that was entered by the district judge and then the discovery issues that were issued by the court that limited our discovery and the process as to the summary judgment in  does ability case there are two ways to present are to survive a summary judgment presented by an employer and one is to present evidence of  comparative or under the doctor and that normally goes back and forth between the plaintiffs and the defendant and then also to present ice a nd method was by circumstantial evidence and i think in this case the pla discovery of this case or to the court any way that her job had ever been automated or was going to be automated she was given no notice as well in addition they claim that there was reorganization with and underwriting department where she worked alf i guess has produced and did not produce to the court any document showing how any jobs in the underwriting department would be very similar job in underwriting for property they both addressed agents no one by one basis trying to reduce risk they traveled throughout the three states  alabama georgia and mississippi to meet with these agents there were jobs that could not be automated and missed the kind of jobs were not automated in fact the only issue in this case was that was  differences after presented not a single document supporting their argument we asked and posed the alleged decision makers that they produced and that's what they stated but they could produce no document that actually supported specific reference to the fact that any decision to eliminate a job had to come from the top on down starting with the president and then scott forest h r director  be returned directly to mr forrest it was involved in this case from the get go and i think it's anchorage is us supervisor mr plaster even indicated that the discussion to eliminate her job although he was not privy to this discussion had been going on for months and we know much money they spent on her medical bills over that period  employees and the year mr acreage was terminated they hired an additional one hundred is is mr forrest they charge rector for this one thousand well or for our there's the people plus other offices a i think it was there was a document that was produced that we provided that showed that they had i think close to two thousand five hundred employees the was dismissed thinking and all of these employees were insured by the same health insurance policy and should have been provided the same health insurance benefits single one benefit some how much it cost if it was being provided to someone with with diabetes or someone with a heart condition could not single out and eighty a says that you cannot single out a specific element based on the cost of a prescription drug  based on the cost of a surgery and you cost of diabetes and that's a huge had been provided this accommodation for over twenty years i think she was diagnosed three years after she started working there and working there for twenty seven years when she was notified one afternoon at four pm that they didn't need any more the office so that you know issue cannot be addressed or used in eighty eight but i think the circumstantial evidence and i think we presented substantial circumstantial evidence to the decision and again the fact that were not even allowed to depose mr forrest our or any other witnesses about who made the actual decision and the fact that again that there are no documents supporting any automation or the basis for her terminations is the statement made by the people who make those statements when we took susie white's deposition as designated by alpha to answer questions about this or are even if you can you also have an option to address circumstantial evidence and it goes back to  please sign this so that you won't sue us in the future and that is scott forrest and it was given her the day that she was asked to leave think in the name now and did they get a rationale they gave a name when he asked from those persons were would have been and they said scott forrest they did they did it was any rationale except for they said when you took her to her office and said we don't need you anymore and asked her to sign the release document when she refused to sign that document that's when they made their decision she was leaving immediately and they would send her personal belongings in a b individual discrimination case related to the women a should know a job in one department out there's a multi line insurance company and they eliminated her job and automobile underwriting in twenty six because her duties were automated because they got a new computer system in the past insurance agents across the state would call her and ask her underwriting questions this was automated and  agents could access that information through the computer related nasar she was not replaced this was part of the broader restructuring and isn't if information is in the record that the severance that underwrote a worker bent for protection act gave her twenty up to twenty one days to review that son to speak she did not apply for an open job  and the leadership team of the under i department consulted with susie white who was to go over those issues and the practice was for the direct supervisor here mr plaster and mr k shat sit down with their own explain coordinated they also want to depose the c e o of the company but the courts reasoning was the st order of the court denying the request was less deposed the decision makers and then consider what evidence you well your honor the lower court held multiple hearings on this and the st order the district judge or the magistrate acting as a district court judge said let's see what evidence you have or what court found that the district judge exercise his discretion appropriately where the sought to be witness had no firsthand knowledge to do well because the court gave the plaintiff nine weighed and he weighed the information and looked at the information of the plaintiff provided and there was just simply no evidence in the record nothing offered by the plaintiff so to jest any involvement whatsoever by mr forrest it so if if she thought mr forrest had information she would know that from day one no she what he said now debates are my understanding is it's nonsense there is nothing in the record that suggests that your hon what the evidence is is that the human resource representative who was the corporate representative on two occasions testified that she was the individual within h r the employee relations person who provided that not directly but indirectly that person's house within the h r department and there was a rd your honor there was a thirty six witness who provided testimony on these particular issues  that at one point in the court have a problem with the facts about witness says that she didn't know the answers to all of the questions were posed to her no the court when it ordered outlook to produce it let me back up blue cross manages alpha's health insurance program itself funded but blue cross manages the program and miss white was prepared and answered questions it was the pla and ninety three until two thousand and sixteen there is no evidence no complaint of discrimination she never voiced a concern no one ever said anything negative to or there are twelve and a half percent fewer people in the underwriting department there is no evidence that anyone else's job was automated like her there were five other people whose jobs were eliminated there were two retirements plans on supervisor retired the following year and was not replaced addressed that to be as we would the court would have to address the same issues again does that witness have any personal knowledge as the court did in pailin the title bomb if there is no thousand five hundred or true employee but they operate in multiple states tennessee alabama georgia and mississippi primarily can you tell us what's in the record about the ordinary practices and so on is terminated in terms of whether they're allowed to stay for some period of time or whether they're let out the way in th well let me just with all due respect she was not thrown out the door she was how they handled miss acreage is how they handle all terminations but there's nothing in the record to suggest either way that was not available jobs that she could apply for she was told and as is correct there were no available open jobs in underwriting there were other jobs within the company that's on a portal that she could have applied for and she never did and there were and that's what she was dull and she reached out to the executive vice president of marketing and testimony my recollection is that he said you can apply for a job anyone can apply for a makers were aware that when you terminate someone you save their salary compensation cost plus benefit cost that to me doesn't trigger a next motive analysis this is a burden shifting analysis there is absolutely absolutely no her evidence these five individuals that she points to are still employed by out but in different jobs different supervisors mr sawyer miss mentioned miss mccallum again that affidavit which  struck but still considered was not based on a personal knowledge and it showed miss mccallum worked in a different department different supervisors as judge frank you acknowledge he did a different duties he did different things and there's no evidence other so under any theory whether it's the burden shifting analysis or mixed motives analysis there's just nothing in the record suggests that the reason given by alpha for terminating clients employment was discriminatory sam what you said on one thing here there are you saying that electronic evidence shows that although one person had access to medical costs for employees no one has ever actually access  question was what happened with miss acreage so you have the implement within the company on page eleven of our current break we talk about how she went to d c was vice president head of marketing and badly marketing and underwriting later merged they were so closely working together and the two anyway mr davidson given jobs to two other people who were supposed to lose their jobs in underwriting due to underwriting and because of the automation and said he didn't have any other jobs better for anybody else could easily spend a little bit more money to take care of her health goals but they were looking for ways to cut costs and so and then can you can you be very specific about what evidence you have that forest was involved besides came back in ninety three she had was in a wheelchair she later got better and was able to get better but he knew about the cost of and the basis for a termination is just to miss west is like asking george washington if he knows about the american revolution he says no i don't know anything about it i mean it's not the same thing he would been our number one witness and yeah i mean he would make our case and it's just very smart really and on the fifty years i'm forty nine and a half years on law