in which there was a statement no hearing regarding more or it its heat or mortality would tell no power stations were held with any person regarding the care provided other than a don't respond to this at all in your reply and just wondering why didn't you reply and was that something that bothered the trial court in this case that journals specifically whether they were you know specifically requested in the ad that the peer review process which i think is the andersen case or maybe other cases where there wasn't specific to present that make a difference having nothing to do with this case or with this hospital or any certainly with distributed houses independently previously generated and you're saying the mere fact that the committee then said we want to look at that it becomes cripps the fact that they were looking  is not to know well i believe that there is no reasonable way to suggest that such dealings determination was other than that actual how do we know that when his order doesn't really tell us anything other than he said that these materials i'm not really under the medical studies and we know that i'm for a number of reasons the primary reason is that judge hearing him to not order that all of the documents that were  noticed that there was two hundred fifty pages in writing to be allowed two hundred fourteen pages to be dated correct and he reviewed those documents and he necessarily and logically made the conclusion that as a bed advocate had n president of showing the document were right quality assurance purposes and only for quality assurance purposes and that's another point that's it omitted from advocates discussion liability there's a bank and the balance has to be a bra that's well established that the banking is on the hospital to show that the privilege of the bonds and included in that burden is showing that knowing that the materials were created generated used an issue for the purposes of quality assurance by only for that along the lines that these obviously weren't generated for adi control or to improve mortality and more were busy and it wouldn't have made it clear that he actually had some discretion in what he was doing i suspect that many orders that come before the court could have been made clear out there i mean if you look at some of the cases there's a clear certainly some some form of discussion from the trial court so the privilege of and even in that untimely and in proper motion let's first i should say the motion to reconsider was improper because it was math based on one of the three prongs for proper motion for reconsideration committee actually requested sought out and was dispersed among its members my response to to that your honor would be that if it did this not only conclusory but it's insufficient because it does not say at a bare minimum well the purpose what the use was of the document before they were gathered by me because we all know that the committee can't simply say everything is now being gathered by the request this is we want your policies on such and such yes that's what's called that request number one requests for two says give us everything that the r c a committee consider the first request is a freestanding request for policies that i would think that would be bets again going back to the balance that i spoke about that's the reason why the committee didn't simply suck up everything sure but if you want to get in the new shop up a certain aisle seen relative to when certain indicators indicate asian presents with the possible diagnosis of sleep you would ask them for that and it would have nothing to do with this particular root cause analysis committee you could ask for any of those policies couldn't you and you could difference between say or at least thinking in your head that the the party seeking to him assert the privilege has failed to carry the burden and say as a matter of law all these documents was clearly a factual ruling charge clearly not clear why and the reason that it's clearly a bench will ruin his because he reviewed the documents and made a ruling after reviewing the documents and he made the ruling as a matter of privileged that they probably would have found the proper procedure it's very difficult for me to imagine how either invented or its attorneys could have been unaware of this proceeding when the doctor dependence knew that it had take again it's not even clear of course it was exclusively used by the committee during the committee proceedings that's not the issue what was the purpose out what was he used for before what was he used for if it knows very well but there's a factual component to this you know was it actually reviewed and you could reject it and tell me if you disagree you could reject a claim of privilege for two different reasons you could find that it was not refuted which i don't think there's any reason that he thought that