that one indicated that he was a director of a south florida seniors that he'd done work in the city at the medicaid plan or medicare for center including assisting individuals in the city of allendale that he serves on committees  case is also tangible harm because the web sites were not accessible and there was discrimination because he suffered two years almost two year period of time with not having the websites not accessible i also think the size of two affidavits the city's own policy and acted in april two thousand and nineteen is evidence is evidence that there was discrimination or one they took down the archive videos that were not captions and then allowed for a mechanism to have a request that the videos be caption on a case by case basis  st time this resolution and accompanying affidavit to the resolution from the city employee makes clear for the st time they enable captions on what i'll call the social media platforms so there is a recognition here that there's been passed on and that they corrected it and i'm not complaining that they corrected it at the complaint is that they corrected it two years later and that the damage had already been done and it did particularized in reference to mr sierra who had made the effort and as a result of making the efforts was not able to view the caption website the numerous cases on intentional discrimination and deliberate indifference in the in the death plaintiffs contract and so i don't need to go into all those cases but from my reading of those cases obviously notice is required in this case the one hiding i'm sorry why don't you tell us what facts support or not the city was negligent or misspelling to respond it's a question of fact that should be considered whether the city was deliberately indifferent second the city took no action not just from the  th april two thousand and nineteen resolution and i think i could a jury could look at that determine whether or not the city was deliberately a different that reminds me of the prain ca fact in dispute as to whether or not the hospital in that case was deliberately indifferent during the time that they did provide auxilary a despite the fact that during that that the last time that the city you look at the resolution which is in the record which was subsequently adopted which is the evidence of why the city did something the city sought to determine whether or not closed captioning of all of those past meetings of those years of meetings was something that they could do and the city determined that that was cost prohibitive in order to post all of these videos with close caption it was too much money so the city decided to handle those on a case by case basis coordinator and it said if you would like to have any video closed captioned contact us and we will do that we're not going to spend tens of thousands of dollars to close caption all these past videos of meetings that very captioned either will you please provide closed captioning for your videos on your website closed captions are the best auxilary for me under the idea please don't use auto captioning on you tube because it doesn't produce accurate closed captioning if you're not the missal based upon the motion for summary judgment not on a motion to dismiss and based on the entire view of the record this court may review the summary judgment and determine that summary judgment should have been granted on the t contact to the city which was an e mail a form notice that he sent off to the mayor and in many other cases which are matters of public record there but he sent it off to the mayor referencing the mayor world website referencing the fact that things were not closed captioned and not requesting any type of a specific accommodation the mayor is an elected public official it's not her role to deal with these types of things and it's not her role to contact this individual after receiving charge of managing the government the city's code was more than argued in the brief but the matter of public record prohibits the mayor from engaging in that type of conduct from contacting any individual and directing them to do something the mayor did what she's supposed to do which is bring it before the commission and the commission itself looked into this this request to take a year and a half yes this case being litigated on other issues yes but there's a commission decide what they want to do the commission chose for the city how to handle these types of requests the commissions that we have been closed captioning since july and said are a two thousand and seventeen our meetings are already being closed caption so there is no violation right now we're not we're going above and beyond what has required to date amongst from the binding kasal we are doing this now as the videos in the past again something that mr never specifically referenced any video at any time and he and then policy never requested a specific accommodation never requested the city take this video and do something or it would have those videos it's cost prohibitive for us to do all of them right now we don't have the funds so we're going to take down that content the archive video which is not something that people look at regularly and if any individual wants to view one of those videos request an accommodation and we will do that that is the exact opposite of deliberate indifference there is no evidence whatsoever in the record establishing any type of deliberate indifference on behalf of a city official but you don't deny right with his letter to the mayor said hey look if where your contact your content is supposed to go this is to go to a city manager this should go to the people who are in charge of operating a city the mayor is just a single elected public official receiving one e mail and this request in of itself it re off one message to a single commission that was not responded to however let's not look at it if we look at the evidence in the light most favorable to mr sierra  couldn't you know what a reasonable jury determined that when he e mailed the mayor and when he mailed a copy of that e mail to the mayor's office and they failed to promptly disabilities action we believe that determination up to the jury if we determine that you know we look at the facts and i like most favorable to mr c r no because even looking at the facts in the light most favorable to mr sierra the city at that time was both captioning already this doesn't request specifically anything related to any specific meeting in the past anything that was not closed captioned it is a form letter that is very bland it is not sufficient to give the city notice of a violation of a federal right and to ignore that deliberate differences this court has said before an exact standard for we go to the record video nowhere says anything in particular as to what he's talking about and the resolution itself addresses this as well as we cannot afford to do this or all of the all of the past videos we've made a determination as a prohibitive to do that is our official position that we will handle these on a case by case basis and there's no evidence whatsoever that he ever came forward and said i need to do this video  accommodation i mean that to me sounds like a pretty compelling closing argument you know you say to the jury deliberating different this is the full responsibility would love to accommodate every person who comes our way with a disability but we simply can't do it and so we've got to return a verdict in favor of the defendant no because the court has to look at the record evidence and decide whether or not there sufficient evidence in order to get to that this court is truly stated in the mccollum case that the plaintiff must introduce evidence it's much more easy to prove deliverin difference because there was actual interaction between the two there was contact between the individual as the type of accommodation repeated and whether or not something should be granted here you have a single e mail sent off and a general e mail talking about closed captioning all types of videos it isn't an instance where they came in engaged in any type of interaction didn't come to a city commission meeting didn't come to the city manager didn't do anything to engage in a process with the city by which you know there was some problem going on and have the ability to decide how to respond to it they don't want to know all to the mayor that was not responded to and then their attorney who was in eddie sierra speaks for itself you're not the right person responsible please send it to the right person the letter references the americans with disabilities act the letter references that website that website videos were not were not accessible to him no answer and we get to the corny cunningham's council or mr sierra letter again to the mayor no answer no respon against the city as well as the plaintiff the searches been denied access and it lists four separate but one standard video stream archive commission meetings video content on the website social and even in the column as you point out the hospital did a number of things immediately that was not the same as this case where yet two years later they say it's been done to birth which could have been a defense at true trial but not decision to be made a pact injury and damages and remember she really really hauls that emotional distress damages are available for  discrimination that when you combine sheely with the other cases deliberate indifference in this from this court you have an issue of fact that should be before a jury s our docket for this morning and this court will be in recess until nine o'clock tomorrow morning