it is a cross appealing from the trailer court order in the same actions matter with regard to the amount of the fees both within the initial case and then the fees with regard to  and more specifically in that first whether the trial judge applied an improper standard in determining that there were no issues of material fact and then also with whether the trial judge erred in finding that there were no issues of of contested evidence that it was more likely than not and what that inherently does is allow a judge with only a few davids and not observing witnesses or me taking actual evidence to weigh the evidence to determine what a rational finder of fact me completely and that is not the standard for the state of illinois and describes an incidences of self defense touching not harmful contrary to then you know terry and peter who are the people at the terminal at that time have different versions of the same practical part of this in the practical part of this is the way to have a retaliatory just church case you almost never will have direct evidence you will instead only have circumstantial evidence  situation where the plaintiff in this putting his hands out a supervisor which according to the collective bargaining agreement as i was reading it is grounds for termination in a not itself you then you have all of these preexisting disciplinary matters facts that a initially spoke of where there is a difference between what everybody says you know every touch is not a henry every touch is not an appropriate basis for discharge for distance the terminal manager mr said was involved in a situation that he says well it just in that it didn't do anything really dead but the gentleman who was tough says i was not through the door file when he requested a copy of the personnel file team and it had no history of prior disciplinary action based on there and we allege that there had been no history of prior disciplinary action dim so that it would be an amount more than fifty thousand dollars and it should have been done at that time it was not in that was my mistake i had not told my  case rather than an l m case and subsequent to that in discovery i produced all of those documents to caissons has since produced all of those documents to testified that after his not insulting touching the employee supervisor ran away saying i've got you know mother and you can finish the race for th understand how fashionable geishas there are improperly blood which you claim are supposed to support your contention summary judgment should not of granted but opposing a denial of their motion for summary judgment could you explain to me this seeming contradiction or paradox that you're claiming that they're not damaged they're not permanent by having two was scammers facts that would refu facts were with regard to the prior disciplinary history in fact it was because they had turned over the prayer disciplinary history of those allegations were made at no time did i contest remove those allegations there was no motion to strike there was no motion to strike and dismiss your placing bird on the defendant when you're essentially now ar uing but are you implying that your client is forgetful and can't remember the ongoing antagonisms between the defendant in your client i confide in your attorney they would have probably have said something to the effect this is what they sent me but i know it's not true because i know that we've been fighting back and forth for years so you are deflecting my question by suggesting that your client peter as all hires or is incompetent of having any competent memories it would suggest that the information was sent to you was not true your honor the would simply say that i was skeptical that's why there was a request for personnel records to cast and  was medicated after that made me happy as a clam and i can tell you that despite the severe pain i was having i had to stop taking it at your seven days because my brain was so screwed i couldn't function i couldn't work as an attorney he went through i certainly understood the course willing to postpone the argument next week for the reason stated committed for doing so unfortunately when they rescheduled it today it has to be my wife's big birthday so that's as obviously not true and then he says he was treated this fairly from others who assaulted someone but who had not filed a worker's compensation claim in advance and they were treated differently this record of his medical condition and again there's no support in the record for him there's nothing whatsoever to support the fact that he must and it really should work under the d o t medical regulations when he came to her in june of the year before  and found that the allegations complained of were not the cornerstone of cards cause of action in the there was no causal relationship between he had complained of in the attorney's fees and cost request justice was asked about the time spent in deposition there's a three hour limit on depositions since state of illinois at least to my recollection six hours from the  room there was only a small portion of that dealt with the prior disciplinary history that disciplinary history would have been inquired into regardless of the allegations because those things were no because of his decision you'd have to conclude that it wasn't a minimum but i don't think you are specifically address that relates to my recollection  produced as a plea to his no obligation to read the pleading sort of i know he did he does have an obligation to do that but he also was relying on me and he was relying on the turnover from specifically went through found that to be the case