right and both of you have actually ok so we'll take a brief recess at this point briefs but he will have an opportunity to do so before we resolve anything he will listen to the arguments that are present it's a day and after that at some point there will be a decision but he will be the third camp ever since judge taylor did have some dealings with the one of the underlying suits he chooses to participate here but the parties agree or not that's what his choices and so excuse me action for malicious prosecution that's the simple injury related to the additional discovery and injury that was required to be conducted by this plaintive as a result of false purposes of special injury that the nature of the allegations whether they're you know regis lee all sore all the general or what have you are is that what we're looking at in terms of special injury because it isn't alleging is that you had to go through the normal the fence cost of defending the litigation that's not enough to allege especially but that those these are not those facts because it's not part of the normal cost normal part of litigation not attending to discovery requests yes it is but not when the discovery request is based upon an allegation known to be false of committing committing felony conduct there you are beyond the situation where you where you are defending the normal cost of what it is what is the felony god if i can explain by way of example in this case your normal cost of living haitian would be to produce the e mails  changing the hours of particular coverage coverage of patients in order to put them in jeopardy and so what they then had to them we might have to do is go through a reconstruct all of our records to establish that that was a completely false statement that's a separate question and the question before us is is there anything extraordinary or special about the process of concocting disc when they say that that the standard for showing that that you are the prevailing party very loose because had they not voluntarily dismissed we would have been there because that's part of what the sanctions under two nineteen would have asked for is to limit it but procedur is part of the normal cost of litigation to respond to a false allegation but alleging that someone committed a crime which has nothing to do with the underlying claim the underlying claim was retaliatory discharge it wasn't that you were a whistleblower or that or that you have reported something to the state of all might remember that ms walter is a licensed practical nurse she has a mandated reporter if she had seen some sort of illegal kind of it was part or she didn't because this was all total fabrication when you have a party that is using it is it is making an allegation that humiliation a felony as part of a shakedown in order to get shaken money out of you you are outside of the normal defense of litigation and you have walked into where someone had filed bankruptcy titian and so they tied up someone's property and then they dismissed the bankruptcy petition and got and got the property released and what and and the language that cold a of if i can check my notes briefly was that the that that that constituted special injury because it was a unique proceeding that was intending to tie up the property of the of oh the defendant well we don't have that here you have it here because this is because independence plus is a regulated company by a  you were you were seeking to to do deliberately debilitate their business for example you know were there any regulatory actions speak on that somehow not nothing but nothing other than this case initiated but for example if i only way to look at this in my simple one suppose i were working for a law firm they find out i'm not that good after six months they fired me and then i claim that they really fired me because i had found out that they were stealing client was and so that i make that point in the civil litigation that they're stealing land of us have to be falls and they have to go through and spent all of this time and it has nothing to do with my underlying point that i that i was discriminated against because of their client funds and that's the situation you have here you have you have a a claim of a felony and that it has nothing to do with the underlying claim and was and based upon the allegations in the complaint was made solely for the purpose has nothing to do with our claim please none of the discovery because you're ordering us to produce all of our patient records over a long period of time we have to then reject those records and then we don't have all of them on our computer system so we have to reconstruct our hard drive and and so therefore the reasoning behind it i was i wasn't there but my but what was and there was no check or court order but i'm told that it was based upon just the general rule that there should be bro that's all when you say that the three actions that were filed off outside the circuit training complaints would you say that those were all duplicated or that they were part of the circuit action that was  paid and then you proceed to be duplicate that in future proceedings you can be sued for malicious prosecution because it is the essence of special injury filing loose new actions alleging the same thing that has been disposed of in a prior proceed but would you would is the fact that the definition of special injury and that is relapse when you have someone who has had their claim adjudicated and then continues to proceed and our point is that the specific allegations of special considering the ordinary consequences of litigation well these first three administrative complaints read restocked against aa let's have your finances and then through you know why what was not resolved wasn't a circuit court action proceeding so that she could obtain those document's through the ordinary they didn't give her any relief did they know what a strain of relief you know they did not but they did not find it  anything improper about her having a claim there to obtain the records that she will but she didn't get any relief from that action she did not obtain any rent did she get any relief in the other two administrative action the for the wage claim she also did not obtain any real leave it there was a notice at the now so where the department of labor determined that the act didn't apply the jack because it only applied to earned wages and they considered her claim which involved a promise of raise that she was to receive after six months if she had a positive  administration action no she did not in the discrimination charged a charge and frankly the illinois department of human resources they found you know that there was no legal or factual basis and they just missed the charge because there was spent hundreds of hours getting together all these reconstructed e mails and then the other party that your client uses not to even look at this discovery decide whether this amounts to special interest it's something that can be considered but it does not rise to the level of the special injury all it away it supports is that they spend money you know i mean that the allegations are is that the discovery was never reviewed so i don't know how you can leap to say well this was voluntarily dismissed because we reviewed the discovery and the discovery to show us what we needed but the allegations are actually different in that they're saying that none of that material that was sought out was ever even considered so that the act is a factual ele patient that putting them up at some point or the time of the expense becomes malicious i mean isn't that what it's all about in some point you go beyond the normal and you file multiple lawsuits this was not like one little suit if it it is one lawsuit and that's the thing that has to be taken into consideration that you know this is an employment case and that the claim to have had to either had available or was required to first exhaust or administrative brevity's before he took this action to the circuit or and they chose to avail themselves of their remedies or attempt to get where they're going to the department resigned because you you have to go to two different places at two different times in responding to different things it could have been joint it was just another factual allegations about what was going on here to new york in the argument you made that the logical not going to go back to the to the tribunals and their quest right correct well what about their what about their there that the gist of their argument today was that there's something different about this because we're  allegation which was unrelated to the retaliatory discharge that they tried to try to look at discovery they failed and and so they had go through all this coverage on a false claim that was really unnecessary and the real pleading mater where she complained that she was fired because she complained about patient care that they were servicing private patients with private insurance on holidays over whites of the state because they get more money for doing that and i pay that you know he can correct me if that was the nature of my but if they felt that that allegation was made maliciously are falsely they they don't back their bit of the benefit to them by bringing out a whole one thirty seven sanction motion is that they do not have to plead special injury that's their opportunity to recover things like attorney's fees or just litigation c where if you bring a separate malicious prosecution action you're required to lead a special injury and the case was clear that litigation costs are not enough it has to rise to the level of an on it has to be consecutive or simultaneous fireman's but the general rule is the special injury you know cannot be satisfied by litigation cost time and expense that's untarily dismiss that but it was preceded by three administrative proceedings that you there were required or available to resolve the disputes that she had and another thing to consider is  the filing of a bankruptcy case was an ordinary civil action quote because of the far reaching and drastic effects associated with that proceeding and that's the analogy drawing in the claim of illegal  purpose forty three indicates that the fact that it was alleging that she was charming did it because she allegedly complained about patient care and my point was that that was a that was a new claim that was being made in the  plus was leaving their quadriplegic patients without care because they didn't want over over all really curious because they didn't want to pay overtime that would have been not only a violation of their contract that would have been a violation of the statute because sixty to seventy percent of their funding comes from the state of illinois and there are specific regulations that i think to find what they can and can't do in order to get that funding a story about how they had made a promise or promise to give her a bonus after six months of work on the retaliatory discharge plan would require them to go to the on the part of human rights and and here a  fired me because i complained about patient care so your point right now is now we have to defend ourselves against an allegation of and that's all we have and my argument is that's all for purposes of six fifteen that's all we have to allege to survive a motion to submit to dismiss as a matter of law and they're from asking that the judgment of the truck with the rivers so you're saying that any harassing lawsuit that is all is enough to get the asked i'm saying that if you allege illegal conduct against someone licensed attorney licensed the county like that that directly impacts their