The Experts below are selected from a list of 13338 Experts worldwide ranked by ideXlab platform

Kerui Li - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.

  • CyberC - A Coarse-to-Fine Approach for Motion Pattern Discovery
    2012 International Conference on Cyber-Enabled Distributed Computing and Knowledge Discovery, 2012
    Co-Authors: Kerui Li
    Abstract:

    In this paper, we propose a coarse-to-fine approach to Discovery Motion patterns. There are two phases in the proposed approach. In the first phase, the proposed median-based GMM achieves coarse clustering. Moreover, the number of clusters can be heuristically found by the proposed algorithm. In the second phase, to refine coarse clustering in the first phase, a Fisher optimal division method is proposed to examine the boundary data points and to detect the change point between Motion patterns. The experimental results show that the proposed approach outperforms the existing algorithms.

  • A Coarse-to-Fine Approach for Motion Pattern Discovery
    2012 International Conference on Cyber-Enabled Distributed Computing and Knowledge Discovery, 2012
    Co-Authors: Kerui Li
    Abstract:

    In this paper, we propose a coarse-to-fine approach to Discovery Motion patterns. There are two phases in the proposed approach. In the first phase, the proposed median-based GMM achieves coarse clustering. Moreover, the number of clusters can be heuristically found by the proposed algorithm. In the second phase, to refine coarse clustering in the first phase, a Fisher optimal division method is proposed to examine the boundary data points and to detect the change point between Motion patterns. The experimental results show that the proposed approach outperforms the existing algorithms.

Rhonda M. Wheate - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.

  • Wiley Encyclopedia of Forensic Science - Discovery: Discovery Motions
    Wiley Encyclopedia of Forensic Science, 2009
    Co-Authors: Rhonda M. Wheate
    Abstract:

    Discovery Motions are a means of compelling disclosure in adversarial law systems. This article sets out the general principles of Discovery Motions in the United Kingdom, both in criminal and civil law contexts. The effect of European developments including the European Convention on Human Rights and decisions of the European Court of Human Rights, on legislation and common law in the United Kingdom, is also discussed. The highly regulated Discovery Motion process in the United States is described elsewhere (see FSA014 and FSA015). Keywords: disclosure; Discovery; Motion; document; report; statement; expert; findings

Daniel S. Mcconkie - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.

  • The Local Rules Revolution in Criminal Discovery
    2017
    Co-Authors: Daniel S. Mcconkie
    Abstract:

    Over the last few decades, federal district court judges throughout the country have used local rules to greatly expand pretrial criminal disclosure obligations, especially for prosecutors. These local criminal Discovery rules both incentivize prosecutors to act as ministers of justice and empower judges to manage prosecutorial disclosures. This quiet revolution is now well underway, and the time has come to amend the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure to bring these innovations to all the districts. Commentators have long recognized that neither Supreme Court precedent nor the Federal Rules effectively require prosecutors to provide the defense with enough Discovery to properly prepare for plea negotiations and trial. Nor do they empower judges to effectively monitor prosecutors’ Discovery decisions. Reformers have largely failed to revolutionize Discovery on a national scale, but individual districts, by passing local Discovery rules, have waged small battles to great effect. These rules require prosecutors to turn over more Discovery earlier in the case. They expand the scope of mandatory prosecution Discovery beyond Rule 16 and Brady; they accelerate the timing of Discovery; and they require the parties to work together to arrive at Discovery stipulations. The rules also greatly enhance the role of judges and empower them to monitor the Discovery phase of the case. Through specific Discovery rules, stipulations, and Discovery management orders, the rules greatly expand judges’ grounds for ordering Discovery and imposing sanctions. They also give judges more opportunities to raise and manage Discovery issues at mandatory Discovery conferences. Finally, the rules expand (and delimit) Discovery Motion procedures. Increasing prosecutorial disclosure obligations and expanding the power of judges over pretrial Discovery could improve the quality of criminal justice nationwide. First, although more empirical research needs to be done, there is some evidence that these rules are working as intended. Second, by putting more information into the hands of the defense, these local rules could help the parties, but especially defendants, to reach more informed plea agreements. Third, these local Discovery rules may help rebalance the criminal justice system, which is currently dominated by prosecutors, in favor of trial judges and defense attorneys. Hopefully, the local rules revolution will serve as a model for more districts to follow and ultimately result in amendments to the Federal Rules.

Jean-luc Picard - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.

  • One Year After the Federal E-Discovery Rule Amendments
    2016
    Co-Authors: Kenneth Prine, Trek Captain, Jean-luc Picard
    Abstract:

    Trek Captain Jean-Luc Picard would be proud. Courts, counsel, and clients now "boldly go where no man has gone before" in exploring the new frontier of electronically stored information (ESI). Since the December 2006 amendments to the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, e-Discovery Motion practice is on the rise in litigation generally and environmental litigation specifically, as reflected by an increase in reported decisions and anecdotal reports from many federal and state judges. In response, a growing number of federal and state courts have implemented protocols and guidelines for addressing ESI issues. The protocols tread a fine line between observing the "prime directive" of the Federal Rules amendments and corresponding state rules, on the one hand, and the urgent need to supply practical guidance to judges, attorneys, and litigants at the local level, on the other. The growing number of ethics opinions involving review of inadvertently produced metadata and the ultimate admissibility of ESI is also helping to further refine the contours of Discovery practice under the amended Rules. At a recent e-Discovery conference, a federal magistrate noted that United States District Court judges and magistrate judges should not be asked to be e-Discovery "day care" providers to litigants. And who can blame them? They are supposed to provide guidance and make decisions where the parties truly cannot resolve difficult legal and factual e-Discovery issues. They loath providing "parental supervision" where parties fail to communicate and collaborate to resolve these issues without court intervention. This is not a new development in Discovery, but Rule 26(f) requirement to specifically meet and confer regarding ESI arguably adds a new layer of time, complexity, and cost to this process. The requirement has "upped the ante" for computer-literate practitioners, and counsel on both sides of the bar have expressed a need for more concrete guidance. In response, more than thirty federal district courts have adopted local ESI Discovery rules, protocols, or guidelines. See K&L Gates Electronic Discovery Law, Updated List: Local Rules of United States District Courts Addressing E-Discovery Issues, www.eDiscoverylaw.com/articles/resources/. In a legal

Bill Burdett - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.

  • Hiding the Inaccessible Truth: Amending the Federal Rules to Accommodate Electronic Discovery
    The Review of Litigation, 2006
    Co-Authors: Daniel B. Garrie, Matthew J. Armstrong, Bill Burdett
    Abstract:

    I. INTRODUCTION At its June 2005 meeting, the Standing Committee on the Federal Rules approved amendments to the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure ("Rules")1 in large part to accommodate the increasingly important, and often under-utilized, Discovery method referred to as electronic Discovery.2 The proposed changes amend Rule 26(b)(2)(B)3-(C)4 to construct a two-tiered process for electronic Discovery production requests.5 The first tier requires responding parties to produce all relevant accessible data6 stored on their digital storage systems along with a description by category and location of all relevant not reasonably accessible data that may be on their systems.7 Data that is "not reasonably accessible" is presumptively outside the scope of Discovery unless the requesting party can show "good cause,"8 which is an ambiguous standard because the phrase "good cause" is undefined. Litigants enter the second tier of the eDiscovery process when the requesting party establishes "good cause,"9 permitting the court to hear arguments from both litigants and to weigh the cost of production against the purported need.10 Pursuant to the new Rules, even if the requesting party agrees to pay the Discovery costs, a court can nevertheless prohibit data Discovery if the producing party's burden in reviewing the information for relevance and privilege exceeds the purported need.11 In addition, Rule 37(f), adopted in conjunction with the Rule 26(b)(2) amendments, removes the threat of judicially imposed sanctions absent "exceptional circumstances" for data lost because of the routine, good-faith operation of an electronic information system.12 Under the proposed Rules, producing parties will no longer be obligated to produce all relevant, non-privileged documents,13 and will arguably be allowed to destroy incriminating documents under a document retention policy without the threat of courtimposed sanctions.14 The Standing Committee on the Federal Rules' solution represents an equitable compromise between escalating Discovery costs and enforcing compliance with broad Discovery requests to facilitate Discovery of facts relevant to a particular litigation.15 This burden has largely been driven by declining electronic document storage device costs coupled with sizable increases in the amount of digitally stored data, resulting in a larger document pool and generally increasing the costs of retrieving and reviewing electronic documents.16 Arguably, the Advisory Committee's proposals do not reach a proper balance between cost management and the judicial doctrine of broad Discovery. If adopted, the proposed Rules may enable litigants to engage in Discovery abuse by hiding or destroying incriminating digital evidence. The proposed Rules also provide greater protection to data that is not reasonably accessible and restrict the judiciary's ability to impose sanctions on litigants. By providing greater protection for data that is not reasonably accessible, the proposed Rules encourage both software programmers and system architects17 to design and develop software storage solutions that render data "not reasonably accessible" by making access to the data fiscally or technically impractical. By recharacterizing18 accessible data as "not reasonably accessible," these parties obviate their production duties pursuant to the proposed Rules. These litigants would store data on inefficient storage systems, making it unduly burdensome or expensive to (1) search for data, (2) restore data, or (3) change the data's format, therefore, making Discovery more difficult.19 Additionally, producing parties may obstruct the operation of the two-tiered e-Discovery process by failing to disclose adequate descriptions of data categories, descriptors,20 or designs containing relevant accessible or inaccessible data stored on the litigants' systems.21 Finally, the proposed Rule amendments may frustrate the doctrine of broad Discovery by shifting costs to requesting parties, forcing them to endure additional rounds of e-Discovery Motion practice. …