for thank you for the appellate i'd like to take my time this morning to focus on what we consider to be the core issue in the fundamental issue of our appeal and that is the trial court's denial of plaintiff's  motion to compel the production of documents or in the alternative for sanctions and the reason that we consider this the core issue of the appeal is that in the absence of just governing in the absence of the production of the business records for the plaintiff business the plaintiff was severely negatively impacted in its right to present its case frankly it was ham strong and could only present its case basically on the on the basis of its own witness testimony and on the basis of the defendant's witness testimony so book before i get into the real meat of possession of all of the business records for the plaintiff she was involved in the business and after a disintegration of her business relationship with plant of jim sutton and eleven she according to mr sutton absconded basically with all of the business records for the business leaving mr sutton and the business itself mr sun can maintain control of business and the business itself with absolutely no business records related to this transaction or really any other transaction and how the business function she later in pursuant to a stipulation settling the  provisions in the stipulation refused subsequently to provide any of those records to mr scott so that's the context in which we get this issue and when the court discovered that the lack of these records unlike the production of these records was a major issue not only in moving the case forward been a potential resolution it ordered the defendant to produce all of these records all of the business records in response the defendant did not produce all the business records he in the production in this case and the production in any other context related to this transaction mr sutton testified at trial that if nothing else he produced bills of lading regarding to the shipping of the of the plane materials in the treaties in question there were there was nothing related voice there were there were no documents related to this transaction whatsoever raise some questions certainly but it also would have raised even more questions in the context of showing what other documents would have of a little and were available for other transactions that this that this business was undertaking  testimony in this case was that the the business run by the plaintiffs was very willing milly that very little documents were kept everything was very informal and it was easy for her to to make that assertion because she told all of the documents and wouldn't produce it so there were documents related to this transaction there could have been documents related to the business organization articles were going to sation things of that nature related to her authority that that that credibility finding was while the court may have had a credibility finding that the overall finding that the emotional compelling should be denied was an abuse of discretion because the plaintiff's offered completely uncontested expert testimony that she did have these documents and not only that she had them but was continuing to access them there was no assertion by the defendant that there would have been a burden to produce these documents in any way they argued that there was a purpose a burden in her responding to the motion to compel but there was no argument that there was a great a burden to produce the documents and even if there were certainly the court could argue that  not a burden to produce and she denied having made the paper or electronic records that's correct and the plaintiffs were able to show through again an uncontested expert opinion that that was that was plain so the court really lacked the evidence to find to make the credibility finding that it did because the evidence overwhelmingly show that she did have access to these records and while it's not before the court she has subsequently recently admitted that she had these records and will be looking at a rule sixty to motion or potentially beginning the judgment based on fraud on the court so yes she she did continue to say over and over again that she didn't have them but all of the evidence that we were able to provide to the court including the expert testimony and the expert opinion was if you didn't have these these records so the court's credibility finding and transfer quite