erred first by treating these claims as if they were personal injury claims or also failed to analyze plaintiff's claims state by state as illustrated by the recent g m ignition decision and other automotive  so it applied the incorrect flaw in an inappropriate cross the board can i ask you did you argue to the district court that the law on manifestation varied among the seventeen states that are at issue here we district court was correct and that they probably excluded the experts and so sensually you had no additives then we wouldn't get the initial issues with what i mean if there is no defect or cases over if  then have a whole lot more than a hypothesis so the one thing the destruct me is very odd about this case was that you were bringing it home to bring it as a class action millions of vehicles to try to fit their how apotheosis and to an actual event which i just found that to be bizarre the way but it has a sara lee leading to an increase to occur which is why i found the suggestion that there are safer alternatives a bit unhelpful since in fact there there are safer alternatives doesn't necessarily oh but then i'm hopefully i'm response like i'm part of it by action there is also the aspect of it is impossible to design a system especially one as complex that never ever misbehaves but there are ways that utilizes three since your system this is a fascinating record if you've not we don't have an engineering so this three sensor system creates the acceleration signal when two of the three p you're assigning your labeling this is the fact that good or bad based on outcomes that haven't necessarily been determined geared they're not your show using that testing was that if you have a ball the fat one sensor it could then misbehave for years without a car ever alerting the driver technician because it doesn't generate a false hope and then a second fault come along years later removed in time birds to some testing of vehicles or actually just assemblies with vehicles on a desktop so as testing of vehicle parts but they never tested the hypothesis what is the hypothesis the hypothesis as judge  to is that you can have simultaneous faults two of the three sensors have to be aligned in the correct very narrow ranges which are offset in order of the vehicle to accelerate the hypothesis was that two of those sensors in offset ranges can simultaneously fault at the same time and center acceleration signal when the driver is not sending that signal there is no testing vehicles two four vehicles what what what's your take on that and so what the that's what i'm getting to saying that the experts tested vehicles are really vehicle parts the one i think is the one he was referring to initially of the two two this paper does not attempt to identify the root causes of unintended acceleration at some point one and the other it goes on to say is that even going to draw any conclusions about the differences between vehicles that are being examined it's difficult to say this is that three seventy one it's difficult to say to what extent if any of these design differences contributed to the rate of consumer complaints little or no conclusions drawn in the study how much additional study then did this expert in a signal to one sense and then the additional signal would somehow be sent by that fault or that trigger or something else where the two sensors would just happen in an extraordinary coincidence two of them showed is that if and when you inject electronic signals into the sense orders that come to the ranges if you get signals that tell two sensors the car is supposed to be accelerating what happens they discovered that the car will accelerate because that's how the system is designed now whether or not then you know injected signals in advance of the you would lead to that conclusion it's not doesn't matter the point is that there are tests both tests and the judge found this room we're talking of you should stress instanter the judge read their analysis carefully and correctly concluded that all they effectively did was show that when you inject or whatever stimuli inject voltage question if hypothetically if if if it were the case that there was not sufficient evidence here to kill a jury on this particular hypothesis the dual sense our failure failure to catch the simultaneous dual sensor fox is that the end of the case or it wasn't at this point plaintiff's obligation to prove up or provide sufficient evidence to get to a jury on that particular hypothesis or could you still at this point go in generally forget that but look we've got this statistical sophistic least significant uptick in reports after they do this on the t c will go to the jury with that forget our first theory we're going to do something else so instance some other case that kind of approach might be theoretically hypothetical theoretically to a jury they point to the four documents all the four comments that they point to say is there are two categories of reports that ford has the reports from their own dealer technicians and then reports  talk about alleged what their own expert calls potential unintended acceleration events no nos as to what anyone to vent what really happened and certainly in this is the dispositive point not one of those documents not one of those unintended acceleration actually show that they were caused by the defect they're experts can't show and not by the myriad other causes and recall that their own expert himself even calls them potential acceleration of events however by the way there's three hundred thirty four out of twenty two point four million vehicles during part of the class period that's two thousand to two thousand not the additional year but even taking that number what you have is  and another agency study as a critique of the methodology used by either dr heaving or dr kumar or the opposing counsel has argued that that study should not be given credence because it predated some other work or that it wasn't in the record and what's your response to that argument so a couple of points i think of well the first the most important point is that the reference to that study was completely supplementary of what the court had already said which is their experts haven't and cannot recently haven't even tried to show that this simultaneous dual offset fault in our hat in the real world not other testing shows he's already established that and they're not to dispute it they're not going to stand up here in their rebuttal and show you where in the record they're actually show that kind of thing happens so of course is that and then he says there's also it's a nasa study which observes that that kind of thing doesn't happen in the real world that's all that he referred to that study for so you could excise that part if you wanted to and there still is a complete absence of proof a complete analytical gap in their own excellence testimony but i was there any reference in the record answer which is you can point to the absence of this be a way as a failsafe until you establish initially that something like that is required because the e t c is susceptible to failure because it's not common enough that these two sensors offset sensors will simultaneously fall from salt water corrosion or tin whiskers or whatever you said was that then you get to the question of well what could you have done to mitigate that and you know one can debate about whether  your way would be sufficient for that but you don't get to that until you establish that the effect which they can't do i would also add by the way if you did get to this question about the away this and this also confirms that it's not an alleged effect here none of their experts partners for instance in the district court seems to have imposed a standard for what kind of experts need to do for its testing that is both impractical at odds with what actually is done in the automotive engineering community defense not the courts district courts job to go out and hunt up evidence in a case i mean the jury john the put the evidence in the record and if you say it was wrongfully excluded then you should raise