limit of discovery there was some documents exchanged gifts each party was the cause that was that was the moment of discovery we went into the hearing not knowing exactly what was happening we believed when and stated that we believed that this was the time and whether is there anything decision that would stop you from terminating today they tell you in ninety days it's going to be terminated you know and there's another appeal that we've just filed because that's exactly what we tried to  do and the court basically issued a contempt finding saying that we were not permitted to even terminate the contract because of this ruling so it actually puts us in a position to serve a district court case  judge and those proceedings characterized this quarter as either poor menary your opponent because it strikes me you could have been in contempt of a preliminary injunction i don't believe that in the subsequent or it's not before this court judge characterized the hard way ok that's that's fairly helpful i know you tried to relief so let's assume you weren't given the appropriate note is so declaratory relief and that you have a seventh amendment jury trial notice of terminations required and what is left and this is a sort of harmless error that's an issue of  jury i'm having difficulty because you're asking me to ignore the facts of this case no i'm asking you to make an assumption or are you window assuming that we didn't have a sufficient funding in that set of sentences the failure ira is and that the evidence was not that if the contract was terminated that there would be irreparable harm the evidence was if th your client was lying when she said that this would not be the consequence of the term a nation that contract and that he did not believe her and they would the consequence it's very difficult to overturn a credibility finding  that being true the only finding affordable harm relates to the disclosure so once you've enjoyed that there's no need to enjoy anything else i think that's correct term yes and in that sense you're saying it's overbroad because there's no finding of it there might be to assess a need to enjoin be around them from breaking the contract if there was no feasible way of stopping the disclosure short of that but since he's actually enjoying the disclosure there's no reason to have the injunction with respect to staying in the contract greg would you characterize it as an abuse of discretion how would you characterize  that they put a lot of effort into it tell me whether they were deprived of the jury trial right what to produce that is whether there was a protocol ruling either of the injunction which are to be there wasn't but the declaratory judgment final decision and unless they had noticed that was coming it doesn't matter how much effort they put into it they were telling the jury decided amasses just one point out no reasonable jury could have found on this record other than what the district court found but you know argue harm are the ones that pertain to the need to prevent the disclosure the primary injunction clearly precludes the disclosure right at that point of what is the basis for the further aspect of  disclosure you have to find there's a likelihood of success on the breach with respect to terminations credit does not follow that you then need to ensure any down from doing anything that would be in breach of their obligations because that can only be enjoyed and if you showed a repeat of reparable harm from taking such an action and we all we actually identified that would follow from a breach that would cause irreparable harm is the disclosure need for an injunction because they go insolvent he said the reason they go insolvent is they could poached quiets if they got the disclosure of the membership list right you know see the e t a issue also falls into that i'm trying to how i can survive for back to what i said there's belief that the cause we gave out was was a good face guys will be able to explain that batch of i thirteenth notice which gave a thirty day terminations notice was followed by a subsequent notice that that that the only reason that b c i brought this lawsuit and no only reason they sought the injunction was so that they could prepare to compete they don't want anything to do with any scene and they don't want to be part of that in c s m a and they couldn't wait encompasses that part i got that's correct and just to put it could have been the one that was playing on the membership list as it is an issue because technically representative from disclosing our own membership list and that that's a problem and i know