who was a good twin and i would like to reserve approximately five minutes of my time for the bottle this is a case in which the lower court entered a judgment for six hundred and forty seven million dollars against my client who at that time was thirty six years of age with two children a wife it is an economic death sentence and this was done without a jury trial attorneys fees and other sanctions what this court it i'm sorry are required it wasn't deed for this reason your are was it was required because the issues that the judge had to decide in order to get to the sanction in order all impose the sanctions were the same issues that were there were the heart there grab them out of the liability case that was played in the complain not a normal default judgment because if you look at all the other cases ok we're default was imposed as a sanction there were no issues that the defendant gaijin sanctionable conduct that was a given in this case it thought there was evidence that back into her there was evidence of that fact but that evidence came in by way of a complaint an affidavit was filed in support of a criminal charge against both column and why and that was all the mentally dismissed as to college and the evidence in this case is overwhelming the column had nothing to do with health care or essential there was a brief period of time between approximately two thousand and ten and the for you get off on that tangent the specific question is what did your client do if anything april th two thousand and seventeen now the allegation is that he threw that he threw records documents and other items that he took out of self storage and he threw them in a dumpster ok somebody must have been there to see him do that or we would know about that that's correct so who so are you saying that he denies that he threw anything oh no and i'm sure your honor i'm not saying he did not he doesn't deny that he took that he took part not behavior he didn't know what was in the boxes and you need to know how this came about on that morning the prior evening collin had been in pennsylvania pitching a client for him but he worked for abbott laboratories at that time seventy hours a week or more he was pitching a client he left pennsylvania early in the morning and on his way back he gets a call from his wife saying the baby's sick he's running one hundred and three point something fever i got to take the baby to the doctor that's followed up by a call that he gets from a subsequent call d that he gets at the f b i had been to his house asking questions about his involvement with a health care essential and that his mother's house and his his brother's house are being searched these are meltdown panic mode as this is happening he by chance he gets into burke's vonnie by chance caesar's brother on the road going in the other direction the brother signals to him pull over he pulls over there's no telephone contact between them because the brother cell phone had been taken by the f b i when they were out at the house during the course of the search the brother jumps in the car has a purple quarters with him and says take me to the storage locker what on april th has has existed throughout this case in looking at the briefs you didn't respond to that particular allegation of a misdeed because now you're responding because we asked you the question but you respond ok there was alternately there from which he was alternately dismissed and when you look at the other evidence in this case the totality of the evidence in his case shows that he had nothing to do with health care essential oils had no not had no knowledge of the that would be a big problem and what i want why haven't you ever addressed it because he was under he had been under complaint for that in that because unlike the f b i and the government was done with him ok they were still looking at him and he was under scrutiny for another year call call in on cross examination the answer was basically no so colleen was never called ok there was never any cross examination on her thing and there was no end because the only evidence  record was inconclusive and it was not evidence for equality documents routine meeting role fifty six summary judgment standards you squat at that point the burden of proof is on them to prove that he has involved maintenance and when all they your point that the question of whether they thought that they could prove beyond a reasonable doubt that he committed a crime this is coming up in a sanctions thing and i understand you don't want to admit what he did when the criminal proceeding is if there is a criminal proceeding or investigation still pending but didn't this guy eventually plead guilty to some and go to jail he pled guilty to a one hundred and one offense lying to the f b i a year later and is in jail right now no your honor when you look at all the evidence in this case he had nothing to do with with h h health care essential oils even during the period when he served as a titular head of the of the company for tax purposes on some wacky new theory that he could write off aid see guys losses on his personal tax returns and get repaid for the loan money loaned he didn't have anything to do with h c r at that point  e the tax the the accountant the c p a who prepared his returns put him down on the tax returns for those three years as the sole owner of a c this case involved actions by health care essential if during the period that he was shown to be the sole owner on the tax returns or does the complete does there complain about what  after two thousand and fourteen he had been out of c i for at least a year if not longer by that time and even when he was with did that complaint address conduct get involved with and in august of two thousand and sixteen he's involved with a supplemental spreadsheet correct he just does that out of the goodness of his heart for his twin brother no because the two the twin brother prepared the spreadsheet he didn't have anything to do or that even they have access to the records just asked you if it was true that your client was involved in preparing a spreadsheet in august of two thousand and sixteen and you said yes but i'm sorry your honor my hearing isn't two thousand and twenty i were hearing aids in both ears and i misunderstood the question his only involvement was after after ryan prepared spreadsheet and presented in court and was jailed for contempt the judge judge pearson task column gave him the task of taking out spreadsheet in going out to the health care facilities and finding the units that one question and getting serial numbers off of them he had nothing to do with appropriation of that and what the record shows he asked him with that one he pleading and i'm not clear on the date on that but there was there was like after the case of been prepared for it had been pending for about a year i see that my time is up you can save your five please the court time krist for usa the court's findings both factual and application of the law the court below review for abuse of discretion the court found that there was indisputable record in the evidence or evidence in the record to sanction content of our but i interrupt you there for just a nd because i just telegraphed you what i'm what i'm concerned about the judge seemed to lump ryan and collin to gather here and seemingly unless i just missed it treated them the same for purposes of why she granted summary judgment or why she granted to all judgment and then why she awarded six hundred million dollars if she had separately articulated what collin did or failed to do and how that relates to what should be an appropriate amount of a default against him then i don't think we'd probably be having this discussion but where do you point to where she specifies what he did separately sure and i think i think the judge did three things she referred globally to defendants she referred to the tender bars and she referred to colorado so the court specifically found that collin formed the company health care centrals inc which was the sole defendant for a year that he is on the only tax return the defendants produced in the entire  it correct that whatever his role was during that period that all predates appling claim that what you are complaining about absolutely not we introduced evidence with count ten of ours name on it to the court dated tw eighteen through two thousand and seventeen in this case not ryan calo repeatedly was the sole shareholder admittedly that doesn't still answer the question of whether what you are suing over and seeking damages included conduct that went back before two thousand and twelve when at least a stance of lee is no longer shown on the tax returns as a social this centrals rd time now i've asked whether you're saying their conduct for which you're seeking damages went back well before two thousand and twelve pretty simple question yes it does abscess in the complaint it is in the complaint perfect all i wanted to know  property of casey i's repeatedly responded to discovery requests on behalf of the company and behalf on his own behalf once he was a party in his individual capacity and each time indicated he had produced all related documentation on all related evidence all related property was specific we ordered by the court on a separate occasion both to ten of our brothers to relinquish any evidence any materials any information they had attest that again in cope in court and in writing in an affidavit that he had done so interrupt you before we get beyond that it does this is this addressing the question of whether there were k c i related records and property at a house in part is it is it true that cowan and ryan lived in that same house yes so the you're sort of drawing the inference which may or may not be true that these were colonies records he knew they were there he was in control of them and he then willfully failed to comply with the order is there any evidence in the record that addresses that one way or the other yes it in the documentation submitted to the court from the criminal case there's indications that content of our had took the took the law enforcement to his home to show them where he had stored k c i property and documents related to the case in addition to that he is he is currently incarcerated for having discarded it minutely discarded k c i property and evidence in this case that he'd been ordered to produce and it attests to repeatedly who saw a ryan or colony a number of gentlemen in blue windbreakers who arrested them in the process of cutting a lock or under observation cutting a lock in a storage facility full of k c i property the location and the fact there was a storage space was denied in discovery and both had attested repeatedly at the requirement of the district court that they had no knowledge of any other k c i property anywhere post injunction so these guys in the windbreakers who  i saw them removing the things from the storage facility and throwing in in the dumpster then am i correct that that was recovered from the dumpster there were there were two trips whatever whatever the defendants had with asking this question because i'm encouraging this activity have he said i'm not but i am trying to get a sense as to what obstacle did these actions as reproach or bill as they were what impact did they have on your ability to have this case gone to trial prove your case i'm glad you asked every one of these facts they're the size of a small radio and they are portable and every one has a serial number either on it or you push a button and it pops up or in it when you pop it open to look at the serial number or both we had spent k c i quite literally spent years trying to get from the defendants the serial numbers of the devices even the devices that they admitted they possessed so when they discarded boxes specifically colonies well discarded boxes of documentation and devices with them went the serial numbers with any serial number case i can tell you when it built the back for itself itself manufacturers and every place that back was every person who treated every time it was cleaned while in its possession if you like a vin number on a car this the equivalent of content a barn is one of the arguments we made to the court using a screwdriver in chipping off the vin numbers of cars while we were looking for in the prior case in particular that you just argued there is this mirroring of the hard drive that eventually became available in this case now that's sort of treated as the smoking gun this is why all of these people were lying  along was there a nuff evidence on that disk to fill in all of these gaps created by destroying records and destroying devices unfortunately no and as we as we mentioned in the briefs there were additional discovery orders where the court required counter bar ryan tended bar in the businesses to pick up their computers handheld devices telephones or go fix mobile phones and deliver them to the court and per the court's findings did relinquish a device and refused to ever give us the password so we can pull the data off of it and all of the other devices are consultant confirmed testified that the defendant while under order to relinquish the devices specifically includes cowen and ryan ten of our used additional bleach but programs and wiped the data from the devices so we had a few one hundred pages of discovery from office computers all of which ultimately once we possessed them had incriminating evidence on them and evidence that made it clear to the court that it was withheld for a reason to avoid judgement but it was ultimately impossible to piece all of it together except every single serial number given to us by the defendants including content of our was confirmed to have been stolen from k c i every last one of them we were able to convince a judge pearson that they damage to the tune of some two hundred million dollars which then ends up being trouble are you saying that you might have been able to prove that number should have been even higher had you had these records or devices that were destroyed yes are you satisfied that the two hundred million dollars here i don't expect to collect the two hundred million dollars but don't for a moment think that it was the totality if we have multiple years during the litigation in which the defendants including compound tended bar grew the business  so while we were seeking a temporary restraining plenary injunction it delayed the hearing for twenty seven months on a motion for a plenary injunction by continually convincing the court that there was insufficient information for them to go forward the court continued to order them to produce including colony wouldn't pound went as far as to produce knowingly fake information to the court that the court ultimately determined he knew it was fake at the time it was a spreadsheet of locations of  so the court incarcerated his brother briefly for contempt made a determination that the information that we had been provided casey had been provided that would let us go out and look at these women backs and pull the serial numbers off of them but i think the interesting part about that at least to me is that you have a pretty persuasive sounding answer as to what collin did and how that prejudiced view and how it relates to the damages but i don't find any of that in the order because less at least as i read it the judge simply lumps ryan and collins indeed gether so is is that something that we should be worried evidence the defendants attested to certain things that turned out to be false hits both of them but the court also specifically found that palin tended bars at test patients to the court where the court actually made every lawyer in every party an affidavit indicating they had made full productions was knowingly false when made and in addition that the arguments that we heard here today collin tended bar in advance of the hearing a case terminating sanctions so the it was focused solely upon the defendants preemptively filed a motion in limine seeking to exclude the ability of k c i to cross examine him about all of these factual underpinnings so ultimately  counsel's correct at the hearing the court asked me if i intended to call him to make him burn a th amendment privilege and i said i'll put on my case if i don't think i need him i won't call him in his own case never took his fee and didn't argue offered no testimony the court required the parties or gave the parties the opportunity to file findings of fact and conclusions of law and count on a bar made no filing the court specifically found the  no defense with respect to the amount of the judgment the amount of the the sanction for attorney's fees never raised any of those issues below despite being represented at each of the hearings including hearings at which the parties called witnesses including an expert in cross examine them so here the court found there was overwhelming evidence of individual misconduct from content of our justified default once the court entered the default the allegations in the complaint by rule are tak true kollin challenged that stating that the court still had to determine whether the allegations were sufficient against content of our and that's correct and the court did that exercise and specifically cites allegations of vail found that there were rich at factual allegations on the other causes of action that case you are sort of against content of our pierce the veil as a result of determining that the factual contentions were appropriate after default but also indicated that the factual contentions were overwhelming and satisfy the court in any event that the parties had acted entirely interchangeably disregarded the corporate form and had operated the business for legal purposes all the which support veil piercing as well and then the court addressed the issue of the right to a trial and said once i enter default in the term that the allegations are appropriate in pierce the veil at that point you no longer have a right to have a trial if zero evidence came into the hearing that was adverse to our position and the evidence that we submitted regarding the parties acting interchangeably the court also found that apart from that as long as we had properly pleaded individual liability and in veil piercing once you properly entered the default that those those those issues were resolved and there's a lot directly in the circuit and one thing that bothers me about that so if i'm wrong please correct me is that in the context of a default judgment it isn't enough to say that they didn't respond there's still before entering then the the judgment itself the judge still has an independent obligation to make sure that the party can prove up on what they're claiming i think that's the law and if that  law now if she doesn't explain how she differentiates between ryan and holland or say that they are exactly similarly situated and she doesn't explain why it's six hundred million for each of for very specific misconduct multiple misrepresentations to the court that the court quotes in details and the fact that he ultimately possessed evidence that wasn't turned over in the case a year after the court ended up plumeri injunction that also ordered the relinquishment of everything and at that time to defendants did turn over more things they had been secreting in attested it was everything so our position is the court did separate them enough where they could be separated and in places where their conduct was truly hand in hand did not and we're dealing with identical twin brothers and introduced evidence that they try and on each other's passports they shared it they shared a single health care and there's no telling these two apart and there's evidence that they both signed pieces of paper repeatedly for the court that violated the rules i think that's more than enough especially in an abuse of discretion standard in which case great deference is given to the court heard all of these issues at multiple evidentiary hearings with can virtually each one of those points and correct i'm going to try to address them as quickly as i can when you know when you or your honor ask him what evidence was that that link collen to to the corporation healthcare essential he said the only tax return day perused showed that he was still with the one hundred percent sure older in two thousand and fourteen when the accountant who prepared that tax return was deposed he said he didn't know where that information came from this was an accountant who would comment i've never seign in never seeing the tax return until it was shown during and deposition there's no evidence that it was ever signed or was ever filed in the accounting testified that the information that he that he simply parlayed off for prior tax returns that had been file on behalf of health care or sigils and got that information from rose eg our who was r assistant with with respect to do co mo never physically possess k c i property ok the example that mr kris gave was yes he had the box of documents at his house in your honor by that time by the time we're talking about collin did not live with his brother he had gotten married and had a couple of kids was living separately there is no evidence that he ever looked at that box or knew what was in it and this was his twin brother his twin brother had access to his house went in and put a box in there ok when it in this came out in collins f b i interview he did it did it right ever put anything in your yes and he took him there in the thing was gone obviously ryan had taken it out there is no evidence the column was ever in that box nor of its contents knew that it had anything to do with this case he recites they both wired in affidavits that they had produced all records the judge ordered them to provide written sworn confirmation and  they had provided all records collin didn't know whether they had provided all records or not he was relying upon upon ryann and the attorneys who were representing ryan at that time who were not the cabbage lawyers and he was caught he was simply summoned to a meeting of at that lawyers house was told you've got to sign his documents in order to comply with the discovery order signed it was out in five minutes and there is no way he had no way of knowing whether those were all the records or not you somehow think this is ok no i don't think it's ok i but i'm telling you this shows that his culpability is far less than ryan's and this guy never knew he never knew what records c i produced or what records casey i picked up possessed and when you look at rose eggers testimony half the stuff that they were looking for never existed from the beginning because ryan didn't keep any records she was unable to do the book for the corporation because he wouldn't give her anything the the journal of data the phone i'm sure let's talk about the phones the one thing that they say the collin did is one common was ordered to surrender his own and failed to do it he did surrender that he turned to the little guy was supposed to get to the courthouse by five o'clock on friday the guy didn't get it there instead of bringing collins phone back to collen he wanted together with all the electronic devices that ryan was producing and gave it to write it one in the in the electronic devices were delivered to the court the following monday in other words over the weekend it collin refused to give the pas did not he did not that was never requested of him until three months later ok by which later did he refuse he he went to their experts offices and work with them to try to get the password and get the thing activated and it simply didn't work now based on my personal experience the f b i has no problem getting the cellphones where they give the password or not and i would expect an expert to be able to do that to ask for what it was he did forget what it was  in these young guys i'm sixty three years old i barely can operate an android phone but these young guys change passwords you know every two weeks or so they're required to do it especially collin since he was in the health care field himself had protected health information on his phone and needed by abas rules and regulations you change the  the called in the expert and had the thing erased cohen had nothing to do with it there is simply no evidence i see that my time is up can i say two sentences and some are ok there is