going to affirm the district court's decision to let that in not the standing at least for the option yes i guess i just don't i don't understand how any of the three points you just ticked off matter in light of might want to have that list and the the undisputed  understand it is that hernandez had nothing to do with putting your client's name on that particular list so can you just help me understand in the context of the jury being presented with that the evidence being that hernandez i've nothing to do with the creation of how does your head not retaliation the mr hernandez testifies that well i don't remember that i was who i was probably told so we can assume for purposes of this that he knew he was sued two months before but what events with the accuracy of the test seems to me if we were here fighting about with the test was accurate or manipulated then the absence of a law book which showed chain of custody and other things would be pretty relevant but here for only talking about whether he was scheduled for testing randomly not not schedule because and it as a retaliation it seems to me the most the logbook could have shown was that he wasn't on the random list year great of custody of the urine sample my question then remains is there anything about the logbook were to be discovered were to be revealed that might have cast doubt upon whether or not that list of all the people randomly selected was know what log books show don't they they show the chain of custody of the urine sample correct they don't show how and when people are selected to provide the urine sample ok so what ever i could draw that inference if i were dealing with the accuracy of the sample or the chain of custody that the logbook would be harmful to mr harris but that issue is not in that the that the missing document would have contained information helpful to you it doesn't it's not it doesn't give you an inference of the motive of somebody destroying it it just gives you an inference that the document would have had information helpful to you and that's what i'm struggling with because if the only information it would have had was about chain of custody not an issue in front of us how how would it have been helpful to you on your retaliation cl what the logbook ordinarily contain  and targeting and for the best my point and that's best that's the sticking point for me you say given the information that might have been on the log with the jury could find that the test wasn't random when you help me understand how that could be  k so i'm looking at that page and just to follow up on judge fletcher's question i cannot for one second see how you're able to argue that the information that would be contained in this log book entry if we had it for  the date back in january how it could show that the list of people selected for random drug testing was not in fact random that just the only additional information on that page is just somebody is handwritten  it up which is going to be showing up and who who collected that doesn't tell me much at all about maybe doesn't only mean in about who might award of the test is whether the randomly generated a list of names was somehow phony i mean all it tells me who picked it up and i'm willing to i'm willing to totally willing to credit mr siegel is just money that it was barely even though it should have been the same officer and that it was in that fashion irregular what else might be a log book of joan district judge says yes i'm going to draw an adverse and whims based upon the absence of the randomly selected list of names all of a sudden the list goes on which is of course suspicious but do we have any evidence beyond the fact that it shows up only would have been an absence of records about mr singleton if there was an absence of a large book record as to mr singleton that would be some evidence that the random list that was generated that was produced really wasn't a random and it was produced late it cetera et cetera so wouldn't that be would that be enough to get the case to the jury on retaliation not moved on the facts in front of the district court away the list came in the random list we'd have all the people reprinted and then at the bottom you handwriting would be mr singleton's name and then we have a chain of custody for his right urine sample but oddly enough his name was not on the preprinted list for the so question i want to ask assumes and i know you don't want to assume this but let's assume that there was sufficient evidence from what you're a reasonable juror could find that mr singleton was not randomly  lieutenant hernandez who ordered the nonrandom test what so i assume that the tech assumed that the test was proved not to be random for a moment they could never come up with a list that showed he was to be randomly tested i'm still worried in this case about whether there's sufficient evidence to go to the jury with respect to lieutenant hernandez our case law says proximity of the previous protected activity is not enough in two months it is not all that probative what else so what else is there that would tie to tenet hernandez to this task other than the fact that he was generally in charge of the actually ordered to testify but you can see it comes in for the purpose of questioning the credibility of martinez but then that and that's the court's ruling on a motion my ex trial singleton never testifies at and the reason to be the magistrate judge didn't want to have an adverse inference instruction as to the chain of custody or the tampering or anything else like that is because all of that was documented in the rule violation which relate to the missing moss because all of that was documented in the asshole rule violation document and that's the man i ask you can i ask you a small question about the record there's a record year before trial we reopen discovery allow the plaintiffs to depose but the reason i'm asking the question is that if i'm if i'm looking at that document from april th it appears to me that what you all are the log book for a different collection is that correct i think that includes who did a i believe that was mr singleton on that one suiter if he was but that i think that's a different collection than the want to do two in this case it's just an example of how the log operates correct yeah right so so we don't have a page of the log book for the for this particular test the just an example of how it operates would brings me back to the for saying sort of the record in this case isn't that mr singleton's page was last there was that the entire log book for that time period was not recovered that's correct and that's why you have a later law book from april t