[00:00:05] Speaker 00:
and University.

[00:00:07] Speaker 00:
Mr. Tappa for the appellate, Mr. McConnell for the appellate.

[00:00:11] Speaker 01:
Good morning, Your Honors.

[00:00:22] Speaker 01:
Dr. Waggle asks you to uphold important principles today.

[00:00:25] Speaker 01:
First, that our laws place responsibility on employers to work proactively with employees who suffer a serious medical condition to offer reasonable accommodation.

[00:00:37] Speaker 01:
Second, Dr. Waggle requests that you confirm that it is improper for district courts to lay evidence, make credibility determinations, and render inferences against the non-movement on summary judgment.

[00:00:52] Speaker 01:
Finally, Dr. Wagle asked that you reverse summary judgment because the district court failed to address the expert report of Dr. Spitz, a well-credentialed residency training director from the University of Chicago relevant to reasonable accommodation as well as disability discrimination issues.

[00:01:08] Speaker 04:
Counsel, I know you have the argument about expert testimony you wanted to introduce, but what is it that you think under the statute or

[00:01:22] Speaker 04:
if you're going beyond the statute, triggers the interactive obligation?

[00:01:28] Speaker 01:
Well, I think here the interactive obligation is triggered by a number of factors.

[00:01:34] Speaker 01:
It's not simply a situation where you have to go to the EEO office to trigger it, in our view.

[00:01:40] Speaker 01:
In our view, there was more here than that, quite a bit more here than that.

[00:01:45] Speaker 04:
I understand your argument.

[00:01:48] Speaker 04:
What authority are you relying on?

[00:01:51] Speaker 01:
Well, I think just in general, the idea that there's a whole line of cases which state that you don't need any magic words in order to trigger this process.

[00:02:01] Speaker 01:
So Dr. Waggle went to the employee EEO office on campus and asked if what you needed to do to protect her ability to take medical leave.

[00:02:13] Speaker 01:
That apparently did not trigger anything on their part, but there was more than that.

[00:02:17] Speaker 04:
Well, I thought you completed or acknowledged that

[00:02:21] Speaker 04:
That office told her to exercise her rights under the family medical leave.

[00:02:29] Speaker 01:
That's correct, Your Honor.

[00:02:31] Speaker 01:
You know, they did not do more than that, though.

[00:02:33] Speaker 04:
Well, why wasn't that sufficient?

[00:02:36] Speaker 01:
Well, in this case, unfortunately, it was not sufficient, because even though she took FMLA leave, it was not sufficient in the sense that, first of all,

[00:02:48] Speaker 01:
She had to work during the leave on some occasions, that's certainly in the record.

[00:02:52] Speaker 04:
Secondly... She had to what?

[00:02:54] Speaker 01:
I'm sorry?

[00:02:55] Speaker 04:
You said something and I couldn't hear it.

[00:02:57] Speaker 01:
Yeah, she had to work during the leave.

[00:02:59] Speaker 01:
So she worked during her FML leave.

[00:03:04] Speaker 01:
She felt she had to do it because when she asked for accommodations in the sense of meeting with her doctors,

[00:03:12] Speaker 01:
She wasn't allowed to go on a lot of occasions.

[00:03:15] Speaker 01:
That's in the record as well.

[00:03:17] Speaker 01:
So that's why she decided she needed FML leave.

[00:03:20] Speaker 01:
In fact, she asked her doctor to fill out the forms for it.

[00:03:24] Speaker 01:
So there's a lot in the record.

[00:03:26] Speaker 01:
So it's not just going to the EO office, getting the FML leave.

[00:03:30] Speaker 01:
But in addition, there's the issue that she asked her supervisors for

[00:03:36] Speaker 01:
for the ability to not only take time off for a surgery, also time off for leg duty after a return from surgery, but also set time in advance for medical appointments.

[00:03:49] Speaker 01:
So our supervisors realized this.

[00:03:51] Speaker 01:
No magic words again.

[00:03:52] Speaker 01:
On top of that,

[00:03:55] Speaker 01:
She had difficulties coming back from her light duty.

[00:04:01] Speaker 01:
And as our expert noted, that should have also put the GW.

[00:04:07] Speaker 04:
I understand your argument, but I want to understand from the programmatic point of view of the school.

[00:04:22] Speaker 04:
She's in a program that

[00:04:26] Speaker 04:
So far as I know, it's very intense in terms of demand on time, energy, your brain.

[00:04:35] Speaker 01:
Correct.

[00:04:35] Speaker 04:
Your sense of common sense.

[00:04:37] Speaker 04:
So your client is obviously concerned about your cancer.

[00:04:47] Speaker 04:
So EEO says take family and medical leave.

[00:04:52] Speaker 04:
That doesn't work, you say.

[00:04:53] Speaker 01:
It didn't, yes.

[00:04:56] Speaker 04:
Then what obligation did your client have?

[00:04:59] Speaker 04:
Any?

[00:05:00] Speaker 01:
Well, I think she did what she could do because she tried to work with the program to make it work in terms of having her be able to do her medical appointments and still do her job.

[00:05:14] Speaker 04:
So was it the obligation of her supervisor?

[00:05:17] Speaker 04:
Do you step in at that point?

[00:05:20] Speaker 01:
Yes, I think that's if you look at Dr. Spitz's expert report.

[00:05:23] Speaker 01:
I mean, that's what she says.

[00:05:24] Speaker 01:
So basically, Dr. Spitz was the training director at University of Chicago, and she actually trains other residency directors.

[00:05:33] Speaker 04:
No, I understand.

[00:05:34] Speaker 04:
I understand.

[00:05:35] Speaker 04:
I just don't want to get to that evidentiary point for the moment.

[00:05:39] Speaker 04:
I just want to understand, looking at the statute, the regulations, what case law there is,

[00:05:49] Speaker 04:
How does this record show that GW failed to meet its obligation to engage in this interactive process?

[00:06:00] Speaker 04:
According to the record viewed most favorably to you, at least in the initial stage, there was a response by the program.

[00:06:14] Speaker 04:
in terms of the family and medical leave.

[00:06:17] Speaker 04:
Now, when that didn't work, what's the next step?

[00:06:22] Speaker 04:
I mean, who's responsible at that point?

[00:06:24] Speaker 01:
Well, I think at that point, in our view, it was the university's responsibility to reach out to her in an interactive process and determine if she needed more.

[00:06:35] Speaker 01:
So the key issue, and we agree with the expert on this, is that she had this right when she came back from

[00:06:42] Speaker 01:
her light duty.

[00:06:45] Speaker 01:
She had her surgery, she had two weeks light duty, which the record suggests is not, wasn't all that light because she worked some extra, basically day to night shifts during that period.

[00:06:57] Speaker 01:
GW will say it was sort of unintentional, the one issue where it came up.

[00:07:02] Speaker 01:
But then she had a very disastrous night shift on August 25th where she

[00:07:08] Speaker 01:
just sort of broke down.

[00:07:09] Speaker 01:
She just couldn't cope with the demands at the time, which were that basically a homeless shelter had closed, and they were inundated with different people with mental problems.

[00:07:23] Speaker 01:
She just couldn't handle it.

[00:07:25] Speaker 04:
So at what point did this idea of transfer enter into the picture?

[00:07:32] Speaker 01:
That came in later when one of the doctors who was an ombudsman

[00:07:37] Speaker 01:
at the school suggested to her that it looks like she's not going to make it there.

[00:07:44] Speaker 01:
It may be a good idea for her to try to transfer.

[00:07:46] Speaker 01:
So she tried to work that out with Dean Berger, who is sort of the administrative dean.

[00:07:50] Speaker 04:
So did she go to the Bozeman?

[00:07:54] Speaker 01:
She did, yes.

[00:07:58] Speaker 01:
And Dean Berger was working with her, but the record also suggests that his efforts to have her transfer were shot down for two reasons.

[00:08:06] Speaker 01:
First of all, Dr. Catapano and Dr. Griffith, who ran the program, would not

[00:08:14] Speaker 01:
basically give her the credit she needed in order to go to another program, and they wouldn't really interact with the other programs.

[00:08:28] Speaker 01:
I believe that's what they said in their testimony, but that's sort of contradicted by Dr. Berger, who obviously thought otherwise.

[00:08:42] Speaker 01:
I see.

[00:08:42] Speaker 01:
I wanted to reserve two minutes for my rebuttal.

[00:08:45] Speaker 01:
If the court has any other questions.

[00:08:47] Speaker 02:
When you said there's a long line of cases about no magic words, what are those cases?

[00:08:54] Speaker 01:
They're cited in our brief, but it's...

[00:09:01] Speaker 01:
I think the Ward case talks about it.

[00:09:02] Speaker 01:
I believe the Ward case, there's certainly District Court cases that talk about it.

[00:09:07] Speaker 01:
I'll get you the page in our brief.

[00:09:09] Speaker 02:
Is there any Court of Appeals case other than Chenery?

[00:09:17] Speaker 02:
There may be, but I'm not aware of it.

[00:09:20] Speaker 02:
When you say there may be, what does that mean?

[00:09:23] Speaker 01:
Well, I know this is an issue that is always sort of discussed in the EEO world.

[00:09:30] Speaker 02:
You researched this question.

[00:09:32] Speaker 01:
We generally, I mean, it was not, we never thought this was necessarily a focus of this case, but it is one of the... So you don't think this is an important issue on appeal?

[00:09:41] Speaker 01:
No, well, I think it's part of it, part of the issue.

[00:09:43] Speaker 02:
And did you find any case on this issue?

[00:09:45] Speaker 01:
Other than the ones we cited now.

[00:09:47] Speaker 02:
Thank you.

[00:09:51] Speaker 02:
We'll hear from the other side, which will reserve the time.

[00:10:00] Speaker 03:
May it please the Court, if I may.

[00:10:02] Speaker 03:
I would like to begin with reference to some matters that rose on appeal for the first time in the reply brief, to which we therefore have not had an opportunity to respond.

[00:10:11] Speaker 03:
If I may just briefly, at pages eight and nine of the reply brief, plaintiff asserts that

[00:10:20] Speaker 03:
GW, without Dr. Waggles' consent, communicated with two of her attending physicians, Dr. Jarrett, her surgeon, and Dr. Siegel, her oncologist, and that that violated her medical privacy rights.

[00:10:37] Speaker 03:
ECF docket entry number 15 in the court below.

[00:10:41] Speaker 02:
Your argument is this was only raised in the reply brief for the first time?

[00:10:44] Speaker 02:
Yes.

[00:10:45] Speaker 02:
And you don't need to discuss it because it was forfeited.

[00:10:47] Speaker 02:
What else?

[00:10:47] Speaker 02:
Very well.

[00:10:49] Speaker 04:
Unless there are exceptional circumstances that would explain why it was not raised until the reply brief.

[00:10:56] Speaker 03:
I don't know why it would not have been raised, Your Honor.

[00:11:00] Speaker 03:
It's a matter of concern from a professional point of view that sits there in the record.

[00:11:05] Speaker 04:
I wonder if you would address the question I was asking counsel about.

[00:11:10] Speaker 04:
At what point does GWF have a responsibility to engage in an interactive process?

[00:11:20] Speaker 03:
Your Honor, I believe that occurs at the point where a person, particularly in the position of this trainee,

[00:11:29] Speaker 03:
is advised to go to an office that has been designated by the university with thousands of employees.

[00:11:34] Speaker 03:
This is where you go to get this kind of help and assistance.

[00:11:39] Speaker 03:
The first moment that the program director became aware that Dr. Wagle was having health-related difficulties in her training program in May of 2015,

[00:11:49] Speaker 03:
led Dr. Katapano, the program director, immediately to suggest that she consider taking medical leave to address those problems right away.

[00:11:59] Speaker 04:
Under the university's regulatory scheme, that was the avenue for relief.

[00:12:10] Speaker 04:
And when, this is a question, when that relief proved insufficient,

[00:12:17] Speaker 04:
then under the regulatory scheme, she should have returned to the EEO office?

[00:12:26] Speaker 03:
If I may, Your Honor, different point.

[00:12:28] Speaker 03:
Dr. Waggle, at the time, was not eligible for FMLA leave because she didn't have sufficient time and service.

[00:12:36] Speaker 03:
She was sent to the benefits department to look at what they could do for her, what could be done here for Dr. Waggle.

[00:12:43] Speaker 03:
And Ms.

[00:12:44] Speaker 04:
Van Lewitt.

[00:12:44] Speaker 04:
Who sent her there?

[00:12:45] Speaker 03:
Excuse me?

[00:12:46] Speaker 04:
You say she wasn't eligible.

[00:12:48] Speaker 03:
She was not yet time eligible for FMLA leave.

[00:12:51] Speaker 04:
So that suggestion of the EEO office was meaningless?

[00:12:55] Speaker 03:
No, no.

[00:12:56] Speaker 03:
Quite the opposite, Your Honor, if I may.

[00:12:58] Speaker 03:
Because she was not eligible under this standard benefits program yet for FMLA leave, she received an email from Ms.

[00:13:06] Speaker 03:
Anne Lewin in the benefits office saying, you can't get these benefits yet under FMLA leave, but you get the same benefits

[00:13:15] Speaker 03:
you can get the same benefits under the Americans with Disabilities Act, the ADA Act, and in an email to her said, you can get these benefits.

[00:13:24] Speaker 03:
They are available through the OEEO, the GW Office of Equal Employment Opportunity.

[00:13:30] Speaker 03:
Please go there.

[00:13:31] Speaker 03:
She said, in fact, it is recommended

[00:13:33] Speaker 03:
that you do this.

[00:13:34] Speaker 03:
She gave the email address, the physical address, and the telephone contact number in the email.

[00:13:40] Speaker 03:
Please do this, Dr. Wagle, because this is where we will be able to help you.

[00:13:44] Speaker 03:
Dr. Wagle never went there, and certainly not at that time.

[00:13:48] Speaker 03:
She didn't go to the office.

[00:13:50] Speaker 03:
Instead, she took this ordinary leave.

[00:13:53] Speaker 03:
She didn't seek to invoke either of these statutes.

[00:13:55] Speaker 03:
The first time she applied for FMLA leave wasn't until well after her surgery.

[00:14:00] Speaker 03:
Her surgery was in July.

[00:14:02] Speaker 03:
She came back to work in August.

[00:14:03] Speaker 03:
The first time she applied.

[00:14:05] Speaker 04:
So she was eligible then?

[00:14:06] Speaker 03:
Yes, because she at that point had one year of service.

[00:14:09] Speaker 03:
You become eligible for FMLA leave once you've been in active service one year.

[00:14:15] Speaker 03:
Her training program had begun the year before on July 1.

[00:14:18] Speaker 03:
So she became FMLA eligible on July 1

[00:14:22] Speaker 03:
of 2000 it would have been 15.

[00:14:27] Speaker 04:
So the university's position is it has set up a regime that offers an avenue for accommodation.

[00:14:39] Speaker 03:
Yes, Your Honor.

[00:14:39] Speaker 04:
And failing to do that

[00:14:42] Speaker 04:
The university has no obligation.

[00:14:45] Speaker 03:
Well, you know, the point is when an employee, the trainees are in the status of an employee, is asked to go directly to this office, these are the people who know how to do this and can apply this uniformly across this university so everybody gets treated fairly.

[00:15:04] Speaker 03:
The position Dr. Waggle takes here is that somehow people across the university, faculty members, program administrators, should all be equally responsible for seeing that she gets appropriate accommodation under the ADA.

[00:15:20] Speaker 03:
Well, it is a particular statute with particular procedures, particular needs and demands and requirements.

[00:15:26] Speaker 03:
The university has set up an office so that everybody who has that kind of a need can go there and be properly

[00:15:33] Speaker 03:
handled and receive appropriate benefits.

[00:15:37] Speaker 00:
What about the principle in our Chinari case relating to the fact that employees must use the formal processes unless it's so apparent?

[00:15:46] Speaker 00:
that an accommodation needs to be sought.

[00:15:48] Speaker 00:
I mean, here she had interaction with a number of different people at the university.

[00:15:52] Speaker 00:
Why wasn't it not so apparent that an accommodation was necessary?

[00:15:56] Speaker 00:
Well, it wasn't so apparent.

[00:15:57] Speaker 03:
It's very interesting, because in the record, at all times when it was recommended to Dr. Waggle by the program director and others that she take leave, Your Honor.

[00:16:06] Speaker 03:
Her pushback was, no, I don't need that.

[00:16:09] Speaker 03:
I'm doing just fine.

[00:16:10] Speaker 03:
I am fine.

[00:16:12] Speaker 03:
That was always her response.

[00:16:14] Speaker 03:
The program was saying to her, you may need to be taking care of yourself.

[00:16:19] Speaker 03:
Please go here and do this.

[00:16:21] Speaker 03:
And she would push back, no.

[00:16:23] Speaker 03:
Everything is fine.

[00:16:24] Speaker 03:
I don't need that.

[00:16:25] Speaker 03:
The university does set that system up for the very reason that if someone needs that kind of help, there it is.

[00:16:32] Speaker 03:
Please go and take advantage of it.

[00:16:34] Speaker 03:
Dr. Waggle didn't do that.

[00:16:35] Speaker 03:
She didn't apply for FMLA leave until October, which, as soon as she applied, was immediately granted.

[00:16:42] Speaker 03:
She applied for FMLA leave on two occasions, and she admits on each of those two occasions, it was immediately granted.

[00:16:48] Speaker 03:
The first time in October, when there was a dispute over whether she would get more than standard time off to take a national USMLE medical licensing exam,

[00:16:59] Speaker 03:
And the second time was much, much later in February after a decision had already been made for her dismissal.

[00:17:05] Speaker 03:
She applied again for FMLA leave, this time for the first time for intermittent leave, which she invokes throughout her brief as necessary to schedule appointments in advance.

[00:17:17] Speaker 03:
As soon as she applied for the intermittent FMLA leave in February, it was immediately granted.

[00:17:24] Speaker 03:
So on every occasion where she engaged the appropriate system, she got the relief requested.

[00:17:29] Speaker 03:
She never went to the OEEO and in any meaningful way had a discussion, if she had a discussion at all, never had a discussion that could fairly be read as having in any way suggested to the OEEO that she was

[00:17:46] Speaker 03:
there for the purpose of seeking ADA benefits.

[00:17:50] Speaker 04:
So following up on Judge Rao's question, if I may, let's assume that she had this pushback.

[00:18:00] Speaker 04:
And from my understanding of the record, and I'm sure yours is more complete than mine, she didn't want to lose time and therefore have to repeat certain courses.

[00:18:16] Speaker 04:
So let's assume that that is the situation.

[00:18:20] Speaker 04:
If she says, I'm fine, I'm fine.

[00:18:22] Speaker 04:
But it's perfectly obvious to everyone that she is not fine because she's just not performing as a resident would be expected to perform in this program.

[00:18:39] Speaker 04:
And there seems to be, and the university is aware, she does have

[00:18:46] Speaker 04:
this very serious cancer problem.

[00:18:52] Speaker 04:
So at that point, I mean, suppose the employee is just falling down on the job.

[00:18:57] Speaker 04:
There's no obligation on the university just to step in and say, we're forcing you, as it were, to take administrative leave?

[00:19:09] Speaker 03:
No.

[00:19:10] Speaker 03:
Two different points, Your Honor.

[00:19:12] Speaker 03:
It wasn't clear to everybody that, in fact, Dr. Weigel's problems, a matter of fact, it did not appear that any of Dr. Weigel's problems that were causing her difficulty in the program were health related.

[00:19:24] Speaker 04:
Okay, but all of that occurred before she knew about the cancer.

[00:19:28] Speaker 03:
No, no.

[00:19:28] Speaker 03:
That continued even after.

[00:19:30] Speaker 03:
She had her cancer diagnosis in June.

[00:19:33] Speaker 03:
She had an in and out two-day surgical procedure in July.

[00:19:38] Speaker 03:
She had a two-week recovery period.

[00:19:41] Speaker 03:
That surgery was deemed curative.

[00:19:43] Speaker 03:
I mean, she was among the very lucky young people with a cancer diagnosis.

[00:19:46] Speaker 03:
It was deemed to be curative.

[00:19:48] Speaker 03:
The follow-up was a one-to-year meeting with a physician for imaging studies to evaluate them to see that the cancer, in fact, had been cured.

[00:19:57] Speaker 03:
And that's what she told, at least at the initial stages, that's what she told the faculty members that she engaged with.

[00:20:04] Speaker 03:
My time's up.

[00:20:06] Speaker 03:
So her problems that she was having in the program were not disease related or apparently disease related.

[00:20:12] Speaker 03:
She flunked two basic courses and refused to acknowledge that she would need to repeat them.

[00:20:18] Speaker 03:
One of them is psychoanalytical course that she had to pass in order to keep moving forward in the program.

[00:20:23] Speaker 03:
She was dishonest at various times of faculty members.

[00:20:25] Speaker 03:
That is not a health related issue.

[00:20:27] Speaker 03:
I mean, there were multiple instances where she simply did not deal honestly with professional colleagues.

[00:20:34] Speaker 03:
There were instances where she simply no-showed for important clinical duties without any excuse.

[00:20:40] Speaker 03:
And when excuses were offered, they were clearly invalid excuses.

[00:20:43] Speaker 03:
I mean, there were multiple, multiple problems in her tenure in the program, totally unrelated to any apparent health-related issue, Your Honor.

[00:20:54] Speaker 03:
And that's what became the focus of the decision, ultimately, by the clinical competency committee that she needed to be dismissed from the program.

[00:21:05] Speaker 03:
The record appears to show that the district court very, very carefully parsed the complicated version.

[00:21:11] Speaker 02:
I'll just hold and see if anybody else have further questions.

[00:21:14] Speaker 02:
Judge Rogers.

[00:21:15] Speaker 02:
Thank you.

[00:21:16] Speaker 02:
Thank you very much.

[00:21:17] Speaker 02:
Is there time left?

[00:21:18] Speaker 04:
26 seconds remaining.

[00:21:20] Speaker 02:
Okay, we'll give you two minutes.

[00:21:21] Speaker 02:
Okay, thank you.

[00:21:23] Speaker 02:
It's hard to say anything in 26 seconds.

[00:21:26] Speaker 01:
Thank you.

[00:21:27] Speaker 01:
Your Honor, first of all, Judge Garland, you asked about the No Magic Words case.

[00:21:32] Speaker 01:
The case we cited was at page 22 of our brief.

[00:21:36] Speaker 01:
It's Floyd v. Lee.

[00:21:37] Speaker 01:
It's a district court case, but it quotes a circuit court case from the Third Circuit.

[00:21:42] Speaker 02:
I'm trying to find any case close to this.

[00:21:45] Speaker 02:
The only example that we gave in our own opinion is one where there was a disabled person in a prison.

[00:21:52] Speaker 02:
Obviously, in need of assistance, who wasn't getting it?

[00:21:57] Speaker 01:
Was it the closest case?

[00:21:58] Speaker 01:
Yeah, I think when we looked at the cases here, we didn't find anything exactly like this.

[00:22:04] Speaker 01:
So in many ways, this is a, to a certain extent, first impression.

[00:22:09] Speaker 01:
There are certainly cases in other jurisdictions on this.

[00:22:12] Speaker 04:
In terms of... And did you cite those in your brief?

[00:22:15] Speaker 01:
Yes, it's page 22 and 23 of our brief.

[00:22:19] Speaker 01:
In terms of the issues we've been talking today, I mean, you heard Mr. McConnell's view of the case, but this case is full of questions of material fact that we believe were in dispute.

[00:22:31] Speaker 01:
There was a huge record in this case, and one of our concerns that we had was that

[00:22:37] Speaker 01:
Judge Cotelli really picked and choose what she thought was important and left aside many other things.

[00:22:45] Speaker 01:
For example, she focused in on this decision that the Clinical Competency Committee sort of, it's a document that was used to justify

[00:23:00] Speaker 01:
firing Dr. Waggle.

[00:23:02] Speaker 01:
So this is a document, first of all, Dr. Waggle never saw pre-litigation.

[00:23:06] Speaker 01:
It was just produced in the litigation.

[00:23:08] Speaker 01:
Secondly, it was heavily redacted at the end.

[00:23:12] Speaker 01:
Thirdly, according to Dr. Dyer, who was the

[00:23:18] Speaker 01:
was the head of the CCC, when he went through the records of Dr. Waggle, he did not look at the whole person as he should have, but instead picked and choose just negative information about her.

[00:23:31] Speaker 01:
There was a whole host of positive information, including reviews from the doctors who she actually worked with.

[00:23:38] Speaker 01:
Also, this question of academic due process, they admitted that the appeals were really fraudulent because Dr. Berger, who would be the ultimate deciding authority on the appeals, told Dr. Dyer that he would just affirm whatever they did.

[00:23:59] Speaker 01:
No, she did not get academic due process.

[00:24:03] Speaker 01:
Yes, there are many questions of material fact in dispute.

[00:24:06] Speaker 01:
This should be decided by a jury, not by the district court on summary judgment.

[00:24:12] Speaker 01:
And again, I would point to Dr. Spitz's expert report, which goes through Dr. Waggle's training experience in great detail.

[00:24:21] Speaker 01:
And now you're over on the over.

[00:24:24] Speaker 02:
Let me just ask the judges any questions, in which case we'll continue.

[00:24:41] Speaker 02:
Do you have more questions?

[00:24:43] Speaker 02:
No.

[00:24:43] Speaker 02:
Okay, fine.

[00:24:43] Speaker 02:
Thank you.

[00:24:44] Speaker 02:
We'll take the matter under submission.

[00:24:45] Speaker 02:
Thank you very much both sides.