EDD: Issues, Law, and Solutions: Football for food

Friday, February 4, 2011

Football for food

Today's my birthday...yada yada yada. Another year older.

I awoke to the best present a father could get - a fantastic article about my son Austin in the local Richmond newspaper. I'm very proud of him - and it sure was nice to see him get some recognition for his selfless charitable activities.

Below is the article in its entirety.

Football for food

On Super Bowl Sunday, Atlee Freshman Austin Wilson will have, for the 4th straight time, a benefit football tournament.

By KATHERINE CALOS
Published: February 04, 2011

The big game for Austin Wilson on Sunday will be his own — the Rainmaker Classic, Super Bowl Edition.

For the fourth consecutive year, he's celebrating his birthday by inviting friends to Hanover County to play football for a cause. This year, he hopes the game will make money rain down on the Central Virginia Food Bank.

Austin, now 15, started asking for donations to others instead of gifts for himself when he was in fourth grade.

"I'm so fortunate," he said. "I couldn't figure out anything I wanted for my birthday. We decided to give to charity. It was a better choice."

That first year, each child brought presents for St. Joseph's Villa. In the fifth grade, Austin donated to the Hanover Humane Society.

The next year, the first Rainmaker Classic football tournament was held at New Highland Baptist Church near the family's home in AshCreek to benefit the food bank. They've kept it going, raising as much as $1,000 one year.

The year it rained, they moved the games inside at The Ozone in the Hanover Industrial Air Park.

Austin started playing football in recreational leagues when he was 5 or 6 years old. He was a quarterback at Chickahominy Middle School and on Atlee High School's freshman team.

For the Rainmaker Classic, 24 players are divided into teams. "Everybody has a big guy, a fast guy and a quarterback," Austin said. He's been on the winning team twice.

In previous years, the Rainmaker has been held closer to Austin's birthday on Dec. 3. He was sick this year, so it was postponed.

In the NFL, Austin is a big fan of the Rams, following the lead of his father, Kriss Wilson, who's president of Superior Document Services. The whole family – including mother Karen and brother Jack — went to St. Louis before Christmas to see a Rams game. They happened to sit next to the family of the team trainer, who had a pass that got Austin into the players' dining hall after the game. Austin had bought a football helmet, and it was covered with players' signatures.

The only thing that could make this Sunday better would be if the Rams were in the Super Bowl. Since that's a bigger birthday present than a Rainmaker can expect, he's rooting for the Packers.

No comments:

Post a Comment

Sedona Principles 2nd ed.

1. Electronically stored information is potentially discoverable under Fed. R. Civ. P. 34 or its state equivalents. Organizations must properly preserve electronically stored information that can reasonably be anticipated to be relevant to litigation.
2. When balancing the cost, burden, and need for electronically stored information, courts and parties should apply the proportionality standard embodied in Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(2)(C) and its state equivalents, which require consideration of the technological feasibility and realistic costs of preserving, retrieving, reviewing, and producing electronically stored information, as well as the nature of the litigation and the amount in controversy.
3. Parties should confer early in discovery regarding the preservation and production of electronically stored information when these matters are at issue in the litigation and seek to agree on the scope of each party’s rights and responsibilities.
4. Discovery requests for electronically stored information should be as clear as possible, while responses and objections to discovery should disclose the scope and limits of the production.
5. The obligation to preserve electronically stored information requires reasonable and good faith efforts to retain information that may be relevant to pending or threatened litigation. However, it is unreasonable to expect parties to take every conceivable step to preserve all potentially relevant electronically stored information.
6. Responding parties are best situated to evaluate the procedures, methodologies, and technologies appropriate for preserving and producing their own electronically stored information.
7. The requesting party has the burden on a motion to compel to show that the responding party’s steps to preserve and produce relevant electronically stored information were inadequate.
8. The primary source of electronically stored information for production should be active data and information. Resort to disaster recovery backup tapes and other sources of electronically stored information that are not reasonably accessible requires the requesting party to demonstrate need and relevance that outweigh the costs and burdens of retrieving and processing the electronically stored information from such sources, including the disruption of business and information management activities.
9. Absent a showing of special need and relevance, a responding party should not be required to preserve, review, or produce deleted, shadowed, fragmented, or residual electronically stored information.
10. A responding party should follow reasonable procedures to protect privileges and objections in connection with the production of electronically stored information.
11. A responding party may satisfy its good faith obligation to preserve and produce relevant electronically stored information by using electronic tools and processes, such as data sampling, searching, or the use of selection criteria, to identify data reasonably likely to contain relevant information.
12. Absent party agreement or court order specifying the form or forms of production, production should be made in the form or forms in which the information is ordinarily maintained or in a reasonably usable form, taking into account the need to produce reasonably accessible metadata that will enable the receiving party to have the same ability to access, search, and display the information as the producing party where appropriate or necessary in light of the nature of the information and the needs of the case.
13. Absent a specific objection, party agreement or court order, the reasonable costs of retrieving and reviewing electronically stored information should be borne by the responding party, unless the information sought is not reasonably available to the responding party in the ordinary course of business. If the information sought is not reasonably available to the responding party in the ordinary course of business, then, absent special circumstances, the costs of retrieving and reviewing such electronic information may be shared by or shifted to the requesting party.
14. Sanctions, including spoliation ﬁndings, should be considered by the court only if it finds that there was a clear duty to preserve, a culpable failure to preserve and produce relevant electronically stored information, and a reasonable probability that the loss of the evidence has materially prejudiced the adverse party.
Copyright © 2007 The Sedona Conference®. All Rights Reserved.
Reprinted courtesy of The Sedona Conference®.
Go to http://www.thesedonaconference.org/ to download a free copy of the complete document for your personal use only.