s privilege that we claim should apply in this case as well as the internal audit provision contained in subsection and of rockford outlining their satisfaction with the performance of rockford police department with their satisfaction with the chiefs general idea part that the progression  police department under his control as well as suggestions for improvement th it's our opinion that it rises to the level of either an audience for a self critical analysis privilege and allowing the dissemination of this information would severely  issues are life and death as well that are being dealt with in hospitals and and the police department has some of the same seriousness of the issues like conduct decisions and policies and public safety but here's the breakdown of the except your honor if it isn't obvious in the sense that there are no names on the documents but the question is the responses to the questions mate i'll allow someone to determine who the author of the survey has and if the court survey with the answers he had a chance to really go through that we had previously discussed the surveyed with him and he had looked at the uninsured papeete and that was what was presented at the time of trial and he ruled in favor of the this is this court the second district has said in the case we provided in the brief before that it is best to leave privileges up to the legislature to put in statute i believe that of rockford but i would also point out that that is not one of their plain exemptions from the start it was not part of their denial to the union it personal matter it came up in a side note in one of the earlier  it may have been mentioned i'd have to look at the briefs that made a mention in the cite in the brief for summary judgment motion but it was not discussed but i don't feel that it is a personal matter for those reasons which i think is extremely important as any time that it has come off it's been within the litigation not in mostly for discrimination in employment cases and the company or the organization or the government has had a chance to do is study about what was going on and then then so critical analysis privileged came out saying hey we need to be able to look at our company find out what the problems are and if we're not able to do that in this litigation to allow free access to the government doings so that in the full decisions and be aware of what's going on with our government it's contained in section one of the legislative intent in section one  communicate with the police officers to train them and they do consistently try to do better and possibly they may have used portions of this certainly to discuss that sure and problems however these are public record record some commercial interests i believe that we still prevail that this information is very significant to the public and i believe i do not believe there was any reasonable basis of wall for the denial of this information based on a privilege and the purpose of the survey was to make the police to have much better to ensure public safety and policing services and to the benefit of the community and that we should we should not be forced to disseminate completed the results of the survey had not even been completed yet at the time that the lawsuit was filed so i can't speak as to how that information out to be shared with members of the police department because we never got there plaintiffs if they do have a commercial interest to show that this information is of significant interest to the public out of the union is the only request we've received to this point so it is difficult for me to believe that they met their burden of proof