progressing there was a volunteer e modification of the request to limit the request to seven years worth of the production of the record the record were reduced to litigation continued on to the point where we got to the time of trial and november now i think two thousand and thirteen although my numbers that could be two thousand and fourteen but it was we got up to the final trial then meeting with the judge trying to resolve some of  that particular issue is that in this case the records that were requested were actually exactly the ones that were eventually disclosed it happens that the initial records request requested far more records but there was a voluntary modification of that never never was a determination by a court that any exemption that applies under the statute or any defense that was raised by the defendant applied to restrict it was that they were going to have to disclose to us that there was at the earlier requests they're not worth it all the same they requested things for different periods of time and some of those periods of time lag and i think that was the reason why usually one attorney borrows of opportunities that they made this voluntary modification to limit the request to a seven year period but i understand that there was an overlap on some of the requests that it made previously so eventually though is i suppose we could argue it is a matter of semantics but the bottom line is when he walked into the room requesting his what he walked out of court with his hand it was exactly the same that the other issue that judgment should have been better consistent with what the evidence was probably the greatest reason why the amount of the work of attorney use was inappropriate in this case though is the policy in the state of illinois just stated some of the other cases and effort as they want to in denying him the records and really it really gets to the point where a judge eventually orders it and then if they're only partially responsible for the recovery of that he we have completely ignored the purpose of the  which is to remove that particular obstacle now what happened in this case by the judge reduced to that he and she has in fact removed that situation from her consideration she said to the point it here  i understand this process a lot of money to get here because the venona didn't give you the information and refused to give you the information and ran around for a lot of different reasons some most of which were probably either collateral to or irrelevant to the discussion but we're not going to compensate you for that we're not going to make them really we're not going to make them provide you any kind of consideration for the fact that you have to bear that stands in order to get to the point that you have a right to get to the start and that's that's not what the opposing counsel indicated that there was a voluntary modification on the heart of the point in this case to remove the river seven years you go forward or can you fine until the last man is standing and then the judge finally makes terminations that did happen here we we made an offer that was accepted by the light here so that was  action over two year period his repeated allegation of criminal conduct against the village his actions causing three separate law enforcement investigations a village officials all proving no wrongdoing repeated for  consider within our record yes i understand i think it's all there but you know i can't i can't speak with total forty on that issue drawl the issue was again on the records that had previously been thing no not at all good we would not we would not have ignored the judge's order to produce those records but again this was not and who are compelling the production of the robbers after a after the fight necessarily what is your time span even if bad stuff question i mean it still has to really really relate to the relief requested sure it would have to reasonably relate to the relief that was requested and i think when you look at the record you'll see of information act is not meant to be a reward nor is it meant to be a punishment it's meant to relieve the petitioning point of the allegation of having to look at his finances before he goes and tries to get the gree to limit voluntarily limit the request for the production of certain documentation without prejudicing the plaintiff's right to recover his attorney and we did have that discussion but what eventually happened was and well the court identifying the record two ways one is by a summary of what happened after it happened and the other is just by virtue of the nature of the process as it went along what happened was there was an agreement to voluntarily modify the request for documents that proceeded from a five year period from the date of the request back in those documents where they want to be reviewed by  determine whether or not they had to be disclosed whether or not any of the defendants defenses affirmative defenses or any requirement of the statute would preclude that was a determination that the trial court had me and then after that if the trial court decided that they needed to be at the record what we see in the record is that we have a hearing there is an agreement the records are produced to the court that for reviews and makes a determination that they're going to visually disclose actually sits on the bench at one time and says i'm going to hand that same hearing at the beginning of hearing judge pacifically on the record indicated that that's what she had done she said that there are