twenty six a because the rule was narrow ear a party is no longer obligated to disclose witnesses or documents whether favorable or unfavorable it does not intend to use no disclosure under rule twenty six a which is the initial disclosures or twenty six e which is not relevant because they never requested the documents our case can be  google did not request the documents or complains about until it was truly under discussion there is no duty to produce documents that do not exist and there is no duty to create documents make this disclosure and absent the disclosure duty there was no warrant for thirty seven c one sanction and there could be no bad thing in not disclosing the asset sale i a witness who unders assets when the training options assets were sold he didn't understand this was a training options as it was never asked if his deposition of his was a training options as well i need to correct critical misstatement because this anc she said well google didn't provide me with a subpoena i can't assess relevance and this is a quote however mr cabrera does not appear to objective subpoenas on this from the issue that is whether there is good cause for google to see discovery that cannot be discovery cutoff date and now it was the ground on which it was opposed not relatives relevance the court and this was affirmed by the district judge found to be conceded but this is the lin that is exactly the opposite of what the record shows and google has not appeal that or or the district the fact that everybody understood to have these claims also means that if the court were to find that there was a mistake and that a m p should have ratified and provided the claims  held that whether or not there is a right to recover under the contract is a matter of state law that's a start a rule seventeen issue not article three standing and in th case i belatedly sent yesterday from the nd circuit which relies on lindsay the court rejected exactly the same argument that google is making here you have to look at contractual standing to determine article three together with burris reconsideration motion it was simply to get jurisdiction over an additional time there's no prejudice they client evidence was withheld you can't withhold evidence that  not requested and that you don't intend to rely on there is no duty to disclose there also is no meaningful discovery does lots substantive discoveries on a say well they want to take a look at whether its claims wallet held it under theory they've already m p m p and already put in our representation and warranty was of age thirty nine to record saying they didn't that's minimal discovery keep on using the name trading out should this is what makes a case especially in using it and using the name to revive his corporate shell even though the name didn't belong to him in any way want to the going concern also culturing options that he sold it about your defense and he's got an obligation to me but i haven't heard you explain to me why you think there's a rule we have or quite a dissertation about we'll twenty six and rule thirty seven that way it would be really helpful for me to hear your response to that engage place he's arguing right that this was his he that he was a party to the contract that set up this account that a google if you are not paid for it google would have gone after him he had obligations will have obligations that is argument so given that over for me which is really pivotal you seem to think it was unreasonable for him and patently so is that i understand you correctly to rely on his theory that he as a party to that advert contract he had adding could you please respond to that are respectful he didn't use his personally use the training option seen isabel i look at the documents oh my only after it was all the fact that he controlled the account and continued to control it doesn't mean that he had the right to do that training options account intangible assets of the corporation and his argument is that if a person is you know it's not i am i as is listed in the documentation for the sale and both parties have have indicated that they did not intend to sell it what is your response to that  yes it's the company we couldn't get it they didn't produce it until after discover they did they got it from painting the person that they blocked us from two thousand and eight walk just from getting documents you know they said several times in the region papers it could you let's go back and get new evidence that's what the problem was mr joyce of talks about the sanction years though it was something unusual this was a standard garden variety rule thirty seven it's the kind of reduces a party from introducing certain evidence regardless of when that evidence was created i'm go is entered were already has failed to produce responsive documents were to make witnesses known or available for discovery in a timely fashion and that's exactly what happened here and i'm quoting right now from mr joseph zone book parties at article three standing because redress ability is simply a matter of the damages will resolve the injury not who ultimately keeps the damage and the th circuit in crown car at exactly the same situation a google claims we have here and that is the plaintiff sold a business will be assets and claims before filing suit and the six circuit so that whether or not there is still a claim has the absolute right to litigate his claim st his contention on stand which the court found was reasonable and that justified is waiting until after that was