f that the retention here would be discretionary certainly i do see the decision making here whether it's retention hiring and firing all do something because something has happened it's obviously discretionary so i don't need to be picking apart the statute the language but we have to go to the statute and what what it is specifically embracing it in this case  develop a record as to that determination that something might change or might not change i just don't know i just know that the record here that the supreme court required upon in order to reach its conclusion could not have permitted it to reach the well there i think somewhere in the arguments is the position they will fall and want were even though they knew and that was generally what we were going to be attempting to prove went to trial was primarily the infliction of emotional distress willful one conduct would have been a broader spectrum claim will turn claim i'm not sure whether or not it would have changed the outcome obviously this that's one of the one of the issues that i have i'm sure your honour's may have questions about as it relates to my concerns about the testimony experts and the fact that they were committed to testify g yet we prevailed so what's the what's the harm is there but i think that just spence is your question for what's the harm of the harm i think is that in the prejudice that we would have been able to this general you know what you had to actually prove because you couldn't play differently right so i do think they would have i think in this particular error i speak my experience that the jury instructions be any confusion in this particular case i'm sure that the jury with was confused and can these were similar instructions not identical instructions to those that would have been given in the event that there is a single claim for  lawsuit and there are different different standards for those parties well i think there's something distinctly different about contributory negligence and totally clear about what exactly happened i'm not sure that she was actually knows whether or not the door had closed the hallway where it was opened by somebody but that's how mr barmore got into the building and that was the catalyst  was that she didn't have to be in the basement when the officers were there she could if not follow she could not participate in the way that she did her parents church to go see what was going on t site i think that that she didn't have to place yourself in proximity to that event and but again we don't know because in this particular case because they could argue that in the juries have to come back and always concerned about what effect someone who is there with their testimony may play a role and because we can never get into the jury's heads i don't know whether or not in this particular case that the presence of those obtain who knew about it there was the disclosure but i don't have an affirmative obligation to chase down what they're supposed but they have an obligation to disclose under two thirteen three says with specificity i have to know who it is information i'm quite sure because it was later produced to us it before they testify it was produced to us on the eve of trial their report and their deposition with when did outside the door at the time the policy is the policy the chief of police yesterday runs his or her department in the best way possible or is there i see just for a cell references to this was a policy decision because lots of people want to be police officers there was no way expeditiously to replace these officers if necessary i mean i do and still that i understand with what the jury but there's a general policies that would be used in pursuing pursuing persons like mr barr in circumstances like a church if it's clear that they their officers knew this was a church correct they well one opened the door and found the infant sleeping and then we down the stairs and and there was a child who actually pointed him in that direction that's correct country in this is parents that their babies are down here you've got get further into the activity they tend to lose their ability with this it to to make a rational decision couldn't that be considered and the jury heard that i believe in the testimony of the judge was the also there and we can take is the state that you believe or the evidence and he doesn't think it's against the manifest way or whatever the judge just pacific's it was i think that that's also true i think subject will judge young it was one theory he was with us the whole time and he was there a listening in and whatever there were signs and good communications or conversation about testimony he he i'm sure had great notes because he certainly followed it well so there's not an issue as to that second component it's kind of really just the focus on as we are here today you know talking about the importance of follow the rules just like with the two thirteen we had a case earlier this morning that i don't think you were here for we question the judge does x does that relieve you know him or her doing something else here the judge was trying to get ahead of things and so have identifications of who these people are but i don't think simply because the court orders you to disclose your trial ready to thirteen's the bat out of the it's the need for compliance with two thirteen and in the way that you answer it but i do think because they were asked for the disclosure of the two thirteen's i think it would be redundant for me to then sir i document called to thirteen saying i i believe i was entitle to rely on the disclosure i was entitled to from a trial strategy standpoint be able to rely on that to thirteen disclosure to the extent that it didn't comply with the rules that i could disclosures and i know a little bit in the way i get the disclosure from that whether or not i have served a written discovery request or not if i tell them i'm going to take your experts deposition