see the digital timekeeping device on my screen when time is expired i'll hit the gavel and finally please remember no photographs ignoring the court of the coroner's permitted to record these proceed state in this matter and that's because again if there's a stay no matter what no matter which way mcdonald rules it will save time for the circuit court and will save money for the parties and it really biometric information on how the time part works again the source and the software generally the timekeeping practices and here when you combine these requests with the class definition which you're and fluids for the past five at its core this is an appeal that seeks to strip the circuit courts of the state of their discretion to manage their dockets this is a matter that was brought to the circuit court on a state from another circuit on a few page motion asking that this matter be stayed while we wait for another decision here it's well grounded in decades of case law that trial courts have broad discretion to manage their and manage the resources given to them multiple cases from this district albeit in the form one can be and setting clearly recognize that the trial court is the best to determine the use of its resources and what makes sense for judicial economy here i'd like to start with just a little bit of background that comes from just this car meyers opinion and the rosenbach vs six flags case the only case that has made it to the illinois supreme court looking at the biometric information privacy act just as car meyer made clear that compliance should not be difficult and that whatever expenses a business might incur to meet the laws requirements are likely to be insignificant compared to the substantial the harm that could result of biometric identifiers and information are not properly safeguarded that's what we've alleged here we've all ledged that the defendant even though compliance should not be difficult has completely failed to comply with the law additionally while the defendant appellant makes multiple statements about how there's no harm there's no prejudice it's just a few one thousand dollars it's just a short wait the trial court looked at many of those issues and essentially found that we don't know if it's going to be a short wait the transfer makes clear that the trial court considered that this is an issue as my opposing counsel made clear that is an issue of st impression this can see its way to the illinois supreme court there's been extension after extension requested and the mcdonald appeal we have no indication that it's going to be short it's going to be quick or that a decision from the st district will be the end of the line additionally regarding the harm or amount of money it flies in the face of illinois supreme court precedent to say that there is no harm here again the harm is substantial and irreversible regarding the proposed one expense there's no declaration there's no dollars there's no ours always here is that it's going to be expensive that's every case whether or not there's an appeal pending or not discovery is expensive that's part of litigation whether or not we wait to see what a st district appellate court does doesn't change the trajectory of this case because in the event that the st district would reject the holding of every single trial court be it state or federal in illinois and reverse or find that the worker's compensation act would preempt the claims which no court has said to date and the twelve year history of the statute we would still have an appeal right to this court if the defendant was concerned about having this issue heard it could have streamlined this litigation by filing its motion getting a ruling in appealing that at this point they didn't choose to do that they chose to take an appeal of an abuse of discretion issue going to the standard what this court would have to say is that no reasonable person no reasonable judge could find that a stay is inappropriate here on an appeal that not a single trial court has said the workers compensation act would preempt claims it just can't happen going through a few other points raised by my opposing counsel looking at the cerro case there the harm was potentially turning over at the th hour attorney client privilege documents that is prejudicial that's not only prejudicial to the defendant but the person who holds the privilege and i think looking at the con case we raised this in the brief and i raise it again today quoting from that case rather morris and which reference is a federal court case says typically an appropriate exercise of a course discretion is to enter a stay in a situation in which a ruling dispositive of a case is pending in another case which a stay is under consideration or in a separate matter matter but the very next sentence says typically does not mean always and an appropriate exercise of a court's discretion is not necessarily the only appropriate exercise of a court's discretion just as overstreet i believe that your words were that doesn't mean that we're turning this into a mandatory it's a mandatory stay what i see happening here is i see this becoming almost like a bankruptcy state a defendant walks in and says there's an appeal on some issue i think it made it be dispositive let's stay this case for who knows how long i'm sure every time that will be quick or at least that's how they given the briefing schedule in the mcdonald appeal i don't believe that was fully briefed even though it was a three hundred and eight appeal it was certified in december here we are seventy eight months down the road and we don't have a fully briefed hundred and eight issue on a single issue case just further evidence of what kind of delays we're going to see here i also think that the defendant overlooks much of the case law discussing that we don't get into weighing prejudice if the appeal is deemed frivolous is the court may be aware the circuit court here judge dennis ruth has twenty five years of workers compensation experience stated on the record as a matter of public notice that for four years he was the chairman of the illinois workers compensation commission and i would respectfully submit that or a view of the hearing transcript makes clear that he was well versed in the issues that will be brought up in mcdonald and much like magistrate erik long in the ken co case out of the central district of illinois it makes sense to pull back the curtain a little bit judge long in denying a motion to stay on the same issue work of comprehension going up on mcdonald stated quote without ruling on the question directly the court concludes that it is unlikely that a state appellate court would rule the i w c a preempt accordingly it is also unlikely that a stay of the proceedings will streamline the issues for trial or reduce the burden of litigation of the parties brief and so i think it's almost unfathomable that when we look at a standard that is no reasonable person could rule the same way that the trial court did that we have multiple other trial courts ruling the exact same way essentially submit that a weighing of who has more decisions should be considered but that's not the case the standard remains that this court has to look at what a reasonable person look at the factors look at the other appeal and consider the prejudice but also it makes sense for management of the docket and make the case move forward here just like numerous other trial courts did the circuit court agreed i also think that when it comes to looking at the trial court statements i think it's clear that they the trial court did weigh the prejudice to the point that there is a prejudice in the law that's made clear by rosenbach and so to say that the trial court did no weighing presumes what the trial court took into account when reading the brief filed by the defendant and what was considered a good argument so i think to come in after the fact and talk about the briefing schedule how it's close this isn't going to take much longer disregards what the trial court was presented with and the questions that were asked that day i think that this issue especially based making the case before it is also not an abuse of discretion i also think it's important to point out and this was raised at the hearing that no trial court in the th district to my knowledge  doesn't make sense to like it doesn't the st district if this case was pending before a trial court in the st district a state could make more sense because there's not then an independent right to re appeal that issue to the st district again like i stated before i believe that here whatever the outcome of it donald is not dispositive of this case because we have still have a right to appeal to this court if the st district chooses to disagree with every single state trial court that's rule on the issue and every single federal district court that has ruled on this issue to my knowledge i think that looking at the facts and circumstances including a nd motion appeal shows a clear intent to attempt to delay proceedings to strip plaintiff of a right to a hearing into discovery and to ultimately get to the bottom of what has happened with her biometric information or biometric identifiers and so i do believe that a three hundred and seventy five year old a show cause order would be appropriate unless the panel has any questions that is the flu shot my argument sometimes respectfully my opposing counsel is distorting what the court said it in those few sentences a couple of which she doesn't like you actually expanding so you know there are other appropriate uses including two just this particular case and the prejudice that will befall this this defendant and the merits are not patient i understand we can get any of the parents we can talk about the merits people have different