How is this hard logic?

Okay, lawyers are supposed to be smart, logical people, right? So how does this conversation make sense?
Lawyer: I need the documents that the employee shows up on, from the 2 pay periods prior to their termination, and the document from their termination pay period, and the document from the first pay period they do not show up on.
me: Okay, so I'm giving you no more than 4 documents, right?
Lawyer: Why 4?
Me: [Counting on fingers] 2 pay periods previous, One pay period previous, pay period of, and the first that they do not show up on
Lawyer: Oh, yes. Okay. 4.
Me: [having looked at some of the documents] What if they don't show up on the pay period of termination?
Lawyer: What do you mean?
Me: I mean, what do you want if the person in question terminated on, say, Tuesday of the week that the document references, but they do not show up on the document? Do you want another document after that document?
Lawyer: Oh, that can't happen. Every piece of testimony we have from them says that doesn't happen.
Me: I can give you an example, if you like.
Lawyer: Okay.
[Time passes]
Me: Here is an example packet. It contains [Documents that I am sure they want], as well as the document showing the pay period 2 cycles before they termed, The pay period immediately prior to termination, and the document showing the pay period when they termed.
Lawyer: [Sees that the third document is 14 pages long, where the first two are single page] Why is this so long?
Me: Because I can't print the page they are on, because they aren't on there.
Lawyer: [discusses with another lawyer, who confirms that this can not be the case, testimony says so] Well, this must be a rare case. Go ahead and get this info for all of the 50 people you have.
Me: Okay.
[time passes]
Me: I had to pare the 50 people down to 33, because I lacked documents for the other people.
Lawyer: Why are these final packets so big?
Me: [trying hard not to get mad] Because they are the pay period that the employee doesn't show up on. Usually the pay period of termination.
Lawyer: what is "Usually"?
Me: [think for a moment] Not more than 5 of them are from after. So, no less than 28 of the 33.
Lawyer: Okay. give these to [Third lawyer].
Me: Alright.
[To Third Lawyer's Office!]
Me: [First Lawyer] told me to give these to you.
Third: Why is this packet so large?
Me: [explains again about they-aren't-there]
Third: Okay. Why do I need this?
Me: Ask [First].
[I retreat. Time passes. A whole day, in fact.]
Third: I was looking over this packet [refers to packet of "Not in this pay period report"] and this person isn't on here. Why not?
me: [Explain. Again.]
What I didn't say: AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAARRRRRRRRRRRRGGGGGGGGGGGGHHHHHHHHHHHH!!!!!!!!!! How can you not know? Seriously? YOU ASKED FOR THAT! I TOLD YOU! GO BUG SOMEONE ELSE!

< /rant >