the argument regarding the other three distinct yes that is if i pronounce the name correctly case rule sixteen should wor unconference cut off date and there was no shelling of good cos i'm sure a court can set a time deadline for naming defendants but for trial we've not had not even come to the pretrial in january of two thousand and one i got i vish will report in which the three other officers are identified as actually using force against this to be a minor and then of course  one it had been scheduled i'm sure i just don't know offhand so i don't think given these facts you can enforce the rule to sixteen good cause requirement you have to go to a california law how that phrase used mr b m i or he doesn't identify the sponsible the other defendants all argue we're not liable because you haven't identified us this is an issue that recurs over and over again in these kinds of cases identifying t to support that claim and i may be true that some officer has a need to have his or her likeness dissemination restricted by maybe showing it don't come in and say that we have to keep our our images under wraps just as a matter of general principle not when you're running a cop shows not when you're giving t v interviews when it serves the police interest and not when you present not a single piece of evidence from anybody support that claim and obviously according to the reports according the police accounts either use the force or stood by and let fellow officers used force that's how it is that it's not a requirement that you identify an officer by name rank and to have an opportunity to intervene right and here it is you know facts of what happens when you first get beat up inside the room not through a window that goes out in the driveway and gets knocked down and  handcuffed and dog is put on and i submit that during the course of that advance that was enough time for an officer to intervene to do something and they didn't do that instead they laugh and joke about the story you are referring to and that is carte blanche essentially to the officers you can get away with using the dog because it's like grabbing somebody by the arm you can do anything with the door of course that's not reality everyone should know  why do they have to why why is there a legal requirement they have to meet in their forms of discovery i don't think there is anything what what i'm saying is that i understand your argument but it seems to me then that also impl do that but what i am saying is that if a motion is made regarding the photograph that goes against you you i think you have an obligation to attempt to identify in some other fashion before you can come to this or any other court and say this was prejudicial i couldn't get it any other way and that's what i understand to be the plaintiffs argued that this was the only way that i could show identity so therefore it's an abuse of discretion i take your point on that but why wasn't it relevant  work that these particular officers do you can have all kinds of protective orders i understand those were not proposed as far as i know it was a we get them or we go for the situation under those circumstances i made this is what these officers do there isn't already for the proposition that that puts these officers in danger and that's what the record is in front of this court it's and we stand or fall on that shelling but that's what it is  no right to a person who has been in business for twenty five years would do something like that with respect to mr cutts argument against mr weaver that he trains dogs on the legal limits how control the dog he doesn't say well if the dog if the defendant does this then you can use the dog or if you know these factors being can use the dog it's simply a matter of teaching how to control the dog with respect to the argument that mr revers some way somehow negligent or unconstitutional in teaching the dogs that are teaching their handlers that when the dog bites you simply grabs an arm and doesn't do a serious injury i believe that you would have to believe that the officers are still with them when they go through their training period and they have to take vice as a result of part of the training which was which has purpose of teaching them what the dog can do in terms of a level of force and the officers are well aware have all the information you need to go forward well sometimes you do i mean certainly the court may presume that you have all the information you can expect to get a result later you're still you may still be gathering information and you can of course gather i correct there is a california case with permission of the court i'll provide a citation where the court of appeal held an error for the final court to prematurely dismiss