Having a Jobseeker’s Agreement is a primary condition of entitlement to Jobseeker’s Allowance. It: is agreed between the claimant and a Personal Adviser at the New Jobseeker Interview; must be a helpful and practical aid to jobsearch, containing a reasonable and achievable job goal, details of the claimant’s availability for work, a jobsearch plan (regular and one-off, time bound activities) that offers the best prospects of securing employment; contains a level of weekly jobsearch activity that is deemed reasonable and against which actively seeking work will be measured during jobsearch reviews; and should be reviewed regularly and updated (by the claimant’s Personal Adviser) in the light of experience
Having regard to the agreed estimated costs of projects specified in this Agreement, the States will not be required to pay a refund to the Commonwealth if the actual cost of the project is less than the agreed estimated cost of the project. Similarly, the States bear all risk should the costs of a project exceed the agreed estimated costs. The Parties acknowledge that this arrangement provides the maximum incentive for the States to deliver projects cost effectively and efficiently.
Having. “HIV disease” means: (1) having tested positive for antibodies to the Human Immunodeficiency Virus (HIV); (2) being infected with HIV; (3) having Acquired Immune Deficiency Syndrome (AIDS); or (4) having any AIDS-related opportunistic infection. For purposes of this Agreement, having HIV disease also means having a record of being in one of the four categories listed above; or being perceived or regarded as being in one of the four categories listed above.
Having executed an Agreement dated December 30, 1993 the parties hereby agree to extend the term of said Agreement to include all racing meets during the period beginning July 1, 1997 and ending on December 31, 2001. The underlying Agreement and this Amendment Agreement will terminate December 31, 2001.
Having had the opportunity of agreeing regarding the terms and conditions included in this present contract, PARTIES decided to go ahead in its preparation and subscription for purposes of clarity and certainty.
Having a desire to create and maintain harmonious labor relations between them, the parties, hereto agree that they will promptly attempt to adjust all complaints, disputes, controversies or other grievances arising between them involving questions of interpretation or application of terms and provisions of this Agree- ment.
Having. “carefully weigh[ed] the policy of promoting public confidence in the judiciary against the possibility that those questioning [my] impartiality might be seeking to avoid the adverse consequences of [my] presiding over their case.” I find that movants have not carried their substantial burden of showing that a reasonable observer, with knowledge and understanding of the relevant facts, would “entertain significant doubt that jus- tice would be done absent recusal,” based upon the Presentation at the BNA seminar. Accordingly, movants’ motion to disqualify is denied. Id. at 674-75, 676 (citations omitted). My comments were nowhere near the comments in Metropolitan Opera, which were not a basis for recusal. I did not mention this case by name. (See pages 8-9 above.) While I briefly mentioned that I had a case in front of me where a party proposed using predictive coding (and noted that, on the record, I had made the “died and went to heaven” comment), the case was not yet the subject of publicity (which only resulted after the February 13, 2012 press release by plaintiffs’ consultant DOAR) and the objective rea- sonable observer would not have known that those brief comments referred to this case. (See pages 9, 11- 12 above.) Moreover, the comments were minor and fleeting, involved only facts on the public record and, like Metropolitan Opera, were for educational purpos- es. To the extent plaintiffs are complaining about my general discussion at these CLE presentations about the use of predictive coding in general, those com- ments would not cause a reasonable objective ob- server to believe I was biased in this case. I did not say anything about predictive coding at these Legal- Tech and other CLE panels that I had not already said in my Search, Forward article, i.e., that lawyers should consider using predictive coding in appro- priate cases. My position was the same as plain- tiffs’ consultant, DOAR CEO Neale. (See page 11 above.) Both plaintiffs and defendants were proposing using predictive coding in this case. (See page 5 above.) I did not determine which party’s predictive coding protocol was appropriate in this case until the February 8, 2012 conference, after the panels about which plaintiffs complain.30 30 Plaintiffs’ assertion that they “reluctantly assented to pre- dictive coding in principle under compulsion from Judge Peck” (Dkt. No. 170: Pls. Br. at 2 n.3) is belied by plaintiffs’ – and their consultant DOAR’s – proposals to use predictive codi...