that he made a mistake because he wasn't a promoter with this area but that's just kind of combat is not why i disagree that he was taking charge i respectfully disagree that he was taking charge of discovery which he did as he communicated with the discover determination over whether or not there really is an attorney client privilege objection in how to go about asserting that mr wagner didn't draft a discovery objections here he just reported to lead counsel that these barrett once the objection was over the rules it was can it continue to be asserted i mean it was communicated in the discovered responses no frivolous law it was requested no motion to compel was ever five per river they just let one hundred twenty one thousand could be an appropriate sanction just assume both of those things what's the basis for these other sanctions i don't first of all see how under rule thirty seven you could the pleadings relating to the inability claim and and the trade secret claim or whatever it was because that's not related to the discovery violation and the supreme court's decision in in  hammond which was incorporated in the history of rule thirty seven suggest the sanction have to be related to hot injury caused by the discovery violation so how could how could all these to the injury caused by the violation well how could the judge do anything more and rule thirty seven other than to redress the injury caused by the violation and that had nothing to do with surprise to everyone who was in it and it's including myself what he did was say ok we're going to be here you can put on whatever evidence you want you can bring whatever witnesses you want i want to know everything there is to know about this before i decide   not on other issues but only because the judge say the judge didn't refer to a situation where this is the straw that breaks the camel's back and i mean i think this is a serious problem but i just turn over information and so forth yet the court struck down in the face of that very reaches behavior dismissal sections doesn't that say or saying is if they felt there was an abuse of discretion there in terms of dismissing claims how do we not say that was in the busa discretion here in dismissing plays when because that doesn't seem as egregious as what was in those places violation you then agree that the imposition of these additional sanctions over and above the hundred twenty one thousand dollars was outside the judge's authority and why not i believe he was well within  i guess if you're asked me is there a case in which is there's only a discovery violation and there's no violations of anything else then i think if that is the case then that's possible but that's not the case here in other words it's because i mean it it's just a hypothetical there is no word for under two eighty five an inherent power to award additional sanctions the sole authority is under rule thirty seven correct if that's all there they chose to bring the record consists of everything you decided to bring this issue he described or explanations and terms like incredible unbelievable and utterly unconvincing that means that when they were stood before him in the court one hundred twenty one thousand and he said that assuming there was a discovery violation here and some monetary sanctions be appropriate but he had problems with one hundred twenty one thousand dollar sentients and this is something the district court had to do was get a specific statement of the sanction bill condon he did that if it's a discovery abuse case he did not do that if this is something about some other type ninety five is a documents submitted by the river to the corps in response to the torch request delineate the amount of fees and expenses that were justified under each of the is your problem with the adequacy of the submission with respect to these if you're dealing with one hundred twenty one thousand home it's different than if you're dealing with the entire amount  is all there hundred twenty one thousand is the motion for sanctions in the post everything related to the motion for sentence i think there's case law says that that is not sufficient that it has to be something that they lost in preparation process of trial they said all of it or twenty one thousand was basically the motion post trial which we believe supports the idea that they were never prejudice by fact you know  of date i believe in task in the attorney and again it all relates to the preparation for the motion prosecution motions self so if that's the case we'd have to take a look at who put but if that's the case leaving aside your contention that there appear not entitle to just what they caught him bringing the motion it would seem that in terms of what they came forward with based on your description there is fairly complete documentation in terms of just spending time on that motion and the prosecution of it to create a hundred twenty thousand in there my only other objections what i raised before to the core it's that i think it still should be sent back if you do decide to go with a sanction to judge davis to decide as to mr w record to go on to your last point if i understand what you're saying in response to a shelter question you're not finding fault with the documentation to support one hundred twenty one thousand you're you're basically saying that one hundred twenty one thousand documentation all relates to the sanctions motion and that you can't get the cost of preparing sanctions motion under rule thirty seven and my question is to the support for the fia cation on one hundred twenty one thousand we contested that in the same manner that you contested the larger the application as i look in the index right now to here is support same fashion in terms  documentation they provide i think it's inadequate to inform the courts reasonably terminations because it doesn't break out the task the time spent on the task and contemporaneous form which is what this course  five is premised on litigation is there any award that's made and that would have to would have to bear relation to the misconduct here the judge has just sanctioned five different for different authorities the exact same conduct and when the post probably thing revealed to him that all thirty seven would limit the amount if it were to the actual cost incurred by the violation he reached out i mean