that the district court to ignore the following evidence which was in favor of the nonmoving part cloying nora shi'i and this evidence was pretty striking there were five prior complaints of discrimination  lieutenant davis brasseur before shoaib complained number two geo wrote two written reprimands against the ten of davis involving discrimination before she complain did not discipline davis when shade complete g o had a policy of not taking just planaria action unless there was a confession to all or part of from another or from an inmate and only in those cases would gio has a policy in practice take action against the harasser or g required a third party to witness the harassment that arrest the statement or the harassment which often does not occur because harassment occurs or harassers take of that kind of action and there's nobody looking like geo also had a policy of not telling investigators about the prior complaints against the harasser which would have in and of themselves corroborated the complaints of shoddy so even though there were five prayer complaints of discrimination and shaves complaint was investigated one time by geo geo did not tell that investigator about the five prior complaints or the two reprimands prior reprimands of davis gigo led the district court to also ignore the failure of g a o to investigate other complaints of discrimination they only investigated one of the complaints of discrimination that show even took no action because davis had not admitted to it and there was no third party present when he made the statements of you're stupid you're stupid foreigner you stab me in the fucking back or f ing back she testified  and those kinds of statements joe let the district court to ignore the judge it shows destruction of the electronic evidence was pretty dramatic in this case and i apologize to the court for using this language  safety manager's office and wrote on her computer in the middle of the simplex fire extinguisher instructions that were on her computer the words all niggers remain on your bunks or you will be shot and then said sharpshooters on the rough and they continued on with the simplex statement about or fire detectors complained about that too geo and geo did not investigate that fact and cio took the pretty terrible action of destroying the evidence they destroyed the paper copy that she gave to g then they went to the computer and destroyed the electronic data that was on the puter instead of locking down the computer finding out when this was put on the date the time to find out who had access to the computer interviewing those people seen who alibis and who didn't they did none of that and then later they came back and said well that's not evidence because she doesn't know who did this book or she doesn't know who did this that's the case with find out that you can't determine exactly who did it you issue a general warning about this and take and have extra vigilance the jewel of the district court to ignore the destruction of evidence ignore the lack of argument is that diageo led the district court to ignore certain evidence and i gather that that's an allusion to your argument that the district court didn't require a geo to follow its local rule that requires the presentation of the facts in the favorable most in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party yes as vast also the case law from the supreme court and to that ok now i guess my question is this i understand well that the court has to view the evidence in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party but it seems to me entirely unrealistic to think that somehow the moving party is required to according to some standard present its case in the light most favorable to its opponent well i would temptation on the court not the moving party i would submit to you judge that this is the burden of all moving parties for instance we're all familiar with a motion to dismiss and a motion to dismiss must assume the facts well pleaded as true now if the motion doesn't do that you have to say right off well we can't grant that motion i'm sorry you're challenging facts here that are well pleaded we're not going to consider his motion somehow and i have great sympathy for the court some how the practice mor into the practice that you describe where is just a free for all or one party would describe their side another pretty good described there is that you couldn't match up the facts when you try to match of the facts had to restate the chronology and it became cotton that party well that case said that the court cannot ignore facts the mailing case in this court said that the parties cannot ignore the facts then we have the recent assistance from the rules committee on rule one which added that the parties must follow the rules and then to make an f a says the committee said this is not a new rule we're just emphasizing this the parties have to follow the rules and recently in the last week we have achieved justice if a sizing the same thing saying the parties have to follow the rules and cannot be a structure us and not the obstructionist and we have to and that's the only way we're going to have an efficient a judicial system otherwise we end up with a free for all that you and i have seen too often well and so when we get when i when we excuse me just meant when we identified these facts these glaring facts destruction of evidence for instance in a there are not that are not stated you have to say i was smitten you have to say this is not a proper motion for summary judgment we can't grant it we can't tolerate it terminations he the district court also ignored his involvement in the termination especially when he after he blocked from doing her job in the control room inspecting it to see what was there if there were fire heap of fire hazard lights heaters things like that in the control room would not and were not let her in and then the superintendent backed him up instead of backing up the person is discriminated but that isn't why she was terminated was that no right after the control room released the door on a windy day this hit her in the head and gave her a physical injury that said or to the doctor into the hospital and only trying to davis was in charge of the shift on that day and rosie wrote the injury report then when she came back from the hospital with a correctional officer he told her to drive home geo then terminator for driving but not not not for driving home but for driving later when she was on boy when they got achille when geo tells you to drive it she he didn't say you can drive home but not anyplace else he said yeah go ahead and the correctional officer is whether at t doctor's office didn't receive any instruction not to drive i've heard not to drive when she did receive instruction that i could she never receive instructions not to drive her work instruction to the er the work restriction from the doctor to g was that she would not drive or use heavy machinery that was a work restriction not that she would never drive to to the store to get food or gasoline forward to see friends or anything like that so then after and the lieutenant who was in charge of the shift at the time of the injury was davis the tennessee center homeless as davis we have asked for the staffing plan see how many chances there are and she has refused to give us that so the only  you don't know of any page nineteen of your reply brief you went well beyond what are obviously the fundamental disagreements between the parties about what it facts and evidence are material to this case that in general terms of the defense had misrepresented the record in what respect not a disagreement about what's relevant or the sequence in which it was presented the i get that i'm trying to understand though look there's of that's an obvious difference and courts are not going to try to police parties saying which party which facts are relevant that's not a no not a workable rule you're going to have those disagreements but if you think there's been a misrepresentation of the record i'd like to know what it is well that's an important misrepresentation i think saying that she was told that she could not drive she was never told she couldn't drive and she said that to the superintendent but she told the doctor that she was driving and she because she had no choice and there was there was never any document to her or state in the she shouldn't i was never statements or saying she shouldn't drive geo never told her she shouldn't write a steady g o in order to make a pretext after finding out she had an ego complaint against prior employer went out  of dollars proving that she was driving and they never told her she was not supposed to drive but just tried to do that in order to make a pretext to terminator and there were three e mails from  three e mails discussing the lieutenant's involvement in that and there was no evidence that there was any lieutenant that had worked with her before other than davis or any other employee were before other than davis pinpointing him is that he's a culprit for that then the last evidence was that when the subsequent employer ask for a prospective employer ask the employee this employer g o about  the important facts that they gave to that prospect if employer were number one she filed a complaint against her previous employer number two she filed a complaint against g a o is that in her record yes it is and that is the last me please the court there is absolutely no evidence in the record that the decision maker superintended burch did not honestly believe that ms shi'i had violated her medical restrictions or that she had misrepresented her condition to her doctors there was also no dispute in the record that she was for some reason terminated on account of any protect being a member of any protected class or protected activity the evidence is under spewed that mr i saw three different treating physicians a total of five times march six eight twelve fourteen and twe those medical reports each of those medical reports contain the specific restriction do not drive do not operate machinery now mr darcy is correct there is nothing in the record nothing in the doctor's reports where the doctor records that the doctor told ms shy she was not to drive there is nothing in the record that suggest those medical records that is correct there is also no dispute that he was shy did in fact drive there's no doubt that she was surveilled that she drove to the tanning salon to the dollar general store to the drugstore to the auto zone to the park all during the daylight hours which incidentally the doctor's records again reflect she had said she had photophobia that she couldn't be out indeed when she went to the was referred to a misrepresenting her condition and bought shoes from a lingering and authorized her to go back that is the undisputed evidence that was before the decision is also important to note that the person who directed the surveillance to take place had never met shop didn't know her national and indeed said her only knowledge of miss shiny was observing her  tag with her photo id on it which she represented cheap thought she was white caucasian so there is no basis upon which the district court could have concluded and it did not that there was any discrimination on the basis of any protected class aren't protected activity to address several points raised in mr doris argument we strongly disagree that there's been any failure to there is no different summ judgment standard applied by the district court as judge peterson points out and as the case law is clear the issue of giving the insurance inference to the plaintiff is for example in the bond incident where news xai says that there was a statement made about whether there was an african american photo on the on the wall ms bodily strength asleep denies she made th but for purposes but mitch says she does for purposes of summary judgment we must accept that fact is true that that indeed ms shi'i says the statement was made so we accept that is true that doesn't mean we are obligated to use that to argue for summary judgment or we could have ignored that fact entirely there's nothing about the summary judgment place that burden on the moving part indeed the court has been very clear and it's decisions that the burden is on that nonmoving for party to come forward with that evidence to dispute this on a factual matter too with respect to the incident the control control room there is indeed no evidence in the rec as to when any statement was on that computer who placed it on that lieutenant davis had any involvement in that incident whatsoever indeed there is no evidence in the record to suggest that comment this was a simplex grinnell document a form document they are events that supplies materials to geo there is no evidence that that had not been in place for years months at another location there is no evidence that it wasn't on there when this computer was put in place indeed this was simply an office that michelle you took over and was using there is simply no evidence to suggest anything about that have being placed in effect by anyone in jail and there's no inference that could be drawn from that well seems a stretch to think that a statement  incendiary could have endured for a long time without somebody speaking up about it well ms shape testified the only evidence in the record is she had never opened that document until the day she saw so it's a document that related to i think it was fire extinguishers so there was there's no evidence that anybody had been in there and seen the document before and wouldn't have have found that this is the document she when she found it there she reports it they removed it end of discussion there's nothing to link that to any body that geo group there's nothing to link it that it was directed toward ms shah even in any way shape or form the final happen right after the control room that's more than a month later the control room incident occurred on february second the arms yes and the the document was january and the accident was in march on the day she was injured she was sent back home there's no evidence that lieutenant davis or anyone else edgier group on that day had any knowledge or information about any restrictions placed on her the only evidence we have about lieutenant davis being involved in any way and that is that ms xai says that the employee who drove her home from the medical facility to show eve says that that person says that lieutenant davis had said when asked yes she could go home and then she had been a deposition drive home that's all the evidence we have on that topic there is no evidence that he understood anything about her medical condition knew anything about any medical research and so that simply does not go to the ultimate point and with respect to those instructions being work restrictions as counsel represented that's not ac because indeed she had been struck that she couldn't go back to work so those couldn't be interpreted by her or anyone else as work restrictions indeed if she didn't know anything about them they would have applied anyway  while we're prepared to address any question from the court the bottom line is there is simply no evidence that the decision maker made this decision for anything other than an honest belief that michelle you've had misrepresented her condition and that she had failed to follow her medical restrictions as a company have a policy of not acting on employee complaints without a confession or corroboration what is the record tell us about it the only evidence in the record is ms strong who as soon as made a complaint it is referred to the official department investigate such complaints there is no formal policy that says that we'll never take action it's simply her saying and it testified that when she went there for example the fondly incident or for example the lieutenant davis incident where the the only allegation again in the record is that he had said she was a stupid for no reference to race or or any other ch class is shown by the e e o c instruction that the defendant relies upon which says that the employer must listen to the employee's self identification of her protected class she itself identified as northern african which is completely accurate and african american now even if you and that that identification is self identification which controls even if you don't allow her to say she's african american which is this would not be fair to her that white strip of africa cannot be wiped off the map and say those people can't complain about discrimination to the racist african and the geo employer said she looked white in a photo she also has very african characteristics and we can say that those people cannot complain about discrimination that's the worst discrimination and entranced that there is the employer says there's no evidence of honest to the challenge honest belief look at the decision makers actions where the solution maker changed his his reasoning and amid her