standard even remains workable in nonscientific settings before you as a negligent security case the negligence in this kid is essentially whether the defendant by selling the security explain at least as far as i can tell what seems to have bothered the district court judge at least it's a big concert venue that the expert that you produced obviously has a lot of expertise in this area but what the district judge couldn't find i'm frankly having trouble finding too is specifics about what a reasonable concert presenter would have done whether it's number of security officers or their placement or better screening at the perimeter or more careful monitoring of alcohol i mean i don't know their soap the all we get is with the exception of the number of security officers and they seem to comply with that recommendation they actually seem to comply with whatever he's got about writing to you but that the district judge is saying you can't just say run a safe place you have to say in what respects was this below water a reasonable company would would offer it's a terribly sad case of course everybody understands that but so what did they do that collins you know we in any degree of specificity indicate you know placement for lights i mean we've got all this stuff about foot candles you know that whether it's need an expert but we know federal law requires that we must have an expert so you know absolutely is critical regarding the lighting and regarding the placement of the security it's not enough to have a number of where they fell short i mean obviously well i shouldn't say i'm sorry if it's just that this terrible assault happened and they didn't really do anything wrong just one of those things that would be a standard strict liability and you're not correctly you're not arguing for that but well if it responsible concert presenter would want to know for the future what is the standard of care well the standard of cure i think good i mean you have to go through would be drunk please testify there are so many drunk people like ten thirty and that person who ran the event also has a nursing degree and recognize that drunk people are more fun robel and that some other drunk people are more aggressive which sets up the situation where if you don't have lading where people congregate which is what mr collins said that it invites a target of opportunity if you will no one is going to imagine if there's that much alcohol being sold and if that many people even two thousand and some people not as means to her maybe you would say you should always have supervision near the the porta potties you know people are predictably going to be going back and forth there but i don't see him saying that well i believe he does say in that deposition he says that there were no security near the port a potties in the campground because now as far as the alcohol that really goes to foreseeability which would go to breach for in leeds versus carthage college when this circuit talks about all that so you know just to go back to this bullet point list on page three that i could see this is headings and when i was looking at the report i was looking for some elaboration but if you're just saying they failed to provide a safe environment for its guests there's obviously a typo there including joshua milligan i don't learn anything about what they did wrong well he served the sentence committed the following negligent and the like records it's sold but for them doing this we don't we're not here for this period and again that to me goes to the breach which is the standard it doesn't go to the daughter of analysis and to the extent that perhaps the district court felt that this was a strong an argument as it majority of marriage by addressing one particular issue with respect to my counsel's statement that the most important issue in this case was lighting first of all lighting has been dismissed as a claim in this case on the basis not that the expert testimony was unreliable but that they fail to produce evidence of causation separate elements of the cause of action that was not appealed i would also point out to the court that mr collins testified at his deposition this is from appendix page one thirty five to forty nine lines thirteen through nineteen in his deposition i am asking the question are you qualified to will climb to a reasonable degree of certainty what precise lighting was necessary outside of the porta potties where this incident occurred answer yes i'm prepared i am prepared to provide that information if i had conducted a security survey there russell collins never did a lighting analysis he was retained on june twenty ninth two thousand and seventeen he wrote a report that was filed with the court on july seventh two thousand and seventeen eight days later she had not been to the property at that point yet it was not until august twenty ninth almost two months later that he went to the property and perform a site inspection during the day he never saw the property at night and therefore could not testify that he could not offer an opinion as to what the lighting standard of care would have been to be about this report  that if there were going to be amendments they had to be done no later than and i forget the exact number but it was a certain number of days after the f b i rather before the deposition and that wasn't done in this case the only issue on  up the hallmark of an abuse of discretion review is considerable deference to the trial court there has not been showing to this court that judge peterson abuses discretion in this case his criticisms o boil down to russell collins his failure to connect the facts and data of the case to the conclusions there needs to be a reasoned analysis linking the experience in data to the conclusions reached and that's what's missing here stress would point out the the summary or the people at points on page three those are those would be fine allegations in the complaint but they're not opinions with respect what the standard of care required under given circumstance s there were two opinions related to security that were appealed they concern the number of security which relates to this security ratio of one to two hundred fifty we had three times that amount and then there's the opinion the statistical data regarding crimes in general he didn't elaborate with respect to his prior experience with data at similar events and why it was necessary that porta potties should have a security presence at all times it was based solely on his statement that i'm experienc i reviewed a whole bunch of things and this is my conclusion he never typed those stats together so much for it i mean it does seem a bit commonsense to think that at a large event one of the places that you might want to keep an eye of people  in fact one witness testified the concert was still going on or just had ended when the assault occurred this isn't a symphony people are going back and forth all the time these statements go to first the ability which is a decision