SECRECY IN PRETRIAL DISCOVERY: HOW NON-RENDERING COURTS SHOULD TREAT PRIOR PROTECTIVE ORDERS IN SUBSEQUENT LITIGATIONS

Simply put, the issue that presents itself, at the heart of this Article is what weight, if any, should a non-rendering court accord the protective orders emanating from pending, settled and dismissed cases in other courts? This Article adds a special tone to the already loud voices on protective-order modification, arguing principally that absolute deference to the issuing court is a leeway for duplicative discovery that places an unfair burden on litigants, a consequence that diminishes sound judicial administration and the Rule-1 objectives. This Article will advance the policy argument that excessive deference to the issuing court is an invitation for absolute insulation of the party insisting on it to decline cooperation in subsequent litigations, which has the potential for engendering further secrecy of bad products and conducts at the expense of public safety. This article will assess the justifications and criticisms underpinning the idea of deference to the issuing court to modify and vacate its orders, emphasizing the validity of those justifications and criticisms and the prospect for meaningful balance to cater for necessary practicalities and the legitimate interests of litigants while allowing subsequent parties to benefit from civil discovery in substantial ways. <div><div><p><br></p> </div> </div>

SECRECY IN PRETRIAL DISCOVERY: HOW NON-RENDERING COURTS SHOULD TREAT PRIOR PROTECTIVE ORDERS IN SUBSEQUENT LITIGATIONS

Simply put, the issue that presents itself, at the heart of this Article is what weight, if any, should a non-rendering court accord the protective orders emanating from pending, settled and dismissed cases in other courts? This Article adds a special tone to the already loud voices on protective-order modification, arguing principally that absolute deference to the issuing court is a leeway for duplicative discovery that places an unfair burden on litigants, a consequence that diminishes sound judicial administration and the Rule-1 objectives. This Article will advance the policy argument that excessive deference to the issuing court is an invitation for absolute insulation of the party insisting on it to decline cooperation in subsequent litigations, which has the potential for engendering further secrecy of bad products and conducts at the expense of public safety. This article will assess the justifications and criticisms underpinning the idea of deference to the issuing court to modify and vacate its orders, emphasizing the validity of those justifications and criticisms and the prospect for meaningful balance to cater for necessary practicalities and the legitimate interests of litigants while allowing subsequent parties to benefit from civil discovery in substantial ways. <div><div><p><br></p> </div> </div>

Metode Problem Based Learning untuk Mengklasifikasikan Argumen Mahasiswa PGSD terhadap Masalah

Tujuan dalam penelitian ini adalah mengklasifikasikan jenis-jenis argument yang diberikan mahasiswa ketika menyelesaikan masalah. Metode penelitian yang gunakan adalah pendekatan kualitatif dengan pendekatan deskriptif. Subjek penelitian adalah 50 mahasiswa PGSD Universitas Mataram yang telah melaksanakan perkuliahan dengan metode PBL. Hasil penelitian menunjukkan bahwa argument mahasiswa terbagi menjadi 3 jenis kategori yakni, (1) True-False Argument; (2) Good-Bad Argument; dan (3) PolicyArgument. Jenis argument yang paling sering digunakan mahasiswa adalah True-False Argumen dimana subjek dalam kelompok ini cenderung memberikan pernyataan untuk membenarkan pendapatnya atau menyanggah pendapat orang lain. Sedangakan subjek dalam kelompok Good-Bad Argument cenderung melihat argument berdasarkan kebermanfaatan dan implementasi pernyataanya secara nyata. Untuk jenis argument Policy Argument subjek dalam kelompok ini cenderung tidak menggunakan teori-teori individual (personal) namun menggunakan data Undang-Undang atau kebijakan pemerintah sebagai landasan argumenya.

Public Policy Analysis: An Integrated Approach

The book defines and illustrates phases of policy analysis, describe elements of integrated policy analysis, distinguish four strategies of policy analysis, contrast reconstructed logic and logic-in-use, describe the structure of a policy argument and its elements and interpret scorecards, spreadsheets, influence diagrams, decision trees, and argument maps.

Crowding out: Is there evidence that public service media harm markets? A cross-national comparative analysis of commercial television and online news providers

The impact of public service media (PSM) on media competition has become a topic of debate in many European countries. Some argue that PSM could starve commercial media, or discourage them from entering markets in the first place because they shrink commercial audiences, lowering both advertising income for free commercial television and willingness to pay for commercial products. Despite its prevalence as a policy argument, there has been limited research about the crowding out concept – and almost no research that is independent, comparative, and considers broadcasting as well as online markets. This article addresses these shortcomings by examining whether there is any evidence to support the crowding out argument by analysing national broadcast and online markets in all 28 European Union countries. More specifically, we focus on data on market resources, audience performance and payment for digital news. The analysis reveals little to no support for the crowding out argument for broadcasting and related online markets.

Big Data, Semantics, and Policy-Making

At the heart of all policy design and implementation, there is a need to understand how well decisions are made. It is evidently known that the quality of decision making depends significantly on the quality of the analyses and advice provided to the associated actors. Over decades, organizations were highly diligent in gathering and processing vast amounts of data, but they have given less emphasis on how these data can be used in policy argument. With the arrival of big data, attention has been focused on whether it could be used to inform policy-making. This chapter aims to bridge this gap, to understand variations in how big data could yield usable evidence, and how policymakers can make better use of those evidence in policy choices. An integrated and holistic look at how solving complex problems could be conducted on the basis of semantic technologies and big data is presented in this chapter.

Ronald Dworkin and the Curious Case of the Floodgates Argument

This article juxtaposes a jurisprudential thesis and a practical problem in an attempt to gain critical insight into both. The jurisprudential thesis is Dworkin’s rights thesis. The practical problem revolves around judicial resort to the floodgates argument in civil adjudication (or, more specifically, a version of this argument focused on adjudicative resources, which is dubbed here the FA). The analysis yields three principal observations: (1) Judicial resort to the FA is discordant with the rights thesis. (2) The rights thesis is instructive in one way but mistaken in another. While Dworkin has highlighted some valid and sound reasons against judicial policymaking, his conclusive exclusion of judicial policymaking from civil law adjudication is erroneous. Civil law adjudication, it is argued, is an arena of ineliminable tension between principle and policy. (3) The FA is a type of policy argument particularly vulnerable to objections against judicial policymaking. There should, therefore, be a (rebuttable) presumption against judicial resort to it.

Physician-Assisted Dying (DRAFT)

Physician-assisted dying (PAD) is now legal in several states, as well as some foreign countries. The primary arguments to justify the practice include autonomy, compassion, justice, non-abandonment, and transparency. Counterarguments include the wrongness of killing, the impact on the physician-patient relationship, potential exploitation of the vulnerable, and the slippery slope. While some oppose the practice on religious or purely moral grounds, a compelling public policy argument can be made against it without holding that every possible case of PAD is “immoral.” If the sole consideration is patient autonomy and relief of suffering, assisted dying could be offered without physician involvement,as is the case in some other countries. Without the imprimatur of the medical profession, however, PAD may not achieve the societal acceptance that advocates seek.

Defending Family Unity as an Immigration Policy Priority

In this article, I make a policy argument in defense of family and relationship-based immigration preferences in U.S. immigration law that accounts for economic objections and calls for solidarity among socioeconomically disadvantaged U.S. residents on this issue. I begin with a historical account of policy arguments for limiting family-based immigration. I challenge the view that family-based immigration is a fiscal burden on the nation as a whole and acts against the interests of disadvantaged native-born workers. Then, I present and respond to perception-based objections to family-based immigration by disadvantaged citizens who believe that they are suffering from competition with mixed-skilled immigrants, including those sponsored by family members. Advocates of family unity in immigration policy are fighting the perception of zero-sum competition between immigrants and disadvantaged citizens by organizing together for improvements in wages and working conditions, leveraging arguments from the U.S. civil rights struggle to advocate for inclusive immigration policies.