in discovery county actually withheld the documents that would prove any kind of disparate impact so there are actually two bases for for the court reviewing the improper third cause of action was brought under washington law it was a wrongful discharge cause of action and the washing state supreme court has clearly said that there is a wrongful discharge cause of action for violations of public policy when a pregnant woman is discharged in fact the two cases i cite in one the supreme court specifically states we recognized this cause of action and then possibly year later happened here was  mrs brown was hired as a court reporter and she was working full time and she worked for more than six months and she was working full time hours and she got pregnant and the transcript and so you can do your briefs and if it's if the court order ten delivered on time i mean there's no adverse effect on any party in the courtroom during the day taking down other cases you know at some point it is not practical well your honor i can county has no standard whatsoever this decision and so very quickly we were up to our ten all right thank you so with regard to with regard to the fact crozier she is not allowed to work until she has less than two thousand pages and that's the requests for admission and also to request permission is there it mission that it never made a standard before and they made it just for her after she and so she was terminated at that point and then another full time position came open and so she had previously spoken with the hiring committee in hiring can any chairman the seattle courthouse that you are the most qualified you can be the next one hired and at that point townsend senior went to the chairman of the hiring committee and candidates she said there is no standard and i showed her the application which says you have to be a college graduate or a graduate from a sort of high court course school and in this case record clearly shows that times in junior flunked out of both so and he was hired anyway after only interviewed him so that's that's what it looks like your honor once again there's stuff you know if a court order works eighteen hours take i believe they're two hundred pages thing would be if they were  one two three and four one two and three and four are the florists only because you appeal the denial of rule sixty am i right yes right and you think it is an appeal of started where the iranians view of the law because the trial court applied back to sixty be the costly appeal so this court should uphold the rule sixteen rule gives the district courts an opportunity to correct themselves so you don't have to appeal also i might mention that  on review of a rule sixty b motion the start on behalf of his client did not preserve the actual underlying merits of the summary judgment arguments and that he did not directly peel them therefore this court has to at nine to nine a half second one three nine zero holds that an appeal from a denial of sixty the motion does not preserve the under the merits of the underlying charge meant for purposes of appeal the seventh circuit case which judge who now relied on also holds that an error of law cannot be a basis for granting relief under sixty b and for good reason essentially as  indeterminate it to determining whether or not they needed to respond i will remind the court that the public disclosure act in the state of washington does not require washington to provide information about records rather it means that requires them to provide records themselves and where they request or asks for information about records we have no obligation whatsoever to respond and the actual request is to read it verbatim a complete copy of the personnel file at least a brown helped by king county superior court period if any other files or documents regarding the sopranos are maintained indicate the existence of these documents the information about the documents we're not required to respond to the law doesn't even require us to ask for clarification they have to make a clear request for identifiable public records and quite yes could have been and it was provided as the record indicates the fact of the that the documents existed had to do with steven crozier going in anticipation of his deposition testimony he reviewed those documents and that was the first time that we have changed and i became aware of their existence after that we provided them so the documents were provided but they were not provided as part of the public disclosure of request they were