process and indeed some threat some improper threat directed to the persons who are receiving communication sixteen hundred members of the of the sheriff's union facebook page so to from taking that point it's actually hard for me initially to read the all capital letters statement messing with me will get you your own certified mail as anything but a threat to bring a lawsuit and at a minimum i can't see how judge shader abused to use discretion and interpret it that way i mean there there's lots more to you know what it says as well as i do certainly a it could be a subpoena as well as a law suit to sort of know where you're getting you know don't mess don't get in a fight that's not yours messing with me will get your own certified mail right you know the judge could see this is a effort to interfere with the willingness of those sixteen hundred people to cooperate in the litigation but it's also very public these two so it's various people are weird you know people put all sorts of is of a lawsuit that by itself for cheery invokes legal process it's not a threat i can kassidy versus cassidy to embarrass your me but my brother in law give us your husband about of bringing a lawsuit against somebody who cooperates with a different lawsuit it's fine it's not fine it but it is a it is within the realm the speech that ordinarily ordinary people engage in that they don't and i submit that it's not the type of speech which would improperly tamper with a witness or an improperly the witness said that he was approached by mr warner he didn't want to testify but it came out that he didn't want to testify because it was possibly going to in that case certainly there's so one on one targeted contact between a party to the case and the suit would as soon as have important information the print forth of the communication is that facts regarding regarding ms similar to the students in her supervisor you didn't put any evidence in to the contrary that's my problem i think you said they knew her work he'd work with her and in the  firm it said that he said that he worked in the same division yeah and that's who were put there so use three hundred ninety dollars yes experienced lawyer in chicago that's the kind of evidence that comes in you didn't say no people don't get three ninety you know hours to prepare for one brief or to research or review file i did have a more detailed breakdown in my response in the district court which i've got three reproduced here but but i do want to punctuate that the  still submit that the fact that she is clearly the speaker she said the three of us attention to yourself by making the post and that it's not directed to an individual person but  i just because the problem i have with the merits is the only time she seems to complain about race or sex or other protected basis of harassment is in two thousand and nine there's no with of that in the twenty twelve complaint and there's lots of reason not to have this very sterile you know three year old complaint to gain any weight here it's very hard for me to see how she efficient to create that inference that it's a fish is insufficient so i would argue that she has provided facts without specifying that she is a member of a particular protected class i submit that she's provided facts it isn't sufficient to create an inference of discrimination on the basis of complaining or on the basis of race or sex  making that statement and then requesting on the imax system again something that i believe it's usually done in private and that the officer be sent for a fit for duty at the distributing evaluation in regards to mental state clearly correctional officers and she damaged the court's most important function of the truth finding mission she didn't directly attempt to influence the outcome of the case but triton witnesses the courts should have zero tolerance for that kind of fees the court also has the authority under rule thirty seven and judge shader in response to plaintiff counsel's claim that the certified certified mail statement is to judge cheater correctly pointed out that it's a veiled threat that can and ought to be taken seriously in fact there was a witness in this case judge and we provided a declaration under seal because he was scared that if it was filed message was directed to him as a witness so i wonder if you could talk a little bit if we recognize that there are in some sense two issues here one was this section of bowl conduct number two was the sanction chosen within reasonable boundaries and i'd like you especially to talk about the hours if we assume for the sake of argument that the rate was ground and the evidence forty three point two i spent fifteen minutes talking with plaintive during her deposition about her facebook message asking why she did it and she did it what she intended she actually said she intended to be viewed by her coworkers so i did ahead are the basis of your request for the i investigated accounting for a quarter of an hour at this point yes your honor i investigated the conduct by interviewing witnesses and reaching out to see of who  with respect to the merits of this case there was no general issue of material fact in the district court properly granted if and this motion for summary judgment for three reasons plaintiff fail to show any knowledge of the actual  protected the only protect activity in this case plaintiff also failed to show any adverse employment action and there are other words you're saying that she didn't show that the defendants knew about the two thousand and nine complain specific yes and the third there was no evidence of that but for causal connection between the two thousand nine hundred and any adverse climate action the twenty top tier complaints like you said refusal to back her up while that her inmates were out she had a partner cheat across me officer she admitted during her deposition was perfectly capable of backing her up and she had no reason to believe he wouldn't so it's well established that this type of conduct is just not the type of adverse employment action that's protected under title set and there may be some personality conflict and he just didn't get along but it's just not actionable and title seven it's not a  yes i did find a reference to the deposition and preach twenty to the council states specifically that is defending the forty three point two hours devoted to addressing a witness tampering and intimidation specifically defendant's counsel investigative plaintiff's conduct deposed plaintiff regarding her conduct prepared defendant's motion for sanctions prepared defendants motion to seal documents reviewed plane of spruce in response a commission for sanctions of the hours and as far as the the overall case there's a lot of hyperbole and in fact in the defendant's previous response the submit that we get outside the realm of both counsel take the case hundred