contract case brought pursuant to table nine oregon common law but this appeal is not about the merits of mr choice claims but rather is denial of repeated efforts to teen relevant discovery in support of his claims during the four months that the parties were permitted to engage in discovery mr choice was required was required to litigate the three just positive motions that are issues that are at issue in this appeal with essentially why the hand tied behind his back whereas mr choice was ordered on a date certain for a deposition that lasted the full seven hours on the record down to the last nd and otherwise produced all relevant paper documents and yes i am his devotion appellant was never allowed to depose one witness and his motions to compel production of relevant paper tell me how you complied with what's now rule fifty six the with regard to providing an affidavit were declarations that you can present circuit case from two thousand and three in that case counsel i have i have sympathy for the merits of your position regarding discover but i need you i believe that mr choice declaration stat wished that there were material issues of disputed act that required that were great that was raised by the untested discovery that w submitted with professor schwartz for donkey's summary judgment motion he discussed his used experience as a research assistant for other professors and how it was materially different from his experience and expectations pursuant to what he was going to be doing with the corvette right and we also submitted to the court our discovery request contract is unambiguous doesn't the parole evidence roll bar the introduction of any evidence and doesn't buzz about imply that discovery would not have been helpful to you anyway so your honor i think that the response to that question is just what is the meaning what is you know what is the definition of ambiguity in the context of contractual interest cation the  th circuit i'm forgetting common law says a contract provision is and is unambiguous if it is if if there is no two or more reasonable meanings for the contract here it was mr choice position that the contract could not be read merely within the four corners of the corvette rant contract or document or rather what had to also be taken into consideration that this can be read in more than one way or all evidence under oregon law without getting into any ambiguity i mean for my read the contract there is no provision in there which could be with provides that there is a contractual obligation to give your client credit what provision in there by its terms be bred to impose a contract  to give your client credit for his contributions rather i disagree with you i think that the words collaborative research and a requirement of a publication that collaborative research requires that mr eaves credit for his work it is i don't think that there is any way that the contract could reasonably be read to permit the professor to publish which she did as her own his research it the contract doesn't permit that the whole point of the contract is to within the four corners of this document given the type of relationship that mr choi had with professor schwartzberg dopy this is not two parties coming together to personally went to a one page contract where their entire relationship is defined by that piece of paper this course of dealing is a necessary component of understanding what it was that he or between the two parties and collaborative research and publications means what it is that the two of them were coming together to do the work and both of them were were required to have the benefit of that book of doing that work together and that means a publishing credit for both not merely the professor well that under written contracts is in this case east of the judge just before who you are you now have lost her and i doubt my cause will list the loss of her name along with his own and i don't think anyone would ever expect a different response and i think a better point may be for your response is my reading did it in both the appeals papers submitted to this court and in a district court and missions that recall edge have me in the public space about the kind of education that is poured into their students these admissions demonstrate that reed college places itself as genial or more one of very few institutions are faculty within her own department raised questions about why mr choice didn't get credit for the work that he contributed to to the work that ranked in that in that letter that it's not just neat trying to create an ambiguity it's really college employees that raise and i'd like to get discovery on it i don't want to create the evidence in this case your hon contract claims the sexual harassment policy and its ability to comment nation policy the problem with granting that summary judgment motion is that again mr troy never had an opportunity made out in an equitable stoppel defense that he should have been allowed to conduct discovery on  complaint here we had mr troy going back and forth with three college administrators about whether and how he would be able to earn and he also testified at his own deposition that he was thinking of retaining counsel and then members of the political science department assured him that if he submitted and details completed to the tenure committee that would resolve the lawsuit was filed and just one week before discovery was set to close so the college waited the most the entire period of disparagement before even filing the motion nd it is in accurate to say that it seven topics in the most part does look very routine in a case like this so why is it fair that plaintiff basically couldn't take any is that the court had ordered that discovery will and at the end of august and the like of waited very very late in the hope quite a thing that time was that the last you had to i'll be in december and providing the information who did he want to do who did she wish to depose and we had that list in the thirty six was on top of it so it was late in the court expressed some concern about that but then additional way this was to decide summary judgment but not twelve b six or other types of motions without plaintiff having any opportunity to do a thirty six dollars on the subjects of the motions just because you file a lawsuit doesn't mean that you get to take a lot of discovery and that was the case here the policy is that plato cited in the complaint and had argued about did not show that this kind of deposition on this very expensive deposition product was appropriate and it wasn't necessary it wouldn't have even been relevant because frankly what a what the registrar or davey if he wasn't lying about that along with everything else that he was lying about and there was one he it everything in q two had to have and still bad information from memory he didn't disclose it except brand until two years after he accommodation type syndrome so not get into whether rather plaintiff was or wasn't harassed he made an allegation that in violation of the provisions of the code he had sex with i was these just advisor and professor and just it strikes me that getting policies procedures and sexual misconduct is in the wheel house for this kind of cloning so there's no evidence in the suggest that that that was something that delayed him but also in addition to that the relationship was not expressly forbid you had to show that it was something that  was legally sexually harassed and because there is no language in that policy it was frowned on that it but it wasn't a stress the forbidden at the time and when you have something where you have a witness testifying that this is one hundred percent consensual conduct on my part and then he's given an opportunity to say do you want to be your thesis advisor and admit that he didn't want her to be advisors there isn't enough evidence in the record to specific than that nd the policy on its face is what it is if that's what it says and the choice testimony is very specific as to what you know as to the issues that were raised additionally even if you gave him you took what he said as being the truth about the relationship the fact remains that if the if a professor got to be had had a relationship with them contrary to read and read didn't find out about it until four years after the fact that does not help is lawsuit it doesn't give you a breach of contract claim because what you would have is an employee of the times who violated opportunities multiple chances a chance after the baby excuse of being hospitalized and getting a blood transfusion and then an opportunity to make his the suspender and to come back he didn't do that and then he came back asked for one more opportunity and they told him he still had another course to finish as well so they told him apply again they readmitted him and then he decided not to return so they threw these are the things he admitted were were part and parcel of his relationship with three all of the situations that have got me in trouble or largely due to lying including my situation we did you lied to the reed faculty when you were a student yes of course i was lying all over the place during the last month before my thesis or orals did you lie about going to bangladesh yes did you have a blood transfusion no did you ever have a hard drive choice was obligated to read to at least tell the truth or some version of the truth and over and over see in this record evidence that he  times most of the things that she has said that she attributes to his deposition and the record is absolutely not in there and in that case where i have been unable to depose any of her witnesses it's it's in comprehensible to me that she and before this court insists that it is my client who is lying when we've heard from no one at reed college the only time mr choice admit was lying that's relevant to this litigation is when he said he was bullshitting his professors when he was not accommodated during the fuses process and also prior to the thesis process where he would invent reasons to allow himself more time to complete his work to get the prep to get his professor's office back because that read college not only are you required to provide medical evidence of your disability but you also then have to negotiate individual commendations student and professor there is no in the intermediary with the college and that is the only time that he testified that he was lying and i believe that what's really important here is the evidence in the record from reed college employees where they raised red flags about schwartzberg obvious treatment of mr choice and that is what reed college has not discussed during this entire litigation and i would like to have the opportunity to ask those witnesses relevant questions about the red flags that they raised about their colleague and why nothing was done to bring him back to the school so that he could get his degree all right thank you