may please the court counsel and the clerk i name is michael greco and i represent the plaintiff appellant in this case and not a bridges as you know from the briefs the rhymer issue is whether mr bridges alleged sufficient facts to indicate a widespread custom or practice of sheriff dart of flouting the low bank start let me start you out please because how could twenty three or even five incidents over a seven year period establish thread wide spread pattern or practice i assume that those years covered tens of thousands of in they did missions to the lawsuit in the case of stuart stuart alleged that he was tonight is law response prescription for a period of four or five years two thousand and five to two thousand and nine i concede that these this is a relatively small amount of detainees but when the litigation is precipitated by the policy of go policy or they are they ignoring or following of the low bunk orders don't i can just i can point you to it you know you may remember it you know catch one of the points that you make that stood out to me and i meant i want to ask this is a legal question ok just as you said that this is at the bottom of page seventeen that defendants and  separate federal lawsuit you know the fact that these other lawsuits exist yes indicates the presence of a widespread practice of ignoring detainees lower bunk orders and this is the important part to me yesterday regardless of whether it was dispute in the prior cases well that that last part seems quite important to me whether the other events occurred or did not and we don't know that from a lawsuit alone and my question for you as a legal order indicates some attempt to concealment that under federal rule eight they've asserted that they have no knowledge where it is generally if conduct is imputed to a defendant directly they're in a position to go through  irect but this was a summary judgment case was it not yes it was in so you could you could have unless or some barrier that you can identify you are able to take discovery and say look i i think i can find on you know the internet three or five or maybe fifteen or twenty five cases yes judge but you were put in the discovery process you actually could have developed facts to support not only did these incidents occur but to try to put that evidence together in a way to demonstrate the cases were saddled and without any admission of liability and one was dismissed were answers given by the sheriff to the complaint but you know as has been noted once discovery has progressed why should we care about those answers so that rather than  but that's unfortunately that really was everything that the result from the record there i submit that the allegations that the are sufficient albeit that not while not overwhelming it's not i haven't been able to develop evidence that pervasive but sufficient to show that one lower bunk prescriptions the court my name is randy derry and i represent defendants apple and apple in this matter st i would like to start by clearing up some mistakes that counsel alleged to  almost a full month after he got the lower bunk assignments and nd it is untrue that judge shah didn't i motions to motions to extend discovery discovery was actually extended three times in this case reckless the record is devoid of any facts which would demonstrate anyone acted knowingly purposefully or recklessly in this matter painted plane to fail to present any facts that a reasonable jury could determine that the nd prong of mo now plaintiffs needed to establish that there was a widespread practice or usage that was so permanent and well settled that it constituted a custom furthermore the allege practice could not be a random or isolated event rather than offering any facts or evidence plaintiff relied exclusively on his complaint where he cited to three prior lawsuits these lawsuits are from two these cases these mere allegations in the complaint do not constitute evidence they do not establish tribal issues a fact and there is no evidence of any connection between these cases there's no evidence that the conditions were the same that they were on the same tear or that there was any sort of supervisor in common who would have known that these things were happening these cases are not remotely  based on plaintiff's own allegations this happened at most four times in nine years from two thousand and five which was the stuart incident to two thousand and fourteen which is plaintiff's incident when taking into account the population it's simply cannot be established that over looking for lower bunk orders in nine years with nine thousand dollars inmates a day would amount to a curvaceous of practice the record is devoid of a single fact that would show any of these allegations are even true even if these complaints were not considered as mere hearsay there's nothing on the record to show that they were not isolated or random incidents of at most negligence of the individual officers as i previously stated plaintive had two years to conduct discovery and discovery was extended three times in this matter plain to fail to take any deposition of the plaintiffs in the cases where he was alleged the other cases he was alleging he has failed to offer summary judgments or statements of fact in those cases and he did not take a thirty six deposition in this case failed to take any of the necessary steps to establish any evidence or any facts to prove that there was a policy that became a custom and that was so pervasive it was a custom at the jail plaintiffs merely asked the district court and is now asking this court to speculate as to the allegations in those cases and at the summary judgment stage of the court does not need to speculate or make inferences speculation is not  yes your honor but not speculation yet show that over and over you we these are not reasonable inferences they were instances that happened over the course of nine years there is nothing to show that these were not just incidents of negligence there is nothing to show that somebody acted recklessly purposefully or knowingly with nine thousand inmates a day do you know how how many separate admissions there are in a month or numbers of individuals per year spent time in jail but i think mathematically it evens out of three hundred dollars go and three hundred dollars come at that time are the jail numbers are much lower now in two thousand and twenty t establish a practice this court also established in a state of moreland versus dieter that for three instances of pepper spraying were not enough to establish a customer practice so far this court has not establish bright line on how many instances would be enough to show mono liability plaintiff is asking that dart be held liable d for sheriff dart be held liable for the actions of an unknown employee however municipality cannot be held by curiously liable for the actions of its there's no genuine issue of material fact to give to a jury because plaintiffs has offered no facts in this case and viewing all the facts in the light most favorable to the plaintiff the only thing we can conclude is that there was at most a mistake made by someone who worked for the share there's no evidence that the sheriff knew that this particular situation or of any of the other three particular situations i mean if the paladin may have a sound program and it may be administered negligently on occasion that is that most what happened here that in itself does not establish no no understand to establish that there was a policy which was the moving force behind his injury i would also like to address plaintiff's assertions that  cook county state's attorney's office in is in collusion with the sheriff which i think were his exact words in his brief to answer lack knowledge under federal rule of civil procedure eight a party can lack knowledge based on the information they have at the time so at that time in those cases were answered the party lacked knowledge and those cases didn't get far enough for anybody to amend the complaint i see that my yellow light is on your honor so if this court has no further questions we ask that you  i submit that the answers to the complaints in the produce case as well as in the michael stewart manderson case cases are relevant and again if the allegation in the complaint is of sheriff starts department's conduct that is information that should be within sheriff starts reference and within his bank of information he should be able to admit or deny that the complaints and the at these particular allegations alleging his conduct so if where is the we where there's a no knowledge affidavit if there is no knowledge answer i find it surprising that counsel would suggest that it's up to the plaintiff to amend th complaint to somehow tease out the more compelling answer so i we're we're talking about a fairly number small number of cases but these are all separate lawsuits unlike the in the theater case where there was