to get rid of the files yes your honor yes we did attempt to intervene in the state court case and have the city held in contempt where is a state court judge had previously found the city in violation of that law however at that time he was unaware that the city had been engaging in any series of incidents of collecting information about the plaintiffs and that they continued to maintain information about the plaintiffs and so that's the point us were willing to overlook a single violation of law didn't say well they gave it to their lawyers your honor and so i don't think that you unload evidence by giving it to your lawyers your lawyers maintain that anyone even tainted to make sure they wouldn't be in contempt of court for destroying records i mean i think the city attorney did a perfectly appropriate thing in this case by taking it out of the law enforcement agency which is the only thing that's covered by r s one any one point five seventy five and holding them can you imagine if the city attorney told the police department destroyed and given the kind of activity in court they have part my name is terry are back and i represent the defendants in this case i think the court has a pretty good grasp of what the issue is in this case it is simply when the plaintiffs knew or reasonably should have known they had a client and it clear beyond doubt that they knew that they should have had a claim in september of one nine hundred ninety nine because that's when they attempted to pursue it in a state court proceeding to which they were not parties they take for purposes of the for all we know some of these reports for generated after september twenty second one nine hundred ninety nine well let me say i'm not i'm not quite sure that i agree with the premise of your question judge levy that's pretty stuff i'm not sure you're quite well i'm going to explain that it is not necessary under the discovery rule that the defendant the plaintiffs know of every single fact giving rise to his claim in order for that claim to make sure that it and the plaintiff in fact knew in we have some reports on you because we have some reports that fit into this category and we're not telling you whether they relate to you or somebody else i mean what we know for sure is that there was that there is no report that that in which the name of either plaintiff appears after january of two thousand and one the records were turned over to our office that date they had turned over to our office any reports that they had that did mention him and that they didn't have any sense down all right but how do we know that some of what they turned over to the police to the studio three is not office is not related to the to this plaintiff and was not generated some time after september twenty second ninety nine you know no i we don't i don't agree that it is possible that that some of those pieces of paper may have been generated between september one thousand nine hundred ninety january of two thousand that is possible but what i'm what i am suggesting is that the plaintiffs if you had pursued his claim court in that in the federal court instead of trying to pursue it through a state court proceeding to which he was not a party he would have learned of all of those of any of those that may exist well within the limitation period and the discovery not put on notice to investigate well within the two years and he would have learned everything there was to learn before the last each of these incidents of gathering about the first well let me say first of all that it's not there are a couple things that that we we don't know exactly what's in the report so it's not clear that there is that and we don't concede that we are secretly gathering information about the plaintiffs are making reports about the juvenile there is information about there is information in which there their names appear but it's not based on  maintaining any of those records and i need to apologize i didn't read the back of your oral argument announcement close enough so i didn't bring this case of course attention before argument i will do it now and if the that purpose of the statute of limitations and not necessarily the timing of the final act it carries that decision out and so basically once he knew that he suspected that the portland police bureau had made a decision about him that was contrary to the law he had an opportunity within two years to pursue that claim in the federal courts and not having done so it really that it's just not fair to trap somebody with a case they haven't even had an opportunity that's fine i will do that way thank goodness my probably the protocol is for you to give that case to your lawyer leaves a needle in someone's belly or refuses to get treatment or missed something it looks like a fraud situation where did you attempt to develop and actually be scenario in the district corners a way to expand or get around the statue of limitations by asking the given some discovery requests because inside there's the courts will hold off on that so we can try to deal with the stench limitations issue so we didn't do any discovery in the case at all oh ok so you didn't try to develop that there was no discovery done at all what happened is this was dealt with on the very front end