to argue that fact and then that testimony basically became the law of the case yet our experts reported think the single spaced pages of information records reviewed medical premature and that this should be reserved for cross all you had to do was put in something from dr fisher this is not about his credentials this is about the reliability these particular tests we're going to do is put in an affidavit from your expert expert report regarding the liability or provide an additional declaration from that of the country saying you know we need some additional time to do this i just don't see where the burden was and then you down but requires you to show reliability motion was heard because the trial was scheduled for september and we were looking at settlement and the trial got canceled in september got moved to the following march and then subsequently moved to the following september at which time i did bring as it says the court has to undertake a rigorous examination that didn't happen here and i understand your honor's point but i would like to assert the fact that we should have been given an opportunity at least to commit additional documentation and address any of the court's concerns or at the very least let dr fisher into the court room to testify about these and basically the damages against the state were multiplied against my client and according to let me ask you can i ask you a question about that because i spent a lot of time on that issue and i i guess i  point they have indemnified my client pursuant to public officers laws seventeen so but that's ok so that's a separate number and then the jury when you were asked what's under one hundred and eighty three dollars what's the hostile work environment damages against your client in particular just against your client they came up with one million dollars so it's clear that whatever the double counting went on that they believe that the emotional harm to support the position in those affidavits one being our own expert witness we submitted attachments that detailed the issues with each of the tasks at issue here and and by the way i would add that we did move to preclude the testimony of the expert altogether the judge rejected that very soundly he said that we had the opportunity to cross examine the expert that we could call his credibility into question on the stand defendant here chose not to call their expert witness as a during trial as as an expert and that's on them he he issued a fifty page report and less than one page of that report discussed these tests that are at issue here in his conclusion section he did not link those tests to his conclusion he essentially talked for forty nine pages about him assessing the credibility of our client his observations things like that and then the state and the defendant here chose not to call him as a witness so that's not small the issue you know we asked for his testimony to be precluded altogether and that argument was two had some very specific issues with them that he detailed and his in his affidavit so for example the m s p q m i five somatic perceptions questionnaire it has to do with physical pain and suffering and and it's been strongly critiqued and there have been findings that is biased against minorities and women we put that in our affidavit and it went under but it defending care never asked for a hearing he never even asked for oral arguments so to hear him just said that it was premature misplaced and inappropriate and i think the court found very correctly that that was not sufficient response to rebut the affidavit and the evidence that we put forth saying that these tests  not reliable and so we don't see any reason to set aside the judge's decision on that just ask you to address the point that he made today is that he was incorporating separation formation but doesn't doesn't strike me as very credible at this point and it really doesn't obviously didn't persuade judge threaten me with you know they had an opportunity to ask for a hearing to ask for the court to look at the determine what it is that they're seeking a new trial for or whether or not they think that the jury's verdict was against the weight of the evidence it was difficult to determine whether that is the argument that they were making but the jury awarded a one million dollars against the sending three or four compensatory damages under the federal hostile work environment claim which as i said to me was emotional harm because that from that day was a separate entry  but then they wanted six hundred and eighty thousand dollars against cure for aiding and abetting a hostile work environment under state human rights law i guess i don't understand how that how you could have two different amounts for the exact same  object during the trial at the close you know after the jury issued their verdict they did not do that so it's our position that they waived that argument you know the the rules are very clear that there is a time to make objections and they simply haven't done that here you know and it's impossible to know what the jury was thinking when they were allocating damages and terminating you know how much under each individual claim you know should be awarded against each individual defendant and you know there were several series of liability presented from us there were several different you know there was that a mountain of jury instructions that were read and it's really difficult to know how they interpreted each particular cause of action and allocated damages p coin there's no there's no way it's the same coin it's not as if they allocate different amounts for different claims you know you could have a potential problem there but like you said that you know there could be something we're missing there but this claims because we don't know how to allocate it you know and we just don't i would guess that would be that would be wrong that's that's that would be  why they allocated certain dollars amounts for each particular claim and there were different theories presented to the to the jury under use i mean like i said there were fourteen witnesses almost three weeks of testimony a one hundred and fifty exhibits you know it's very difficult to know what they were thinking when they allocated damages against each of the different the as you know we don't know how they've calculated their damped of and as far as whether or not who's going to be paying you know the the award if they refuse to commit the state they refuse to say  trial basically you're asking an individual to testify a trial and then ask him how we got to his answer and to his opinion and we are for food for bringing that up so it really is and after a three week trial and talking with our client it was determined that we were going to put him on the stand because he had ethical expert we had ethical issues with going on and because we were pigeonholed on what jury comes in the room i mean i guess i could stand up after the court said ok anything else and the object of the objection is noted and then when the jury comes in stand up and object again but i don't think that