against the weight of the evidence was excessive and constitute a miscarriage of justice if you have any explanation as to how the jury or to me sixty six seven hundred dollar figure i do i've worked it out i think your honor if you turn to in the record pay g r four seven three which is where the different elements of the damage claim are listed the jury you see the total there is two point nine million dollars the jury came back with an award of two million sixty six thousand i think and i've got this down to within a couple of thousand dollars your honor that what the jury did was that the claim for seven hundred sixty four thousand dollars for some deal that's fine apparently had with the korean government which had nothing at all to do with the robotic vacuum cleaners right i think the jury knocked that out and i think the jury not doubt the hundred ten thousand eight fifty eighty four claim for losses from customer end user returns because the evidence was that he signed it received two thousand two hundred forty vacuum cleaners they sold them all they got paid for them all they had none left in inventory so that there was absolutely no evidence to support that when you knock those two out you come out with two million sixty four thousand and i think that other couple of thousand dollars had to do with there's a final balance up top there and one of the categories was end user defective returns and i met the parties disagree by a couple of thousand dollars as to what it was so i think that's what they did it's not specified in the verdict but after of spending a lot of time on the meth i think that's how they came out here so this is i have to jam sessions one is that you spend a lot of time your preferred complaining about the fact that there were no documents why does that matter  competent evidence but the great weight of the evidence is against it for example when you come in and you say that we lost eight hundred thirteen thousand dollars in profits based on purchase should be granted one of the questions is whether or not the actual verdict was against the weight of the evidence and was excessive so here and i'm sorry right so i find you know this absence of evidence not very strong argument seems to be a strongest argument is that what is with regard to future profits given the california law that future profits but because insofar as they were just arguing that the pure profit should be calculated based on how much they were supposed to buy and when in fact they had sold very much up until that point i understand that problem but why isn't it over commerce and part at least by the evidence about amazon that in fact in the period after i guess a full of shit you asked for chain they got a very large number of orders i don't know how many  there was no it amazon witnesses testified there was absolutely white that your argument to the jury i mean if you've been admitted that the evidence is competent that then then the evidence is it the jury may choose to believe it may choose not to believe it to come and say you heard you heard him say this and there is no credible evidence in support of it and iran is that if you can to perswade the jury great and if you can't if they believe room what are we supposed to do well in that particular case i still think that the court has to look at the evidence that was actually there and i said i think the lack of purchase orders and the lack of a single can politely ask you something if we didn't agree with you about that and we thought that that therefore the evidence at that the amazon miners was of some consequence to the future profit question beyond simply the fact that they were supposed to buy twenty thousand or three thousand  product how much just that account for they still don't get there they say how much they claim that they would have made to get one thousand and fifty of those get you the exact number in sales it's based on actually two point five million dollars worth of sales rights organizations that it will comes out to eight hundred thirteen thousand for twenty two in laws profit i don't have a calculator in front of me but that number doesn't get you to the thirty five thousand units yes you do about half it gets you to about half and the fact of the matter here is to show that this is speculative even if you took all the sales that huge and made when you took over and you added them you still don't get close to this thirty five thousand number but you're out of this there's another point if i may that i would like to make is that here the district court stated that it did not find the jury's award of approximately two million to sign it to be excessive and we submit that the district court actually did do that and made that finding when it granted huge and damages of the three hundred twenty three thousand and thus reduced the damages awarded to sign it because if you look at and we're back on that damage chart again if you look at e r for seven three you see that there's a final balance of two hundred thousand when you go to the first page of that the are four six nine you see that sign and already gave you jim credit for that very amount it was three hundred sixty thousand council that means then that if we thought that the evidence was competent and the jury did its job in the work grounds for us to arguing is that once the court found that sign it was granted more damages than it should have been granted then it had a choice you have two options open to it could have granted a new trial or they could have permitted the award down to one point seven million dollars and said to sign it this is the award if you take it we're done if you don't take it there's going to be a new trial and here what it did it reduced that award and council for signing up it says if i had never paper and ashes specifically refused to do it that way i don't know why did well sister and having two separate judgments we'll hear what happened was the jury was presented with two questions the first question had to do with what or huge ins damages the seventh question had to do with what or sinus damages and counsel for sign it got in front of the jury and said look you know that we're seeking a net here so we're looking for two hundred thousand basically on the suspense and we're setting off that money or you can do a couple of things here then mr perry could have just accepted that counsel for signed it and not appealed but they have appealed that ruling they have said that that ruling violates the seventh amendment in form it wasn't what you're saying it was something else i'm sorry to inform you i understand that it seems the equivalent but the district judge did explicitly refuse to put it that way so informant wasn't that well i'm not so sure that he explicitly refused to do it that way or that he was even judgment and they didn't so that now we have a situation we have two competing judgments out there but at the end of the day this verdict that came in for sign it wasn't just two months it was basically two point four million dollars because they were going to be given cash and they no longer had to pay the three hundred thousand dollars now we have a situation where they only have the two million in cash and that there's the jury i know that terry says hero but they had to they had to have the duct that there's not even a question about it because if they didn't deduct it then at the end of the day sign it would have to pay  for those that can cleaners when that jury came in two years ago to today actually when they came in with that verdict they said to sign it getting two million dollars in cash from you jen and you don't have to pay them you i don't understand because you came in at the beginning and you gave us an explanation for what them a matter of money wasn't it can encourage adoption for that three hundred fifty thousand dollars well it does actually ironic because the two hundred thousand dollars that's part of that calculation when you look at the damage charge that two hundred thousand dollars in his charge it includes the deduction something you've got to date then fine or what's the problem it's i mean there's a couple different ways the jury the jury could have gone the could jury could have gone to your way come back with two point four and then awarded your client to three hundred from what would otherwise have been in judgment and what's the problem because it was already deducted and now with the decision of the district court on our new trial motion right what has happened is it's been un they now have to pay the net value was two point four million dollars of the jury's verdict two million and the three million three hundred thousand dollars credit now the district court said no i am reducing happens is the procedure here under the law over a minute or has been violated the judges have hurt you it hurts us your honor because since they didn't accept the award we should have a new trial we are hurt by not having a new trial what we believe should happen here is that the court should throw out their judgment should throw out our judgment send this case back to the trial court and we have a real a businessman who his entire business was connecting korean manufacturers with u s retailers that's what he'd been doing for fifteen years had a long established relationship with the korean government was paid as a consultant testified that he started the contract in the non retail purchasing season the season was actually in the in the late spring early summer as when retailers would purchase a product even though that was happening in even though they started didn't meet the inspections so that was the late until april even though that happened mr rim was able to it to sell several thousand purchase orders to cosco that you want all my understanding was that some of them were not actually sell they jury's verdict however they didn't provide the whole the whole the whole record they did not provide all of the exhibits they didn't even provide all of the courtroom testimony it was not  well we submitted in our in our supplemental as a bit of a so the district court they were they in evidence before the district court yes they were ok yes they were there were there were complaints your complaint is that is that huge and didn't put all of that evidence into their excerpts of record on appeal that's right ok but it's in the record it's in the record which is what was before the district court that's right that's that's that's of i'm sorry it that i would like to make that to me yes it's not a good practice but it doesn't match well it's it's before you to consider as far as far as the were purchase orders that were in the record again this was prior to q v c erin this was during a nine retail purchase and season there were several thousand units sold by mr rehman as company prior it's basically mr him explain is an attention that was expressed by the real tellers that we would tend to purchase this many units it was it was in the process and he expected that those would troll turn into purchase orders now  during the nine purchasing season we had half of the of the sales goal the sales goal for the first year was twenty thousand we had eleven thousand purchase orders in the first six months this was prior this was prior to the prime buying season this was this was right after the q b c area we were on target he was on target to meet and exceed the sales goal of twenty thousand units and a twenty thousand units alone that would generated five million dollars in sales and what genet already two million dollars of profits to sign it that was only the first year of it and as the court knows i think the court knows is that a jury found that there was in a forcible oral agreement that there was an oral agreement that was substantially performed there was a two year period under this oral agreement exclusive distributor agreement and mr rim testify very confidently again he was a very experience in this industry and he testified that he fully expected to meet these expert these sales goals and he was right on target and it was proven another huge you know point is that not only did he have eleven the exhibits that were not included by eugen in the appellate record and their purchase orders from q b c from various large companies fry's costco wal mart these were all actual purchase orders they were obtained by mr rem prior to the q b c airing in april and this you know the contention that they make that there was this sales quota of two thousand and in two thousand and thirteen and two thousand and two in the first three months of two thousand fourteen there is absolutely no evidence of that it's inconsistent with the party's oral agreement that was commemorated in writing there was no sales quota in fact the agreement said it was a two year contract these were sales goals they were not sales quotas in there could not be a terminations of this agreement intel after the two year period going back to the documentary evidence the only evidence on the cancelled purchase order  the eight hundred thirteen thousand dollars is in the record five seventy to seventy two and that's eighteen thousand dollars that's the one that they they provided you say the record below contains other purchase orders if you have the actual exhibit numbers do you have some reference to us where we find that well we i submitted and are supplemental excerpts of numerous additional exhibits that were not included by have the actual purchase orders that were received by sign that we have also the orders in waiting that were that occurred after the pvc airing we also have these the amazon orders now it's true they were not in evidence that even after you didn't cancel this contract it was not taken down from amazon and he received more than two point six million dollars of orders from amazon that he's unable to fill because the contract had been canceled that was those  actual numbers or actual things that that happened i would not speculation it was not you know when you have an expert to speculate as the future profits you know even with an expert there's a certain amount of speculation these are actual orders received  that the stack that was never introduced that the two point six million from amazon was a stack but the but mr rim testified it was not objected to he testified what that he received these after the termination by huge and and it was  so the summary of to get you to the eight hundred thirty thousand is that you are four seventy one is that correct that's that's the summary to get you to the eight thirteen ok and that has the amazon beach camera brain storm logistics i think and as i understand i think judge burns on his  where's the where's the information that backs that the figures for amazon for example that's the whole thing and that's for the what's the first year and in that the the purchase orders from amazon were  what number of you and you say it's more than eighteen thousand so where is it and why is there there there were there were purchase orders there there were about four thousand units purchased and purchase orders evidencing that from so i'm looking at the r four seventy one this is the evidence that you this is that this is what the eight hundred thirteen thousand figure was based on for net profit from the losses of fixed purchase orders right i've got i got four entries there i got amazon preach kamera testimony but it's not supported and you haven't shown us anything else it is support other than eight hundred thousand dollars the problem is you've got that star gone and our prices are california says that if you're talking about were not speculative numbers these were actual numbers that were happening already within six months he already had eleven thousand you purchase orders or purchase orders in waiting had four thousand units sold prior to the q b c airing  thought that the standard under california was best evidence available in the circumstances and the best evidence of future profit if you have a future purchase order is the purchase order correct well yeah if if we for the for the amazon purchase orders the best evidence would have been the actual purchase orders and the evidence that's true but but but again  his testimony was he fully expected based on the interest of the retailers it was it was really well received by the retailers again you've already received eleven thousand per sorters he fully expected to achieve a sales goal of twenty of twenty orders or purchase orders awaiting that was was not withstanding the amazon orders amazon orders came in without any effort whatsoever after the key area after the termination by eugen he fully have been about five million his his net on that was forty percent he thought the fied so he would have received two million dollars just in the first year in the second year and he fully expected to achieve the the sales goal of thirty five thousand units and at thirty five thousand units that would have been a total amount of nine million dollars that he would have received and three point five million dollars of profit  it but it's based on your honor it's it's better than an expert saying that's going to happen it was a it was actually happening it was in the early stages there was a two year contract that was supposed to be in place and not terminated  it was already happening he already had half of the sales goal achieved in the first part of the first six months and this was again outside of the of the main purchasing season it was many of these purchase orders were received before has that is the bulk of it really that is that's the big enchilada correct that amazon that that purchase yes that's that's true and you didn't have any purchase orders or we did not purchase orders for that particular item if that's true and there was the sales goal of the twenty thousand by the end of the year so we still had that the primary purchasing season to sell these units after the q v c area and any probably would have far exceeded the twenty thousand units if i if i could g what i argued at trial and what i believe the jury found is that the actual expenses incurred by huge an arbitrary sign that far exceeded the amount owed to two eugen using was owed three hundred twenty three thousand well if the jury the jury found that the expenses and we're not talking about the profits and sales and that sort of thing but what the jury apparently found was that in that what i argued and what the evidence showed was that the expenses the rent the payroll the the other expenses that we itemize those exceeded the amounts owed to two huge and and our our number was in the five hundred thousand it was about two hundred thousand over what was owed to eugne  and the jury obviously found out that about cancel out the amount owed to huge and and or awarded zero it was not proper for the court to to to issue an editor and give three hundred and twenty three thousand dollars there against the jury verdict the judge if the judge thought that it had been accounted for by the jury and it was a mistake because it was it was a it was just fixed and admitted right and the and the judge thought that he could fix that by the editor which he cannot by then might the judge granted a new trial here well he should have if if that's what he thought if he thought there was a stake by the jury what he should have done is the should ordered a new trial that's very speculative i don't know i don't think so but it's clear that he thought that something was wrong with the verdict he he said he said in our ruling that there was no miscarriage of justice there was no excess damages on your side but he thinks that the jury missed it on the other side and i think that was because he awarded the most for summary judgment he did find in favor of a summary judgment but he didn't award damages and he left it up to the jury to war damages it was argument and that's what the jury found by not awarding three hundred thousand to huge and the jury found that the expenses owed pardon i understand that but it still had to come off the expenses and if you have something right i think i think the wealth and that's what i think the jury did is they took the expenses owed to sign that they cancel canceled out about zero to eugne they either that amount that two hundred thousand that was left over was was part of their verdict and i submit that it was not it was  not grossly excessive i think that the the evidence did support the juries were in fact i think that the evidence actually supported a higher number what the jury awarded i asked for two point nine million they were to two million so i think that the council said we have five thousand waiting orders it turned out there were about sixty i thought i thought rim testified that there were that there were these orders rim testified that there were waiting purchase orders but when rim had to settle there was some evidence for the purchase orders and waiting well you have rim saying it right but in fact it is something that is some evidence some evidence of it in practice or one of the last time he'd said it to you jen he didn't fill them at all and so here when you look these amazon orders where would we day in order to come up with that million fifty thousand dollars number they would have had to have been ten point five million dollars of sales of the robotic know what they're talking about because when they talk about sales that they lost from purchaser cancellations this is no q b c and there they name five entities that they claim they lost orders from and they couldn't fill because they weren't getting product q p c is not in there at all and any orders that q v c actually made were filled and it's part of the two thousand two hundred forty vacuum cleaners that were sold so we don't have a situation here where there are all these real orders that weren't filled all the orders that came in were filled their sales record was dismal and even if you give them credit for all the amazon sales  sales that huge and made in those two years and all the sales they made they still don't come anywhere close towards getting towards these numbers which were not quotas or the numbers war in that draft contract which was never signed cut were numbers that said look if you don't order from signing this money vacuum cleaners then at the end of the two year term and not before we don't have to go forward that i say thank you very much thank you thank you so much for