30,370.42, a difference of $95,210.13.

A copy of the court’s opinion is available here.

Signed by Chief District Judge Leonard Davis on February 27, 2012, amendments to the Local Rules in the Eastern District of Texas include a [Model] Order Regarding E-Discovery in Patent Cases similar to an order adopted by the Federal Circuit late last year.  The new [Model] Order is different in several respects, however.  The treatment of email, for example, differs in several important ways, including that the presumptive limitation on the allowable number of custodians is raised from five to eight, that the presumptive limitation on the allowable number of search terms is raised from five to ten, and that the court may consider requests for additional or fewer custodians without limitation.  The [Model] Order in the Eastern District of Texas also includes instruction on the production of ESI, including, for example, requiring production in TIFF format and specifying that no party has an obligation to make its production text-searchable unless it already exists in that form or is being converted for use in the litigation, including for use by the producing party’s counsel.  Unlike in the Federal Circuit, the [Model] Order in the Eastern District also limits a party’s obligation to restore backup media absent a showing of good cause and likewise precludes the obligation to collect and preserve voicemails, PDAs, and mobile phones (deemed “not reasonably accessible”) absent the same showing. 

Although the rules are effective immediately, comments regarding the amendments will be accepted by the Clerk of Court until Friday, March 23, 2012.

A copy of the General Order Amending Local Rules is available here.

A redline/strikeout of the [Model] Order (identifying the differences between it and the Federal Circuit’s [Model] Order) is available here.

Attorney Issac Lidsky was the first blind law clerk to serve the U.S. Supreme Court, working under Justices Sandra Day OaConnor and Ruth Bader Ginsburg. Recently, Tony Mauro highlighted Issac in the National Law Journal. Attorneys and co-hosts Bob Ambrogi and J. Craig Williams welcome Attorney Issac J. Lidsky from the firm Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld LLP and founder of Hope For Vision, to discuss his legal career, his Supreme Court clerkship, being visually impaired and a lawyer and take a look at Hope For Vision, which is raising awareness and helping those with blinding diseases.

At the age of 69 and after 18 years on the Supreme Court, Justice David Souter made the announcement that he would be retiring from the Supreme Court at the end of this yearas term in June. Law.com bloggers and co-hosts, J. Craig Williams and Bob Ambrogi welcome Professor Daniel J. Meador, James Monroe Professor of Law Emeritus at the University of Virginia School of Law and Kermit Roosevelt, Professor of Law at University of Pennsylvania Law School and Justice Souter’s former law clerk, to reflect on Justice Souter’s career, look at the potential list of replacements and the opportunity for President Obama to leave an imprint with his choice for the High Court.

Here are the leading legal headlines from Wise Law on Twitter for Thursday, March 22, 2012:

• Graham James sentence may be appealed 
• Ontario court to rule Monday on prostitution laws
• Lawyers Practicing Primarily in New York Must Work for Attorney-Owned Firms, Ethics Opinion Says
• Charges laid against Chevron and Transocean over Brazil oil spill
• Asbestos brake pad ban to be tabled by Ontario MPP | Wheels.ca
• Unions Condemn Ryan ‘Path to Poverty’ Budget
• Mitel sues Facebook over two patents – ZDNet (blog)
• Men jailed for ‘accidental’ umbilical cord theft – The Local
• KONY 2012 filmmaker diagnosed with psychosis 
• Utah approves 72 hour waiting period for abortions
• Seriously? College Grads Misled By NY Law School Job Stats? Judge Doesn’t Buy It, Nixes $225M Suit 
• Defendants who get bad advice on plea bargains deserve relief
• Fake Filesharing Lawsuits? Dang, That’s Devious 
• House approves placing photo ID on November ballot (Jim Ragsdale/Minneapolis Star Tribune) 
• Postal workers find 11 pounds of pot headed to N.Y. publishing house
• Doorey: Ontario Employer cannot ask job applicant for Facebook password – request prohibited by OHRC
• Some Threats OK, Others Not So Much in Personal Injury Settlement Negotiations |Erik Magraken
• Jurors punished for using social media?
• Employer can be vicariously liable for assault by junior employee on more senior one
• SCOTUS Justices Question Mandatory Life-Without-Parole Sentences for Juveniles
• Matt Gurney: Ontario’s ‘Judge Tantrum’ should resign or be fired 
• Can Job Applicants Be Asked For Facebook Passwords?
• US Supreme Court Lays Out New Plea Bargain Standards

– Rachel Spence, Law Clerk

Visit our Toronto Law Firm website: www.wiselaw.net

TORONTO EMPLOYMENT LAW • TORONTO CIVIL LITIGATION & ESTATE LITIGATION • TORONTO FAMILY LAW & DIVORCE

ORIGINALLY POSTED AT WISE LAW BLOG • SUBSCRIBE TO WISE LAW BLOG

“It is about time the court faced the fact that the white people of the South don’t like the colored people.” — Chief Justice William Rehnquist (written when he was a law clerk on the Supreme Court). The recent murder of Trayvon Martin, a black teenager, by George Zimmerman, a white “neighborhood watch vigilante from Sanford, Florida, should remind the public of the continuation of racial injustice in the United States. Zimmerman shot and killed Martin as he walked to his father’s home in a central Florida neighborhood. Prior to shooting Martin, Zimmerman called police from his car to report a “suspicious” person in the neighborhood. Zimmerman asked police whether he should leave his car to investigate the situation, but police told him not to do so. Despite the police warning, Zimmerman left his car and confronted Martin. Although the facts remain hazy, Zimmerman admits that after he left his car, he killed Martin. Zimmerman says that he acted in self-defense. Several witnesses tell local newspapers, however, that Zimmerman did not act in self-defense; they have also accused police of mishandling the investigation. It is also clear that Martin was unarmed and that he was returning to his father’s home from a store where he had purchased candy for a younger sibling. Police have declined to arrest Zimmerman. Bill Lee, Chief of the Sanford Police Department, accepts Zimmerman’s allegation that he acted in self-defense. Lee says that Zimmerman believed that Martin was a threat because “the way that he was walking or appeared seemed suspicious to him.” Lee also says (mistakenly – see below) that Zimmerman has a “squeaky clean” record and that he does not believe that “it was [Zimmerman's] intent to go and shoot somebody. . . .” Currently, prosecutors are considering whether to bring criminal charges against Zimmerman. This case is deeply troubling for several reasons. First, the police are misapplying and misleading the public about the criminal laws regarding homicide and self-defense in order to justify the decision not to arrest Zimmerman. Also, this case is yet another reminder of the continuing problem of racial injustice in the United States, particularly, the disparate treatment of black and white offenders and victims. Law Regarding Homicide and Self-Defense The law regarding homicide is far more complicated than the public’s general understanding of the term.  While the public tends to equate “homicide” and “murder,” these words are quite different from a legal perspective. Homicide is simply the killing of a person by another individual. Within that broad category, however, several scenarios are possible. The killing could result from intentional and planned behavior; this is typically described as “murder.” The killing could result from recklessness or negligence; this is typically described as “manslaughter.” Although I have simplified these categories somewhat, it is clear that even if Zimmerman did not begin the night with the intent to kill an individual, he still might have committed a serious crime — possibly, manslaughter or even second-degree murder. Every state recognizes “self-defense” as a defense to a homicide charge. Under Florida law (as in many other states), in order to act in self-defense, the assailant must reasonably fear that the victim will harm him or her or some other person. Furthermore, in order to rely upon self-defense, the assailant must not have acted act as the aggressor. In order to act with lethal force, as Zimmerman did, the assailant must reasonably fear that the victim will cause imminent great bodily harm or death to him or her or to another person. Under Florida law, lethal force is also justifiable to stop home invasions and carjacking — scenarios that are not relevant to Martin’s death. The Facts Support Charging Zimmerman From the few facts that are known, Zimmerman’s self-defense claim seems shaky at best. Zimmerman, who is 26, weighs about 100 pounds more

“It is about time the court faced the fact that the white people of the South don’t like the colored people.” — Chief Justice William Rehnquist (written when he was a law clerk on the Supreme…

To view the rest of this article, please visit DISSENTING JUSTICE. Thanks.

Here are the leading legal headlines from Wise Law on Twitter for Wednesday, March 21, 2012:

• ACLU files torture complaint against US on behalf of Afghan, Iraqi detainees
• Air Canada pilots challenge back-to-work law 
• Ontario and New York Bars to hold historic summit
• Wal-Mart pleads guilty to workplace safety charges in N.B. teen’s death
• Ex-coach Graham James sentenced to 2 years for sex assaults
• Chemerinsky: SCOTUS Tackles Law and Politics of the Health Care Act
• 9-year-old gets jury duty summons: What’s that?
• Declining LSAT Test Takers Could Spell ‘Death Spiral’ for Bottom Law Schools
• We stole a bike in Toronto – it was easy
• US Supreme Court rules on ineffective assistance of counsel claim
• Ontario court upholds $469000 award for sex assault – OHS Canada

– Rachel Spence, Law Clerk

Visit our Toronto Law Firm website: www.wiselaw.net

TORONTO EMPLOYMENT LAW • TORONTO CIVIL LITIGATION & ESTATE LITIGATION • TORONTO FAMILY LAW & DIVORCE

ORIGINALLY POSTED AT WISE LAW BLOG • SUBSCRIBE TO WISE LAW BLOG

Personal Injury Lawyer Los Angeles – FREE CONSULTATION by Personal Injury Attorney Los Angeles – Legal Defenders, Los Angeles Personal Injury Lawyers – Law Offices of Burg and Brock, who have won over $100 million in verdicts and settlements for clients

Page took 3 seconds to load.