days of trial at nine am approximately a video link that would have connected miss membre now from an attorney's office in san miguel el salvador to the district court in los angeles failed  reasons that are not apparent to anyone it certainly wasn't do we know that that it wasn't our fault i mean do we know she was there she was ready to go but we do know that she was there to go your honor it's apparent on the record that there was an audio link an audio skype link that existed between the district court and the attorney's office in san miguel silva door later during that hearing during that trial that your honor mr c assistant in the courtroom was able to establish the telephonic link waiting for this video connection and that can be very annoying to the judge and the jury and this being a foreign thing made it even harder how long do you think the magistrate judge was supposed to wait for this to be all sorted out and was he supposed to suspend the trial to the following day or wait an hour or so and he certainly or he did not need testify via video link to an appointed time there that an earlier scheduled time so what district court easily could have done was simply allowed mr c hot to continue examining officer stringer while the id professional in the district court attempted to reestablish the link alternatively as mr c proposed during argument about this issue the district court has simply precluded ms min brunner from having any opportunity to present a damages case either economic or non economic damages he was prepared to solely proceed on nominal damages and punitive damages so there were several reasonable alternative measures that the district court have undertaken but he declined to do so so i suppose that is in the rule forty one the and inherent authority rule regarding the standing issue  acquirements for all three standing issues only attach when there's been a summary judgment motion made by the opposing party or that there has been a post pleadings judicial order regarding the subject  mr gilbert on officer strangers they have did not move for summary judgment on it and he did not raise the issue until this video link failure occurred and well but standing can be raised at any time so i that doesn't strike me as problematic issue st to give you a sense of how quickly this transpired this issue st occurred in the record and you know fifteen by year thirty the district court had already in the measure a judge had already decided that he was going to dismiss on the basis of standing  there's a same procedural defect again there has to be due process there has to be a meaningful notice an opportunity to be heard that was established in levy county of los angeles with which we've said in our our br torquey all decidedly favored ms and then run out there was no need to expeditiously and this trial it was progressing on schedule and was likely going to be given to the jury following the completion of testimony closing arguments instructions that same day or at a bare minimum the next day there was no need for the district court to have any sort of managerial concerns regarding its own docket because of that time frame and most importantly there was no prejudice whatsoever to officer strength or mr c i was prepared to forego not economic and economic damages altogether in order to get to a jury it if we were to agree with you that he she should have been allowed to prove her standing with a declaration and suppose we go down that road and decide it was appropriate to exclude her testimony but inappropriate to dismiss what would you tell the magistrate judge to do on remained is it a new trial or he would have a new trial and testify we would submit that she should be allowed to testify he did permitted her to do so after extended briefing an argument about this issue even though he had expressed extreme lockdowns so we would suggest that that is the again such as making sure that her testimony is locked in place this time with the as some type of deposition so that if the video link were to fail then of these something could be proffered into evidence introduced into evidence or the mo that's if that's permissible under salvador salvador would have to do further research in terms of whether an attorney in el salvador were acquitted but certainly there there would be measures i think that could allow the district you could have done that and you knew ten days ahead of time that that she wasn't going to be able to appear you know if there is a way to get a declaration or a ffidavit and the evidence through i have some doubts about that but that you could butt out a witness but and especially here where there was some controversy about is this the person who what was wow did you how would he have know i mean i'm not sure goes quite that far like how would he have known that that was her he's in the united states am i misunderstanding the facts he was here before the court he wouldn't have i think you're saying it's the attorney in el salvador that would have been perpetrating the fraud by saying that that was her in the room with him and we don't have any foundation in the record to to actual facts and what is in the record in this the notion that plaintiff did not appear and that was an isolated incident is completely belied by the record as is evidenced time and again in the record in this matter plaintiff had failed to speak in this lawsuit from the outset the defendants were required to file a motion to join in spencer party namely the father the parties actually argued this issue in front of the judge and the motion dismissed agents in the trial judge actually admonished and cautioned plaintiffs that they would need to preserve the testimony of the plaintiffs to sure they were present in the country or moralize for a trial how long in advance was that that was actually during the motion to dismiss proceedings so least nine months possibly years before hand shortly thereafter the parties entered into a stipulation wherein the parties stipulated that the depositions of the two plaintiffs would be taken in los angeles and the defendant officers would have that opportunity on the notes to the defendants at that time well if it actually been the night of these it already and planets council was aware of that so in planets council signed that stipulation represented to the and council that the two plans would be in los angeles for their depositions shortly before trial that was actually a false representation euro that was actually something that he knew affirmatively that a visa had been denied and that they had not had success in getting approvals to come to this country for a trial that continued on until and that continued until shortly before trial and only during the pretrial proceedings did this issue come to the surface at that point planet venus counsel advised that he did not believe his clients would be able to attend and he made a belated request to present their testimony by video the initial motion was denied by the court the court found that there was insufficient evidence to support the video testimony video testimony for trial that's correct without a deposition without a deposition what why would you agree to go forward without a deposition i did not run and we  actually goes through and discuss this history and talks about the borderline malpractise and malfeasance plaintiff's counsel in represented as representing facts not for securing this testimony especially in light of try to depose them to take their deposition yes or no we asked to take their deposition originally during the case that resulted in a stipulation where plaintiffs say during the case w approximately sixty months before trial during during discovery very not very yes and because of the plaintiffs were in el salvador because of the difficulty in getting a video testimony in a secure connection we agreed that if they were going to be a trial and there was a secondary reason as well as we're going to speak to fall in english for summary judgment and this is a significant matter obviously that's the point of son was killed and we want to be sensitive to that and not take a deposition about their son and other matters such as methamphetamine use if the case is going to be disposed on summary judgment so we had proposed and asked the judge could we move the deposition before trial after the summary judgment was ranting and the trial judge and plans counsel agreement that we served up on notice pursuant to that stipulation in order to notice the plaintiff's depositions shortly before trial that was well received notice from plaintiff's counsel that the plaintiffs would not be appearing in this country that was the st notice we had that they would not be coming out and i believe i can say see the st notice you had was when you tried to notice their deposition yes or ok that's what you go on that record and then once we get to trial court here's my my main concern about you or your part of your side of the case is that you had a pretrial conference with the judge and you did not list this as an issue for trial that that these parents but they're standing to sue you don't put that as an issue now that's very similar to the parties stipulate in before trial they under color of aspect of proof if they stipulate then the jury doesn't even know about it and it seems to me also the case law is that there has to be it has to be contested so why your opposition is saying you were  opportunities that suddenly when you realize they weren't going to be able there you raised the standing issue for the st time and in fact in your answer you did not deny that they were the parents or you know you never raised this as a that it has to plead to be proved it was not raised in the pretrial pleadings because at that point there was an expectation is that they were still trying to work to come to trial and they would be there there was an expectation that they would still have to testify right on the case they were still seeking damages they were still seeking evidence recovery against the officers there still had to meet their burden of proof on these issues there was an affirmative defense of fillers state a claim part of the omen of the claim is they must prove motion to dismiss early in the case and the father was actually not out it so the father ended up being joined in a series of motions where we did raise the issue of do we have the right parties and who else do we need in the case early on that proof you know issues that the all there is is a hearsay document right now is there a serious question about whether she is who is the mother and is intitled to bring this the answers well the answer is there may have possibly been there may have not possibly been there was to discussions about he may have had another child there may have this and there are discussions that he had a brother who was living in los angeles who refused to speak with us so there was a dispute on this issue would it and what would your position be if we reminded this to for a further determination on the standing question on the stand in question i believe that plants already been provided an opportunity heard on that issue accordingly i don't believe just because she didn't show up for the deposition both of the deposition didn't show up for trial although i could you address that i mean she didn't show up for trial but it sounds like she was there and ready what happened what it was we don't know that she was there ready if there was a connection somewhere there was someone talking there was at least two other people in the room where you may not know who it was but we have a statement from counsel saying that this was her client and that she was at least they're ready concern we have is what's to stop an unscrupulous attorney reading obituaries simply filing suit there has to be a standard of proof but i'm not saying that's fair enough i think we've got to be a little bit careful i think there's a presumption that the attorneys are acting within their to go obligations here and so if we accept that but we also agree that there isn't currently admissible evidence to support standing why don't we just remind it back and give a full chance doesn't that seem like the fairest thing to do when you know you are that prejudice is off for stringer officer stringer has already been to court planet has had her day in court she decided not to show there is no genuine issue of material fact as to whether or believe in tell the qualified immunity the trial judge deny qualified immunity on behalf of stringer based upon case law that has since been overturned significantly the summary judgment order the trial judge actually went through and confirmed  as disputed fact as to whether or not the suspect was holding the level of the time but as a couple opinions there after confirmed that is not the proper narcissus as this court determines uneasily usually involve a situation where suspect or throwing the gun he was not holding it it was not in his hand he threw on it two to four seconds before and he was shot in the back those facts are strikingly similar to this situation now although easy was ultimately overturned involvement based stated regarding the circumstances that led up to this unfortunate technical snafu was disclosed unknown by the district quirk and despite all that and despite clear misgivings the district court nevertheless decided what would that look like would would she appear for deposition at that point something she can't come into the united states to have to go to salvador to depose or can we set this up in a way that it could actually occur i think it's unlikely your honor given current terms of the three judge panel is completely vague under longstanding practices of this court so to the extent that he is attempting to state the panel opinion for anything it is not good law if there are no further questions well but it's no good not a manifest injustice to the officer saying what let me ask you what would have happened if they had as soon they knew that that she wasn't going to be appearing and they told you that earlier seemed kind of as back up against the wall with what point could you have said hey let's let's postpone the trial and see if we can mail down a deposition they would have had then more than a few days before trial at that point witnesses ha been secured we were already proceeding to trial and how much for you in your position is how much earlier than that did they know that it did point to plaintiff's counsel know that as client was going to be appearing there moments before when the party signed a stipulation that move that's right i do believe that qualified immunity is absolutely squarely on the facts the order on summary judgment notably the district court sounds civically that this was a very hotly contested situation that the officers were involved in a heated debate and i