to that i think is highly unlikely in fact one of the arguments that's been proffered in this case and i think it's a circular argument by defendants is the application of illinois responses carrier law to remove my counts two and three which were addressed is whether or not the law required the judge to transfer this strongly favored the transfer of this case and whether or not the defendants met their burden to satisfy that requirement and the judge herself i think gets this confused she says right in her order the inconvenient to them defending it and another four is more convenient to all the parts you ask of can't consider picking beans or the plaintiffs that just gets into the substantial appropriate analysis and it's not substantiated the rule and whom are admitted lead by defendants no longer their employees so there's no control over these people and that's all going to occur in for a million county illinois who we brought our lawsuit which is not only appropriate form it's a form that has the most best interest in the case and therefore the trial judge was plainly wrong when she made her rulings about the witnesses she talks a lot about the first responders other witnesses in michigan of course there are how many about the fact that mr stewart is an individual defendant who's never doesn't work there anymore how is it more convenient for mr stewart to litigate this case in kalamazoo michigan who is who is stewart he is the driver of the tractor trailer ok it does cite it talks about the fact of the australian automobile accident where there's twenty nine witnesses in australia the cars there are the tire was there all the first responders their medical personnel are there but the cooktown they get sued all the time for accidents happen all over the world in eavis the court said it was appropriate although that case the accident the plane crashed in a room and there were hundreds of witnesses and through families and through physical evidence were because your honor the defendant and it's the witnesses that were in the evas versus going case to the press the product liability issues were all founded the united states of america and the court decided it was more reasonable general vermilion county area that they're not driving you know one hundred miles each way  and out the players make a big deal about illinois revoking the c d o but that's the tail wagging the dog because michigan brought the action that led to  well let's talk about the witnesses in here because i think that's an important separation in smith versus jewel which we talk about in our brief was a format convenience case where the plaintiffs wanted to keep the case in cook county because jo based in cook county they claim they had to depose all the truck mechanics drivers and witnesses as to what went back and the first district sad the plaintiffs have had shown that these witnesses remember they deal with many trucks and many truck drivers every because illinois law says that you can't there there's kind of course of action under the circumstances to bring up claims if the employer stipulates that if the employee is negligent when you look at all the public interest factors and all the  the convenience of the pardons ease of access to sources of proof testimonial documentary and really it's all other right practical problems to make trial easy expeditious an inexpensive the cost of attending willing witnesses that's the court focused on that certainly all the kalamazoo police have agreed to come up but we're going to have to pay for them additionally the case  that need to be made challenged by the plaintiff before he can recover for pain and suffering now an economic damages in michigan law further providing actual damages that there is no recovery from us for medical expenses determination is not necessary but but we did like waves we examined the issues and the restatement and showed that michigan argument about michigan standards and why different from the us i believe it may very well lock in this case however if michigan law applies in this case the supreme court said repeatedly there's