reads and i will this morning going over the civil procedures framework as laid out in that briefing it totally and all upset the apple cart of the federal rules of civil procedure i think not after all rule a still stands prominently among all the other civil procedure rules and one hundred and thirty eight even after nearly two years of other col when the put pleadings does not always provide for the release that rule eleven writes this is hard work when it comes to rule interpretation this court must always do what judge would have called the work of lawyers we must harmonize the text this role cannot be abdicated to the critics and leahy who would complain of the complexity lay which matters appreciate your are your overview of the rules it seems that the document that is most at issue here is not so much this or this or that rule which we of course deal with on a very regular basis and are familiar with but rather the allegations in the amended complaint and so focusing on the allegations in the amended complaint how have you really alleged anything other than that the city and the others have entered into a long term contract for a particular services how does that violate the antitrust laws city cities municipalities do that all the time for all kinds of things health care insurance disposal of waste you know on and on and on how is it an antitrust violation the issue here before the court is that this agreement is an exclusive agreement this agreement so is any way to call health insurance agreement so if the city of milwaukee i have no idea who the health insurer is but suppose this afternoon they decide that all municipal employees health insurance is going to be provided by at night that would be exclusive it would be and the issue of exclusivity in terms of exclusivity agreements weighs upon the issues of the efficiencies associated with that agreement if it can be determined that that particular agreement has question here is whether or not there benefit in this agreement and the efficiencies associated with this agreement affect or impact the market in a way that would violate antitrust we submit to the court that there are some a number of issues here that have to be way through litigation and to the discovery of the discovery process to determine whether or not the asked the as the actual contract in the terms  violate it issues associated with the market in the benefits of the market later explain so work which stands for the proposition that tom lee that connally's basic principle that rule all the requires a short and plain statement of the claim showing that a leader is thus pleading requirements must never be pushed to the heightened scrutiny of rule fifty six dollars plausibility without the benefit of discovery tell labs ironically rules in two thousand and seven the sa must contain enough factual allegations to rise to a right or lead above speculative levels but on the assumption that all allegations in the  in our case before this court there is direct evidence direct evidence which judge souter would go on further to say calmly has never been interpreted literally and under some viable legal theory the question before the court is did the complainant provide direct evidence of a contract or agreement which was governor by the anti down and as it happens i'm already sitting down so well i'm certainly happy to walk the court through why each count of the complaint was appropriately dismissed with prejudice and answer any questions t court may have the court has no questions i'm happy to return the balance of my time to the court ok hearing your questions mr gold trent you have the thanks of the court mr baldwin we'll return to you are there any comments you'd like to make in closing i would like to direct the court to the attention to the that the the initial question the court asked about this exclusive contract and why this contract must be evaluated inconsi clear from it is clear from the case long that exclusivity agreements are a preview of antitrust law question becomes whether or not that exclusively agreement their employees well the question here though is are the benefits here outweighed by the inefficiencies of this complaint we allege in the complaint that there are issues as it relates to environmental concerns we raised issues as it relates to the licensing regime of keeping rivals out of the marketplace and we raised issues as to whether or not these have this particular type of exclusivity agreement is in violation of the antitrust laws as it pulls all of the market share that's that's ok very well thanks to