sanctionable and really outrageous this proposition that everybody who who was born in the middle east cannot cannot be trusted to in front of him after that and i have a good relationship with him but ya know i grew up in a traditional family and i don't care you can't you can't make these generalizations in a judicial affidavit about a whole you know billion or so middle eastern and far eastern people none of them respecting women and there's nothing in judge a twelve year period the ever that district court judge made was restricting discovery to january first two thousand  which is the last four years of the employment the covered and now there are itself well first of all that the scene itself is an arbitrary decision because that date was but he doesn't state any facts upon which that date january first two thousand and six is based now given that it's arbitrary and assuming it's an error i understand alone that's not reversible it must have some significant oh impact on the case itself well in the amended complaint than paragraph forty four the first two incidents dealing with more and more going they occurred in two thousand and three in two thousand and four so those those incidents could not discovery was not allowed on them and and also in my brief i also mentioned other within paragraph forty four other cases in particular in a case dealing with rakuten who it was known among many that the employees that which i contend is an error it had a significant in fact and prejudiced the case by cutting out all those incidents that occurred prior to two thousand and six now keep in mind your honour's it's extremely difficult to try to find a male officer wearing a uniform in a similar or identical situation so i was under a lot of pressure to try to find that incident now my another point i want to make is for abuse of discretion here the judge had to draw the line somewhere and because the discovery that was sought by you was extremely overbroad and oppressive and abusive and so any line is going to be somewhat arbitrary drawing a line four years back under the circumstances given the nature of this case and the scope of discovery that could meaningfully be allowed without being abusive is a highly discretionary judgment call by the judge  almost never reversed so maybe one move on to your substantive argument and the judge basically used your argument to prevent me from asking questions that seek to say answers and if you look at the in the amended complaint based on knowledge that that basically from the records and from public knowledge as well and among the employees themselves you know well so suppose so they wanted to push behind the beyond two thousand and six so two thousand dollars you're interested if you want to do two thousand and five what patrick fever while on duty and uniform so drugs to trustee and mates he was supervising ok how do you how do you create these little reports how do you how do you find the information and that's true goes partly to the to the issue you know the farther back you go the more difficult presumably it is to establish what happened that is that is true two thousand and five ok that's ten years ago but now what so how exactly would you find incidents from two thousand well i want to focus on the incidents that i listed in the complaint and let me use one as an example the john galt he would have first hand knowledge because he saw me personally at that massage and that would be admissible evidence and i could establish a court but let me go back in and make an important point here that answers because that's i was that wasn't that basically killed the case that i'm plus cutting you and cutting the date of the discovery off a january first two thousand and six and by the way  according to the long case this is an arbitrary decision and it is an ever now i've had to that paragraph forty four ng which lists many incidents that show abusive receiving the restriction we spent almost a year of discovery with the restriction of no and of not asking questions leading to you say answers and january first two thousand and six restriction so that's the irony of it i was that's correct you know you i said you wanted to know the many others that what of how far back do you want to go i mean there are limits there are limits for the duration of the employment of the employee of the twelve years the employee was employed oh i see right well well how far back i wanted to go was with what was mentioned in the complaint because remember in the complaint i ask for these dates and i am the first in paragraph forty four reviewed by the judge the judge felt that the incident of morgan where she's an officer in uniform visiting if female inmate in prison ok that was not a similar violation to go to trial and we simply disagree with that i think that should be left i should've been left to a jury to determine whether a male officer in and and the judge heard on that the other point your honor which is a female colleague made to me she said if it was a it was a female officer in uniform who visit went to visit and meal been looked at differently i didn't mention that in my brief but the point i want to make the on is that we should have these decisions should be left to a jury where you have men and women making the decision of whether these are comparable arbitrary it's interesting that in the brief written by the apple ont he never talks about judge change reasons which are all over the record in this case judge chain came out with several orders explaining why he was taking the actions that he twelve years when she was employed right on the b decision by judge chain is based primarily on the kind of the plaintiff during the case as far as the way discovery was being conducted and what song and if and if you keep doing that you know i'm going to throw out your case but i don't see how that's related to the to the to the date if if if the discovery is a beauty of improper so on doesn't matter whether it's in two thousand and five or two thousand and six but he is trying to collect and it seems perfectly appropriate he is looking for a a pattern of extraordinary laxity in the disciplining of these out of control seeming to page county cops and i can't see what's what's improper with that well that that judge you might disagree with the date as it was that but certainly under the standard here of whether the weather judge chain abused his discretion in setting that date i don't know you can call it abuse or whatever you want i don't understand the reason for that cut off judge shank the only explanation he gives is that he believed that that was a proper amount of kind to go back i don't understand that well he said in his decision to read easy to find this information about you know misconduct of these officers right  further going back to what your honor asked counsel during his presentation most if not all of the those little reports that are in the complaint and in the brief come especially from the plane if there is no factual basis for them they may be true they may be some elements of that but true and some elements are not true but there's no factual basis to believe that those things occurred judge cheney oh you you're saying what he what he obtained and discovered what you say i mean everything that what he's claiming occurred prior to two thousand and six that he's claiming prejudice him because he couldn't go into those things there's no indication that that all of those things conduct additional discovery i think initially there was no problem with it but it got to the point where judge chain became so frustrated with the way that that the plaintiff was conducting discovery that he needed to put a date on there why i don't understand that why if if that discovery is improper of why isn't it tell the lawyer you have to you have to avoid these mistakes you're making discovery severe penalty or is what i did this is not a question of a penalty just tells the guy you mustn't do x y and sit then if the lawyer continues doing that you throw out escapes he certainly could have done that i just don't get the by do want to say that he did give the plaintiff plenty of opportunity to come up with a basis for believing that there was relevant evidence prior to two thousand and six and now did they do page county police department or the sheriff's office did they do something and in two thousand as i could see an argument you making an argument that well before two thousand and six the horrible things went on but in two thousand and six we had a reform and everything's better and so that evidence from before two thousand and six would be on represent judge if i could go on to the act after even if even if you believe that it somehow prejudiced plaintiff that that she was not able to go to instance taken place prior to two thousand and six it's not prejudicial to her because she provided no evidence in her summary judgment brief regarding pretext she it's undisputed that she admitted to the acts that she was accused of for the most part  did not admit that she was a lie but it was it's s'posed one could infer that if she were male she wouldn't have been fired for this incident because it seems that for worse conduct that men are never fired so why would that in itself be adequate evidence of discrimination well to get to get past the prime aphasia case if she found the capital which we would argue that none of the four people in the that ended up in the summary judgment were comparable and there was no no allegations against individuals and the judge did make that cut off two thousand and six obviously that didn't appear in the way you must judge it i mean suppose it's suppose men do worse things and they're discrimination because you still have to show that the employers have to have some evidence that the employer's reason is a phony reason or a lie and she admitted to the facts that supported it so essentially she would have to show that even though  away the employer the sheriff's office gave a reason why it treats men more leniently men not just there was never any evidence that she was treated more harshly than men i don't understand you if she has a less lesser offense than the man the man on tarnished at all and she's promised why isn't that scrimmage it would be but there was no evidence that that was the case here there was no evidence of what there was no evidence that that was the case here that she was punished more harshly than a male officer doing a similar act but i don't understand because if the male officers are not punished when they do worse acts then you for all i offer she or i they wouldn't be punished if they'd done her act right that's it suggest the men get a break that that the office doesn't give to women but that assumes that male officers were not punished for worse conduct or not playing yes exactly and that that's not the case here there's no evidence of that there's evidence that they were upon the the individuals that were in the summary judgment the four individuals with a fire they were not but as judge change found those in those situations were not comparable to hers because they were not as serious they were not in that in the same ballpark as far as being serious and they did not involve an abuse of authority wearing a uniform and committing misconduct you had the situation where one individual was allegedly ghazni a female inmates while in the jail you had two in the two individuals who were allegedly giving expired commissary food to a female inmate and then you had one individual who had secondary employment those are the four situations or what about disciplined at all that's certainly evidence of discrimination and i believe judge change so you come down you come down to this arbitrary cutoff that's really all you have i would say essentially that that's the main point in the case but i would say that again to get to the pretext issue and we know that she was fired for this particular reason if you don't look at those preacher thousand and six  situations that may or may not have any factual basis then she would be in the position of trying to show that even though this reason is true it's a real reason and that's not the reason i was fired  that's what the allegation is judge but again there's no there's no evidence showing well unless you go back to two thousand and five while judge shame i mean consider that and gave plaintiff the opportunity to come up with some facts that would show that there is relevant evidence if you look at document fifty nine which is a motion to reconsider the plaintiff he denied reconsideration of the plaintiff's motion because plaintiff waited three months to file after the original decision and he said quoting no solid there was no solid basis for believing the existence of relevant happenings prior to two thousand and six so based on that obviously plaintiff didn't provide any either before or after that decision so again setting that date was was not an abuse of discretion by the chain thank you ok thank you thank you very much judge there the trial judge was different trial in the trial judge allowed as it is to be presented during the entire twelve years of employment so this is the first time i've ever done a trial where i was not allowed discovery to cut off date a restrictive date as well so those two judges will disagree with chang and what he did the other point i want to make is i know that i wasn't given to not any opportunity by judge tank to show to present evidence that these incidents that occurred prior to two thousand and six that existed he just simply said god betray me date then and then everything else was cut off and this was done early in this country and we spent another year in discovery with the restriction of