you just just to clarify for me i have the same question as judge thompson when you're distinguishing between rejuvenate and rejuvenating is that is that you saying those were the two choices or did your client say that at deposition that were right so is it your position that because the defendant argues that the word rejuvenate isn't necessarily referring to youth and that it has more than one meaning use are you saying that what his supervisor admit by the term rejuvenate should be an issue for the jury because we do have this case law that talks about ambiguity of words just a minute let me interrupt you there now ask if the court has additional questions at this time i just won because because trying points to the evaluations that your client did of the two people who replaced him in doing his job responsibilities my question was who at the company did your client's evaluation jack formants evaluation you know  used it is the same thing he was asked whether rejuvenating was part of the conversation that he had with mr lepel and he specifically indicated that he could not remember what specific words mr lovell used in the context of the conversation and he further were on to state that he has been speculating that age had to be the reason for his termination not be reasonable but we cannot draw out any other inference that it was used at all so what if we disagree with you about that and we say that the word rejuvenate or rejuvenating was used or that there is at least a question of honor we believe that coupled with the other evidence in this case there is insufficient context to allow this kind of to be considered direct evidence and without sufficient time yesterday actually looking it up it does have a common meaning of rejuvenate refers to youthful there are some alternative definitions which don't necessarily ok but why would there be reasonable for them to argue that in this context it should be reasonably understood to refer to you we disagree your honor because in the context of what we're looking at is a restructuring where the intention of the company and the decision maker was to implement the whole new organizational structure and new ideas that would allow the company to become more profitable and more efficient  think we agree with interest with the chancellor to just just before you leave that point so if if we disagree that the word rejuvenator rejuvenating if we disagree with you that it  the that word could and could not constitute direct evidence you say even still if you look at it in context that it would be unreasonable for a jury to conclude that it is sufficient district court probably pointed out that there was a higher percentage of workers within the protected age group after the restructuring and the far in fact after the restructuring and all it did limited it workers were in the protected they said we want younger people at the company well he said i would say you would say it's a jury question right whether all the evidence about reduction of force weighed against the statement i want to younger workforce whether that counsel i know you you for good reasons legitimate reasons did not want to directly engage with judge baron's question on this point but i would like to know so let's say that there were specific comments made to this employee that indicated that a jury could find from those comments that that he was being let go because of age for an inappropriate recent in the context of a reorganization restructuring of the company and as you know the law is that even with the restructuring you can't discriminate wouldn't wouldn't that going back to judge thompson's question actually if we conclude that it's a jury question about whether rejuvenate is direct evidence of discrimination wouldn't all the rest of that the context go to the jury we di assessed the outcome is that this district judge must be affirmed because there is insufficient evidence here to support a finding that overall there was any exclusion of the evidence about the venezuelan office and i don't understand how records that emanate with train could you could argue any prejudice to answer the question your honor the documents were promptly excluded because they weren't timely disclose nd it is our position that the document establish what the plug was like those documents to show here the documents at best would call into question the employer's business judgment as to the use two heads of the chain of this before him was promoted to bass president of latin america therefore he was extremely familiar with this model and he deemed appropriate to implement it here because he thought it would be an effect there can i ask you a question of just practically what supposed to happen with respect to the documents if we thought that there was no prejudice from the ruling to exclude because the documents wouldn't affect the business judgment issue on you know because it just be a business judgment point on pretexts but we concluded that there was direct evidence of discrimination so we needed to take it and remained how would that affect the question of how we're supposed to treat the decision to exclude the documents do follow because it seems to me that the documents might not be very relevant pretexts given our case law but they could be relevant to direct and direct discrimination eery i just don't know whether how that affects how we split to evaluate the decision to exclude because at the time they were excluded it was premised on the pretext understanding of the case rather than a direct discrimination understanding c all right thank you counsel thank you both here that concludes argument in this case attorney symon at an attorney hock if you should please disconnect from the hearing at this time