testimony regarding what drives were connected what information was sought all came from a forensic image from the work laptop that was given to mr  mr karr tender that laptop after he made a complaint to the federal authorities about potentially questionable actions on behalf of the plaintiff to a federal agency they gave him receipt for it and it was not in his possession when it was to be turned over therefore mr often was forced to work with a forensic image in you know it's understandable that mr oxman and the plaintiffs had to work with this forensic image because the government didn't want to give up this laptop that being said what was lacking was the necessary foundation authentication that what mr othman and his team were working with adequately provided a sufficient basis for which to hold mr shikar liable well as i understand this image and maybe i'm not understanding it the image is the exact implication of the hard drive to an exact copy that's what it's supposed to be in that's what the experts said and did you have any testimony saying that it was well i think that there's there's testimony from mr othman that indicates it wasn't he there could be no no one could pin it down as to who made this image when the image was made what potentially was done to this computer prior to the image being made and i know authentication and foundation of some kind technical last resorts kind of a weasel way to the evidence y determined by looking at that forensic image each one of those thumb drives that mr shikar allegedly connected at some point during the two year period was connect was connected was determined from this frantic image and this was a case and again i know the abuse of discretion standard is not with us ok but that being said when this kind of no surprise expert quit certainly one that wasn't tender through the normal course of actions indicating the potential problems with such a forensic image and the district court simply ignored it and i think that that kind of goes to the abuse of discretion standard he beyond that looking at these eight thumb drives over a course of a true year period i mean i don't know how computer savvy the world is becoming but you know ten fifteen hundred drives could be connected to any one particular computer and this was information that was put in a kind of between a rock and a hard place and that rock and a hard place he was asked to produce certain things that he didn't have and couldn't produce and the basis for doing so was the idea that he just like he knew the pass code therefore he must have provided a false pass code doesn't take into account a number of other possibilities all of which were in the control of teledyne one teledyne could have remotely shut the phone off disconnected it wiped it during the two month period also during that same period of time mr rahman or one of his team and again we get explanations as to what could have occurred other than just simply hey mr shit car is providing the wrong password and when each case when it came down to it mr  any undisputed facts even those undisputed facts i'm sure carpet four were completely rejected by the court even to the point where in that june seventeenth order in the footnote he's talking about his own experiences with the i phone and how certain things can be done your honor in light of those is there still litigation going on in the underlying case i wouldn't say there's litigation it's currently pending they there has not been  asking mr karr to turn over a number of different items it's our position that mr karr has complied with everything he can comply with the defendant's we're going to get a period tell you that we know so there's a there's an why shouldn't this as well that central state's case talked about if the underlying order is appealable then you can look at the contempt order i think that even the way judge whose mom looked at it it's kind of a a mishmash where the contempt runs into the clinton junction the plymouth injunction runs into the contempt there was never any effort to separate the two and it's impossible appeal one without the other and that's that's why i believe th correct that there was testimony from mr rahman that a forensic image is an exact duplicate of the the laptop in this case the taliban issued laptop but there was more testimony from mr rahman first of all there was unrelated  not been altered since it left mr rothman's mr shikaris possession and he knew that by saying that the last time the file was altered was february seventeenth and that was a date before mr shikar turned over  issued in june in june of two thousand and fifteen in this whole year we've been litigating other issues relating to mr shikaris compliance for example one of the issues at the hearing was particularly hard drives that  information telephone property as well as any electronic devices in his own in his possession whether or not that was connected to tell it and it all so that those could be inspected he did not do that a rule to show cause was five was was issued and we had a no correct if well ok i'm not sure how to answer that other than if if we were to win below then i don't know that teledyne would would push forward on the content piece except as to the payment of it that since being found in contempt of court almost everything that he has done has has actually borne out mr rothman's testimony the counsel reference the number of u s b drives and he couldn't no one can tell which or how were or when he connected them he never used any of them and actually only two weeks after being found a contempt of court on that very issue he turned around and said yes i do have a u s b thumb drives which is exactly what mr rahman testified to and in fact i  at this point i don't see how it can disappear where he hasn't complied with that if he had complied with it i would agree that you know well no problem injunction disappears when the when the case is over right the lawyer has any enforced this ill impede the the rest of the litigation industry we're yes we are your honor and the reason is because again this case is at heart it's about the taking of confidential information of televised after he brought this incident to light ten days later he should be fired so and then there was we would take this it's preemptive i would say to address the court's concerns about your stiction i think to harken cases on point at the time and attorney came in six months later filed a motion to bake a bit so that's well past the twenty eight days you were talking about judge williams and the courts at him said look at twelve ninety two it says it's specifically says  appeal from an order denying modification dissolving vacating an injunction and therefore the court basically said hey it's not it's not really an issue i see my time's up thank you very much for your time you