regarding employee privacy so even in the regulations the commission uses in the case and requests anonymously so there's no reason to assume that the commission meant anything different by indicate than it did by requests so circumstances relating to that particular vacuum in the absence from the country seem never received the review and therefore mr statics never did turn it into corporate and therefore it remained in  the employers under the law seems like these were sort of drafted because of as you heard years for the film to say because of sort of the circumstances that were going on that just something interrupted the normal process and so i guess i'm not sure law what if they is your position that the draft would have been you know somebody was gonna know you know and said so and so is being a particularly bad employee today kind of for their own purposes trying to figure out where they want to report areas in that they just happen to have that know is that an employee record needs to be turned over i'm trying to figure out where the line here is because it's not as clean is as if these were actual signed employment record may be i should know the answer but it's not in my head right now which is a question as part of for discovery or or for the you know give me the chronological  interference right that would be a jury that would be sort of a frankenstein jury instruction that would be a discrimination claim but with that interference part of it but it have a whole bunch of other stuff in it so i my problem and i don't see where you ever actually asked for an interference jury instruction you asked the frankenstein one of the other jury instructions and add the favorable part of that interference claim in there but you didn't actually ask for an interference jury instruction i don't think point me out where i'm wrong on that that the challenge that i put myself in that state a district court judge here is he's got a complaint you're i understand that this california law is kind of odd to me that says that even though you never use the word interference and you talk about retaliation that you can somehow a factor in there that would support an interpretation i understand your argument on that basis but then when you proposed jury instructions i mean it's like you did before you before you actually asked for summary judgment on your on your interference claim if very difficult as i read it to see that you're not much about interference claim in your approach or instructions but then i think in the course of doing that you understood all my goodness we don't have interference claim in here and so you ask for summary judgment on it but the judge which  that point the judge did not even in this isn't it true that in the in the response to your little motion for summary judgment at that point the judge didn't necessarily say that you couldn't have an interference claim the judge just said i don't know why he didn't hear any kind of rule against you on the you would get the facebook to a trial but he didn't necessarily say your interference is not even in this case because many actually addressed one of your three theories right and then only later when you when you i think you're like we need to get this in the can you  in that he did he then say no you don't get him and you know he that inference claim is not in there and i'll let you know as i have it down the road so i'm trying to figure out what we do with that because i'm a little sympathetic to the judge here that it seems like by the time the issue is kind of squarely before the judge because i don't see how you really present a very well in your in your model in your jury instructions and in and by the time it finally before the judge when you move them in the judge says no no troubling with that i understand the best argument you have for you is that a under california law we don't even have to really pleaded interference going we just get to plead retaliation claim advice get the facts are in there i think i agree with you that the in there that we've got an interference client so maybe the judge here if the area we erred on the side of like not seeing that you had an interference claim in enough in your original in your original  lawsuit the problem is this is if you are so slow to make that clear to him it seems that you didn't make it clear to him in your post or instruction that by the time you finally make that clear to him you're so far down the path that he says i'm not like you at it california is very generous and it lets you sort of lead a in your complaint that lets you lead a interference claim without really using the word interference in found out to me but they let you do it without using word interference you just got to basically see retaliation claim  those so fine i guess that's that's the law but my problem my difficulty with this is it seems like not was dying that you have to sort of a left to remedy it at some point to tell the judge otherwise what happen you go through the whole case the district court judge it think should you know this a good judge has but you know it doesn't necessarily know that you're talking about an interference claim because you haven't used that word and you go all the way along to get all the way down with discovery and then you say oh we want to add an inference claim because you said you're not even sure innocence claim is in here and i have some sympathy for a district court judge in this circumstance i understand the law is you complete interference claim the way you did i have a lot of sympathy for a judge as i see it when you were providing an instruction you were trying to change the instruction herb or frankenstein the instructions by dumbing down a portion of it to match an interference claim but you weren't really actually doing something with tell the judge and so the problem with that is is that are you just allowed to go through the whole the whole case until it's too late and then and then you simply get a nd bite of the apple to present your interference claim i understand we want it we want to go on an interference theory and it seems like if you didn't do that at the earliest structure days i don't know how this is the judge supposed to know until you're way past discover your past summary judgment which is when you correctly ok all right look we've got a way over and i think we need to pretrial conference where delineating city claims that we're going to try the pretrial conference