judgment this is actually the same is the question that would be before a court a most direct verdict and the conclusion of the evidence in a jury trial or motion for judgment if that's the case and i think that's the case why shouldn't the standard for summary judgment be the same as it would be for judgment and over your motion directed verdict namely if there's a higher burden of proof on the evidence of this publishable we have what that evidence in this record we've disclosed and dr arthur frank was the post he's been writing a specialist for forty years from outside and he said it was whether it was it was in the go on water records in this record is all of the evidence of why oh why was motivated to be conspiracy and was motivated to not have the risk of this mess is told after nine hundred fifty eight and that's the testimony of the that's true unless the vendor tries to say it's safe it's possible product green actually said it's incapable policy it's throughout the trial they said that which is even beyond safe as possible so it was certainly relevant they put warnings out the door was even open further when there were representative i asked him for nine hundred eighty was there a warning and he said this was the report rather we didn't warrant only three and then when i tried to follow up on that the court said no you can't could be he had a different recollection or a different memory for the right reasons more if i don't actually have the recollection not recollection had a different testimony because he was upset and scared that he thought his ex wife soon no good came out to the jury to know was offered an opportunity to make whatever kind of step or whatever that was not any of the suggestion we just made without presented it was a trial or nothing there was a really good it was a result  exposure by any money you spent so the case was defended on three rounds is defended on lack of exposure unlike most especially just cases it was also defended on lack of general causation so cases with respect to the with respect to the host exposure evidence that was ruled on a motion in limine any and the trial court said discourage people putting warnings on products this is sort of the classic and that's one of the trial probably as it was with respect to mr springs his he said we did now warning till nine hundred eighty three which remember as you were quite aware that was the basis of the motion the council wanted to get that evidence and so this person inadvertently set it on the stand and i think any fair reading of the transcript and the colloquy of that is clear that the trial judge who saw what happened realized it was in there wasn't anything too libera offered mr wilder the opportunity to strike that test curative instruction course so this place counsel had a want that evidence in originally and now it's come in  and they do so with regard to a variety of birds whether you were there convincing in this case or with regard to a criminal case beyond reasonable doubt determining whether a back issue exists is not the same as making the nonmoving prove her case that the summary judgment stage it's not the same as weighing the evidence is not the same as evaluating the credibility of any of the witnesses and it's not the same as forcing the trial dr frank's testimony if you look at and the common law records seventy five eleven and seventy five seventeen which is in volume thirty one dr frank is saying i can't tell what d gardner thought he had i don't know whether it's cancer or at any moment this lesions i can't tell he also mentions it those same pages that either have to know the tumour rate or you have to have controls it was about something that would have contributed to the medical literature whether it's cancer or not cancer flawed or not flawed dr frank says page eighty one of his deposition would have been important because it shows a specific cause have normal lesions