actually during discovery in the case and are genetically paid a total of eight hundred and twenty five thousand dollars so one of the issues that arose cross trollop well as whether or not the defendant my clients were entitled to a set off through the settlement paid by the settling defendant or some of the south are intimately what the trial judge did was he granted a set off from south there are two other issues that we have also raised one regarding the application of the parent high from doctrine which ali touch on briefly because in the interim since briefing in this case there has been  know i'm not waiving that argument because there's a there's a likely petition for certain that case going to the supreme court so i don't want to withdraw or waive my argument on that issue but also recognize that there is a panel decision being different that is not supported i would submit by the record clearly the fame for th amendment claims were asserted against my crimes as were assert against the british home of the south in addition against the other person but that's that's an issue out saturday i was just curious as to the whole zero dollars that that is being paid by your client but got it and i think my time is up y i apologize for that my name is robert butcher on one of the attorneys for w us co counsel heather heights and thomas height of her watching on your t v but at this time i appreciate you having us the st thing i wanted in south carolina that it let me just be clear in terms of math my state is so met that in the faith you have if they say the total damage is eight hundred thousand and they just didn't have to pay their four hundred because a set of you still got eight hundred thousand so that's all well i do understand that but what i do want to emphasize is that after we settle for with boys from the south the st bit of discovery which was sent all in that you can find out at the they they delay and objected and refused to produce for over a year and that's part of our our you know issue with the court not allowing us to you know freely amend but all all of that should be a signal to the court that those are all the injuries and if you look at south carolina softball oh you know set off it allows the defendant a proton to judge reduction of judgment for the very hard to follow but if i understand you correctly this way i see it you saying that the eight hundred and twenty five thousand out of settlement figure compensated put dozens of injuries all kinds of issues both cleared at unplayed as well as many sexually abused over one hundred times by thirteen other children eleven that we could identify where social services had notice that those children sexually acted out on other children and that be that you want your foreign one thousand dollars wire well yes your honor or the district court could be instructed to equitably identify abused by these eleven other children over a three year period so that in order let me be clear are you admitting that the three incidents here were covered under that agreement of the twenty one dollars where the three agreement did do that there's just a broad agreement has a figure and we don't know how much is assigned to it and i don't know how to quote goes back man when as you say it quickly decide that this is worth this and this is where that you're if you cannot all determine the total loss and or really divide the total loss and i think respect for the consul i thought you just told us that the four hundred thousand didn't represent the total loss is it represented covered all the incidents i'm miss i misunderstood it represents the total loss that a jury assigned from those for what those four incidents and  rescued i mean we they decided there was an incident on march all in march of two thousand and eleven but they found on march two thousand and nine june two thousand and nine and november of two thousand and ten so those three incidents the jury decided was worth four hundred thousand you know your problem is that you you have a settlement agreement a lump sum you did put specific amounts for each one of the now have and now when you're dealing with a set of the judge again what is our standard review clear and so when we when we're looking at that we've got a descent discernment you know what did a judge do here in a circumstance there's no indication of sign off that you can't divide it up if you cannot see determine the you know what the summit is for instead the judge basically rewrote the contract we had with boys from the south regarding the settlement and now subtle moments you get what you can take there is very often little parts that the only time you really see parsing is in a wrongful death where someone tries to shove everything poor it's survivor so they can the court here found that you billing practice was somewhat concerning look at this so called block building built billy and can you help us make this the why the court made this exception for you on this billy i'm not sure he didn't explain it your order and i think what he did was he took the different care credit kimball factors and i think you just lump together the different objections the s s and he really didn't delineate it in the order to give us some sense of what he was doing so i think certainly you telling us we had a set of back and asked him to do so i think that's probably that's the most logical and fairest thing i believe on you know it it is what it is i mean you know oh yes certainly councilor do you think there is any possibility in the world that you would get greater fees than you've been d awarded i certainly believe there should have been enhanced that oh yes you know we're we're dealing with the the what happened now we're looking at it retroactively but you want to send it back to the district case where you want  step two which was federal d law is their federal law too was their state law and then they skip tests three my time is up i continue for a minute you can continue takes up your rebuttal time thank you ma'am that and that's where that logic comes from where the court ruled that there is no contribution in those cases because contributions are often very similar that it is it you know that well but the language that you read to us also seems to indicate that there are other points only just settlement only addresses these now maybe never plug them and i don't understand that but but i think that the language you y released that there are other claims being reserved or carved out your own well let's pick let's be clear it does say resolves all claims assert it could have been asserted or should have been assert it's a lump sum settlement it doesn't delineate what the fees are going forward at all and the other side is indicated they are included in there they those three claims whatever is included in that settlement and h settled all of them so that seems to me set up probably should be given because if they'd it didn't want to be set off they should have delineated what it was and i think that would be a different case if each one of those had been given  here and you know you know you're an experienced lawyer that you can have the same factual predicate but if a statute or a common law duty for example do you differ right or gives you show that as a part of their cross appeal they're challenging whether or not the four hundred thousand dollars set off should have been allowed we believe that was a proper with our argument was that the judge should have allowed an additional set off for the judge explain that part of it or i think you're going to on the back on that but there are other issues that he didn't address he didn't address number on whether or not there should be a set off and we relied on the corner versus brown case for attorney's fees that were attorney's fees so he did not offer one rd but our position is that it is not enough given the given the circumstances and that there are a number of issues that he simply didn't address thank you very much make sure you understand that we didn't really have a normal client our client was between the ages of one thousand eight hundred and eleven and not only that he had been sexually abused so we came in with a certain set of facts and as we progressed in the case and as gain trust with our client he told us about the other sexual incidents that's why when we started discovery in january th you look at those discovery requests and were asking about all these other wars would sexually abuse that you don't get everything with these children they are there they've been harmed they've or press things and they don't have a great memory because they have her cross that is all you precluded from bringing in a separate lawsuit for those no we s you're complaining about you discover some other incidents and stuff and i'm asking this reza judicata precludes you from going in and dealing with those outside of this i think i think the court can say south side o they decide for everything from two thousand and eight may two thousand and eight all the way to april two thousand and eleven they wanted to cover all that it's not in the evidence what was discussed and in the end all settlement but i think you can once again look at our discovery and look at what we tried to do to share and not should show when signaled to the court that all our claims which we tried to prosecute and so that's why we checked into the judges taking away the four hundred thousand from vs us because he didn't try and either i might you know how we have gotten the defendant who was denying settlement a set up that a plot of this no we knew a subtle could apply your honor but we also didn't know how much liability dss until you know and we still never got all the documents in the case but we were able to identify twenty one incidents where diaz us knew about children being dangerous and continued to place our child with them so you expect a much higher for what we know because we didn't get to trial or are i'm sorry under rule sixteen we should have had some comparable notion that we would have been allowed to amend within the scheduling of work and you know the court they denied us  give you the opportunity to extend the deadline in schedule were six times when we tried to amend but your honor one of the things we did not get our motion to compel and get the evidence until just short of of all the amendment and i couldn't i mean you know from the time we issued discovery until the time they produced all the last that after the then we'd sent all five e mails to chambers asking for discovery conference and two of the motions amending the schedule in order we advised the court that we can amend to we get the information and the discovery and  the jury verdict cielo if the attorney fees in his case given that you've availed and received the award is that is that really the relief you want i think