burden the federal has to meet is extremely high and i don't think that it's legitimately contested we're talking here about the application of an exclusion not about the scope of the coverage clause that if that is necessarily applies to every single claim being made in the complaint or of which the insurer is made aware now in this particular case the insurer was aware that there were just insureds were saying that was not the reason these people were hired for good cause and in fact that's what the arbitration panel ultimately found these people crying for good cause the defamation some of the defamation has something to do with determination because yes there was defamation the concerned perhaps some investment that may have led to their terminations but there was also a defamation clearly defamation alleged and brought up in discovery that had nothing to do with the termination at all it only had to do with the affairs that they were allegedly having a legit drug used in the arbitration panel agreed that in fact there were these two kinds of defamation now thankfully  morning what we're talking about is the nature of a single type of activity and this is the employment relationship activity is rising out of the employment relationship what we're talking about here obviously is a complaint that federal analyzed the allegations looked at this in terms of being a factual allegations relating to the employment relationship having concluded that this was an employment relationship case they looked at the policy in the policy excludes all claims arising out of the employment relationship now this is a situation that surprisingly is topic surprisingly topical because we found out yesterday boeing's chairman was fired for very similar collusion complaint very clearly that these activities that were undertaken the invasions of privacy as they were characterized the various statements that were made were done as part of two a two factor analysis one is simply to retaliate for these people's whistle blowing activities and the claims that they were making that the alphen well five were not complying with the f d a regulations regarding blood the second aspect was to create a damage control scenario basically what we have here is something that falls directly and dead within the employment related exclusion now it's clear that by the same token had well fied and alpha desired to go ahead and get this kind of coverage in the marketplace but they understood and it's very clear from their own actions in terms of their employment agreements that they understood these are employment related activities they managed to get this into defamation you don't judge they get  you wind up looking at the allegations of the complaint and the complaint is what the what was relied on there are the facts are there in the complaint this is what is the basis on which the determination of coverages make simply because somebody terminations goes in terms of whether it was or wasn't is very unclear from the complaint if there was there was gossip but was it was classified as gossip in one sense there's also indications in there that this was a subject of the  the director of employment human relations whatever the category whatever the title was that's the category of employment and what you're also indicated here in terms of the allegations every one of those activities that is alleged list in to have been conducted by alpha towards him in the same thing that the arco complaint is followed by the allegation that all of these ass were taken in retaliation for their whistle blowing so that they've covered that that vase and per them or there are other allegations that are made in there which are characterized as gossip but the gossip is being spread and indicated and it's alleged that it's being spread for the purpose of harming these whether they called statements about these people or whether they call retaliate retaliatory activities directly they are all part of that employment relationship and they were they are all part of the suppression of information in the words  why the school board were let off i believe this in two levels around i think there is some notion that the there's rumors floating around during the time that they are employed and then also in the damage control scenarios after the germination this is also part of the discussion where the employees were told why the terminator yes the nic and i don't want to mislead the court in any way because what there is also is allegations in that same context that i can't remember which one which one of the particular related exclusion is put into these policies and why if you care if they insured wants to get that kind of coverage they go elsewhere and get employment related coverage policy but it's it's this giant mishmash i'm concerned unless the court has any further questions it seems to me that it's eminently clear that what we're talking about is the employment related exclusion these are activities that come up with an employment context under the governing case law which is abundantly set forth in the materials i think and i am absolutely certain that this is a kind of a case that is fairly clear and doesn't require a great deal the terminations that's much more narrow this gossip is going on before the people got out and will find the record is very clear that it occurred all during the time they were act al haj and will fight in fact the movie theater incident that happened when they were well employed before the rift had even occurred and that was the biggest area of gossip in the deposition transcripts that were attached that's  record attached to my declaration thirty six sixty this is several instances of testimony regarding defamation that had nothing to do with the terminations whatsoever this is testimony that was taken in the last six how did it come