and complete information regarding the affairs of government the trial court in this case denied my client's motion for reconsideration and my client's motion for finding that the defendant have admitted the facts of the request to admit these pleadings have address essential elements of the freedom of information act that desperately need clarification by the appellate court we respectfully request that the appellate court reverse the findings of the trial court in accordance with a freedom of information act which tells us and i quote from the act itself access is necessary to enable the people to fulfill their duties and discussing public issues fully and freely making important political judgments and monitoring government to ensure that it is being conducted in the public interests i'd like to discuss today three main points with the first i would like to stress my client's right to have the trial court reconsider their order based on the acquisition of the newly discovered evidence second i would like to discuss the defendant's failure to originally provide all documents and the defendant that's misrepresentations by me i would like to discuss for my client's motion finding that the defendants have admitted the facts and the genuineness of the documents should not have been  so first i'd like to discuss my client's right to have a trial or reconsider the order based on the acquisition of newly discovered evidence i'm talking about a motion for reconsideration as you know he filed a motion for reconsideration in a time on i know there was some question concerning whether or not the evidence was available prior to the original hearing and whether or not mike the plaintiff had access to it we do not have the evidence was not available prior to the hearing because what was available to defend it had it but the plaintiff was not able to acquire this is documentation keep first of all he filed the original information request to which to defend it at that point should have provided all of the relevant documentation he had conversation the e mail back and forth with the defendants requesting the documentation getting more information asking questions about him from image management services  he did everything that he was supposed to do in terms of filing a complaint before the trial courts and they're saying that he should have been able to get the evidence beforehand but i disagree because this is not this is a very particular kind of case that has to do it requiring documentation from a government body and the evidence is is finite it's not for example a criminal case concerning a robbery of a store where the only evidence is security footage in that store in one location and there's only one camera and the party went to you know you know we went to hear it and simply failed to get that one particular videotape this is a case where he pursued all avenues he could to retrieve the documents like i said he originally asked for the documents from the defendants who should have provided them original works with sound he asked for the documents at hearings he filed a proper requests i didn't oppose the replies by representative kay and requests by year and they were not identical judge but there was there was an overlap so i believe one of the things that i believe represented a case had a longer you know time window and and so what we were looking at was well if there is a little bit extra time but it does overlap with our request and so we admit that  and there may have been some confusion because they weren't identical but like i said there was an overlap and the reason we chose to provide the entirety of the response to representative kay was just to be efficient to show the for everything that was there and because it was sent out from the defendants to representative payee and in sort of in one document i mean one male one go we wanted to you know we figured the the department didn't fully comply with both oil requests other words what is in the record that demonstrates that the response to your clients or requests was inadequate in view of the representative case request because the problem is we don't have the documents that you suggest were in addition that they were produced in response  or representative case of requests those are part of the record here they're not identified we don't even know what they pertain to so because of the request for an identical as that's the whole the white  both responses could have been perfectly adequate well i think it was the fault of the trial court to deny them the motion reconsideration because if they had allowed the motion reconsideration we would be able to put on evidence and reconsider if they didn't have the additional documentation here sang was provided in response to representative kay's requests it was just generically referred to as additional information which will be supplied l mean it's not something that is presented to the court so i mean you're talking about a different something different than the motion to reconsider well when the request to admit not be a discovery tool and wouldn't it be simply a way to admit facts and and bypass well did you make the request to admit an exhibit to the motion to reconsider the request to admit was a separate on document that was the case or basically a fact they talked about the two hundred forty five documents that war referenced in a letter on october twenty third two thousand and thirteen from the defendants that saying that the remainder of the two hundred  documents to plaintiff after all of this work on by the plaintiff they certainly were not going to provide the documents to claim to some other way through some other discovery method even though there there was no other way for the documents or claiming that the documents are relevant or not relevant or deal fall into the boundaries of the request all the plaintiff the only avenue he had left was to go to the hearing at the trial court level where find it was supposed to bring all the relevant documentation defendants did not the only provided some of the documents and it wasn't until later on that happening to learn the there were additional documents because some of the documents were provided to re include a description nature of the contents of each document for each deletion from the release document right however the public body shall not be a part of disclose the information docket withheld or each deletion from the release document provided however motions finally i'd like to discuss why the motion for finding the defendants have admitted the facts and the genuineness of the documents should not have been denied before you get to know you are running out of time but i just want to comment on something that is you filed define a file this motion to reconsider unfair for the twentieth of two thousand fourteen the hearing on their motion was not until october seventh two thousand and fourteen to more than seven months afterwards representative pay and we did address this i think mary unfortunately it was delayed a little bit it took some time i'm originally we were going to provide each of the individual documents that were provided to representative k as a separate document to which they should met genuineness and what we end up doing is providing the thing because it was one respons document containing many you know e mails to represent the pay we sent back to them in the interim we sent a motion to admit we received a letter back and then we filed the  essentially the reason that we did any type of reconsideration is because the newly discovered evidence was documentation so it was simply our attempt to get that admitted before before going into the  sufficient to satisfy the supreme court rule two sixteen which says each of the matters of fact and genuineness of each document of which admission of requested is admitted and lost than twenty eight years after sworn statement and they talk about the failure to include the two sixteen g warning which says if you fail to serve the response required by two sixteen within twenty eight days action after you are  opinion response and the judge to sixteen g warning warns recipients of these documents that if you do not respond to the facts if you do not respond the facts we can true in the documents to be genuine now this would be an issue if for example if the defendant simply did not respond at all and then we filed something to have it admitted by the court and then the defendant showed up and said well there was no warning that's why we didn't respond but they did try to respond although we argue that they responded improperly because they attempted to respond on it or that's the warning because it implies only it applies only to those who do not respond at all and they we do so argue that we could have an order saying the facts are certain then the documents are genuine but if the court chose not to do that they could enter an order compelling them to file a proper response leading to our request to admit and then set it for a later date to claim of newly discovered evidence but the plaintiff never specified for the court the particular documents that they were claiming was newly discovered evidence and they never showed that this evidence wasn't available to them at the time of the original to justify setting aside an order based on a claim of newly discovered evidence a party my show that the evidence could not have been discovered and obtained through due diligence before the original hearing and that it is have and that if considered it would be probably changed the supreme court's decision and here they didn't show any of that in their motion to reconsider they simply stated that the department had responded to a comparable player request after the circuit court entered its final order and provided forty additional documents but they never showed the back for your request was the same as the plane to spoil your request and in fact they request receiving more documents from the plaintiff doesn't show anything as to whether the plaintiff received what they had asked for and therefore you were twice and in their motion they did not say they did not identify any specific documents they were claiming they should have but didn't receive and as a result they didn't provide any explanation as to why they were unable to obtain those documents at the time of the original hearing and that if considered would be likely to change  ok and while they did attach a bunch of documents to a request to admit which consisted of eighty three pages and eighty one pages of e mail they again never specified for the court which of these documents their claim they not even responsive to his request because it was outside of the time frame and many were the outlook calendar appointment notices and to the extent that they're seeking the outlook calendar appointment notices those are clearly not newly discovered evidence because they were specifically told about those well before the hearing in the response to their for your request the department told them that they had like two hundred forty five electronic communications that they had received and that a lot of these were not responsive enough the non response documents were the outlook calendar notices and they at that time never said anything they never requested those documents they on the circuit court found that their request to him it didn't comply with the supreme court rules because it didn't include a warning rule to sixteen g specifically says that the request to emit must include a warning in bold face type and their request to admit didn't include that their for the court did not abuse its discretion but that in pursuant to its report rock in addition there is no basis for finding that the defendant that the defendants had admitted the facts are genuine is in the document because in their request to admit because they feel you know timely filed an objection to that in their argument that their objection should have been sworn has no basis as it was an objection objections do not need to be sworn in their claim that certain phrases in there that needed to be sworn in particular they were saying that the provision where they said that they couldn't decision and the fact that it was a comparable rough request to the defendants and not an identical request but i think that's relevant and doesn't need to be identical by us when we have a case the defendant showed up on the day of the original hearing with some documents presented some documents to the trial court judge some documents were given to the plaintiff and so there was no way to know  that their original documents until they found out later for him of information act is very particular and specific and that way it's quite unique actually and it has to do with a plaintiff asking for something from defendants and a defendant doesn't provide that there so it's difficult to acquire evidence to show that he didn't do something as opposed to in any other type of you know tort case or another type of case for plaintiff showing that defendant did something because in this case we're trying to show that the defendant did not do something number one it's difficult for him to have been able to do that number two on he didn't realize all avenues that he was able to to try to get those documents and to be honest defendant should have provided documents originally and so there's nothing in freedom of information act any type of vehicle or plaintiff's private taxpaying  did or he asked the court in his complaint to order that they provide an index of records which is in line with information actually the court did not do that if they had done not they could have a list of documents and that's in them they could have