and if you mean at the start of the record it was a minute in the trial court that's right like the carmen case and i think the carmen case is the one that uses that language about not having in mind the record sufficient to survive a summary judgment they unfortunately also threw into the record one two three four five six or ten depositions without  were an explication of the facts and there were numerous citations for the record a few of which were inaccurate but most of which were accurate this is the amended plan of the opposition necessary your honor thank you for your systems but when i read the brief yesterday i noted that it had about fifteen pages of facts with numerous citations for the record and the one thing that they did very well  of the city didn't admit that it was retaliation obviously but it's true that after complaining many times about bryant's conduct to three different supervisors and what that in that area i think we only did a slightly better job in the brief but i think the big issue in this case aside from the record is and i really think that there's plenty in the record to support this  cardwell from all your fence of comments gestures and activities of the coworkers because when you've got adverse action that follows the sexual harassment complain i think judge jenkins was correct in granting this time we judge that motion in looking at what the city had done one with respect to the coworkers who had engaged in the conduct and the taking appropriate correct and adequate has two meanings both of which must be met in must be adequate to punish for a slap in the west is not adequate because there's an actual and it also has to be adequate mediately immediately after work after the complaint from the plaintiffs about his conduct the complaint to whom to mr jones who was the manager of the facility that had a conversation  jones with miss carter weld with the plaintiffs and with mr o'brien and during that conversation one of the plaintiffs had mentioned without giving any specifics some problems they were having working with mr o'brien and mr jones who  supervisor said please give me the specifics so that put it in writing to me so i know what you're talking about saying having problems working with someone i don't know what that means a written letter was provided by i believe was m davis and when mr jones received that letter he mr o'brien went about finding him a transfer to another facility so he would no longer be working with the plaintiffs and he in fact was suspended believe ten days on unpaid i suspension mr cardwell when the complaint came for with respect to mr cardwell she was removed from her supervisory duties with respect to the plaintiffs in the signed other duties in the facility the same pattern coworkers versus the supervisor i'm just giving you some examples of how the city addressed the the work transgression of talking about complaining to the jungles correct was that the first a previous supervisor which she acknowledged in her deposition the supervisor addressed and that she had no further problems with mr o'brien until the conduct renewed which resulted in the complaint to mr jones who then the record demonstrates from her deposition that she admitted that mr foreman took appropriate steps to ensure that mr o'brien ceased this conduct and that occurred for a period of time and then it renewed again and that led to the second complaint about to mr jones what happened to brian after the complaint form and as i understand it mr foreman talked to mr o'brien and told him that that kind of conduct was not appropriate and need to cut it out or else there would be fact there's no there's no record that plaintiffs are put forward that mr o'brien's conduct at this earlier period of time was egregious there's only evidence that she complained about him making some inappropriate statement necessarily brought to the attention of the city there is no and this goes to the carman issue in the case there's no evidence in the record as to what the conduct was at that point in time and what the city did which i believe is appropriate chose a remedial measure and the remedial measure did have some effect now the fact that it it ultimately there was there was subsequently turned up the city then took the next progressive step to ensure that the conduct that mr o'brien he gave engaged in with respect to these individuals would not be a transgression that would happen again by suspending him suspending without pay for ten days and transferring him to a different facility let's get the run and had passed by her and according to ms tate ron touched her on the bottom and said something about her behind to her a fraction of the whole series of events that turned her smith tried to run over davis in tehran with buses after the complaints what happened to him after he tried to run over with a bus and that was an allegation that was investigated by the e o investigator miswire as part of the whole  solve the problem i don't think that clarke was probably moved karlsruhe was removed right after the complaint was given to mr jones about her conduct and i think to clarify mr cardwell comments to to come to that conclusion i think twelve men and women sitting in the jury box would look at the same things and judge jenkins looked at him determined and with respect to the coworkers whether or not there was appropriate remedial action which he determined there was and with respect to mr cardwell the supervisor three of you happy when you got to do it you'll be very clear i'm optimistic that we won't be going to a jury on this and i think ultimately one has to look at the record this court's job as for your clients i will do that sir and i think you should communicate the fact of the west serious skepticism expressed about your past position and that maybe this is a good time to mediator send us an internal memo email letting us know if you need more time and that's fine if you're not working we view those to send us a letter from one of the counsel representing the both