we submitted previously we believe that all of the issues and adequately briefed in those however during oral argument what i would like to do is i'd like to bring up a few background points that might set the stage as to what was happening on some of the issues i would also like reserve five minutes of time one minute for me and a chance for rebuttal and mr answer and i'd like to reserve four minutes for mr answer and to address claims that are that relate with reference to the stone light arguments the basic premise that stone like advocates is that the american judicial system is founded upon the jury system and the jury verdict should be protected at all cost unless there is a an error such that no reasonable jury would find such and in the case of both of the cases of due process and on equal protection it's clear from the underlying done also mr anson also presented two point one million in damages so i think with respect to the damages claim there is a basis for a new trial on damages alone due to the fact that there was  evidence to show that the quantum of damages were different than what the testimony presented as the background i'd like to indicate or identify a motion in limine a there was an early motion in lemonade where with respect to the fact that there was a previous trial that that could come into evidence however in in in addressing what came in the previous trial we attempted not to provide any information to the to the jury during the course of our trial as to what the quantum or the magnitude of that of that previous jury verdict was and that was due to the fact that stone light had not recovered in the earlier trial motions on page five twenty eight of the excerpts of record he indicates that the jury heard that the plaintiffs had recover damages against diversified for harm and where that significant is that the judge in ruling that the damages that was in error and the plaintiffs had recovered a jury verdict but had not recovered damages because the damages were unrecoverable and a collection attorney had informed still night due to bankruptcy proceedings and the status of diversified financial status that those damages might not be recoverable so based upon the fact if the if the judge was you must have gone to a different law school and when you win a jury verdict make the a p c o of the bay area air quality management district the one individual in california who's responsible for enforcing the environmental protection act the california clean air act and so forth we ended kate in our brief as to how mr direct involvement was laid that laid the basis for establishing that there was an official policy or if not of an official policy if that that there were persistent pattern of conduct that was shown i'd like to  reiterate five point five specific acts that mr feldstein was involved in and these did not come out at that these were indirectly addressed at trial but were not directly pointed out in our brief one of which is is  had passed away prior to the filing of the complaint so we were not able to get testimony from mr feldstein at the trial but one one one of which was that mr anson was singled out and could not get records from the bay area without mr in his in his examination from the district had indicated that it related to the flying of metal objects however when i approached mr crazy act on cross examination and as was pointed out in our brief  took him through a series of questions related to dust and he did later indicate that it was dust in fact mr crazy actually even testified as shown in our brief that this was one of the in the seven years of experience that he had had in his career this was the most expansive dust problem that he had encountered also with respect to the the permit being issued over the recommendations of mr sauls that came out in the testimony of will  role in that project also in excerpts the record seventy three to seventy five mr anson was testifying with respect to rochelle walker rochelle walker was a person working at the bay area who was in charge of records and mr ranson testified that rochelle walker told him that any request had to be directed to milton feldstein and yet these were requests for access to public records there was also the issue of the document destruction which of which which was outlined in our brief and also there was a fact of a privileged logs so what mr ranson is is is trying to express here is that with reference to the due diligence that mr ranson undertook he undertook extensive due diligence however despite any attempt that he made to obtain records he never would have obtained those records anyway due to policies that known the day of trial the court ruled not only that it wasn't a summary judgment matter but ruled against you period so that there's not a statue of limitations problem and then no evidence was put in from the jury and that was the end of the statue of limitations essential to know that there is no issue of fact as to whether any of the accusations made by stone like anson were made prior to november of one thousand nine hundred ninety four the first allegation in the complaint is that the district conspired not prosecute plaintiffs claims for dust pollution against diversified in february of ninety ninety four mr answered accuse the district of purposefully delaying its response to stone li the allegations of the allegations against the district that it did not respond to complaints the next allegation made in the complaint is that the district conspired to purposefully purposefully not cite diversified for someone who could testify under oath that that was happening mr anson challenge the district to deny that diversified was given preferential treatment because of political interference from right dear for political purposes in the original filing you raised the statute of limitations with respect to the federal coins right limitations to this was actually there was never any challenge to the amended the first amended complaint those challenges were to the original complaint the plaintiffs files new a regulatory body has not done its job and having proof that it intentionally did not do so yes there is quite a difference and i think that's where by people up the chain and that sort of thing i don't believe that the testimony was that direct he basically testified that his supervisor had instructed him to modify the reports but he claimed it wa to basically improve the reports and that it did not relate to dust and did his description change now he claimed at the trial between stone lifestyle and the bay area air quality management district that he was instructed to modify reports with respect to to metal recycling but that did not affect the d situation and he was also instructed to modify with respect to having the water on constantly but again that did not affect the death situation that wasn't made directly was that the reports were modified or altered but that could be inferred by mr anderson's accusations that he had been told and he would have a witness under oath that the instructors were really no excuse for stone lie down seems to not have exercised due diligence within that one year period after he accused the district of internally conspiring not to cite diversified during that one year period he could have exercised do diligence and found any information that he needed to know if any you know as it turns out there was no new information that he obtained after nine hundred ninety four that could not have been  person which documents he needed and that that person not only provided the documents but even mailed the documents to him so he did in fact attain documents from the district injury there's no dispute as to the pfaff's the district believes that summary judgment must be granted on behalf of the district i'd also like to address the issue of the appeal of the motion for judgment on the equal protection claim the jury was deadlocked on the equal protection claim the judge declared a mistrial the just strictly brought a motion for judgment on that claim which was gr install a basement equipment in order to control the missions but it chose not to do so if the district also required diversified to install abatement equipment and diversified chose to try to make a basement  among their other complaints was equal protection would they have to prove that ordinarily the are our department is charged with the job of putting out fires not starting  pollute equally among various businesses or allowing other entities to pollute i think they would either have to show that other businesses were not affected the same way or that the district also allowed other polluters did not allow other polluters to pollute in the scene now and that's really the crest of the equal protection claim thank you for your argument reb yes your honor thank you first i'd like to touch on the equal protection argument that mr snyder raised with respect to equal protection as she call it she claimed that there was no comparison or a valid comparison in the underlying trial and the fact of the matter is that there  were four points of a comparison one in stone like compared it's grinding plant being shut down earlier secondly mr salts on page one seventeen to one twenty of the excerpts of record indicated that the barnard avenue site was treated more harshly than the diversified site was that was the second comparison and the major comparison and thirdly the jury instructions on page nine the judge indicated that no comparison was needed if you could show that there were that the district was either not following its procedures o was violating pollution laws and that was prior to the jury being instructed then after the jury went to deliberations the jury then raised the question and they said your honor can we can can we can we consider the fact that just don't like being a comparison or do we have to compare it to a third party and the judge in that question he answered you can compare it to either if you find comparison of stone like or with a third party that will satisfy as long as you show you can show disparate treatment with respect to those comparisons so those four points indicate that there was a comparison the reason that won't finish your point ok the reason that we did not have a direct comparison and is because mr ransom was trying to get records on the barnard avenue and w denied access to this public information request at trial he got we got some of those prior to the trial and our expert witness prepared a report which did conclude that there was disparate treatment that would establish equal protection however we