the main goals of the federal civil ajor is to ensure that all parties have a fair opportunity to present their case in this case mr gangel has not yet had a fair opportunity to present his case his claims were dismissed after the district court converted a motion to dismiss to a summary judgment motion on appeal we've raised two main issues the st one is that the district court judgment was based on resolution of a question of fact that the court had not identified as a fact that the court was going to consider it was not a question that the court allowed discovery on who are invited briefing on the nd main issue is that even considering the limited evidence that was put into the record for other purposes along with the unrebutted allegations of the amended complaint there's enough in the record to create a genuine question of material fact discovery was stayed it was a blanket stay on discovery that orders that our documents twenty one and twenty six in the record there was some limited document discovery mostly e mails allowed  while the motion to dismiss was pending that document thirty two and so that's why the court order converting the motion as specified that the parties would be allowed discovery on ask for some discovery that was denied about vanderbilt's experience providing accommodations to students with autism spectrum disorder but as a as a general matter we stuck to the three  yes ok and the reason is the court identify those three issues and said you may have discovery on these issues we really didn't have any reason to seek discovery on the other issues because our understanding was that the which is what you just adjust the course say that well the court didn't explicitly say please address these issues and don't address any other issues but i think that was certainly there was another question a question was whether the co limit is ruling to the information pertaining to those three issues you're not asking the question i'm sorry i'm trying to answer your questions the court did not explicitly say that it would not issue a ruling on  issues outside of those three and i think i think vanderbilt has conceded in its brief that the parties understanding of the import of the court's order was that the summary judgment review was limited to those issues and he would make any sense for the court to say i want you to address these issues you may take discovery on these issues and then not mention the fact that you could also take discovery on any issue you want and i might rule on any other issue a an issue that it had not identified their issue that we were just discussing i think that's the strongest basis on which to reverse the trial court's decision this just a little background on the ruling of course mr de angelo was a student at vanderbilt's business school he was diagnosed with asperger's syndrome he didn't have any intellectual issues but he did have problems with social communication skills which could cause others to interpret his communications and associated behaviors as rude or insensitive insulting and vanderbilt well and he raises two claims basically one is a reasonable accommodation claim and that is that vanderbilt recognize that this was a problem it agreed and actually suggested that then it all i mean they're all professors mr de angeles professors should be explanation of the timing of it i think it's a pretty small sample set to decide that something else must be the reason because it didn't it didn't occur early on i think there's plenty of reason to think that it was a problem if you look at all the comments that their professors and even a mistress made about mr de angelo it's clear that they actually did perceive his communications as rude and antagonistic knowing the reason for that behavior makes a big difference i can i can attest to that personally in addition i just want to make clear mr de angelo wasn't dismissed because of misconduct or anything like that the process by which vanderbilt dismissed him were forced him to related to my question because there is a continuum of conduct from mr de angelo it he is requesting an accommodation or he's got a disability he has an obligation to put a university on notice about psychologist did an assessment and issued a report saying that he did have asperger's syndrome and there were a series of meetings with vanderbilt administration and people including their disability services department at which they discussed what can we do to help mr de angelo and they came up with there is suggests including the fact that his professors be notified of the condition and thought about how to help him participate in the program but the time that he had the issue with the professor and a problem i'm guessing that the assessment he was st diagnosed that was around the time that vanderbilt disability services department reached out to him and he was not receptive to it at that time but in the subsequent months there were a number of meeting and he was not only receptive to it but he invented all together along with his parents agreed on a plan of action ok so i want to be very professors of his condition and provide them education about how to deal with it how to interpret his behavior and how to mitigate any effect on the classroom ok i just mentioned that there was in this negotiation class which was a can go over the spectrum of conduct that i talked about before and see where band you've made overtures recommendations offers and then i value wait mr the angelus kind against that but deficits but that's speculative because number one there's no evidence that he of the graded based upon like or dislike of the student in fact the plaintiff asked for an inference that it was to that just a moment ago he did a fine for a right he in fact had of the three academic stripes that would have led its before vanderbilt even knew of the disability before that are built but even have any of the professors with even crafted this theory i have relies upon that they've decided that he's not an appropriate student for them and therefore come up with this way to have academic judgment subterfuge for the disability learn it already had two strikes against him and furthermore the argument about the reasonable accommodation is contrary to the undisputed record provided detailed instructions on how to complete graduate aren't i taking courses at another school in response to your westie maybe a bit of didn't follow up on any of that and as i believe it was judge who also and tried to help him be successful but his academic record continues to suffer and he continued to do poorly and there's no question that he violated the academic strike and there's no question that  submitted to go this there are academic difficulty reports that the plaintiff himself submitted there are contemporaneous records from each of the professors contradicts what plaintiff asked for in the speculation that somehow these professors and their group was tainted by their dislike of the plaintiff when in fact contemporaneous notes and the mak difficulty reports that the plaintiff himself submitted in response to vanderbilt initial action to dismiss showing that the court that there was acting built would nap and or professors in any such generalized fashion about a student's disability that information is confidential you'd be shared only on a need to know basis but practice is to just know that a particular student needs an accommodation or assistance without getting into the details that they had the e a v up to provide that without getting into the detail unless those details were need steps to assist him in providing group work now as the district court ripley even then he had a low pass in that class showing that even that  problem there it is that there is the academic difficulty records in each instance which identifies the very academic just the geisha so if you will that's a legitimate nondiscriminatory academic justification and the case law is abundant the at quartz give faculty the widest range of discretion you know the weighting academic performance of students and there's nothing in there that it would stop or that this particular students like were this particular strain of behavior was disliked by the professor and therefore resulted in the past him to violate the academic stride and there professor kennedy provided the justification in the academic difficulty report that mr began failed to properly complete  violated that academics draw i'd lemon at the end of until three in which would have meant dismissal from the program before he ever completed the retake of international financial markets there was a is that it basically said we're going to take that is true because as the lower court noted that was just a general latta request for educating a bakley was not sufficient that vanderbilt had trapped rushed its review his violation of the strike them and the facts as laid out in the discovery show that they had not that he had been provided the opportunity to appeal he had been notified twice of his right to appeal he had been offered assistance to appeal and he had never appealed we submit that the evidence shows the play of has not been able to a step with that he we have not had an opportunity to present evidence on that issue and our position is that issue was not properly before the district court except to the extent that the court referred to our allegations in the amended complaint earlier there's a question about where specifically did vanderbilt can see the discovery was limited to the issues that the court identified and i want i want to i meant to compliment vanderbilt and mr garrett on their intellectual honesty on this point they haven't played games with this i think mr garrett just even said in his argument the discovery was limited to those issues on page four their response brief then about says that judge leavy allow the parties to engage and forty four dollars forty four cents there's a paragraph about discovery which says a court's going to allow discovery the court specifically requests that the parties provide competent evidence explaining the following factual disputes and lays out those three disputes the cause of mr de angelo the low grades the cause of the academic strikes are not among those issues and therefore the trial court did not provide mr de angelo with notice and an opportunity to take discovery and an opportunity to brief that issue and it's not only unfair but it's inconsistent with the rules twelve the m fifty six dollars f about the procedure for converting