and that even though there were issues scheduling depositions because of the ability that that day passed without you making a further request for an extension of time can correct me if i'm wrong on that i know when you were before the district court waiter you tried to explain why you know discovery was not done but i didn't see a request that that deadline be extended can you point to that in the record you know you know i don't have the plan so that was contemporaneous with what they wanted was the identification i know there's no re you know there was no documentation of the iraq self but there's contemporaneous documentation that he said number five that it right mean that's the proper way to do it is that otherwise you would be suggesting that i'm sorry i didn't if he had altered the photo array in some way to draw attention to your client it would have been suggested the argument would have passenger so and i understand you know so you s and you don't accept robert's testimony on that but how could the jury conclude in the absence of of any other testimony by your client about who was which officer was and he arrested the plaintiff based on the information that was provided to him by fellow detectives and plaintiff has not pointed to any reason why detective roberts should have doubted the information that was provided to him and the information as provided provided probable cause for or an arrest as as and as the court noted with respect to the excessive force claim there were officers that were in the in the vehicle and plaintiff was not able to identify which officer it was who hunched him even by even by a description and so there is  no reason behind factfinder could could find that he had in fact an agent excessive force except through speculation this argument that the pulling by the handcuffs constituted some sort of excessive force is not an argument that is not a contention that was made in the operative complaint the only incidence of excessive force that are are set forth in the in the complaint are this hunching incidents and nd incidence  of choking where it seems that it's conceded that roberts was not present for let me ask you about the false arrest plain i want to try to summarize what i think their theory of the case is you can tell me why you believe no rational jury could find in plaintiff's favor on this diphtheria case is that on april th two thousand and twelve mr was as client was being released from rikers island the police knew that they didn't want him to be released and that officer roberts was then assigned to try to go to the victim and get a positive id i think was in new jersey and so that they could arrest his client and he claims to tell me this i look back at the documentation and there seems to be a notation that would support this that on that date roberts told the prosecutors that the victim and then he said his theory is that roberts was essentially reporting a false identification on that day to support in iraq just so the guy didn't get out of jail and that this earlier identification didn't happen there's no there is no suggestion is that he was in a spot that he didn't get the id on the day that when he went out to do it and that he then you know attributed to an earlier time when it didn't happen th state and that you know he was he arrested that he rested that he rested plane to based on that identification together with the other other information that was connecting him to the  isn't that the fact and you do all these cases in the proper procedure assuming assuming that that is the proper procedure and that it was that there was not proper it wasn't documented as well as it as it should have been i then plaintiffs the correct mechanism for arguing that he had not had an opportunity to conduct discovery was to follow the federal rules and to put in an affirmation that complied with rule and sixty you know setting forth the efforts that he had made to what discovery it was that was necessary what efforts he had made and why those had not been successful and the at the declaration that was submitted in support rather an opposition to summary judgment did not meet those requirements and i don't think that this court really needs to go beyond that to look at the adequa you know every letter application that he that he submitted prior to that time and you know if it had then presented properly at that point then the you know the city could have been presented what ever evidence i does it does appear that there were scheduling issues on both sides but as to whether or not there was as to whether or not plaintiff though presented you know  some prior applications for extensions of discovery at this point i mean again it was a it was a pretty it was a very long time even prior to the