trial and the reason for that is that i misread has already gone through almost a year of discovery and should plan for that discovery on the basis of the party's pleadings as the federal rules require and if the  court were to reopen discovery on remit and i don't think it would be for example just a simple matter of reopening one deposition misreads would have to keep a fairly wide ranging discovery to fairly rebut the defense on  not just the relationship between the hospital and the church and the assistance of these on paper but how it functions and reality i think she she would need discovery on the hospital's funding and the financial relationship with the test and the one that that has the most support is relatively simple that would be the extension of the title nine guidance that both of the rational committee reports point to in that the department it's not influenced it's not affiliated with it it's not sponsored by it's controlled why shouldn't we approach that as as his lawyers do you know fairly formalistic way has issued interpretive regulations on the meaning of that of the exemption and and there isn't a ton on it but it does say that it is is whether the religious organization controls the operations of  the interstate and i think controlling the operations of the t v that essentially means management but that's not what the word control events are at the border for a corporate board of directors controls the corporation even if the where i think under under any test the important factor here is that we don't have a full record here misread had no opportunity to test whether even what's on paper actually is how the relationship between unit during the deposition misreads trial counsel made a reference to mr fry being a thirty six witness the hospital's counsel objected that he hadn't been provided to opine on on every policy the hospital had which i think the course justification for dismissing the claim and this worries me it seems clear that the hospital made a medical judgment that using access to the court has held otherwise and if the uniform or across the circuit so far as i can see that the eighty eight can't be used to disagree with the medical judgment is there anything in this case it's properly within the scope of the idea hospital the sites where maybe we can use access to the diner box to induce cooperation which is essential to the medical treatment now that may be a mistaken judgment but it is a medical judgment the question i'm asking is what  have to do with the a d f a you know what seems to be settled law that you can't use the a d h get a disagreement with a medical judgment now it's the same as the principle that if your client that's what to supplant what you are that the hospital has never has ever said that appropriate behavior had anything to do with her medical treatment and she needed this device to communicate no one would think that the hospital can permissibly to have a person the person did figuring out how a hospital deals with one of  ok i can tell you that my chart is set up i would say the evidence presented in that there is evidence that we presented in the district court that established that three religious organization effect that a religious institution makes at least some appointments to the board of directors of columbia saying mary's inc has a right correct ok we'll wait and see about whether we'll talk about the waiver problems the procedural problems which  was looking for a stated reason why the hospital waited until after discovery closed that there are two question is what did the hospital ever state a reason for this delay and something that slipped bought or that no reasonable lawyer would have noticed if you if you listen to what was going on in the last case the judges were all worried about whether the judge had given reasons and failure to do so good is usually usable if there is a good reason for it but in order for there to be a good reason there first has to be a reason and so far there seems to be no reason whatsoever  to try to keep control of out of control discovery costs right and i understand twenty six b one on discovery and its limits to have been notice i've got a can do for discovery on this potential that ferment of defense that has never been mentioned in this case when it's supposed to be then we're going to give parties we're go to have to spend way too much time way too much of your client's money doing discovery on issues that you may not want to read so i can have you know i've got a little gate a sort of statue of limitations defense and potential  responses to that one it's never been pled it's crazy i understand what you're saying your honor and let me flip it a little bit here by saying this that it's not necessarily the answers that were put  well can i ask about the rehabilitation act problem here first of all i'm troubled by the use on the discrimination claim of trouble by the use of unemployment discrimination standard a patient who has gone to the hospital here and by that you're referring to what the district court and is in my case the brumfield case yes we expect police officers to be able to manage their behavior pretty well of somebody who's come for care or various forms of mental illness and impairments maybe not so much that your honor i understand what the district was trying to do is draw the anal have assumed the opposite in your brief and not stated any of these cases is there some reason for that your honor i thought it was addressed in the district court's decision and we addressed it a lot in our precinct in the district court we opposed to anything under the rehabilitation act and we laid out the number of occasions and the district court agreed in decision on the times that the claim may be more of medical negligence then it may be any violation