were presented is whether or not there was good cause or imminent danger to the children that were removed from the home without a warrant at the time they were removed the consequences those act and a secondary issue of whether or not the stats foster parent license had also been revoked now in order to determine pretrial procedures and during the course of the trial now in this particular case one of the key issues had to do with what most are ronstadt to various social workers at various times during the day before that she was removed from her home and on the day that she was removed from her home one of those interviews out of five interviews that took place was videotaped during the course of pretrial proceedings plaintiffs attempted to get that videotape we went to the court in contra costa county which is the juvenile court which has exclusive jurisdiction over matters involving juveniles in the state of california we've taken the order they're directing the county and the district attorney to produce it it never was produced the case went up on appeal we went back to try and get it through in a contempt citation got no reaction from the courts so just prior to trial were getting ready and the one unique thing about the federal system is the pretrial conference and the way it's set up there was a scheduling order that was issue before the pretrial conference with so i think that all exhibits must be identified and exchanged not later than thirty days prior to the pretrial conference rhonda rule sixteen the excuse me that they had to be done which implicates rule sixteen b the defendants in this matter never identified the videotape as being a piece of evidence that they intended to introduce at trial well at the time the request was made the county of contra costa was a defendant and we were told that in fact existed however later on the county of contra costa was dismissed from the action so the question becomes this who had possession of the videotape where the defense position being that since we individually do not have the possession of this videotape we should not be penalized for any failure the fact that the videotape is a rather unique piece of evidence we're talking about events that occurred five years prior to trial the videotape is one snippet of the events it's very  problem with the videotape is the person who is doing the questioning is not a witness and she was not identified witness in this case either she never testified the trial court noted in her ruling that the interviewer vicky hill in fact agreed that melissa needed to be removed from her home that testimony never occurred in court it never occurred in the videotape decision makers and that brings in rule fifteen and in this particular case the request to bring in the defendants that were the decision makers was denied by the court there was no laying i think within a few days i wrote a letter i think of the opinion came down on july first for the remainder came down i wrote a letter i think on july seventh or within a few days requesting that we have a very scheduling hearing of yours approximately two and a half years and do you have to remember the first seven months that the case was on file there couldn't be any discovery because of the local rules or the local rules largely or what the motion was granted primarily was granted primarily on absolute immunity under state law for social workers and making decisions to remove children from the home if i had brought in the when you don't think you're in the right but they were represented by the same attorneys that were representing the county and representing all of the other tenants and witnesses in the action all the witnesses were county employees except for my clients supervisor that there was no danger to the squirrel or seal above told the supervisor at the allegations of abuse and the other children were basically unfounded the jury there and in fact the jury in this case was understandably reluctant to find more seal of buff liable for removing those children when she was told to do so by the supervisor the jury questions were why don't we have the supervisor in front of us who made the decision and told that moment to remove those children and i can answer that question to the jury  mind that the necessary requisites for removal of that trial without a warrant had been there you know anything in their record regarding her opinion once she heard from her supervisors and that's what she had an don't recall her ever saying that she ever changed her mind i don't recall ever saying that she changed her opinion or it was a treat from qualified immunity that qualified immunity is available unconstitutional in its nature the immunity applies if the constitutional the constitutionality of the action that was taken was not well established at the time that the action was taken or if a reasonable person in the position of the defendant would believe that what he or she did was proper objective only reasonable and objective  established not later than one thousand nine hundred three in the ram versus ruben decision from this court which stated there must be illin it named imminent danger of physical or sexual abuse to the child before that child can be removed without warrant unless there's some type of exigent circumstance so why wasn't she entitled to qualified immunity we've got the standard all set up now why wasn't she entitled to it she doesn't meet the standards because objective linny and in why don't you look at what mr both knew she had her opinion she didn't know what her supervisor knew but she knew that her supervisor had to move the trial so why did she entitle the qualified immunity because there is no qualified immunity for simply following orders no that's not the point she didn't know what the facts her supervisor had that she didn't have so therefore she goes no higher supervisor  she's not standing in for supervisor she just knows what she goes she gets orders to do something different and we don't know what that supervisor knew nor does she so why isn't that qualified doesn't have to be perfect no but in this particular case the supervisor only had information from r c l above but didn't know that that's the critical point did she know what the supervisor  you look at the time when mr bove did what she did and she's your she's your bad guy here she's the one you've got to focus on and you look at what she knew and what the facts were what a reasonable person in her position have done what she did her supervisor had either gone out and done a separate in corrie or i had and i had a long history of dealings with this family and therefore had a better way to judge supervisors and the individuals who had been named in that action no amended complaint was filed and no requests to follow them in a complaint several months later in november of two thousand marsupial above herself was and she testified at great length regarding the relationships between her supervisors and the other defendants in the case and still no proposed amended complaint was requested by the pla point during the course of the depositions do they learn in the deposition the precise relationship that you said they actually heard before and then comus the motion for summary judgment aren't you in which you argue that there appeals granted qualified immunity for another of the defendants and they were dismissed from the action there was a reno and however on other issues and those are addressed one by jury trial but nowhere in that period of time even though the plaintiffs knew because we provided them the information in writing that the relationship between the supervisors and these individuals existed at all relevant times in this lawsuit there was no effort made to seek relief from the court to file a proposed of court on that and that's what we advance to the trial court the plaintiffs could have come to the trial court in a reply brief and said wait a minute judge we would prefer to rely on fifteen c one which allows we would have argued that a subsequent hearing or we may have addressed up the court's past but they didn't give that information to the trial court they never said we want to proceed under this one of the alternatives and we said under this alternative you're out of court denied that motion for amendment there was prejudiced to ask him that too with a half years of my absolutely cited two cases to this court in which they talk about amendments filed after a year or prejudiced can result in prejudice the defendants moreover we ha trial date in this case the date for dispositive motions ran the day after the motion to amend was filed we would have had no time to file this positive motions conduct on the discovery and in plaintiff's motion me briefly delineate if i may those differences in the d c d case the court denied the proposed amendment without issuing any findings or reason for its decision thanks circuit said you have to get something complaint that certainly is a situation here too and after years of passed and they had the requisite information for months after they filed their action number three it was in the early stages of discovery that was not true of our case discovery have largely been completed  of of law survives a summary judgment motion can you tell me when another way of saying that is on the current state of the record are they going to go to trial again on that question of qualified immunity why don't we get to go to supervisor told her what the supervisors direction was she readily deferred i believe that's an exact quote readily defer to her supervisor for a number of reasons first this was marcy's very first case the supervisor had make decisions in between six and seven thousand cases holding a child or releasing a child from hold additionally marcy looked after talking to the supervisor and was convinced that her supervisor had melissa's best interests at heart and then marshall above testified that she readily went along with the supervisor's decision based upon her greater experience the fact she knew the supervisor had the best interest of the confused the court my paula just there were two other more experienced social workers who had dealt with well surround staff both of whom i found her to be credible they shared that information with my stream about writing about past all this information on to mary jensen her supervisor but mary jensen her walk to that experience and the determination to strain that child i see but the supervisor had no independent knowledge of this child she had her experience and i cases and by case can experience police officer had no reason to believe the instructions given to him by superior officer would result in a violation of any constitutional rights and also without i believe marcy have also testified that she had no idea wish i could take more time just to deal with bella in terms of velo the case the facts of the case in belarus substantially different your we had a social worker we've been investigating for over three and a half on this particular issue but you have to blame it on the supervisor because they told her to do it but the fact of the matter is what she did was unconstitutional it was wrong they had plenty of time to get a warrant to go to the to go to the juvenile court