text:
You are here: Parliament home page > Parliamentary business > Publications and Records > Hansard > Commons Debates > Daily Hansard - Westminster Hall
I thank the Minister for his correspondence on 8 March, which has already been referred to. He gave us more information, further to our previous debate on the issue, and the extension of the consultation allowed
24 Mar 2011 : Column 375WH
the Transport Committee, chaired by my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Riverside (Mrs Ellman), to carry out its investigation and to contribute properly to the consultation. I look forward to hearing more from the Minister about how far he has got on his UK tour and how many more visits he is likely to undertake.
Right hon. and hon. Members have raised various concerns. The hon. Member for Truro and Falmouth (Sarah Newton) opened the debate and challenged and asked about the validity of some evidence in the documents. My hon. Friend the Member for Sefton Central (Bill Esterson) indicated the strength of feeling among 250 people at his local public meeting and questioned the effect that the cuts would have on the confidence of volunteers if they were implemented. The hon. Members for Waveney (Peter Aldous), for Torbay (Mr Sanders), for South Dorset (Richard Drax) and for Totnes (Dr Wollaston) raised the issue of local knowledge. The hon. Members for Strangford (Jim Shannon) and for North Down (Lady Hermon) showed, again, the united front of, not all Ireland, but Northern Ireland on the proposals for Belfast and asked the Minister to address the alternative strategy.
We heard a right honourable whinge from the right hon. and learned Member for North East Fife (Sir Menzies Campbell), who correctly made the point that we are here to whinge on behalf of our constituents, although "strong representations" might have been a more complimentary way to put it—the word "whingeing" sounds a little derogatory.
My hon. Friend the Member for Ynys Môn made powerful arguments and cited real-life incidents, and the hon. Member for South East Cornwall (Sheryll Murray), who has personal knowledge of and family involvement in the fishing industry, made a very strong argument indeed. My hon. Friend the Member for Southampton, Test (Dr Whitehead) said that, because Southampton will, possibly, have a super-centre, he has no constituency axe to grind, and neither do I, because the London centre is being retained. My hon. Friend, however, asked serious questions about the reduced 24-hour cover throughout the country. The hon. Member for Carmarthen West and South Pembrokeshire (Simon Hart) raised other shipping concerns, such as the ending of the emergency towing vessels contract, which was mentioned by other colleagues during our previous debate.
At this week's all-party maritime and ports group meeting, we heard from the chief executive of the MCA, Sir Alan Massey, and the chief coastguard, Rod Johnson, who outlined the proposals to the group's members and other attendees. Questions were raised there, and have been raised here and previously, about the technology and about its being tried and tested.
Hon. Members have referred to the parallels, or not, with the regional fire controls, which we covered extensively in our previous debate. I was the Minister who accepted advice from officials that we should go down that route, but it has not worked out. The Minister and I share fire brigade background, so I know that he is sensitive to the issue. He has followed it closely and is looking at it in relation to the controls under discussion. The relocations, the redundancies and the willingness to transfer or not have been raised, as have the general resilience and robustness of the proposals.
It is important to say, as I did in our previous debate, that the Opposition do not oppose reform, reorganisation and improvement, but we have serious concerns about the proposals and whether they are cutting too far, too fast and too deep. Two super-controls seem to be one too few. If one control goes down, there will be only one left. If they work and the technology and communication equipment is effective, I am not sure whether the country ought not to have three. As I have mentioned, we have seen what has happened with the fire controls.
Mr MacNeil: The hon. Gentleman has mentioned cuts. Is he aware of any cuts in the upper echelons of the MCA?
Jim Fitzpatrick: I am sure that the Minister is more up to date with the proposals. He is nodding and I am sure that he will cover that when he winds up. I have said that the two super-controls seem to be one too few, and the number of day-staffed stations seems too restricted, which several colleagues have commented on. The overall numbers make the proposals look as though they are finance-driven rather than operationally driven. Given the historic pairing of stations, which has been explained to us on a number of occasions, there might have been stronger logic in suggesting that a single station from each pair should be maintained, with three super-stations on top. Obviously, the Minister will assess all the representations and submissions in due course.
The coalition document said that there would be no cuts to the front line. Notwithstanding that this is a reorganisation, what is the coastguard if it is not a front-line service? Many people are saying that these cuts go way too far. It is important to remember, however, that this is a consultation, that it has not concluded and that it is being extended. This is, therefore, a good opportunity to put the Minister under pressure. I have spoken informally to the Minister outside this Chamber and know that he is listening and learning, and other colleagues have said the same. We will look closely at the finished document and his conclusions.
I know, owing to my former ministerial positions, the conflicting pressure that the Minister is and will be under, but at least he knows from Prime Minister's questions only a few weeks ago that the Prime Minister has expressed some scepticism about the proposals. He said that the Government remain to be convinced by the MCA's proposals. That is a very reassuring starting point. Every Member who has spoken today and in our previous debate has expressed real concern. I hope that the Minister, in the restricted comments that he will be able to make during his winding-up speech—he has not yet reached the end of the consultation—will give some reassurance that the efforts of the brave men and women of the coastguard service and those who depend on them, as well as those who support them, will not fall on deaf ears and that we will see some changes to improve the proposals, which, at the moment, do not appear to command any support in the House.
Mr David Crausby (in the Chair): Order. I am afraid that there is no time for any other hon. Member to speak, because we need to give the Minister adequate time to respond and the hon. Member for Truro and Falmouth needs to wind up at the end.
5.7 pm
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Mike Penning): I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Truro and Falmouth (Sarah Newton) for being so diligent in securing the debate and for the tone in which the debate has, in the main, been conducted. I, too, would have liked to have had the debate on the Floor of the House. I do not dispute that argument, and I think that the issue should have that sort of airing. The decision is beyond my pay grade, but I note that the deputy Chief Whip, my right hon. Friend the Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr Carmichael), is here to represent his constituents, even though he is not allowed to speak. If the issue could be brought back to the House, that would be right and proper.
This is a really important debate. I will sum up what others have said and my hon. Friend the Member for Truro and Falmouth will finish off the debate. I pay tribute to all coastguard staff—full-time, part-time and volunteers. More than 3,000 volunteers do it because they love their community and want to serve it, as do so many others throughout the country. I also pay tribute to the RNLI. It is an amazing organisation that looks after not only us in the United Kingdom, but the Republic of Ireland. That is really important. I also pay tribute to what are called private rescue boats, but which are really volunteers. There are hundreds of them. Some of the constituencies represented here today do not have any, and others have so many that it would be impossible to visit all of them in the time available during a Parliament. They are fantastic and are dedicated to, and love, their community.
Nine parties are represented in the debate. I am proud of that. I served in Northern Ireland for many years and never got the parties together, but I have managed to do it now—for a while. Many hon. Members have come to this Chamber on a one-line Whip, when they could have been in their constituencies. Instead, they are here doing what is right and proper, and what I would have been doing if I were a Back Bencher with a seat associated with the coastguard service.
I have listened to all the points made by colleagues, but the most important representations have come from the public and, in particular, from the coastguards themselves. I have heard some disturbing comments today. I do not want to dwell on the matter for too long, but if a member of my staff—they are my staff because I am the Minister responsible for shipping and the MCA works for me—has gone out and said, "Don't worry about it; they are a bunch of whingers," I do not want to know who they told; I want to know who said it because, believe me, I will come down on them like a tonne of bricks. Hon. Members who know me will know that that is the case.
It is important that employees of the coastguard feel confident that they can make submissions. Some have put submissions in anonymously and I understand that. However, they really do not need to do it anonymously. As I have gone around the country—I shall touch on some of the meetings I have had—people have been positive.
Bill Esterson: I am glad that the Minister has said that staff do not have to worry about what happens. I know that I am not the only hon. Member to have experienced this, but I have had more than one
representation from a staff member who is very worried about the possibility of—and this is the word they use—recriminations if they take part in the process. I am glad that the Minister has made it clear that that will not be tolerated.
Mike Penning: As the hon. Gentleman knows, I have been to the coastguard station at Crosby and the people there did not hold back when they spoke to me. Everybody was in the room. The staff should feel confident that if they wish to do so, they can express their views robustly. By the way, as he may have noticed, I was robust back. That sort of confidence should be out there. The coastguard community is quite small and some people do not have that confidence. If they want to submit anonymous representations, that is understandable. Those representations will be dealt with in exactly the same way as those to which people have put their name.
I shall touch on some of the points raised by hon. Members. In the short time I have, it will not be possible to answer every individual point. However, my officials are here and, if necessary, we will write to hon. Members on individual points. I have a background as a member of the armed forces and, probably more significantly, as a member of the fire service for many years, so saving lives is in my blood. There is no way that this change to the way in which the coastguard operates is going to put lives at risk—far from it. To some extent, I inherited the plans from the previous Administration. Some hon. Members were at the briefing upstairs in, I think, Committee Room 9, when the chief coastguard and chief executive were present. When the chief coastguard was appointed over two years ago, he had the proposals on his desk. At that time, I was not a Minister and this coalition Government were not in place. The hon. Member for Poplar and Limehouse (Jim Fitzpatrick), the shadow Minister, knows that the proposals were on his desk and the desks of others for four and a half years-plus.
As I have gone around the country, no one I have met who is in the know has said that there does not need to be dramatic changes to how the MRCC is run. When I was in Crosby, one very senior officer said to me, "Minister, we know it should be nine. We have been saying it should be nine stations for many years." That was said in front of the hon. Member for Sefton Central (Bill Esterson). I asked for the submission that actually said that.
I had a wonderful trip to Bangor in Northern Ireland. It was a trip down memory lane for me in many ways. There was a breath of fresh air at that and other meetings, and in some of the early submissions. I have not looked at them in detail because it is not right and proper for me to do so yet. However, if I am sat in a presentation, it is difficult not to listen to what is being said. The presentation at Bangor looked at having 10 stations—one headquarters, and of the remaining nine stations, about half would be full time and half part time.
There is an acceptance out there that the present 19 stations are an anomaly left over from previous closures. There were closures in the '80s and in early 2000 and 2001. We are left where we are now. I understand fully the passion of every hon. Member and why communities are coming together and saying, "Don't close my station. This is very important to us." We have had more than 1,200 submissions to the consultation. They fall into
three groups. One group of people are questioning my parent's parenthood or my parenthood. Some of those submissions will have to be redacted before we publish, but we will publish every one that has been received.
Some submissions are based purely on individual stations—a bit like what we have heard in the debate. People are saying, "This is our station. We think it should stay and these are the reasons why." That is fine. However, we have also had a number of submissions saying, "Let's not just look at our station; let's look at how we can have a national service." That is what I heard in Crosby, in Bangor, in Milford Haven and what I know I am going to hear in Falmouth.
I have the honour of looking after the only national emergency service, and I am very proud of its history. However, it is the only national emergency service with no national resilience. There is more resilience in all the other emergency services than the one we are talking about today. That is not acceptable in the 21st century. This is not just about resilience in computers, which we are all a bit sceptical about. I share that scepticism on computers. I was shadow Minister for three and a half years. In the great city we are in now, the ambulance service control centre just across the river looks after 10 million people. People are transferred from a 999 call to that control centre. The operators have hardly asked the caller anything before they know where they are, within reason, and they are looking to see who they can dispatch. We do not have that sort of facility in the coastguard service. That is the sort of thing we need. It is a different sort of service because of the myriad methods of contacting the coastguard emergency service. However, we must have a better, more resilient service.
Sheryll Murray: Will the Minister accept that although the kayaker or the group of young people barbecuing on a beach who need help may be identified by a passer by, there is no means of being able to identify where they are electronically? That is my concern. His system relies not only on electronic ability at the coastguard station, but on—he has just given an example of this—being able to identify where somebody is with a 999 call. People using beaches and people kayaking might not have made the call; somebody else might have done so.
Mike Penning: I take the point that my hon. Friend is making. I pay tribute to the family and personal experience of the coastguard and the sea that she has gained over many years. She understands the sea better than anyone else in this Chamber. From my emergency service background—the shadow Minister also has such a background—I know that such a situation occurs in the other emergency services. It is not a be-all and end-all. It is not a case of this being the only method of doing it. I am not saying that at all. Only the other day, I was in Shetland. The communications there go down regularly when we have to send volunteers out—whether it is the BT line, the broadband line or our own communication systems. That happens around the country. I am not saying that if a new system is brought in, it will take away any of that local knowledge. It will augment the current situation as we go forward.
May I touch on what we have today? Many hon. Members and hon. Friends have said that we could leave the service roughly where it is, but we cannot. The coastguard service is telling me that it cannot—from the
most junior person on the watch through to the volunteers and the Royal National Lifeboat Institution at the top. That organisation does not want to be dragged into the politics of the matter, and I can understand why. However, to use the modern slang, it is also saying to us, "Is the service fit for purpose in the 21st century? No, it is not."
It is interesting to read about the twinning system—an issue that I raised when I was in Bangor. The arguments that were put to me in Northern Ireland on resilience, the special circumstances and how they liaise with the Republic of Ireland—particularly with regard to helicopters—were very powerful. I thank the Republic and pay tribute to it. We get helicopters for free and we help them in other parts of the coast on other matters. Of course, there is the issue of what happens if communications go down. What happens if a station goes down? Will the Clyde back us up? There is no logic to the idea that all that local knowledge is transferred instantly to the Clyde—it cannot be. I accept that, as we look at different stations around the country, but the present twinning system does not work properly. If we look at where stations are around the country at the moment, they are not set up with a proper regional structure, as we would probably expect them to be. There are some stations that are very close, and some that are very far apart. The Humber station, which was mentioned by two hon. Members, covers 300 miles of moving sands. How on earth could it transfer in a twinning system? How does that work? Where is the resilience there? We need to look at that.
We need to look, as I have said in previous debates, at a service which offers a basic starting salary of £13,500 per year. How would anybody survive on that in some parts of the country? The answer is with more than one job, just like when I was first in the fire services—I am sure that the situation is not dissimilar for firemen today. We have to offer coastguards a salary that is suitable for the 21st century and give them the skills and training, so that they can have a career progression, too. It is very much dead man's shoes, looking at the age profile. There are very young people and people coming towards the end of their careers, but the middle section is very difficult indeed.
The whole country relies on the coastguard, whether on holiday, in the shipping industry, in their community or where they work. Is this a done deal? No, it is not. Will we come out of the end of this process with a different set of conclusions and a different modernisation programme from when we started? I am sure that we will—I am convinced of it.
Mr Russell Brown: Will the Minister give way?
Mike Penning: I am not going to give way, because I am really restricted on time. I apologise. I am not summing up—I have to hand over to my hon. Friend the Member for Truro and Falmouth.
Is this just about money? Yes, there are savings required, but if this was just about money, it would not be £4.8 million a year. As hon. Members have said, it is a tiny amount of money. Will there be savings throughout the MCA? Yes, at the top and at the bottom. In my own Department, every single member of staff has had to reapply for their own job. That is the sort of situation that we are working under. Did I come into politics to
do that? No, of course I did not, but we have to be realistic about the money and the income that we have to work with.
I welcome the Transport Committee's commitment to its own report. I welcome the fact that the Chair of that Committee, the hon. Member for Liverpool, Riverside (Mrs Ellman), has sat through the debate and been part of the debate. I say to her that I will not, under any circumstances—and neither will the Secretary of State—come to any conclusions until her Committee has reported. I promise and I make that commitment. If I can—it is difficult, because bureaucracy is involved—I will try and release to the Committee as much data that I have received, and which has been submitted to us, as I can, particularly the detailed submissions about reconfiguration. I will not release the submissions that are nasty about me, of course. If I can release that data I will do so. If I cannot do that, I might write back to those people who have made submissions and suggest that they send them to the Transport Committee. It is imperative that the Committee see that some of the submissions from the coastguard do not say, "We all should stay open; everything is perfectly fine". They actually say, as I have alluded to, nine stations or 10 stations. There are others that say there should be more or less.
I think that this is the start of something new in government. Consultation had to start somewhere. I inherited a situation; we started somewhere. We listen. We come out with a service that is fit for purpose in the 21st century. Not everybody is going to be happy, because I have got 19 stations and there is a proposal for 10 closures or nine closures. Clearly, not everybody will be happy. There is, however, a sense in the coastguard service, without any doubt if people are really honest, that we have to move on from where we are now. We have to get away from the disputes that have been going on for so many years, which are divisive, and have a service that has the resilience, the modernisation and the service to the front line, which is being left untouched and will be enhanced.
Finally, channel 16, under international regulations, will be monitored in the stations. That will not be on headphones, but over loudspeakers. I apologise to my hon. Friend the Member for South Dorset (Richard Drax). I should have come back to him on that. On that note—I am sad that I have to cut my comments short, due to procedure—I will hand over to my hon. Friend the Member for Truro and Falmouth. This is a proper consultation. No deal is done. I have visited many stations and have one more to go. I cannot visit all 19—that is not possible. If hon. Members look at the political make-up of the stations that I have visited, that has nothing to do with party politics—it is to do with my job.
Sarah Newton (Truro and Falmouth) (Con): On behalf of all hon. Members who have attended this afternoon's debate, I want to thank the Minister for such a helpful response. I will not take all the credit for today's debate. I worked with a team of hon. Members, whose names are listed on the Order Paper, to secure the debate. I hope that as many hon. Members who have participated
today—particularly those who did not have the opportunity to speak, or who felt under pressure and did not have the full amount of time—will join us on Tuesday to make further representations to the Backbench Business Committee to make sure that we secure more parliamentary time in the main Chamber. Today's debate has demonstrated the strength of feeling and the range of issues that still need to be explored on this UK-wide issue, which is one of the unique occasions when we can represent all the people of the UK in Parliament.
Albert Owen: Had the Minister had more time, I am sure that he would have been able to answer this point, but does the hon. Lady agree that it would be helpful to have a breakdown of incidents, so that we know what kind of incidents the MCA is dealing with? That would be an important appendix to the extended consultation.
Sarah Newton: I will pass that question straight on to the Minister to answer.
Mike Penning: I will publish all the information we have.
Sarah Newton: Like everyone else, I am reassured by what the Minister has said: saving lives is in his blood; he will now make all the information available to the Transport Committee; no decisions will be made until the Transport Committee has published its findings; and there will be plenty of opportunities between now and then for further representations by coastguards, without fear. That was a very important point. Coastguards are frightened, and I think that there are volunteers in the RNLI and other organisations who are frightened to come forward. They can do so with the absolute guarantee that they have been given by the Minister today.
Mr Russell Brown: As the Minister would not allow me to intervene, may I, through the hon. Lady, ask if the table-top exercise will be undertaken again, but in real time to give a real indication of how that might develop on the day?
Sarah Newton: I am sure that the Minister has heard that. I had better let other hon. Members intervene.
Bill Esterson: The hon. Lady congratulated our colleagues, the hon. Members for Totnes (Dr Wollaston) and for Na h-Eileanan an Iar (Mr MacNeil), whose names also appeared on the Order Paper. I want to add to those congratulations.
I wanted to pursue with the Minister the point about the transition period. Whatever the outcome, we want to ensure that safety is not compromised in that period of change. The Minister touched on that in his remarks, but I want to be confident that that point has been taken on board, and that the transfer of local knowledge, and the issues around that, are addressed strongly in whatever system we end up with.
Sarah Newton: I am sure we all agree that safety has to be the paramount consideration.
Stephen Gilbert (St Austell and Newquay) (LD): My hon. Friend is right to say that we owe it to the army of people who voluntarily protect life and limb at sea to
get this right so that people are confident about going to sea. Does she agree that that is the test on which we should judge these proposals?
Sarah Newton: That is right. As the Minister began by saying, it is the people of the country, as well as seafarers, who have to feel absolutely sure that, whatever happens when the proposals are introduced, safety is paramount. The transparent way in which all the proposals will be published and scrutinised by the Transport
Committee, and the fact that hon. Members will again have the opportunity to examine and debate the proposals in the House, should give people the assurance that they desperately crave at the moment, and give the answers to the questions which remain unanswered.
Sitting adjourned.


In this case brought by a former patient who sued his psychiatrist for medical malpractice, the Supreme Court affirmed the trial court's grant of summary judgment for the psychiatrist. The Court held (1) the district court did not err in granting the patient a ninety-day continuance of the summary judgment hearing for only the limited purpose of giving the patient more time to hire an expert witness; (2) the district court did not err in relying on the psychiatrist's affidavit in which he averred that he had met the applicable standard of care; and (3) the patient was not prejudiced by the court's refusal to enter exhibit 35, which contained the patient's first set of requests for admission and the psychiatrist's responses, into evidence at the summary judgment hearing or by its denial of Lombardo's motion for a protective order under HIPAA.
Nebraska Supreme Court Online Library www.nebraska.gov/apps-courts-epub/ 03/23/2018 09:33 AM CDT - 400 - Nebraska Supreme Court A dvance Sheets 299 Nebraska R eports LOMBARDO v. SEDLACEK Cite as 299 Neb. 400 M arc A. Lombardo, appellant and cross-appellee, v. M ichael J. Sedlacek, M.D., appellee and cross-appellant. ___ N.W.2d ___ Filed March 23, 2018. No. S-17-146. 1. Evidence: Appeal and Error. Generally, the control of discovery is a matter for judicial discretion, and decisions regarding discovery will be upheld on appeal in the absence of an abuse of discretion. 2. Appeal and Error. Appellate review of a district court's use of inherent power is for an abuse of discretion. 3. Judgments: Words and Phrases. An abuse of discretion occurs when a trial court's decision is based upon reasons that are untenable or unreasonable or if its action is clearly against justice or conscience, reason, and evidence. 4. Judgments: Motions for Continuance: Appeal and Error. A court's grant or denial of a continuance and other judicial action authorized by Neb. Rev. Stat. § 25-1335 (Reissue 2016) are within the discretion of the trial court, whose ruling will not be disturbed on appeal in the absence of an abuse of discretion. 5. Summary Judgment: Appeal and Error. In reviewing a summary judgment, an appellate court views the evidence in a light most favorable to the party against whom the judgment is granted and gives such party the benefit of all reasonable inferences deducible from the evidence. 6. Judgments: Pleadings: Appeal and Error. A motion to alter or amend a judgment is addressed to the discretion of the trial court, whose decision will be upheld in the absence of an abuse of that discretion. 7. Statutes: Jurisdiction. Jurisdictional statutes must be strictly construed. 8. Statutes: Jurisdiction: Legislature: Courts: Appeal and Error. To say that jurisdiction may be lodged in the Nebraska Supreme Court in any other manner than that provided by the plain words of the statute amounts to judicial legislation. - 401 - Nebraska Supreme Court A dvance Sheets 299 Nebraska R eports LOMBARDO v. SEDLACEK Cite as 299 Neb. 400 9. Legislature: Intent. The intent of the Legislature is generally expressed by omission as well as by inclusion. 10. Statutes: Appeal and Error. An appellate court is not at liberty to add language to the plain terms of a statute to restrict its meaning. 11. Pleadings: Notice. The statutory description of the motion to alter or amend does not include any requirement that the motion be accompanied simultaneously by a notice of hearing before the district court. 12. Summary Judgment: Motions for Continuance: Affidavits. The purpose of Neb. Rev. Stat. § 25-1335 (Reissue 2016) is to provide a safeguard against an improvident or premature grant of summary judgment. 13. ____: ____: ____. The affidavit in support of relief under Neb. Rev. Stat. § 25-1335 (Reissue 2016) need not contain evidence going to the merits of the case, but it must contain a reasonable excuse or good cause, explaining why a party is presently unable to offer evidence essential to justify opposition to the motion for summary judgment. 14. Summary Judgment: Malpractice: Physicians and Surgeons: Affidavits: Proof. At the summary judgment stage, it is well settled that a physician's self-supporting affidavit suffices to make a prima facie case that the physician did not commit medical malpractice. 15. Malpractice: Physicians and Surgeons: Expert Witnesses: Presumptions. There are only very limited exceptions to the requirement of expert testimony to rebut a prima facie case by a physician stating that he or she met the standard of care, where the alleged negligence and the causal link to the plaintiff's injuries are presumed to be within the comprehension of laymen. 16. Trial: Evidence: Appeal and Error. In a civil case, the admission or exclusion of evidence is not reversible error unless it unfairly prejudiced a substantial right of the complaining party. Appeal from the District Court for Douglas County: Horacio J. Wheelock, Judge. Affirmed. Christian T. Williams, of Domina Law Group, P.C., L.L.O., for appellant. Marc A. Lombardo, pro se. Mary M. Schott and Thomas J. Shomaker, of Sodoro, Daly, Shomaker & Selde, P.C., L.L.O., for appellee. Heavican, Funke, JJ. C.J., Miller-Lerman, Cassel, Stacy, and - 402 - Nebraska Supreme Court A dvance Sheets 299 Nebraska R eports LOMBARDO v. SEDLACEK Cite as 299 Neb. 400 Heavican, C.J. I. NATURE OF CASE A former patient sued a psychiatrist for medical malpractice. The psychiatrist moved for summary judgment. The psychiatrist averred that he had met the applicable standard of care and that he had given to the patient all materials in his possession pertaining to the patient's care. The court granted the patient a 90-day continuance of the summary judgment hearing, in order to find an expert witness. The court stayed all discovery and pending motions until the summary judgment hearing or an expert witness indicated the need for more discovery. The patient failed to designate an expert within 90 days, and the court granted summary judgment in favor of the psychiatrist. The patient appeals, arguing that the court abused its discretion in staying discovery contingent upon his designation of an expert witness, in refusing to admit into evidence at the summary judgment hearing his first set of requests for admission and the psychiatrist's responses, and in erroneously relying on the psychiatrist's affidavit that allegedly was not in evidence. II. BACKGROUND 1. Complaint Marc A. Lombardo, pro se, sued his former psychiatrist, Michael J. Sedlacek, for medical malpractice. Lombardo alleged that Sedlacek was negligent in failing to properly diagnose and treat Lombardo and that as a proximate result, Lombardo suffered permanent personal injuries and damages, including but not limited to, loss of income, medical expenses, impairment of earning capacity, and mental pain and suffering. In Sedlacek's answer to the amended complaint, he admitted that he provided medical care to Lombardo, but denied the remaining allegations. Sedlacek moved for summary judgment. - 403 - Nebraska Supreme Court A dvance Sheets 299 Nebraska R eports LOMBARDO v. SEDLACEK Cite as 299 Neb. 400 2. Protective Orders The motion for summary judgment was originally set for hearing on June 1, 2016. At a hearing held on April 28, the court heard several motions. The court overruled Lombardo's motion to strike Sedlacek's answer on the ground that it was too general. The court also overruled a motion by Lombardo for a temporary protective order from Sedlacek's discovery requests, pursuant to the federal Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996 (HIPAA). The motion had requested "the entry of a Protective Order for the purpose of preventing the disclosure and use of Confidential Information by any party or non-party other than as allowed by the order." The court granted a motion by Sedlacek for a protective order requiring Lombardo to communicate with Sedlacek's attorney, and not with Sedlacek directly. The court granted Lombardo a 1-month continuance for Lombardo to respond to Sedlacek's discovery requests. On May 28, 2016, Lombardo sent Sedlacek his first set of requests for admission. 3. Continuance of Summary Judgment Hearing, Stay of Motions and Discovery, and Sedlacek's A ffidavits On June 6, 2016, Lombardo filed a motion to compel Sedlacek to produce certain documents responsive to Lombardo's first set of requests for production, which had been served on April 7. In the motion, Lombardo alleged that Sedlacek had not produced all the documents in his possession and that he had obscured or cropped portions of the documents provided. On June 9, Lombardo filed a motion to continue the hearing on the motion for summary judgment, pursuant to Neb. Rev. Stat. § 25-1335 (Reissue 2016). The court conducted a hearing on June 13, 2016. The court introduced the hearing as a hearing on summary judgment. At that point, Lombardo interjected that he had filed a motion to - 404 - Nebraska Supreme Court A dvance Sheets 299 Nebraska R eports LOMBARDO v. SEDLACEK Cite as 299 Neb. 400 continue the summary judgment hearing. Sedlacek responded that he had objected to the continuance. Lombardo offered into evidence exhibit 23 in support of his motion to continue. The court entered exhibit 23 into evidence without limitation. Exhibit 23 consists of Lombardo's affidavit and several attachments. In his affidavit, Lombardo averred that he did not have all the medical records that Sedlacek was supposed to produce, that certain records appeared to contain misrepresentations or fabrications of facts, and that portions of the records were illegible. Lombardo further stated in the affidavit that he needed to depose Sedlacek "in order to understand more about why the records contain the false information." Lombardo requested a continuance of the summary judgment hearing for at least 9 months, after all records were produced, in order for Lombardo to name an expert. Also contained within exhibit 23 is an affidavit by Sedlacek, dated May 2, 2016. In the May 2 affidavit, Sedlacek averred that he had met or exceeded the applicable standard of care required of him under the circumstances in his treatment of Lombardo. Lombardo's affidavit, to which Sedlacek's affidavit was attached, did not call into question the authenticity of Sedlacek's May 2, 2016, affidavit. Instead, Lombardo "responded" to Sedlacek's affidavit, stating that he could not opine on the accuracy of Sedlacek's averments and that he disagreed Sedlacek had met the applicable standard of care. In response to Lombardo's affidavit claiming he had not received all his medical records, Sedlacek entered into evidence exhibit 22. Exhibit 22 is Sedlacek's affidavit, dated June 9, 2016, averring that he had provided all "materials pertaining to . . . Lombardo that I believe are my [sic] possession or the possession of my office staff to my attorneys" and that "[i]t is my understanding that all of the records that I provided to my attorneys were produced to . . . Lombardo in response to his Requests for Production of Documents." - 405 - Nebraska Supreme Court A dvance Sheets 299 Nebraska R eports LOMBARDO v. SEDLACEK Cite as 299 Neb. 400 Lombardo confirmed at the hearing that on May 11, he had received 484 pages of documents from the offices of Sedlacek's attorneys. Given the fairly recent receipt of his medical records, the court ultimately granted Lombardo a 90-day continuance of the summary judgment hearing, in order to find an expert. The court told Lombardo that he would not be allowed to designate an expert after September 13, 2016. The summary judgment hearing was continued to September 15. The court did not rule upon Lombardo's motion to compel, but instead continued the hearing on any pending motions until September 15, 2016. The court specifically stated that Lombardo was not allowed to depose Sedlacek "until and after such time [Lombardo] has identified his expert or experts, and said expert or experts' opinions." The court explained that Lombardo needed to designate an expert "before we do anything else." 4. Denial of Motion to A lter or A mend and Stay of Motions and Discovery The orders from the April 28 and June 13, 2016, hearings were file stamped on June 13, 2016. And, on June 23, Lombardo filed a "Motion to Alter or Amend" the June 13 order relating to the continuance of pending motions and the requirement that Lombardo designate an expert witness. Despite the court's order staying discovery, Lombardo sent Sedlacek a second set of requests for admission on July 14, 2016. In response, on July 19, Sedlacek also moved for a stay of all discovery until September 15, unless Lombardo could show that the discovery was requested by a potential expert. Sedlacek also moved for a stay of all hearings on all motions filed by Lombardo that did not relate to his ability or duty to designate an expert until September 15. At a hearing on July 25, 2016, Lombardo again argued that Sedlacek had not provided all records in his possession. - 406 - Nebraska Supreme Court A dvance Sheets 299 Nebraska R eports LOMBARDO v. SEDLACEK Cite as 299 Neb. 400 Lombardo claimed he had proof in the form of a letter he received from Sedlacek, a copy of which was not in the records disclosed. Counsel for Sedlacek responded that they had scanned approximately 500 pages of records and had sent them to Lombardo and that those were all the pertinent records in Sedlacek's possession. The court made a specific finding that all discovery had been complied with up to the date of the hearing. The court again stayed all discovery until Lombardo designated an expert. The court stated that if Lombardo timely found an expert, and such expert indicated more discovery was necessary, the court would reopen discovery. The court explained that Sedlacek's averment that he had met the standard of care created a prima facie case for summary judgment and that the burden had shifted to Lombardo to present expert testimony showing a material issue of fact. The court denied Lombardo's motion to alter or amend. The court's order was file stamped on July 26, 2016. 5. Lombardo's Objection and Interlocutory A ppeal On August 5, 2016, Lombardo served upon Sedlacek a third set of requests for admission. And on August 8, Lombardo filed an "Objection and Motion." Lombardo stated in the August 8 motion that he objected to the court's order of July 26, because he had not received timely notice of Sedlacek's July 19 motion for a stay of discovery. Lombardo stated, further, that Sedlacek had omitted 38 of 52 requests for admission, which were served on Sedlacek on May 28, 2016, before any stay of discovery. Lombardo asked the court to set aside its order on Sedlacek's July 19 motion or to amend the order so as to remove the stay on discovery. On August 11, 2016, Lombardo filed a notice of appeal from the court's orders of June 13 and July 26. In an order on August 22, the district court stated that it was retaining jurisdiction while the appeal was pending, on the ground that - 407 - Nebraska Supreme Court A dvance Sheets 299 Nebraska R eports LOMBARDO v. SEDLACEK Cite as 299 Neb. 400 Lombardo had appealed from nonfinal orders. On September 19, 2016, in case No. A-16-776, the August 11 appeal was summarily dismissed for lack of jurisdiction by the Nebraska Court of Appeals. 6. Hearing and Order R egarding Summary Judgment On September 12, 2016, Lombardo filed a motion to stay the summary judgment hearing, as well as a jury demand. In the motion to stay, Lombardo asserted that his August 11 notice of appeal deprived the court of jurisdiction. At a hearing on September 15, 2016, the court denied the motion to stay and proceeded with the motion for summary judgment. Lombardo conceded at the hearing that he had not designated an expert. Lombardo explained that he had spoken with a medical doctor, but had not hired the doctor or obtained an affidavit from the doctor expressing any opinion. Lombardo entered into evidence exhibit 34, entitled "Objection." In the objection, Lombardo asserted, among other things, that Sedlacek's May 2, 2016, affidavit was inadmissible, because Sedlacek made statements that were not based on personal knowledge and because Sedlacek relied on hearsay statements in the medical records. However, Lombardo did not object to the use of the May 2 affidavit on the grounds that it had allegedly been admitted for a limited purpose, that it had been admitted into evidence at a prior hearing, that Lombardo lacked notice it would be relied on in determining the motion for summary judgment, or that the affidavit was submitted by Lombardo rather than by Sedlacek. Lombardo also offered into evidence exhibit 35, containing Lombardo's first set of requests for admission and Sedlacek's responses. In an affidavit within exhibit 35, Lombardo averred that he mailed a copy of the requests to Sedlacek's attorney on May 28, 2016, and mailed a notice of service on June 1. He further stated that he believed requests Nos. 3, 5 to 11, 13, 14, 16 to 18, 20, 21, 25, 27, and 31 to 52 should be deemed - 408 - Nebraska Supreme Court A dvance Sheets 299 Nebraska R eports LOMBARDO v. SEDLACEK Cite as 299 Neb. 400 admitted pursuant to Neb. Ct. R. Disc. § 6-336, because they were not responded to. A comparison of the requests and the responses found in Lombardo's offer of proof indicates that, with the exception of request No. 38, the requests specified by Lombardo were not individually responded to. However, Sedlacek's response to the first set of requests for admission stated with regard to these unanswered requests that they were "vague, unclear as to time and place, [sought] conclusions of law, [sought] conclusions as to the impressions of others, [were] unintelligible, and/or contain[ed] compound questions." Sedlacek's attorney objected to the admission of exhibit 35. She asserted that a general denial to a number of requests does not waive or permit those requests to be deemed admitted. The court sustained counsel's objection and refused to enter exhibit 35 into evidence for purposes of the summary judgment hearing. Lombardo also offered into evidence exhibits 36 and 37, which consisted of Lombardo's second and third sets of requests for admission, along with Lombardo's affidavits stating their dates of service and that Sedlacek had not responded to the requests. The court sustained Sedlacek's objections to the exhibits on the ground that they were subject to the court's stay of discovery. On September 20, 2016, the court granted summary judgment to Sedlacek. The court ruled that all other pending motions were denied as moot and explicitly stated that the court did not retain any motions for future disposition. 7. Motion to A lter or A mend On September 26, 2016, Lombardo filed a motion to alter or amend, asking the court to vacate its order of summary judgment. The motion was served upon Sedlacek, but did not contain a notice of hearing at the time of its filing. A notice of hearing was later filed on December 14, setting the hearing on the motion to alter or amend for December 30. The hearing - 409 - Nebraska Supreme Court A dvance Sheets 299 Nebraska R eports LOMBARDO v. SEDLACEK Cite as 299 Neb. 400 was rescheduled for January 13, 2017. Prior to the hearing, Lombardo filed an "Amended Motion to Alter or Amend Judgment," as well as a motion to stay the hearing on his motion to alter or amend. At the hearing on January 13, 2017, Sedlacek objected to Lombardo's motion to alter or amend on the ground that the district court lacked "jurisdiction" to hear the motion, because Lombardo had failed to comply with Rules of Dist. Ct. of Fourth Jud. Dist. 4-2(B)(1) (rev. 2005). That rule states in relevant part: Unless otherwise ordered by the court, all pretrial and posttrial motions or similar filings such as special appearances which require a hearing shall be filed in the case prior to the scheduled hearing. At the time of making said filing, the party shall obtain a date for hearing thereon from the judge in charge of the case or, in the absence of the judge or at the judge's direction, from a member of the judge's office staff. (Emphasis supplied.) Sedlacek acknowledged receipt of notice of the hearing, but argued that Lombardo should have obtained the notice of hearing before the motion was filed. The court overruled Sedlacek's jurisdictional objection and considered the merits of Lombardo's motion to alter or amend. During the hearing on Lombardo's motion to alter or amend, one of the attorneys from the firm representing Sedlacek stated that as far as she could tell, Sedlacek's affidavit stating he met the applicable standard of care had not been offered into evidence. The court disagreed. The judge stated that he recalled seeing the affidavit and that it had been "attached to something that was submitted." In an order dated January 17, 2017, the court denied Lombardo's motion to stay, his motion to alter or amend, and his amended motion to alter or amend. The court denied all other pending motions. - 410 - Nebraska Supreme Court A dvance Sheets 299 Nebraska R eports LOMBARDO v. SEDLACEK Cite as 299 Neb. 400 On February 6, 2017, Lombardo filed his notice of appeal and deposited his docket fee in the office of the clerk of the district court. That is the appeal presently before us. III. ASSIGNMENTS OF ERROR Lombardo assigns that the district court erred when it (1) granted summary judgment without an affidavit in support of the motion before it, (2) did not hear and did not grant Lombardo's motion to compel discovery, (3) did not grant Lombardo's motion for additional time in discovery, (4) did not hear and did not grant Lombardo's motions for protection from discovery, (5) determined that Sedlacek had made a prima facie case on the basis of facts not in evidence, (6) relied on facts not in evidence, and (7) denied Lombardo's offer of evidence in opposition to summary judgment. On cross-appeal, Sedlacek assigns that the district court should have sustained his objection to Lombardo's motion to alter or amend and "acknowledged the case stood dismissed when no appeal was taken within 30 days of the Order granting Summary Judgment." IV. STANDARD OF REVIEW [1,2] Generally, the control of discovery is a matter for judicial discretion, and decisions regarding discovery will be upheld on appeal in the absence of an abuse of discretion.1 Similarly, appellate review of a district court's use of inherent power is for an abuse of discretion.2  An abuse of discretion occurs when a trial court's decision is based upon reasons that are untenable or unreasonable or if its action is clearly against justice or conscience, reason, and evidence.3  A court's grant or denial of a continuance and other judicial action authorized by § 25-1335 are within the discretion 1 2 3 Putnam v. Scherbring, 297 Neb. 868, 902 N.W.2d 140 (2017). Id. Id. - 411 - Nebraska Supreme Court A dvance Sheets 299 Nebraska R eports LOMBARDO v. SEDLACEK Cite as 299 Neb. 400 of the trial court, whose ruling will not be disturbed on appeal in the absence of an abuse of discretion.4  In reviewing a summary judgment, an appellate court views the evidence in a light most favorable to the party against whom the judgment is granted and gives such party the benefit of all reasonable inferences deducible from the evidence.5  A motion to alter or amend a judgment is addressed to the discretion of the trial court, whose decision will be upheld in the absence of an abuse of that discretion.6 V. ANALYSIS 1. Jurisdiction We first address Sedlacek's cross-appeal. Sedlacek asserts that we lack jurisdiction because Lombardo's motion to alter or amend was defective and thus failed to toll the 30-day statutory period for perfecting his appeal to this court. Sedlacek contends that Lombardo's motion was fatally defective because Lombardo failed to comply with local district court rule 4-2(B)(1), which requires parties to obtain a date for hearing simultaneously to the filing of any motion. [7-10] An appellate court acquires no jurisdiction unless the appellant has satisfied the requirements for appellate jurisdiction.7 Jurisdictional statutes must be strictly construed.8 To say that jurisdiction may be lodged in our appellate court in any other manner than that provided by the plain words of the statute amounts to judicial legislation.9 The intent of the 4 5 6 7 8 9 See, Gaytan v. Wal-Mart, 289 Neb. 49, 853 N.W.2d 181 (2014); Wachtel v. Beer, 229 Neb. 392, 427 N.W.2d 56 (1988). Yoder v. Cotton, 276 Neb. 954, 758 N.W.2d 630 (2008). Breci v. St. Paul Mercury Ins. Co., 288 Neb. 626, 849 N.W.2d 523 (2014). Goodman v. City of Omaha, 274 Neb. 539, 742 N.W.2d 26 (2007). State v. Parmar, 255 Neb. 356, 586 N.W.2d 279 (1998). See id. - 412 - Nebraska Supreme Court A dvance Sheets 299 Nebraska R eports LOMBARDO v. SEDLACEK Cite as 299 Neb. 400 Legislature is generally expressed by omission as well as by inclusion.10 We are not at liberty to add language to the plain terms of a statute to restrict its meaning.11 Neb. Rev. Stat. § 25-1912(1) (Reissue 2016) provides that an appeal is perfected and the appellate court has jurisdiction when a notice of appeal is properly filed within 30 days of the entry of the judgment, decree, or final order. Subsection (4) of § 25-1912 states: Except as otherwise provided in subsection (3) of this section . . . an appeal shall be deemed perfected and the appellate court shall have jurisdiction of the cause when such notice of appeal has been filed and such docket fee deposited in the office of the clerk of the district court, and after being perfected no appeal shall be dismissed without notice, and no step other than the filing of such notice of appeal and the depositing of such docket fee shall be deemed jurisdictional. (Emphasis supplied.) Section 25-1912(3) provides for termination of the 30-day period through a timely motion to alter or amend. It states in this regard: The running of the time for filing a notice of appeal shall be terminated as to all parties . . . (b) by a timely motion to alter or amend a judgment under section 25-1329, . . . and the full time for appeal fixed in subsection (1) of this section commences to run from the entry of the order ruling upon the motion filed pursuant to subdivision (a), (b), or (c) of this subsection. (Emphasis supplied.) Thus, under § 25-1912(3), the time to appeal to this court begins anew after the motion to alter or amend is disposed of.12 10 11 12 State v. Frederick, 291 Neb. 243, 864 N.W.2d 681 (2015). Id. See, Clarke v. First Nat. Bank of Omaha, 296 Neb. 632, 895 N.W.2d 284 (2017); Gebhardt v. Gebhardt, 16 Neb. App. 565, 746 N.W.2d 707 (2008). - 413 - Nebraska Supreme Court A dvance Sheets 299 Nebraska R eports LOMBARDO v. SEDLACEK Cite as 299 Neb. 400 The only express limitation to this exception within our statutes governing appellate jurisdiction is that the motion to alter or amend be as described by Neb. Rev. Stat. § 25-1329 (Reissue 2016). Section 25-1329 states in full: A motion to alter or amend a judgment shall be filed no later than ten days after the entry of the judgment. A motion to alter or amend a judgment filed after the announcement of a verdict or decision but before the entry of judgment shall be treated as filed after the entry of judgment and on the day thereof.  This statutory description of the motion to alter or amend does not include any requirement that the motion be accompanied simultaneously by a notice of hearing before the district court. Under the plain language of our jurisdictional statutes, to terminate the 30-day period for filing a notice of appeal, the motion to alter or amend needs to be filed within 10 days after the entry of the judgment. In this case, it was. And the district court accepted Lombardo's motion to alter or amend as filed—despite Lombardo's failure to timely set a hearing date under local district court rule 4-2(B)(1). The court specifically rejected Sedlacek's contention that the motion was fatally defective and should not be recognized as filed, for the reason that Lombardo had not simultaneously obtained a date for its hearing. We find no error in the court's ruling. Indeed, local district court rule 4-2(B)(1) does not by its plain language purport to set forth the requirements of a motion itself. Rather, the rule requires that the party filing a motion obtain a date for hearing on the motion when the motion is filed. It states in relevant part that "[a]t the time of making said filing, the party shall obtain a date for hearing thereon . . . ." Sedlacek points to no rule stating the consequences of failing to abide by local district court rule 4-2(B)(1). Moreover, district courts have discretion to excuse procedural court - 414 - Nebraska Supreme Court A dvance Sheets 299 Nebraska R eports LOMBARDO v. SEDLACEK Cite as 299 Neb. 400 rules.13 An abuse of discretion occurs when a trial court's decision is based upon reasons that are untenable or unreasonable or if its action is clearly against justice or conscience, reason, and evidence.14 We find no reason to conclude that the district court abused its discretion in accepting Lombardo's motion to alter or amend as properly filed and under the court's consideration until its ruling on January 17, 2017. Sedlacek's reliance on Neb. Rev. Stat. § 25-910 (Reissue 2016) does not alter our analysis. Section 25-910 merely outlines the required written content of a notice of a motion "[w]here notice of a motion is required . . . ." It does not state that the motion must be filed simultaneously with a notice of hearing. Moreover, § 25-910 is not cross-referenced by our statutes governing appellate jurisdiction. The 30-day period for filing a notice of appeal was terminated until Lombardo's motion to alter or amend (filed with the district court within 10 days of the judgment as required by § 25-1329) was disposed of. Then, a new 30-day period began. Lombardo filed his notice of appeal within 30 days of the January 17, 2017, order denying his motion to alter or amend. Therefore, the current appeal is timely and we have jurisdiction to consider the merits of Lombardo's assignments of error. 2. Summary Judgment While Lombardo's pro se brief touches upon many topics, we consider only arguments that were both specifically assigned and specifically argued in the appellate brief.15 Broadly, Lombardo presents three assertions of error that were both assigned and argued. First, he asserts that the district court erroneously relied on an affidavit not in evidence in its various rulings, including granting summary judgment 13 14 15 See Houser v. American Paving Asphalt, ante p. 1, 907 N.W.2d 16 (2018). Putnam v. Scherbring, supra note 1. See Bellino v. McGrath North, 274 Neb. 130, 738 N.W.2d 434 (2007). - 415 - Nebraska Supreme Court A dvance Sheets 299 Nebraska R eports LOMBARDO v. SEDLACEK Cite as 299 Neb. 400 in Sedlacek's favor. Second, Lombardo argues that he was unfairly hampered in the amount of discovery permitted before the court ruled on the summary judgment motion, by limiting its continuance to finding an expert and refusing to grant Lombardo's motion to compel discovery. Third, Lombardo asserts that he was prejudiced at the summary judgment hearing by the district court's allegedly erroneous ruling on his offer of exhibit 35, and its failure to grant his motion for a protective order under HIPAA. (a) Affidavit "Not in Evidence" We find no merit to Lombardo's contention that Sedlacek's affidavit, stating he met the applicable standard of care, was not in evidence. It is true, as Lombardo points out, that unless the affidavit is marked, offered, and accepted, it does not become part of the record and cannot be considered by the trial court as evidence.16 But, fortunately for Sedlacek, the May 2, 2016, affidavit, in which Sedlacek averred he met the applicable standard of care, was offered into evidence by Lombardo as part of exhibit 23. Lombardo's affidavit did not purport to attach Sedlacek's affidavit for a limited purpose. And the district court admitted exhibit 23 into evidence without any restriction on its use. Lombardo's "Objection," at exhibit 34, to the affidavit, on the ground that it was vague and relied on hearsay, was untimely. Accordingly, Sedlacek's May 2, 2016, affidavit was part of the record and was properly considered by the district court as evidence. Most importantly, the court properly relied upon Sedlacek's affidavit, which was submitted during the June 13 summary judgment hearing, in granting summary judgment in favor of Sedlacek. (b) Limited Continuance We equally find no merit to Lombardo's claim that the court erred in deciding Sedlacek's motion for summary judgment 16 Altaffer v. Majestic Roofing, 263 Neb. 518, 641 N.W.2d 34 (2002). - 416 - Nebraska Supreme Court A dvance Sheets 299 Nebraska R eports LOMBARDO v. SEDLACEK Cite as 299 Neb. 400 without allowing Lombardo adequate time for discovery to rebut Sedlacek's prima facie case.  Lombardo asserts that pursuant to § 25-1335, the court should have refused Sedlacek's motion for summary judgment or granted Lombardo a continuance on the hearing of the motion, in order to permit affidavits to be obtained, depositions to be taken, or discovery to be had. The purpose of § 25-1335 is to provide a safeguard against an improvident or premature grant of summary judgment.17 Section 25-1335 provides: Should it appear from the affidavits of a party opposing the motion that he cannot for reasons stated present by affidavit facts essential to justify his opposition, the court may refuse the application for judgment or may order a continuance to permit affidavits to be obtained or depositions to be taken or discovery to be had or may make such other order as is just.  We have said that the affidavit in support of relief under § 25-1335 need not contain evidence going to the merits of the case,18 but it must contain a reasonable excuse or good cause, explaining why a party is presently unable to offer evidence essential to justify opposition to the motion for summary judgment.19 We have cited with approval case law holding that the affidavit must show how additional time will enable the party to rebut a summary judgment movant's allegation that no genuine issue of material fact exists for disposition by trial.20 The affidavit should specifically identify the relevant information that will be obtained with additional 17 18 19 20 Gaytan v. Wal-Mart, supra note 4; Wachtel v. Beer, supra note 4. See, Gaytan v. Wal-Mart, supra note 4; Dresser v. Union Pacific RR. Co., 282 Neb. 537, 809 N.W.2d 713 (2011); Wachtel v. Beer, supra note 4. Id. See Wachtel v. Beer, supra note 4, citing Patty Precision v. Brown & Sharpe Mfg. Co., 742 F.2d 1260 (10th Cir. 1984). - 417 - Nebraska Supreme Court A dvance Sheets 299 Nebraska R eports LOMBARDO v. SEDLACEK Cite as 299 Neb. 400 time and indicate some basis for the conclusion that the sought information actually exists.21 Generally, the control of discovery is a matter for judicial discretion.22 A court's grant or denial of a continuance and other judicial action authorized by § 25-1335 is likewise within the discretion of the trial court, whose ruling will not be disturbed on appeal in the absence of an abuse of discretion.23 We first note that the court did, in fact, grant Lombardo relief under § 25-1335 in the form of a 90-day continuance for Lombardo to find an expert witness. Nevertheless, Lombardo argues that the court abused its discretion in so limiting the relief and in not allowing Lombardo more time for discovery without a designated expert. In particular, Lombardo argues he should have been allowed more time in order to depose Sedlacek. In his affidavit in support of relief under § 25-1335, Lombardo claimed he did not have all the medical records, certain records appeared to contain misrepresentations or fabrications of facts, and portions of the records were illegible. He averred that he needed to depose Sedlacek "in order to understand more about why the records contain the false information." But none of the allegations in Lombardo's affidavit presented a likelihood that additional time for discovery, without designating an expert, would allow Lombardo to rebut Sedlacek's prima facie case for summary judgment. As the district court repeatedly explained, Lombardo needed an expert witness in order to do that.  At the summary judgment stage, it is well settled that a physician's self-supporting affidavit suffices to make 21 22 23 See id., citing VISA Intern. Service v. Bankcard Holders, 784 F.2d 1472 (9th Cir. 1986). See, Putnam v. Scherbring, supra note 1; Gallner v. Hoffman, 264 Neb. 995, 653 N.W.2d 838 (2002). See, Gaytan v. Wal-Mart, supra note 4; Wachtel v. Beer, supra note 4. - 418 - Nebraska Supreme Court A dvance Sheets 299 Nebraska R eports LOMBARDO v. SEDLACEK Cite as 299 Neb. 400 a prima facie case that the physician did not commit medical malpractice.24 Sedlacek's affidavit thus shifted the burden to Lombardo to produce admissible contradictory evidence raising a genuine issue of material fact.25 And, in medical malpractice cases, expert testimony by a medical professional is normally required to establish the standard of care and causation under the circumstances.26 Therefore, once the defendant physician in a malpractice case states that he or she has met the standard of care, the plaintiff must normally present expert testimony to show that a material issue of fact exists preventing summary judgment.27  There are only very limited exceptions to the requirement of expert testimony to rebut a prima facie case by a physician stating that he or she met the standard of care, where the alleged negligence and the causal link to the plaintiff's injuries are presumed to be within the comprehension of laymen.28 Lombardo does not argue, however, that any such exception to the need for expert testimony applies to the facts of his case. Lombardo's argument instead is that Sedlacek's own statements might have created a material issue of fact, had Lombardo been given additional time to depose him. While a defendant physician's own statements can be used to create a material issue of fact in a medical malpractice case,29 speculation that such statements might be obtained is a poor indication that the sought information actually exists. Furthermore, 24 25 26 27 28 29 See Thone v. Regional West Med. Ctr., 275 Neb. 238, 745 N.W.2d 898 (2008). See id. Simon v. Drake, 285 Neb. 784, 829 N.W.2d 686 (2013). See Cerny v. Longley, 270 Neb. 706, 708 N.W.2d 219 (2005). See, also, e.g., Wagner v. Pope, 247 Neb. 951, 531 N.W.2d 234 (1995). See Thone v. Regional West Med. Ctr., supra note 24. See, Fossett v. Board of Regents, 258 Neb. 703, 605 N.W.2d 465 (2000); Healy v. Langdon, 245 Neb. 1, 511 N.W.2d 498 (1994). - 419 - Nebraska Supreme Court A dvance Sheets 299 Nebraska R eports LOMBARDO v. SEDLACEK Cite as 299 Neb. 400 Lombardo's affidavit failed to present good cause as to why he had not deposed Sedlacek before the June 13, 2016, hearing, at which discovery was stayed. The district court did not abuse its discretion in granting only limited relief under § 25-1335, in the form of a 90-day continuance of the summary judgment hearing in order for Lombardo to obtain an expert witness. Relatedly, the district court did not err in refusing to entertain Lombardo's motion to compel discovery until the summary judgment hearing, unless Lombardo designated an expert witness stating the need for further discovery. Nor did the court err in ultimately denying Lombardo's motion to compel when Lombardo failed to designate an expert witness by September 13, 2016. (c) Evidence Not Admitted at Summary Judgment Hearing Lastly, Lombardo argues that he was prejudiced in his ability to present a material issue of fact at the summary judgment hearing by virtue of the court's refusal to enter exhibit 35 into evidence and its denial of Lombardo's motion for a protective order. Lombardo argues that exhibit 35, containing Sedlacek's responses to Lombardo's first set of requests for admission, would have created a material issue of fact if the court had admitted it into evidence. Specifically, he asserts that the court should have recognized as admitted, under § 6-336, several "unanswered" requests for admission. These allegedly admitted allegations would, according to Lombardo, have established that Sedlacek breached his "duty as physician to establish a thorough and accurate medical history."30 Section 6-336 states in relevant part, "The matter is admitted unless, within thirty days after service of the request, or within such shorter or longer time as the court may allow, 30 Brief for appellant at 31. - 420 - Nebraska Supreme Court A dvance Sheets 299 Nebraska R eports LOMBARDO v. SEDLACEK Cite as 299 Neb. 400 the party to whom the request is directed serves upon the party requesting the admission a written answer or objection addressed to the matter . . . ." (Emphasis supplied.) Matters admitted pursuant to § 6-336 are a proper basis for a summary judgment.31 Section 6-336 is self-enforcing but not self-executing.32 It requires that a party, claiming another party's admission by failure to respond properly to a request for admission, must prove service of the request for admission and the served party's failure to answer or object to the request and must subsequently offer the request for admission as evidence.33 If the necessary foundational requirements are met and no motion is sustained to withdraw an admission, the trial court is obligated to give effect to the provisions of § 6-336.34 While Lombardo's affidavit in exhibit 35 proved service, he did not demonstrate Sedlacek's failure to object to the request. Exhibit 35 demonstrated that Sedlacek had objected to the unanswered requests as vague, unclear as to time and place, sought conclusions of law, sought conclusions as to the impressions of others, were unintelligible, and/or contained compound questions. Lombardo did not take issue below with the fact that the objections referred to several requests simultaneously, nor did he take issue with the form of the objections in his appellate brief.  In a civil case, the admission or exclusion of evidence is not reversible error unless it unfairly prejudiced a substantial right of the complaining party.35 We conclude that even 31 32 33 34 35 Wilson v. Misko, 244 Neb. 526, 508 N.W.2d 238 (1993). See, U.S. Bank Nat. Assn. v. Peterson, 284 Neb. 820, 823 N.W.2d 460 (2012); Tymar v. Two Men and a Truck, 282 Neb. 692, 805 N.W.2d 648 (2011); Wibbels v. Unick, 229 Neb. 184, 426 N.W.2d 244 (1988). Id. U.S. Bank Nat. Assn. v. Peterson, supra note 32; Conley v. Brazer, 278 Neb. 508, 772 N.W.2d 545 (2009). In re Estate of Clinger, 292 Neb. 237, 872 N.W.2d 37 (2015). - 421 - Nebraska Supreme Court A dvance Sheets 299 Nebraska R eports LOMBARDO v. SEDLACEK Cite as 299 Neb. 400 had the court admitted exhibit 35 into evidence, there would not have been matters admitted under § 6-336. Moreover, Lombardo fails to explain how the requests for admission, which were largely in hypothetical form, would have created a material issue of fact even if deemed admitted. We find no prejudicial error in the court's ruling on exhibit 35. Lombardo also claims that he was prejudiced by the court's refusal to grant his motion for a protective order under HIPAA. He claims that he could not offer his medical records as evidence at the summary judgment hearing, because they were not properly protected. Lombardo fails to point to what provision of HIPAA requires such a protective order or to any case law supporting his right to a protective order. And even if Lombardo had entered his medical records into evidence, they would not have created a material issue of fact. We agree with the district court that in order to create a material issue of fact, Lombardo needed to submit an expert's opinion that Sedlacek had breached the applicable standard of care. Thus, again, we find no prejudicial error in the court's order denying Lombardo's motion for a protective order. VI. CONCLUSION The district court did not err in continuing the summary judgment hearing for only the limited purpose of giving Lombardo more time to hire an expert witness. The court did not err in relying on Sedlacek's affidavit in which he averred that he had met the applicable standard of care. And Lombardo was not prejudiced by the court's refusal to enter exhibit 35 into evidence at the summary judgment hearing or by its denial of Lombardo's motion for a protective order under HIPAA. A ffirmed. Wright and K elch, JJ., not participating.


Way to Check Protection Updates for Threat Definitions in Windows 10 with steps. – To detect threats on Windows 10, Windows Defender Antivirus uses files called definitions. So, Windows automatically downloads the most recent definitions on your PC to protect it from threats. But, Microsoft also gives you a provision to manually check updates for threat definitions when needed. Learn the methods to Disable / Enable Virus & Threat Protection in Windows 10 you will proceed after the Protection update.
So, in this guide, we will present you the instructions to Check Protection Updates for Threat Definitions in Windows 10.
Protection Updates is a part of Virus & threat protection category in Windows Defender Security Center. This section displays you all the information about threat definitions, its version, including last update details. You can see a guide on the another segment of this application How to Turn On / Off Firewall & Network Protection on Windows 10.
Step 1 – Open Start Menu and scroll to the W section. A list of different apps will appear, locate Windows Defender Security Center and click on it.
As an alternative, you can also Create Shortcut to Windows Defender Security Center on Windows 10.
Step 2 – The homepage of the security application displays some options on the left sidebar. So, click the hamburger menu (three lines button) followed by a click on Virus & threat protection.
Step 3 – On the right pane of Virus & threat protection, you will notice few options and scan details, click on the last option Protection updates.
Step 4 – In the next page, Check for update button is visible below the heading Threat definitions. So, select that button and Check Protection Updates for Threat Definitions in Windows 10 will immediately start.
Step 5 – The application will start searching for updates and you can view the progress on the app itself. Well, you have to wait for few minutes for checking to finish.
Note – The Protection updates page will define you about Threat definitions. In addition, it also displays Threat definition running version, created and last updated date.
Windows Defender security Center is a hub for all the security measures for your device. It provides multiple tools that can keep your system safe from all dangers. Along with so many security tools, the app also allows you to Configure Windows Defender SmartScreen Settings for App & Browser Control in Windows 10.
So, to Check Protection Updates for Threat Definitions in Windows 10 is a very easy task. After following the above steps, you will be able to manually check for updates. If you see that the last update date of the security files is quite old, you can manually search for them at any time.


text:
Q: Click on title to scrape data using selenium and scrapy from scrapy_selenium import SeleniumRequest
from selenium.webdriver.support.ui import WebDriverWait
from selenium.webdriver.common.by import By
from selenium.webdriver.support import expected_conditions as EC
from selenium.webdriver.support.select import Select
from selenium import webdriver

url='https://www.aeafa.es/asociados.php?provinput='
driver =webdriver.Chrome('C:\Program Files (x86)\chromedriver.exe')
driver.get(url)

wait = WebDriverWait(driver, 30)
detail=wait.until(EC.element_to_be_clickable((By.XPATH, "//tbody//td[6]")))
detail.click()

Error will be in these:
detail=wait.until(EC.element_to_be_clickable((By.XPATH, "//tbody//td[6]")))
    detail.click()

I want that they click on the title of  these is page link

and then there will scrape these information. How to scrape these data.

A: You cannot locate HTML attribute to click on it. Try to replace
detail=wait.until(EC.element_to_be_clickable((By.XPATH, "//td//img//@src"))).click()

with
detail = wait.until(EC.element_to_be_clickable((By.XPATH, "//a[@title='info']")))
detail.click()

UPDATE
Since your ScrapySelenium approach doeasn't seem to work, try common Selenium approach. Then you could adapt it to Scrapy
from selenium import webdriver

driver = webdriver.Chrome()
url = 'https://www.aeafa.es/asociados.php?provinput='
driver.get(url)

for mail in driver.find_elements("xpath", "//p/a[starts-with(@href, 'mailto')]"):
    print(mail.get_attribute('textContent'))

Note that you don't need to open each details popup to get required email text

redpajama_set_name: RedPajamaStackExchange


text:
Q: BMP to GIF in Matlab Matlab Version : 7.8.0
I am reading a bmp file in matlab by using imread function -
i = imread('lena.bmp');

now i want to convert this i matrix into gif format. But since we don't have color map table, how could we do so.
is there a way to generate map vector from the image?

A: The trick is using rgb2ind:
 [x,map]=rgb2ind(i,256);
 imwrite(x,map,'C:\test.gif');

I assumed that you want to use 256 colors in your color map. You can play with it to create more/less color quantization vs. file size.


text:
Motion Computing R12 Review
By Brian Westover
https://www.pcmag.com/reviews/motion-computing-r12
The Motion Computing R12 is a rugged Windows tablet that's hard to kill and hard to beat, with strong performance and long-lasting battery life.
MSRP $2,899.00
Motion Computing R12 Motion Computing R12
Rugged design.
Strong performance, thanks to Intel Core i7-4610Y processor.
Long-lasting, hot-swappable battery.
Stowable digitizer pen.
Full HD display.
A little large for a tablet.
On-screen keyboard is uncomfortable to use.
The Motion Computing R12 rugged Windows tablet ($2,899 as tested) is a PC for people on the move, whether they're responding to an emergency call, repairing equipment in the field, or working on a factory floor. It offers a sturdy construction and a highly mobile, usable design. With features like a stowable digitizer pen, a hot-swappable battery, and a slew of helpful accessories, the Motion Computing R12 isn't just a great tough system; it also replaces the Panasonic Toughpad FZ-G1 as our Editors' Choice rugged tablet.
The R12( at Amazon) has a chunky, rugged chassis that measures 0.65 by 12.9 by 8.1 inches (HWD) and weighs 2.95 pounds. It has a light, but sturdy magnesium-alloy internal frame, with a rubberized enclosure that seals out moisture and dust while also providing another layer of shock protection. Buttons are protected behind a waterproof layer of rubber while ports are sealed away behind removable covers. The rugged design is also made to be easily gripped while wearing gloves, with a heavy bumper around the edge of the tablet and a rubberized back panel that is studded with knobby bumps for a secure grip. It's actually slimmer than some other, relatively svelte models, like the Panasonic FZ-G1, or the Getac F110( at Amazon).
The tablet is built to MIL-STD-810G standards to be drop and shock resistant. I tested it a few times myself by dropping it onto the tiled floor of PC Labs from hip height, and at least once from chest height due to a clumsy fumble. It also has IP54 rating against water and splashes or blowing dust. It's not completely waterproof, but it is water resistant—it will survive heavy rain, but not tossing it overboard from a boat. Simply put, this tablet is built to survive all sorts of abuse out in the elements, whether it's in a foxhole, in the truck with a first responder, or on the floor of a factory.
The 12.5-inch widescreen display has full HD (1,920-by-1,080) resolution and an anti-smudge, anti-reflective coating that makes it easier to use outdoors in sunlight. It has both 10-point capacitive touch and a Wacom digitizer with included digitizer pen. Stylus storage is built in, with both a tether and a storage slot integrated into the chassis. A specially sealed fan vent improves cooling while still being water resistant. Built-in attachment points are there for attaching handles and carrying straps.
Panasonic Toughpad FZ-G1
Read Panasonic Toughpad FZ-G1 Review
Getac F110 (2015)
Read Getac F110 (2015) Review
Xplore Bobcat
Read Xplore Bobcat Review
Panasonic Toughpad FZ-M1
Read Panasonic Toughpad FZ-M1 Review
Read Microsoft Surface Pro 4 Review
Read Asus VivoTab Note 8 Review
Typing on the on-screen keyboard is awkward, both due to the usual failings of the Windows keyboard, as well as the chunky dimensions of the tablet—the 12.5-inch display is considerably larger than the 7-inch Panasonic Toughpad FZ-M1( at Amazon) or the 10-inch Panasonic FZ-G1. The on-screen keyboard is always a little slow, and the handwriting recognition tool that it offers is hit or miss at best. Typing with your thumbs is made more unwieldy due to the size of the tablet. When in Portrait mode, you can hold the tablet while typing, but the keyboard is large enough that I had to do some serious thumb stretching to enter the text, and my hands are on the larger side. In Landscape mode, two-handed typing is pretty much impossible, and typing with one hand while cradling the tablet in the other arm isn't much better.
On the back side of the tablet, there is a removable battery. The back of the battery and the surface of the battery latch have the same knobby texture as the tablet, so the two blend together well, and a built-in meter on the battery tells you how much charge it has at the press of a button. Plus, the battery is hot-swappable, meaning that you can remove a nearly dead battery and put in a new one without interrupting your application or having to turn off the tablet.
The tablet has several features built into its chunky frame. On the right, behind one water-resistant cover, you'll find a selection of ports, with one USB 3.0 port, an HDMI-out port, an audio-out port, and slots for both an SD card and SIM card for optional mobile broadband. (The SIM card and service are not included). A second cover opens to access the power connection for charging the tablet. Also on the right of the tablet you'll find an integrated fingerprint reader and the built-in stylus slot. On the left are a Power button and a Secure Access button that lets you lock the tablet when not in use. On the top of the tablet are two volume-control buttons, while a docking port runs along the back of the bottom edge.
On the back of the tablet is a rear-facing 8-megapixel camera, ideal for snapping pictures in the field or documenting conditions as they come up. A front-facing 1.3-megapixel camera sits just above the tablet's display, and is meant for basic webcam uses, such as video conferencing via Skype. When I tested the rear-facing camera, I had a couple issues with its auto-focus—it was difficult to get the touch interface to focus on the correct objects during my testing—and the resulting images were noticeably pixelated when viewed on the tablet. The front-facing camera produces adequate image quality, but it struggles to adjust for changes in lighting.
There's dual-band 802.11ac Wi-Fi and Bluetooth 4.0, as well as a host of security features, like embedded Trusted Platform Module (TPM) 1.2 and optional Absolute Computrace Complete. For storage, the tablet is outfitted with a 128GB solid-state drive (SSD).
Because it's meant for non-consumer use, Motion Computing doesn't load up the tablet with a lot of extra software. Aside from the Windows 8.1 Pro operating system, the R12 comes with a free 30-day trial of Microsoft Office 365 and a few tools specific to the tablet, such as touch-optimized photo tool, called SnapWorks, and assistance for learning the tablet, like a TabletCenter app and a "Know Your Motion Tablet" interactive guide. Motion Computing also covers the tablet with a three-year warranty.
Our review unit came with Motion Computing's R12-Series Docking Station ($479.99), an optional desktop dock for the tablet. The black and silver dock serves as a stand, and docking the tablet is as simple as setting it into the docking cradle, and leaning it back to lock securely into place. The docking station provides power to the tablet, charging the attached battery, but also includes a charging slot for a second battery, letting you slot in a spare and have it ready to grab and go. For full desktop capability, the dock provides four USB ports (two USB 3.0, two USB 2.0), a Gigabit Ethernet LAN port, HDMI and VGA outputs for a second monitor, a serial port for legacy hardware, and audio connections. The stand itself is covered with a one-year warranty.
Motion Computing also has several other accessories available for the tablet, from spare batteries ($169.99) and digitizer pens ($34.99) to handles, carrying straps, and docking keyboards.
The R12 tablet is outfitted with a 1.7GHz Intel Core i7-4610Y processor, an older model CPU that was launched in late 2013. The low-voltage processor is part of Intel's Y-series of Core CPUs that served as something of a precursor to the current Intel Core M line, and has the same sort of low-voltage, low-heat efficiency needed in a tablet, while still offering sufficient support for the operating system and software. In this instance, Motion Computing pairs it with 8GB of RAM.
It's more powerful than the alternative, the Intel Atom series used in other tablets, like the Xplore Bobcat, and as an Intel Core i7 model, it outpaces the Intel Core i5 Y-series processor used in the Panasonic FZ-M1. For example, in PCMark 8 Work Conventional, the R12 scored 2,833 points. By comparison the Atom-based Xplore Bobcat scored 1,183 points, and the Panasonic FZ-M1 scored 1,470. A similar spread was seen in Handbrake, where the R12 completed the test in 3 minutes 39 seconds, well ahead of both the Panasonic FZ-M1 (5:52) and the Xplore Bobcat (12:56). (We couldn't compare it against the Panasonic FZ-G1 because the latter is old enough to predate most of our current testing.)
See How We Test Tablets
The tablet also uses an integrated graphics solution—specifically, Intel HD Graphics 4200—which is an adequate solution for basic Web browsing and apps. In 3DMark, the R12 offered category-leading performance, scoring 4,112 points in CloudGate and 239 points in Fire Strike Extreme. By comparison, the Xplore Bobcat scored 1,464 points in 3DMark Cloud Gate, while the Panasonic FZ-M1 scored only 603 points. The R12 still won't offer support for 3D gaming, but it will handle all of your day-to-day tasks well.
While the tablet led in most performance tests, battery life is right in line with other models. The R12 lasted 6 hours 6 minutes on our video rundown test, only a minute shy of the Xplore Bobcat (6:07 on standard battery), and identical to the Panasonic FZ-G1 (6:06). The Getac F110 stretched its own battery an hour and a half longer (7:38). Six hours of continuous use isn't bad, especially considering that the tablet allows swapping in a new battery when one has run out—with hot-swapping capability, you don't even need to interrupt your open programs to make the switch.
The Motion Computing R12 might not be for everyone, but for use in the field—be it making service calls in a nearby neighborhood or operations in a war zone—this might be exactly what you need. The rugged design combines real performance with long battery life, and it's built to survive the rigors of real life. Compared with the Panasonic Toughpad FZ-G1, it offers an up-to-date processor, a long-lasting hot-swappable battery, and a range of accessories, making the Motion Computing R12 our Editors' Choice rugged Windows tablet.
Motion Computing R12
Best Tablet Picks
The Best Android Tablets for 2021
The Best Tablets for 2021
The Best Cheap Tablets for 2021
The Best Windows Tablets for 2021
More Tablet Reviews
More from MotionComputing
Tablet Product Comparisons
Microsoft Surface Go 2 vs. Apple iPad: Which Tablet Is a Better Laptop Replacement?
Microsoft Surface Go vs. Surface Pro: What's the Difference?
Microsoft Surface Go vs. Apple iPad: Inexpensive Tablets Compared
TCL's NXTPaper Is the E Ink Alternative We've Been Waiting For
TCL's Jam-Packed CES Event Includes New Smartphones, Tablets, and AR Glasses
New Microsoft Surface Pro 7+ Offers 11th Gen Intel CPUs
PCMag.com Readers' Choice/ Business Choice Laptops & Tablets Survey: Sweepstakes Rules
Tablet, Chromebook Demand Soars as Pandemic Prompts Need for Affordable Computers
About Brian Westover
Brian Westover is an Analyst for the Hardware Team, reviewing laptops, desktops, and storage devices. As a child, Brian was frequently asked "What do you want to be when you grow up?" His answer alternated between Superman and Batman. This was cute when he was five, but worrisome at seventeen. Naturally, he is now a journalist, writing about technology and gadgets. Brian has been writing professionally since 2007, and his work has appeared in business newsletters, websites, textbooks, and magazines. He earned his degree in Communications from Brigham Young University - Idaho. When not writing or fighting villainy, Brian enjoys sampling the culinary delights of New York, perusing obscure trivia, and spending time with his wife.
Read the latest from Brian Westover
Can My PC Run Windows 10 Fall Creators Update?
Lenovo ThinkPad Yoga 15 Review
Lenovo OneLink Pro Dock Review
Lenovo ThinkPad Helix 2nd Gen Review
SanDisk Dual USB Drive Type-C (32GB) Review
More from Brian Westover

redpajama_set_name: RedPajamaCommonCrawl


Please find below the FAQ that apply to all of our modules. If you can't find your question in here, please contact us, we will be happy to answer any doubt you might have.
Yes, all of our modules include 90 days free support and unlimited bug fixing.
Are the module updates FREE?
Yes. You will be notified and your update will be available in your download section.
Are the modules 100% module manager compatible?
Yes! Unless otherwise indicated our modules do not require any change to your vtiger code and can be installed using the module manager.
Are these the same extensions that are available on vTiger Marketplace?
Yes! We are one of the top contributors to vtiger marketplace. Although, we market most of our extensions through our store too. Either you buy it there or here, you will get a fully reviewed code.
Can I use it in multiple installations/domains?
Can you customize the module or create a similar one?
Can I customize the module?
Yes. You can customize the module as much as you need, but we won't provide any support on the module or advice about how to do the customizations.
Can I get a refund for an item I have purchased?
Yes. Our site is hosted in a world class hosting with real-time malware and hacker scan.
Also, all the information you exchange with our site is encrypted with a 256 Bits SSL certificate. Much like your bank does.
Will you store my credit card information or PayPal id?
No. When you enter, your credit card information is directly submitted to our payment processing service using a secure connection. That information never passes thought our servers, and we do not record either your card information and PayPal ID.
We only record the following information: Name, email address, and billing information when required.
The support is over email. We do not provide support over the phone, skype, etc. Although, we may call you to understand further your issue or if we can't solved the problem over email.
How do I required support?
Please contact us using our form or email address.
Can you install the module in my server?
All our module are module manager compatible so you should not required any assistance to install the module. If you do required assistance, please get in touch with us.
Can you build new features?
No. We will only add new features to a module is we think that is the best interest for all of our customers. Get in touch with us if you need a particular feature that the module does not offer.
How does the module license works?
Each time you purchase a module from our site you will receive an email containing your Invoice, download link, and license number.
After installing the module, you will be prompted to enter this number that will validated that the license is valid and that the extension is not installed in more than two servers.
How is the license validated?
Using a secure server, the module will contact our license server and record the number of times the license is activated.
We save an encrypted version of your module name and the vtiger unique id to identify the installation.
Can I move my Vtiger installation?
Yes, but you need to deactivate your license first.
Why do you use a license?
Because of the current price of our modules we cannot offer unlimited installations. This license scheme allows us to keep selling the modules, provide support and develop new modules.


Compton Detox is a three-in-one formula for the busy individual who wants to detox from toxins, balance appetite for more effective cleansing, all while burning more fat. It is a great way to jump start the journey towards a healthier lifestyle. Unfortunately, the common American diet today does not prioritize home cooking and plenty of greens in every meal. Therefore, our body's natural detoxing capabilities tend to need a little help.
This completely vegetarian friendly blend combines ingredients that help rid of toxins that we accumulate from things such as processed foods, sugary and starchy products, hormone and antibiotic treated meats, fast food, smoggy environment, etc. With fat burning and appetite curbing capabilities, Compton Detox is also ideal for an individual with weight loss goals. It's in the form of powder and tastes very similar to a hibiscus tea or an "agua de jamaica".
Matcha Green Tea – Helps increase energy, metabolism, focus, and digestion, while promoting weight loss and fighting belly fat.
Garcinia Cambogia – Promotes serotonin production which helps keep appetite at lower levels.
L-Carnitine – Helps reduce fat, increase muscle mass, and reduce fatigue during physical activity.
Organic Red Raspberry – Super antioxidant source of raspberry ketone which aids in the increase of metabolism.
Organic Hibiscus – Aids digestive and inflammation problems in the body. Promotes healthy weight loss by helping kidney function and acting as a diuretic to prevent water retention.
Senna Leaf – An FDA-approved non prescription bowel stimulator that aids cleansing of the digestive tract.
Pure Stevia Leaf – Naturally occurring zero-calorie sweetener; safe for diabetics. Most supplements use stevia extract but we went beyond the norm to bring you a superior product with 100% pure stevia leaf.


text:
Billionaire B. Wayne Hughes Anonymously Donated $400 Million To USC
By Joseph Gibson on September 14, 2019 in Articles › Billionaire News
Conor McGregor Net Worth 2020 - How Much Has The Fighter Earned In His Career So Far?
Seth MacFarlane Is The Latest Content Creator To Score An Enormous Studio Deal
LA's Highest Property Tax: Beyoncé And Jay-Z's House
At $45 Million, This Huge Chicago Mansion Is The City's Most Expensive Listing
A Recent Surge In Tesla Stock Means Elon Musk May Get A $346 Million Payday
Russian Businessman Dmitry Bosov Gets Beverly Hills Mansion For $30 Million
Many billionaire donors to the University of Southern California have given huge financial gifts in exchange for serving as the namesake for some wing of the campus, but a more discreet donor's gifts to the school were given anonymously, according to a recent report in the Los Angeles Times. And he's only anonymous on a technicality now, because his name is B. Wayne Hughes Sr.
Billionaire Hughes is the founder of self-storage company Public Storage, and he's reportedly given some $400 million to USC, almost all of it on an anonymous basis, which is all the more unusual, given that the figure places Hughes "among the most significant backers of higher education in the West."
So why has he done it? According to the 85-year-old's attorney, he's "intentionally chosen to live his life in a way that he avoids the spotlight," a rare phenomenon among big ticket philanthropic billionaires.
Hughes founded Public Storage in 1972, resulting in his massive personal fortune, but he reportedly maintained a solidly middle-class lifestyle, "eating fast food and hanging out with buddies at the Santa Anita racetrack." And he's also maintained strong ties to his alma mater at USC, not just making numerous financial contributions but also returning to the campus many times.
David McNew/Getty Images
The bulk of Hughes' gifts came between 2010 and 2015, during which he gave a total of $360 million to the university, with many of his donations being focused on the school's various athletics programs. In one particularly striking example of his desire to keep his name off of these donations, he paid $5 million to name the USC basketball court Jim Sterkel Court, after an otherwise obscure member of the school's team way back in the 1950s, which even Sterkel's widow didn't know about in 2006 when the court opened. The then-anonymous donor, which is now reported to have been Hughes, he explained why like this:
"The joy I have in remembering Jim would be significantly reduced if people knew who I was."
That seems to reflect his overall attitude toward his philanthropy, as well.
Tamara Gustavson Net Worth
Steve Sarkisian Suing USC For $30 Million, Claiming He Was Wrongfully Terminated
Dr. Dre Brags About His Daughter Getting Into USC Without Needing To Cheat… Forgets To Mention His $35 Million Donation To The School
He Climbs Mountains, He Builds Stadiums, He Owns A Hockey Team – Meet Billionaire Ed Roski
Operation Varsity Blues: Celebrities, CEOs Indicted By FBI In College Admissions Scandal
The 10 Most Generous Philanthropic Donors Of 2018
Bradley Hughes Net Worth
Billionaire Nike Co-Founder Phil Knight Donates Almost Half A Billion To Stanford University
New Analysis Reveals The Most Charitable American Billionaires


Women´s Health - LARISSA MINATTO.
MARIE CLAIRE - DOUGLAS HARRIS.
MARIE CLAIRE - 2 RIOS.
ANUARIO CARAS NOIVAS - JOALHERIA SARA.
ANUARIO CARAS NOIVAS - PO DE ARROZ.
L'OFFICIEL BRASIL - CAROL ARBEX.
CORPO A CORPO - DOUGLAS HARRIS.
CORPO A CORPO - TANARA.