corporation there are several issues he the judge in the district court ruled that the previous fall meant mr pack and the school corporation in the details of his determination included and settlement agreement which is the basis of our uncertain and they provide that the school corporation i will not issuer communicate discouraging information to any person after the methods of possible discouraging information in and page nine its provides that each party shall refrain from all contact verbal or otherwise for which would damage or impair in any way others reputation goodwill services or standing in the community if you're any medium where the written tangible electronic computerized verbal or any other form including the internet email or other mortalities after the execution of  that agreement it was discovered that the superintendent of schools had within about ninety days of the publication affidavit which restated several of her earlier criticisms or comments about mr pac so that basically before the ink was dry on this the superintendent was already involve i lay ssion in her deposition it was discovered that she didn't understand  the terms of the settlement agreement at one point she agreed that she would have the settlement agreement removed from the website although that has not occurred and so much agreement was not only the terms i'm sorry the terms of a press release from the gene from two thousand and fourteen critical of mr pac was posted on the website of the school and has remained posted on the website of the school but presumably it went up in fourteen it was not removed in sixteen when the settlement agreement required liability parish and i agree with that but as of the th of november they published that again and continue to publish it it's been published every single day since th of november in anyone claim about the press releases extinguished it covered by the four corners of the settlement agreement and perhaps you'd like to move on to your other to claim violations well on the press release  would say that the publication by the affidavit of the superintendent delivered and february or so and the  judge it is it is not because it was not related to any affidavit or any requirement or any compulsion wasn't only terry on her part totally voluntary and the indiana law does not the school's absolute privilege argument before the test for a court why haven't you waived that argument we get you responded to the absolute privilege argument we responded i understand what my question is thank you so my question to you is specifically before the district court in the motion to dismiss the school raised the question of absolute privilege to cover the superintendent's affidavit it does not appear that you responded to the absolute privilege argument before the district court so why haven't you waived that and we did respond to  responded that that the involvement of the superintendent was not was voluntary substantial section of the briefing that points out and shows that this is totally voluntary on the part of the superintendent that is the argument that regarding whether or not it's abs superintendent and the counsel for the this newspaper resulting in her affidavit which was not coerced she wasn't subject to subpoena and under public policy exception to an employer firing an at will employee who provides voluntary testimony adverse testimony to the employer in an unemployment compensation hearing it doesn't have anything to do with the issue in this case about absolute weirdness it lets you tell it is only about absolutely that's what furniture exists about public policy exception to firing lawsuit that affidavit was was given the and there's nothing in indiana law that requires that limit the witness privilege to compel three witnesses i believe that's incorrect and i believe the goes on to talk about the status of the witness and saying that if it's fallen if a statement like this is voluntary then it's if there is something if there some reason he should make there is no there is no indiana absolute witness privilege the the cases that are cited and unfortunately the most excited by th circuit are are based on  independent status and the hartman case and the other case independent status of universities of indiana by which this the legislature has delegated to those universities basically independent ability to structure their own internal justice system for things having to do with their own cases that case and those cases do not stand for submitted by this by the schools all we ever said about those was they showed motive they showed intent they didn't show any violation of the employer communication provision they did however show disparagement on those dates it is disparaging what's prevented and that would you say it matters for one so it matters for one paragraph and it doesn't matter for the other unless there's a paragraph that says if if your prospective employer calls here's what you tell him and if these were whether these are believed to because of the settlement agreements clear terms and because of the application of indiana as absolute privilege doctor first i want to address the issue of the press release i issue in terms of the hoax phone calls i disagree with mr ayres statement that somehow the fact that these are host on calls doesn't really matter that's that's incorrect the only obligation with regard to the statements at issue miss allen irrelevant to this case are those statements that were made to time on is this issue about the affidavit offered by superintendent allen in response to the lawsuit filed by mr pac against the tree newspaper clams but applies to breach of contract actions like this secondly reign stands clearly for the proposition that under indiana law  there is protection of absolute privilege even for voluntary statements as long as those statements are relevant and perkins versus memorial hospital of self then stands for the proposition that absolute privilege is no defense the school in this case that's w in fact just to confirm while judge sykes was asking her questions i did a word that term search of perkins perkins doesn't contain the words absolute privilege it's simply not addressed as the court noted instead it's just an unemployment compensation case dealing with a public policy exception to the actual doctor just got no relevance here a there is no case after this court decided rank that is from peter this court or the indiana supreme court that changes the outcome in a way that says anything different than this couple of other points i wanted to make in the brief for my opponent there are several errors with regard to dates in the timeline of the a bounce they gave rise to all this i would encourage the court to rely upon the affidavit of former superintendent jane allen that affidavit can be found in the district court record it is docket number forty dash one that lays out clearly the timeline of events here and in addition the district court correctly identified the key dates and i don't i don't think mr ayres challenged the specifically an appeal the other point i want to raise is with regard to the waiver i know there were a couple of questions for mr ayres regarding this district or they were not raised at his brief before this court i think this case is really straightforward the district or was right on all counts a summary judgment should be a