sanctions matter to solve it doesn't that the standard of review was a do you know who standard because the issue was interpretation of the discovery rules so it is a very similar argument the argument that the plaintiffs are making here in that case the st district discretion standard and then the contempt order based upon the discovery order which was also reviewed by an abuse of discretion standard and that case is not final at this point however it does contain a very good case if you would like one so even with no case i believe that both the underlying discovery order and the contempt order must be reviewed claims the plaintiff cite absolutely no so already for that assumption it's just an assumption that they come to me and have relied upon as fact and there is no authority for that assumption the case was still the discretion to allow discovery after trial after dismissal and there are multiple pieces where courts have been upheld either allowing we're denying discovery making discovery decisions for post trial and post a dismissal discovery so clearly in those cases indicate that the parties are not vested of their ability to conduct still remain defendants in this case because of depending one of thirty seven motions those motions were filed timely and there is no there is no argument that they were untimely and those machines are determined by the supreme court of illinois to be functional equivalents of a counterclaim so the defendants in addition to in my opinion still be remaining defendants were also counter claims and if the s and thirty seven dollars motions were filed so either way the defendants were parties and the plaintiffs argument is simply incorrect it's not supported by any law and is in fact supported is i'm sorry and in fact there is a significant amounts of contrary mom even if they are not directly on point where they were in the court is deciding the issue of discovery and one  it doesn't appear in plains appendix but it is in defendant's appendix and that is the order on which the court entered contempt against the think of the plaintiffs then admitted on the record that there an order for them to appear and they admitted on record that they did not appear under the  the same is true here there is no finding that the plaintiffs acted in good faith there is no mention of a friendly contempt order there is no reason on the record to think that the court was ordering this simply for plaintiff ability to appeal this question the court had already denied plaintiff's request for interlocutory appeal on this question almost a year before this order the contempt order was entered not only agree with that i don't think there's any indication that it was supposed to be a friendly contempt order to be thinking that by this and the amount you were was not excessive plaintiff's claim that in their brief however the only and struck certain entries did not enter everything that defendants requested as part of the fine so i mean clearly the trial court took a great deal of consideration in determining the amount of the fine and it was a very rare circumstance for this court but i think it is warranted in this case because there is simply no basis for plaintiffs assumption that defendants are not p it's completely baseless and they have been presented by both the defendants and the trial court multiple times with the contrary model and insists instead on making this appeal  there were multiple deficiencies in their appeal the notice of appeal was deficient and purported to appeal the incorrect order which was not quite home and not able to be appealed t they have filed multiple motions trying to get the court to find them in contempt with a nominal fine and work had refused to times prior to do that the final contempt motion file