established part of it anyway concerned how he was being treated under his court ordered terms and conditions of probation in the vatican and that was the basis as to why we're on the third complaint i think in this case the central record there was an independent contractor agreement between the statement that on the part of the problem provision and fact to provide a psychosexual counselling services for defendants who are convicted of sex based crimes and have to go under court order to therapy that's basically what they provide the contract itself i think does establishment clearly there's a contract there is a pretty relationship but when you get to paragraph fourteen paragraph fourteen minimizes substantially the nature of that contract the contractual dismissal rule of course argue it should not because of that disclaimer language or paragraph fourteen is not there and i don't have this argument the entire argument hinges on your interpretation of paragraph fourteen in that disclaimer language the language seems clear and the question is how far do you want to extend it that point but if the court finds that that paragraph fourteen that disclaimer substantially limits the pretty relationship then i think it's an open question for your decision as to whether is that sufficient that fact should get the benefit of the two dismissal rule i mean i c it to be dismissal of the state of nevada defense because it was clear there was actually no the fence to it and they're out of it and i concede that in the district court but the fact we believe in content on our side that they're very much still alive and well in this case in the lawsuit should be allowed providing counseling services for defendants compelled by the state of nevada to go through psychological counseling psychosexual counseling it's our contention that there wasn't because there was a contract there is this they are acting w county was brought into this case it's clear clark county was not part of the supervision of jonathan carter while he was on probation their course to the prosecution through the district attorney's office what we have alleged is that after this case i was actually on the criminal case i did the whole case i'm sorry you know are you  moving now to the holding as evidence yes yes yes right well i think you have a decent argument while i'm listening to your argument that you just made here and i think that it's tricky as to the argument you're about to make i have trouble with that one from on several levels and you know there are several things in terms that i don't know how you can assert the statute of limitations can be told based on your assertion that the alleged withheld information regarding your client's sister and her mental emotional problems was not discovered until well after his conviction when the record indicates that your client filed a motion for psychological examination of the alleged victim in april of two thousand prior his plea of guilty and then you know i've got i've got problems with that and then also i think that you know and us the rule as the supreme court concluded that the constitution does not require the government to disclose material impeachment evidence prior to entering a plea agreement with a criminal defendant and you've got the plate here so i don't see how you know i thought are problematic to me for you getting discovery well the data has state law in arrests i think is under chapter one seventy six concerning the disclosure of the mandatory just closure in the valley and state cases and the d a s office does have an obligation to disclose all relevant the material certainly post conviction process through and he's actions state action and state court would have been one way to go it seems to me on the east coast where i come from we would have expected a post conviction remedy to withdraw the police rather than a client and certainly with help from the defense and how that impacted what we what we would have done i do want to address just briefly this absolute immunity bar i certainly understand the county's position there's a lot of case law on it the only way i'm attacking  prosecutor generally i know there are enormous public policy considerations to protect prosecutors from lawsuits they can't be worried about if they're going to get sued if they go after some guy and then there's that there's a legitimate concern for that but in the early stages of a case investigation phase not after the charges had gone forward after the grand jury and we got to arrangements and we're preparing for trial filing motions that's absolute and i got nothing nothing i can argue on that but it's and i was early stages there is that narrowly crafted exception which apparently remains please the court i'm margaret fully for clark county council for fact and i propose to divide our time into five minutes each unless the court has a different time frame in mind as mr carter stated his allegation against clark county is may have failed to disclose information about his sister to him information that impacts her credibility however as as the court noted there he did ask for the hearing distinguishable from up and out ledge victims that you don't a stranger victim as opposed to that you wouldn't know anything about i mean that i would agree unfortunately we all know too much about people in our families sometimes and we there's no constitutional right to have impeachment evidence when a guilty in a guilty plea case and this court has noted in a couple of different cases that withholding evidence from the defense the prosecutors absolutely knew even if the failure to disclose amounts to a brady violation importantly here mr carter just not allege there was a brady violation he said that  remedies but didn't know if he could prevail on them because there wasn't didn't rise to the level of a constitutional violation and that also defeats his ninety three claim to the extent that the prosecutor if that judgment is harsh or unfair or clouded by personal animus and that just the court also properly dismissed clark county from the action based on the bar actually humphreys as mr carter's counsel stated he considered doing post conviction relief but decided not to as judge ross noted that as the proper avenue here he claims in his brief that he's not challenging his conviction yet the only allegation against clark count is that the prosecutor may have withheld some evidence and that that evidence severely impacted his defense of his case if he's not challenging his conviction it's hard to see what he could possibly challenge the  function and it had to do with impeachment and snitches and how you handle snitches in an office at the district attorney's office does that case in any way impact absolute immunity in this case i don't believe it does because first of all there was there was the guilty plea and then second of all because there were the other democrat difference you with the issue and goldstein wasn't necessarily what have the layers that it was that there was tainted evidence that came in and as a result of the administrative structure of the office and not the prosecutorial structure so i nature of the relationship between the state and fact pets only as it pertains to third party claimants not to each other and specifically this court has defined that how does it make any difference becomes given the word and as a third party climate here well what the court is supposed to be looking at is the relationship between the two parties not necessarily the fact that someone has brought a claim against one of the parties but at least in terms of determining whether or not to steam clean and this court has defined another what benefit does that similar they are very similar in fact they argue plaintiff's main arguments are that he was improperly treated after his probation was was in was instigated and that any implies that the acts of the defendant probation to be revoked for the same time it's a fact is making the determinations of treatment without the county participating in any way that does not create a pretty between fact in the county as to the department state defendants and we have to look at the aggregate of the operative facts and those facts and the relationship of the claims that plaintiff brought in all three of these lawsuits they're similar the only thing that is changing the case the fact is that that there is a pretty relationship in terms of the allegations with and all under this circuit's precedent and like at las vegas which asks if the two parties are that only pertains to the village to between third party claimants who doesn't define the relationship between the two when we're looking at pretty between the two defendants that were previously dismissed but the whole point of the this case because that pretty exist pretty for the relationship that the fact is that fact is is performing the duty that the state of nevada has given it too late to provide sexual offender treatment