straightforward case involving very straightforward issues the first issue i'd like to address is the issue regarding garden variety emotional distress and whether or not psychological records lose their privilege a civil rights case the defendants try to cloud these issues by saying that we agreed to reach certain redactions that we agreed to allow this information and that this was an all records that were subsequent to an injury we do than every case is required under the rules now in this particular case there was physical injury and psychological injury that were  record at one hospital where the client had gone continuously due in two thousand and sixteen a whole year prior to this trial we informed the court that we were only pursuing garden variety emotional distress we would like to retain the privilege on our psychological records of course the the records regarding physical injury then you brought it in and you know not the case at all this is this is the confusion i have not offer the record that was my understanding it's not the let me just explain what happened so because it's not clear from the record and i do apologize because your honour's don't have the full transcript i've just learned that  very recently and i'm trying to get it yeah that i know there was a pretrial conference on january thirty first which is not yet in the record and i'm going to try to get it to the court within a few days but at the january thirty first conference the judge indicated that he's going to overrule our objection understand vs but he's going to allow defense counsel to introduce these records we objected and there was a long discussion about  sims versus bought at the january thirty first conference and i apologize it's not before your honor's that at present it just was never requested and the judge has been very helpful in allowing us to get the records because my client is proceeding pro se but after that point because the judge ruled that those records would come in he did judge also allowed certainly the actions for issues that were irrelevant to this litigation that i don't even want to put on the record but other health issues that are completely irrelevant to didn't think judge ask you to come back and you didn't come i don't understand i thought that at the point to read actions were submitted there was a request that the judge if you want anything else come in right there w and you did not come there was another conference after that and i do apologize if you don't have it discussed in the brief no you don't discuss the january thirty first conference and you're right i just picked up on it provide us with a transcript and how are we supposed to make a decision it's it was a mistake it was a mistake and i have a copy of the e mail that i received from defense counsel after the after that conference indicating what what the judge's ruling wa and the fact that they were going to submit these records we had no choice you were thirty first conference and you're replying three no it was an error that i picked up very recently after that was picked up  and i do apologize for that again it's because we were person proceeding on the original record that we did we didn't have that the funds to get that and we will now it's not a thought it was important in put it into either one of you it was it's obviously critical because it's it's the the city is in essence arguing that we had some choice in this matter about whether these records were going in or not absolutely not that's not what happened in this case the january thirty first conference the judge made it very clear that our putting it aside whether whether you did it voluntarily or not how was it prejudicial that these records came in  well there's i think it's a public policy number one is that was there any prejudice absolutely there's no question that the prejudice there the prejudice was that the city was asking my client on the stand to explain why the doctors wrote certain things that they wrote he was completely unable to do so and he just floundered there on the stand trying to explain why the doctors what about this incident there was two incidents that happened very close in time one when he was a home invasion robbery and this incident with the police and the the psychologist was writing just generally about what he was talking about but without really delineating which injury came from which incident so it was it was just an absolute mess in his credibility as well you could you could argue that i mean there's there's of course you could argue that that his injury was actually related to the home this was specifically harmful to the jury to the jury in this case when it came out against your client my client was prejudiced because he was in placed in an impossible position of having to explain why his psychologist wrote certain things in the records that was exactly the questions that was asked on cross now does that fact prejudice york playa with respect to the issue it was be tried because the what the city argued below was that my client's injuries were confused and my client's memory was confused between these two  incidents the home invasion robbery and it was fear arguments absolutely that's what's the prejudice then well the there's there's my argument is really on a on i'm on about public policy about the fact that people when they go to a psychologist they should be able to that injure your client in this case you may be completely right about public policy but that isn't the question we have to address i would i would say my client was ill equipped  to explain why a psychologist that he was talking to would indicate certain things in the record that confuse the issues about an object to those questions  of our indications are you did introduce the medical records which did contain this so i mean who who is responsible here for this alleged error it seems to me you are you if you introduce those records you will you clearly open the i hear your argument like reciting argument it's a it's that it's an assertion of having taken the time to go and have my clerk go through the records that were available that you didn't provide us nor mention remotely mentioned in your brief have i just picked it up very recently and in preparing for this argument that might have thought about it before you wrote your brief right i just want to say this with respect to offering the documents we had absolutely no choice in the matter there was a ruling on january thirty first that those records were coming in the judge outlined what the redactions would be which attack redactions would be allowed and that's what we had to agree to when we went to trial to try the case it was a marked exhibit that was what was coming in no matter what there was another point that i want to make out of time ok we'll hear from the other side information about his psychological issues would go into trial and the judge did ask or say after you read direct if there's any more issues come back that did not occur or these records were introduced plaintiff on direct used even sp's certain things about ambien and alcohol and all these other things were used on direct and then on cross we then use the ability to use the opportunity to impeach him as to what was missing in those records at no time did the defendant's raise any emotional issues past psychological issues we were questioning him solely on what transpired regarding the the prior home invasion and whatnot did not ask him to explain what his psychologist did not state and if he is claiming that we did he had every opportunity and in fact in his pretrial order suggested that he would call the psychologist and he never did as far as the voluntariness of the introduction of these records it was in every regard a voluntary act on part part of the plaintiff you keep citing to this local rule eighty three ten saying that it was required to but if you read closely it specifically says that if you are alleging something that's not garden variety emotional distress that's when you must introduce or some screws me submit a release to the defendant because he submitted a release to us he admits that in his complaint he was alleging not garden variety emotional distress you cannot now once the city gets the records and at trial on the eve of trial say no no no i see kind of see what's in these records or actually what's not in these records i now want to withdraw that claim he cannot on ring humiliation terror and damage to reputation so he clearly did allege non garden variety emotional stress and also in a bar at the records had not even been disclosed yet they were disclosed here and because those records clearly showed a problem with what transpired or what he said to his psychologist that clearly isn't and isn't impeachable moment the defendants did that we did not overstep our bounds and they were properly used at trial in this room in this trial in that regard  questions were probably before the jury there was not an issue was made particularly given that none of these issues did the plaintiff then after a trial seek to all of his challenges are preserved first of all they were not even challenged  does not equate to an arrest they can be given at different times so at that point the question to the jury becomes whether the circumstances surrounding that stop right put into rest by terms of duration whether handcuffs were used we're all for that one particular event and that's why during that pretrial conference we had already that the illegal investigatory detention claim it's not a separate claim it's all want to vent so weak that and so when we were talking about arrest stop we weren't saying oh it's clear there was there was no arrest or yes there was an arrest that's where the confusion lies but we did not make any admission as plaintiff alleges that there was an arrest we the entire time and that's why we were at trial there was an issue of whether or not there was an arrest in fact we had said specifically at the conference that he was given a desk appearance ticket in lieu of an arrest whether what happened during that twenty minutes ripened into an arrest is certainly a question of fact for the jury you know he's kind of he wasn't really but the cops said he was you know yes he wasn't free to leave but he wasn't handcuffed he wasn't moved to a precinct and things of that nature and all those things were properly charged to the jury and the jury was free to to decide in the manner that it did but thank you honors your decision the remaining cases i have a question of  no you didn't you weren't here you national rebuttal so the answer is no the remaining cases are on submission accordingly