honor in this matter the district court erred when it granted a pelleas motion for summary judgment based upon qualified immunity and should be reversed the record evidence before the district court shows that there is a question of fact with respect to the amount of force utilized in taking my client miss parchment in the custody during an arrest for a misdemeanor shoplifting case at a minor store located in taylor michigan well that whether that's true or untrue you in order to establish that the person you sued here violated your class constitutional rights you have to have some evidence that he's the one that actually applied the force whatever that was and you don't have any evidence i do your honor if you look in our brief  it was a bit of a creative defense here when the appellee officer tailor made the representation that he was not the person that took my client in the custody but if you look at the deposition testimony of two other officers on the scene it is the policy of the city of taylor police department to list the arresting officers the person who took the person in the custody there's a problem that we have when we see arguments like that your brief says that these two other officers at mit it was stated that this officer was the one that took them into custody and the reason that you do that is you don't include the rest of what they said they said they don't have any idea in this case they said generally the arresting officer will prepare the police report but they don't have any idea whether that actually happened in this particular case so you have a let's assume that more often than not the person that makes the arrest prepares a report doesn't mean that it happened here you can your client can a den of five this guy describes him in a way that's considerably different than his actual appearance since he's driving a truck and he was really driving the police car vice versa how do we get by all at i think your honor if you look at the top the deposition testimony that i've cited it's clear that this particular officer was the person who placed my client under arrest and you couple that what do you want to look out for that it's not that's not clear at all well the police officer says he shows up he talks to the loss prevention officer and she points out the four women that are in the parking lot that allegedly stole merchandise and they're taken into custody at no point does anybody say that this guy arrested anybody let alone your client but i think if you look at the record page id five ninety four and you look at  the deposition testimony of officer you know about and as i pointed out in my brief on th time based on a train an experience with the taylor police department with the arresting officer be the reporting officer and that's who was listed on the record in question and he testified yes that would be the case let me ask you one more question about that i'm curious about there four individuals or arrested here right is it your client's position that the taylor arrested all four of them you know your honor so there is only one report we've looked at the report the one the one report speaks to four people including your client and what is it her sister something like that sister and two friends ok being arrested right so let's assume for purposes of our discussion that some the person that makes at least one of the arrests would prepare the report let's assume that for purposes of our discussion in no way does that provide any evidence that this officer arrested your client at best it shows he arrested one of the clients one one of the women and then everything else that we know beyond that cite can you cite to that at this point your honor i can't but i believe it was towards the end of production and that she she did identify officer taylor as the one who took the cost of the and when you couple that end of the deposition question so you have no idea sitting here today whether you had contact with him or not fair statement question mark answer correct can't tell you for sure whether that i don't think that's the last page of the deposition just the last page in the excerpts i have here it's from page two seventeen so you telling me something after that i believe were was your honor it was  belief that she did ultimately identify officer taylor as the person who took her in the custody what do you look for that when you after you you're done and when you come back tell us what page that you want us to look at all right and let me if i might interject a question at this point the only deposition testimony that i was able to find here is the excerpts from her deposition that were attached to the summary judgment  of the summary judgment proceedings so i was unable to find the entirety of her deposition is the entirety of it filed i believe it was your honor and and was that called attention to in the summ judgment proceedings or was that only the actual excerpts that were part of those proceedings no your honor i believe that was called into attention at the summary judgment proceedings depositions are not generally on so then what we have is presumably what you attached and i just read to you what's at the end of it there's nothing we don't have anything past that a look into that your honor well the appellee go all right thank you good morning your honour's appearing on behalf of the city of taylor and corporal michael taylor it's our position that judge denise paige hood was absolutely correct in her ruling based on the record  submitted to the court i'd like to address just one housekeeping manner i think appellants civil appeal statement states that the appeal is against all defendants so that would include the city of taylor as well however the appellant has now made any argument whatsoever regarding why the city of taylor would be liable to plaintiff in this case and why the district court erred in granting summary judgment to both corporal michael taylor in his official capacity and to the city of taylor in addition i won't take up a lot of your time i know we started quite late this morning due to unforseen circumstances however there is absolutely no evidence that has been submitted in this case that corporal michael taylor had contact with the appellant on the date of the incident said of curiosity it is probably a question better asked to mr blake normally in a case like this we see the party aggrieved the city and every officer on the scene and every officer that had contact after one it's a medical career cases or something that were missing that you can help us out on why the they only sue this particular person no in our rule twenty six disclosures submitted after the answer to the complaint was filed that we identified all officers on the scene we provided all police reports to you didn't provide any information about which officer actually arrested you parchment is that correct we did provide information and answers to interact atory served on us in september of two thousand and twelve and that question wasn't asked regarding who arrested her during that time we provided answers dinner i could trace in less than the thirty day time requirement on october sixteenth two thousand and twelve stating that corporal michael taylor did not strike playing tough and did not have contact with her we also submitted additional answers thousand and thirteen this was an unavenged full retail fraud arrest that occurred there was one of us one officer who arrived corporal michael taylor it's clear by all the evidence that as judgement  michael taylor immediately went to the loss prevention associate who pointed out the suspects and corporal michael taylor all the evidence shows that corporal michael taylor then pointed out to the other officers arriving on the scene that these are the suspects and that they had contact with her and it's interesting him in appellants testimony she even states that there were other officers who had it right before this officer this chubby officer in the black truck arrived so that even further substantiates the corporal michael taylor is the first arriving officer had already been there with no motion two men in the complaint in the end we produced all of the officers for depositions and i think even after discovery appellant was not at the depositions i brought my client to each and every deposition we scheduled of the appellate she failed to show three times for her deposition although it had been confirmed and we were all present at the appellant's attorney's office youth and we did in and didn't arrest any of these women that's correct it were look we've we all have the police report of course and it doesn't seem to have a place where you actually put the name of the person that took somebody into custody on the report correct so that if it was going to appear anywhere would be in the near it of at the beginning due to the fact that this was not eventful situation again it was a retail fraud arrest taken they simply don't remember who did was horrible mi of human error testified he may have arrested the plaintiff he couldn't recall i hate to say this because it is on the chubbier side but there was no motion made to amend the complaint and no motion to pursue any other officer at the scene it's also our position that even accepting everything plaintiff is saying that she was pushed up against the car to be handcuffed during this arrest that that was objective lee reasonable that that was not excessive force and even her sister testified shimmied guy that she saw the officer put one hand and the appellant's back pushed up against the car and took her other hand and handcuffed her and she could not identify corporal taylor as being at the scene of the arrest even though she mr blake you seem kind of stuck here what else do you want us to look at well your honor just to clarify with respect to the discovery in the matter of the city of taylor throughout the litigation was they would never identify who the person was who arrested my client and if again if you couple that with the statements of the officers the reporting officer is the one who placed the person under arrest that's the best argument i can put before the court is it correct as your opposing counsel suggests that when the depositions of all four of these officers or however many there were were taken that would have provided an opportunity for your client to try to figure out which one of them was the one that actually put hands on her that she didn't show up again your honor if you look and i unfortunately can't direct the court to the specific deposition testimony but again it was my belief that she did identify alternately officer taylor at her deposition he was present sitting across from her and identified her i'm sorry going to fight him at her deposition each of those other officers who were deposed were of a set with respect to who actually page depositions in other words the first one starts at page ninety eight and then they're just selected pages so i'm assuming you selected the pages that were attached to pleadings below that we're now looking at i did your honor