collar executive residing in the town of port angeles and he was falsely labeled by the defendants as a convict as convicted of domestic violence when he never had his constitutionally guaranteed day in court we're here today because the district cour premature for the purposes of today's arguments we are left in the district courts recognition of the criminal history information concerning mr tolan was a false and defamatory comment was made the district court however erred in concluding at this early juncture that the defendants had a qualified privilege afforded public entities in the exercise of their duties the courtier it in that the privilege was not lost through abuse through either this stage on summary judgment so don't tell me why because one of the arguments we have i know the fact that qualify for privileges losses that was a few through reckless actually defendants fashion they were reck table your honor obviously can't control when the defense will fall much for summary judgment but we believe it's appropriate that when defendants bring the most for summary judgment on all issues very very early in the stage that we would have the judge and say under rule fifty six you have to start my motion is limited but they want to have the whole case heard we need more time for discovery because that involves different issues i don't know if it does or doesn't have to explain why you would need discovery and then the judge could put all that in front of them and figure it out but we can't here you're saying it was premature but there was really no opportunity in the district court for a judge to consider discovery in response to their motion correct your honor the district court did not have the discovery before them or the complete fast for them in order to make their from the excerpts of record there indicated she made errors such as there's no evidence of following that she made very specific areas of typing in her report exactly contradictory statements on time so your argument is just on the face of it those are reckless on the face of it she made at least two errors that normally you know normally the lower administrative official she acted recklessly on that basis we believe the district court was an error and not determining or allowing a trial or fact to determine whether or not she acted recklessly and therefore with malice i don't understand if you're saying that there's a disputed issue of fact that she made a wrong decision as to those disputed facts or if you're saying there's more facts that she didn't consider i don't quite understand where you see what are specific the judge just specific here wasn't really going on emotion entities we have ten minutes and we have decided to divide our time i will take seven minutes you will take three and we will do our best with here to do that division several reasons exist why this court ought to affirm all of which are outlined in the br police in my limited time before the court i will address first by mr tolan mistakenly relies on the doctrine of judicial immunity to explain why mrs lynge ball the lone individual defendant was not privileged in her communication in the official disposition report and second i will explain why mr cole in the state only compounds of compounds are there by relying on washington's criminal libel statute to argue that malice is imputed when washington law provides to the contrary but before i do mr toland brought this case on the jurisdiction of forty two u s c section ninety three and a federal question that argument and judgment any correctly pointed out during my adversaries argument was not argument was not argued anywhere in the brief so under greenwood versus ab a that argument is way and that claim is no longer before the court the only claim that was preserved was defamation mr tolan argues that the defamation eight and which the court the district court the light on is any defamatory communication required or permitted in the performance of his or her official duties mislead will ask portland clerk and has a record proviso is required to produce if once that happens everybody up the chain is sanitized so to speak at least on a defamation claim in your view what are the mechanisms that the agencies have a to either s as far as a mechanism i don't know of one place but as far as being a duty to verify and failure to verify being evidence of recklessness to overcome privilege the wash and supreme court as objective that argument specifically and  so you don't know that they're yanking in place once it happens that's their mistakes mistakes are made so to speak and then the consequences there's no mechanism to correct how often on there is taking everything it takes value there was no conviction guilty he walks out of there free use of birth and and the knowledge to him entered into this violence is guilty and he has no reason whatsoever to suspect that they've made this mistake so he finds  it was a mistake he probably is owed an apology you see it's not a mistake when it's later expunged on the basis that it was a mistake because the record shows that what happened is chris chance the clown county sheriff who was contacted by mr tolle looked and looked for the criminal file tr and if it had been filed right probably then the recording of the minute order and the database recording would been correct very true i think that's what i thought because the what you just told me washington state patrol joins in the art in this me by clallam county both the written arguments and the oral arguments that have taken the time of the court and so i've come primarily to respond to the court's questions as they specifically really relate to the lost your lunch i guess you didn't need to i didn't need your two minutes maybe have if i'm correct with judge fletcher there was another record whatever the record was there was filed in the civil section be expunged the record that it was complained of but then they found the record of the trial proceeding zero proceeding