and we will hear the next case for argument which is most savvy versus now san antonio college against mount sac college was something that needed to go before a jury and in which they were multiple  that a jury should have had the opportunity to test can i ask you about that it assuming you one of the issues did go to the jury to get their claim against brown and there was a full defense verdict there is there any way in light of that full defense verdict that we could reverse any of the prior decisions i think that you could because i think it's really too sad if they're all tamale wasn't any the jury found that there wasn't any harassment so if there wasn't any harassment then how could there have been deliberate indifference on part of the college in any event because i think that the question around the colleges what is it using a standard of law at the time that it did the investigation that allowed for miss my father to have a fair and full opportunity to present her case a reef in the soppy at my sack university a college of fifty thousand students year after year after here no sexual assault no sexual assault a racial  was come please play distinguished by the fact that she went to the mouth sack it ministrations that she said what happened and what she said and what the defendant what then chester brown said happened war according to the sikh person almost identical you do an investigation of a student you ain complete restraint of her in an area that was absolutely desert deserted at night that and then he says you know what he's got her in a bear hug and in other parts of his testimony in that sexual assault you say is a sexual assault as opposed to sexual harassment or something to that effect another was it may well be a problem under title and i don't know if it's a sexual assault  but whatever it is the investigated it is that if we just try that that and not anything further and they took some steps to see that they did not encounter each other and it wasn't repeated so what were they supposed to do i think they could have held the trial why and why and what not and they would have found this happened and then what ok and then they could take action against just her brown because ve further then trying to tell her to stay away from her and not go to the same meetings and so on that there are that that was insufficient they had to  something else i think they had to get him before making a decision i think they had to have an opportunity for the two people who were presenting to someone distinctly different  steps to separate them and never happened again there was nothing pervasive or continuing to bat well what was deliberately indifferent about what they did with regrets i mean i agree with you that that action done and what didn't they do that they didn't deliberately indifferent i think they could have given chester brown instructions that he needed to work somewhere else on the campus that he needed to to be hundreds of feet away from her that they he never had any contact after that but she should have been in the position of having to run to him they could have taken those modest steps in and here's the part that's so important the f sympathetic to what you know happened here but at the same time and i know you're representing a particular client but from the school's perspective they have a due process duty to both parties and so you can't just say that any female who comes in and makes a claim we're going to just believe her it be exclusion of doing a full investigation and it looks like they did a full investigation what is it that you wanted them to do that they didn't do both of the two parties he worked with them he knew missed but he wasn't there and he was around he wasn't so he wasn't around but they have testimony from people who weren't around for the incident including several of the administrators who say oh chester was a hugger he hugged people all the time at work why wasn't he instructed to stop that think answer that we got to that from the back up are you suggestin that colleges need to have a no hugging policy straight across the board is that really where we've come to i think that if you have somebody who is working for is there any other complaint against him other than this complaint are you aware of any other on campus he is a hug or has any other female stepped forward in camilla but i don't think around sexual assault and sexual harassment then what it what what situation listen this wasn't sexual assault a jury found it was not sexual assault it was a jury finding so i'm not sure what you want us to do here and i'm not sure what you want the college to do because they look at this but to come in here and continue to claim these things when you've had your jury trial you've lost the jury trial  i don't know what you i mean i just don't know where the claim is right all right and let me just ask you one question are you are you are you contending that there was evidence that was discovered during discovery in in the district court proceedings that the that the that the college should have found in here that would have made a difference and that they would because the standard is pretty high that that in order to find them liable there has to be deliberate indifference so we is there something that came out later that would have changed it in your view if they had found it no but i think they prevented themselves from finding it you know for for two reasons i mean one or arrange your own says that in her investigation she wanted to take a reef a back to the site that she's the administrat that is responsible for doing this investigation and see says she know something has happened to aretha she is somebody who is an expert on trauma victims that's what she did before she did this job and and she knows that it's absolutely going to be the case that trauma victims are going to say more remember more you know and that as they as they become more able to feel like there might be some remedy to what's happening to them so you're concerned about the effect of this on your client i am yeah yeah and i have been asked and i just saw a judge on the question of the accepting the jury verdict we don't accept that to be confusion on the part of the lay person we don't think that there would have been that it's created these new laws is laypeople demanding that the california state legislature and that the united states congress take action take action to you know to to meet the needs of women and define the issue of what is rape to be more it's expansive and inclusive and to be about you know walk of consent so i think that that's one i think that it was clear through the trial that the judge was oppositional to dismiss sobbing when she was trying to testify describe what happened to her she's she's somebody who's a very precise person and she would use a term that you know maybe a jury wouldn't know but she wasn't it she could have been asked to explain the term but she just shot or to tell her that she whole day she had a no fist still or that she was having these pollution atory nightmares on a regular basis and saying no you can't say that like you're not a doctor are you kidding me if if she was going to testify and the only way to determine whether or not that testimony was something that was going to be more probative then prejudicial it was necessary to go into the background of wrong did you object to her testifying at all ok i think she should if she was going yes we objected to her testifying and or we are objecting to her testifying at all that's number one thing i think very similarly in terms of the use of the text messages once it goes then that you can use the tax mess it's to impugn a witness then th the text messages should go away and they say there should be an opportunity for the jury to have been able to put into context what mr brown and miss miss sabi are saying to each other what their relationship was and what happens that changes once a refund the saudi makes clear to trust or brown that his on wanted action was something that she wanted to stop she wanted nothing nothing more to do with him and those text messages when in the whole the whole transcript of them was not provided to the jury ok thank you you have exceeded your time but we will give you a minute on rip out of we need to hear from your adversary thank you thank you represent chester brown and my argument is going to be focused on the fairness of the trial issues that were raised and mr chung represents the college district and those employees and will represent their will address those issues and how are you dividing your time on passion and inflaming the jury in lieu of evidence to support her case few of her arguments address the actual evidence that that was presented the way it was she would stop from her damages that she was claiming and it was specifically with respect to diagnoses of medical injuries that she had so the court allowed her to describe what she was suffering from but d not allow her to ascribe a diagnosis to that because ms moussavi is not designated any experts to testify with respect to that this most obvious obviously not a medical expert and where she qualified to testify with respect to that so those were the instances that were just cited about her being prevented from testifying but when it came to the evidence of what actually occurred between her and chester brown objected to testimony about the conclusion in the course of staying those objections the court also sustained the objections to the exhibits that were offered into evidence which were letters identifying what the findings of the investigation had been so the incident changed over time so miss jones testified that well when she very st received information from mr mousavi about the incident miss most of the said one thing when she spoke with her again she said another thing when she spoke with her again she said another thing and that was the purpose of bringing miss jones in to testify was to show that various times mr mousavi was giving an evolving and shifting story that was then being free seemingly of more and more egregious conduct on behalf of mr brown was miss massai zero out to respond after that testimony or did she testify jones to what she didn't didn't do during the investigation but as far as argument concerning the investigation was inadequate the court has excluded that what about  so if we determine that the trial can't be overturned it's a it is a pretty deferential standard to the district court and a jury in these circumstances but if we were to find that the jury trial can't be overturned if i don't know is there any basis that we would be able to go back against on the summary judgment and bring any of the other parties in or does that end it because if we affect of we find there was no assault could there have still the trial was based on an assault is that right and the bear hug itself was not the subject of the trial is that accurate or not entirely your honor the claims that went to so then i of the things that she believes that we should have brought on a trial of the issues she's relying if i'm correct and she's relying on the reply the case of doe v alley that case i i it obviously if they felt there was anything in it and they were going to take any actions against mr brown he should have due process rights and that's where it's the go to ship the question is whether it is sufficient under title nine just simply say well you have two people who are together and what you know isolated place and they have all the stories there's a that's what we can't do anything but i think mr jones also inquired about whether or not there was physical evidence of the assault whether there are any text messages and documentation she inquired about all of those things before she did she looked at the text of the school look at the text messages as part of the mistake they did your honor night where no one else was around at the time there were no corroborating witnesses and there was no way that additional i guess evidence and fortunately to support was obvious claim and you know due to history grounds your process rights unfortunately were unable to substantiate those of yours and why didn't they enter the sr i think that there was a little bit of time in terms of interviewing the sister but they actually never did that but if you're white why didn't i think they looked into it however there was some sort of decision not to but they were not looking at character they believe that the character evidence because she wasn't there i think ultimately came down to what she had something that was at least somewhat probative to some of the issues in that's the case and they just did not interview this well but that i mean it does suggest that they it's interesting that they went to another witness that wasn't even available and interviewed that witness after the fact who seemed to have less probative value to the investigation but here's the sister i mean there was nothing she wasn't out of town she wasn't available right i'm not sure if she she might have been in college at berkeley at the time but i'm not entirely sure i'm not going to say that's in their a maybe she didn't say anything but he so he knew she was annoyed by it she didn't say yes and he knew she was annoyed i think she was annoyed after the fact or that's the expression that's what was reported to the district but the but the interesting point now was that they they didn't get into that at all they didn't think that was an issue as i understand it they concentrated on entirely i mean the question of when so whether something more oh and she knowing in some respects that she didn't want it and that she was annoyed afterwards i mean it it mean seeing it only happened once and so on but they did seem supremely unconcerned with that i think they were focused on the allegations of the assault the well but that sort of goes to my question and i don't mean to if there's more you need to answer to judge i was only going to add that the hug whether  don't know if you call it a punishment or restriction was handed down was that passed by her because she seemed to not understand that and so it's a little disconcerting that the school took certain actions but mister wouldn't have necessarily reported that back to her so that she was i think that was most of the evidence on that particular issue is a little contradictory in that there is an e mail where she says affirmatively my supervisor supervisors have ensured that i do not have to work with this person i don't have to what action but they finally i guess you are the one to ask the question too of if we don't and again that type that a call i don't know what we're going to do but if we said that the jury trial were to stand is there anything we can do deliberate indifference very high it requires more than just laziness carelessness you know if there is some sort of imprudence after the fact that's insufficient to find deliberate indifference i just want to clarify a couple of things i was focused on the bearhug because to me you did not go further than that but mr brown did go further than that and he did hold  mr mousavi against a wall he did digitally enter into her vagina and yeah but that's what you do went into the trial but i want to know what exactly is your understanding of the exactly and that's what lorraine jones said that's what the investigator for the college said because she said you know both of them say it was nonconsensual both of them say that it was impose that there wasn't that that wasn't a sufficient finding and i think there are you know there's case law that says yeah a hug can trigger one of these issues there's a i case that we cite of a female boss who big to stop it from continuing ok we understand your position we will review the record very carefully thank you thank both council for their arguments the case just argued is submitted