Have you ever had that craving come upon you for the menu of a great Vietnamese Restaurant? Perhaps you have been longing for another bowl of Pho’ or a serving of Bun. Do you live in or are you visiting Vancouver, Washington and just need to know where the nearest Vietnamese Restaurant is? Boy, just writing this post has me about to jump in my car and hit the nearest Vietnamese restaurant.

I mean honestly, now.. is there any other food you would prefer? Of course not, that’s why you are still reading this post. You are frothing at the mouth about now and all you can think about is where is the nearest steaming hot bowl of Pho’ Noodle Soup.

Well, I am going to let you in on a list of “top notch” Vancouver, Washington Vietnamese Restaurants…

Pho Green Papaya

Pho Ton

Pho Saigon

All 3 of these Vietnamese Restaurants are located in Vancouver, Washington

A Gallup poll study offers charts and graphs of how people are cutting back and compares these figures with income brackets.

Vancouver House Cleaning Companies

Elite Cleaning Service
360-723-0698
Detailed House and Office Cleaning Service

ABC Cleaning Company

Best Cleaning Service

The house cleaning industry is constantly evolving as we become more and more sensitive to the environment.  As an example we see an increasing demand for eco friendly produts.  Also, making sure employees are bonded and have clean background checks is important nowadays.

Elite Cleaning Service provides “Customer Care”. Rather than approaching house cleaning from a top down point of view where we tell you how your home should be cleaned.  We share with you professional cleaning ideas and techniques but what sets us apart is designing a custom home cleaning plan to meet all of your house cleaning needs.  Perhaps some weeks you might not want certain rooms cleaned and you would rather the cleaning service spend more time on the kitchen because you will have company over the weekent. Your grout and appliances need extra cleaning and so you want the focus of time spent there and less time on another cleaning task for that week.   We work with our clients in this way to help solve their house cleaning problems.

Contact Elite Cleaning Service of Vancouver  to schedule a home cleaning estimate.

MARCH, 2007
Technophobes beware!  After five years of study by the Advisory Committee on Civil Rules, several important revisions to the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure (“FRCP”) went into effect starting December 1, 2006.  These recent amendments are primarily focused on the discovery and production of “electronically stored information”.  Coupled with a series of recent cases, the new rules demonstrate a growing sophistication within the legal community to address fundamental changes presented by the digital age.  Simply put, paper-based and electronic evidence are treated very differently and subject to their own set of rules for the production, discovery, and ultimately, the admissibility of this information.
WHAT IS “ELECTRONICALLY STORED INFORMATION”?

The term “electronically stored information” is not specifically defined in the FRCP.  However, it is understood to mean any information created, manipulated, communicated, stored, and best utilized in digital format, requiring the use of computer hardware and software.  Among other things, “electronically stored information” includes all computer hard drives, electronic documents, databases, emails, back-up tapes, Voice Over Internet Protocol (“VoIP”), databases, instant messaging, digital images, servers, and digital audiovisual recordings.  In addition, “electronically stored information” can be found on numerous types of devices, including cellular telephones, PDAs, cameras, laptops, desktop computers, pagers, and voicemail systems.

Electronically stored information is distinguished from “conventional” media, such as paper, photos, analog recordings, and microfilm, because of the way in which it is communicated, changed, created, stored, and deleted by computer systems.  For example, when an email message is “sent” it may be reproduced at multiple locations on computers around the world and may also be replicated several times on both the sender and receipt’s computer hard drives as well.  While duplication tends to preserve evidence, it also produces a huge volume of information, far larger than that found on conventional media.

ACTIVE JUDICIAL MANAGEMENT OF ELECTRONIC DISCOVERY.

Since computers are now the primary methods by which we communicate, computers now typically hold the most important evidence in many cases.  In recognition of this trend, a number of judges have changed their approaches to civil procedure matters well before the mandatory adoption of the new FRCP rules.  Since the 1980s, judges have significantly expanded their roles to actively manage electronic discovery matters and reduce the massive costs frequently associated with electronic discovery in a number of cases.  Without such management, new powerful methods for obtaining valuable electronic evidence are simply lost.  Thus, the revised FRCP provides a framework to assist the legal community in managing such issues.

Under the new rules, judges are now required to have a familiarity with the technical aspects of electronic discovery and a willingness to actively apply them.  Attorneys are now forced to learn the nuances of electronically stored information in order to adequately and competently represent their clients.  The new rules also have implications far beyond the courtroom.  For example, if a business fails to adopt a proper policy and procedure regarding the destruction of electronic information it may result in serious legal problems at a later juncture.  Many businesses have not kept pace with these developments. According to a recent article in Computerworld, “few corporations are prepared for the new federal rules” on electronic discovery.  Fisher, Sharon, “Survey: Companies not prepared for new e-discovery rules”, Computerworld, November 21, 2006.  Computerworld’s survey determined that only 32% of IT managers stated their company was prepared for the new rules.  Some companies in the survey were not even aware that the new rules existed.

SUMMARY OF THE NEW FRCPs

Below is a brief overview of certain revisions to the FRCP addressing “electronically stored information.”
1.    FRCP 16(b).  Allows the court to enter a scheduling order that addresses “provisions for disclosure or discovery of electronically stored information”.
2.    FRCP 26(a).  Parties to litigation must disclose “a copy of, or a description by category and location of, all . . . electronically stored information”.
3.    FRCP 26(b)(2)(B):  In relevant part, the rule states: “A party need not provide discovery of electronically stored information from sources that the party identifies as not reasonably accessible because of undue burden or cost.  On motion to compel discovery or for a protective order, the party from whom discovery is sought must show that the information is not reasonably accessible because of undue burden or cost.  If that showing is made, the court may nonetheless order discovery from such sources if the requesting party shows good cause . . .”
4.    FRCP 26(f).  The parties to litigation must confer regarding the litigation and address multiple issues, including “any issues relating to disclosure or discovery of electronically store information, including the form or forms in which it should be produced”.
5.    FRCP 33(d).  In answering interrogatory questions, a party has the option to produce business records and specify in sufficient detail the location of the answer within the business records.  Under the revised rule, business records may inarticle in Computerworld, “few corporations are prepared for the new federal rules” on electronic discovery.  Fisher, Sharon, “Survey: Companies not prepared for new e-discovery rules”, Computerworld, November 21, 2006.  Computerworld’s survey determined that only 32% of IT managers stated their company was prepared for the new rules.  Some companies in the survey were not even aware that the new rules existed.

SUMMARY OF THE NEW FRCPs

Below is a brief overview of certain revisions to the FRCP addressing “electronically stored information.”
1.    FRCP 16(b).  Allows the court to enter a scheduling order that addresses “provisions for disclosure or discovery of electronically stored information”.
2.    FRCP 26(a).  Parties to litigation must disclose “a copy of, or a description by category and location of, all . . . electronically stored information”.
3.    FRCP 26(b)(2)(B):  In relevant part, the rule states: “A party need not provide discovery of electronically stored information from sources that the party identifies as not reasonably accessible because of undue burden or cost.  On motion to compel discovery or for a protective order, the party from whom discovery is sought must show that the information is not reasonably accessible because of undue burden or cost.  If that showing is made, the court may nonetheless order discovery from such sources if the requesting party shows good cause . . .”
4.    FRCP 26(f).  The parties to litigation must confer regarding the litigation and address multiple issues, including “any issues relating to disclosure or discovery of electronically store information, including the form or forms in which it should be produced”.
5.    FRCP 33(d).  In answering interrogatory questions, a party has the option to produce business records and specify in sufficient detail the location of the answer within the business records.  Under the revised rule, business records may include “electronically stored information”.
6.    FRCP 34.  In discovery, a party may request the opposing party to produce documents for inspection or photocopying.  The revised rule includes “electronically stored information” within the scope of this rule.  In relevant part, the rule states: “Any party may serve on any other party a request (1) to produce and permit the party making the request, or someone acting on the requestor’s behalf, to inspect, copy, test, or sample any designated documents or electronically stored information . . .which are in the possession, custody or control of the party upon whom the request is served”.
FRCP 37(f).  If a party fails or refuses to permit discovery, the party may be subject to sanctions.
FRCP 45.  During litigation, a party may serve a subpoena under this rule to seek testimony or production of information from a person or entity that is not a party to the litigation.  The revised rule provides that the subpoena may “specify the form or forms in which electronically stored information is to be produced.”  If the subpoena does not specify the form for producing electronically stored information “a person responding to a subpoena must produce the information in a form or forms in which the person ordinarily maintains it or in a form or forms that are reasonably usable.”

*This article is for informational purposes only and merely reflects the opinion of its authors.  It is not intended nor should it be used as a substitute for specific legal advice or opinions.  Legal counsel may be given only in response to inquiries regarding particular factual situations.  Dunn & Sheldrick © 2007

Clinton’s camp is hedging on super delegates as they try and woo them to their side. Stay tuned as the results come pouring in.

McCain is currently leading in delegate counts for the Republican nomination. Huckabee plans on staying in the race until 1 man acquires the necessary votes to clinch the nomination.