specific case i don't want to rehash for your honour's every single penny in our briefs i think would be something that would in my limited time right now before the  chemical to run from work for calgary and in doing so reach his contract with chemical and provide trade secret chemical formulas calvary industries who's a competitor the record in this case goes calgary has refuted these allegations in the deposition testimony of its former general manager john o'connor and court found actually prior to this decision if there was that is not enough  doing so it would mean that any company a national busy company when recruiting somebody in another city could be right in that state or simply having a conversation with that person a whether a to rot under the guise of contractual business relationship work with that parents with contractual business relationship is what must be analyzed in order to determine whether that contract with the green and out of state spending through in this case calgary industries in ohio corporation  it but there's no evidence in fact the only evidence is that mr berger says we didn't get the stuff we didn't ask for these guys the evidence is that  what you did there because we know that that's going to be a violation of your agreement you want your remit to make sure we don't actually the exact opposite happened even though the circuit coral is not necessarily dispositive we don't decide in the vacuum and examining that question dull we have to consider the full context of the record and the pleadings and other supporting documentary evidence in deciding that issue isn't just a matter of affidavit versus counter at the day that i would agree with your honor it is not just i agree it is not a matter of counter affidavit vs out the david you have to consider the entire record but the fact that poor chemical did not submit a counter affidavit dispositive because looking at the entire record and seeing that court chemical did not submit this counter affidavit that refu chris berger and his sworn statements is dispositive because there's no evidence that would lead the court to determine that calvary industries is subject to  present or you argued at least your take was that well o'connor didn't contact the tell and i think as you testily conceded that also would not be dispositive but as an issue  fluting they had did did they not have face to face follow up meetings in the lawyer during which provide patel provided o'connor with the employment agreement and there was other discussions between the two of them and both my residence correct both are only residence o'connor draft an e mail letter to patel setting forth the terms of the consulting agreement and subsequently emailed the consulting agreement to patel for patel to sign in illinois didn't it ha use your honor that o'connor did have meetings with mr patel those meetings were in ellen ois to discuss his employment with calgary industries requested documents from mr patel not trade secret but documents hey that's a mistake and so we need to know to make sure that you don't violate your agreement with cora we know you were employed by coral john o'connor used to be a core employee they have known each other for over twenty d years i think to test the record stage eighteen years but this point well over twenty years but they've known each other for that amount of time o'connor doesn't want is an employee of correct correct there are there were contacts i think i think that is clear from the record that there were contacts on eleanor meyer given is that there is that is not enough it was less specific know i think that's something that the chalkboard still should have done that they should have or at the very least even if they did not they should of it a complete look at the rocker in really as this the you point out that berger says we never received these modified documents that mr patel apparently modified at least based on the forensic analysis of his computer when that was occurring he's a calvary employee and he's doing this related to an illinois company he used to work for is that fair i think your honor i would say that he is  that i think something needs to be added to that statement i think he's modifying he's he's creating these documents that one are not coral chemical proprietary information  are as chris currie's pointed out is that the david these are his st affidavit i should say and the nd these are formulas that are in the public domain that these are documents that your honor to go on google he's doing that but i think what needs to be added to that is that the informs that are all that knowledge publicly available and yes quoting that are not trade secrets or protected information but isn't that putting the  before the horse so to speak in the coral obviously disagrees and is arguing that these things are proprietary and that gets to the merits and we're talking about minimum contacts and accepting for the moment what the tells doing for cavalry is impacting the propriety information of coral and illinois company that the tao acquired this information from while he was employed by this and when i company why wouldn't it does not establish many contacts your honor because at this point when to all those doing that first of all he's looking through the lens of what calgary industries is doing and i understand your in ohio is when he visited calgary's facility in ohio to do these formulas that honesty to that is not enough under the law to say hey just because your employee is doing this you know who knows where he's doing it from you know one computer that's not established that calvary ohio corporation dragged into court in illinois doing so you could say hey if somebody is doing that in calgary industries or all over the country i don't think but that combined with him being recruited in illinois you know arguably for this purpose would i think provide briefs tendered by the appellant we just keep seeing repeated references to berger's affidavits and then he filed them they do not point out specific these assertions deposition testimony can also do it we went one better we refuted berger's affidavit with berger's own testimony and his subsequent  place in illinois that's dispositive they don't point out that berger subsequently had mets that he doesn't know who negotiated the contract he doesn't know what happened in illinois and what didn't happen in illinois significantly berger his st affidavit was tendered on behalf of the corporation but we tendered a nd affidavit which incidentally was in their and there is a difference because he does describe it as smaller than calgary as a whole he admitted that he just assumed where the employment contract was negotiated but he didn't ask verify complaint saying that it did take place in illinois all we have here is burger arguing with burger which then takes this to be the i agree that calgary waived their request for an evidentiary hearing that let's say let's say it was required required for what purpose the the dispute is with berger it seems like an evidentiary hearing would be held for the purpose of figuring out which version of events is true and if we take the latest version of events that's the one where he admits he really doesn't know anything or he takes everything down so there isn't at the point where an evidentiary hearing would have taken place there wasn't a dispute anymore berger cleared up his own custom from his initial  affidavit and his deposition that's when he cleared up for us he said he doesn't know so there's nothing that we that the court could rely at that point unless the court got him to say that oh i was mistaken in my nd affidavi and you can rely on the st affidavit and then you have to come up with some sort of excuse for the deposition testimony the other thing that i wanted to point out that i believe is significant is this whole idea of the last action necessary to give rise to jurisdiction both from respect to the contract it doesn't matter where patel signed his contract it's calgary or where morelock signed the contract our rights are not triggered by patel's contract with calgary that's their deal we're talking about our contract patel and calgary can agree to whatever they want and they can sign that document wherever they want but if that could get jurisdiction away from but from illinois based on its warships their parents claim well i would think that they would proactively sign a contract in the most favorable jurisdiction in the country and then wherever the  laws are the procedures are best whatever and that doesn't make any sense we are a party to that contract we're not interested in that contract and whether they have a contract to whether they wrote down their scheme and agreed to it and signed off on it or they did it without a contract that's irrelevant  with respect to the argument that you know he didn't target patel well to tell says they did so we did submit sworn testimony you know it deposition transcript operates the same  way calgary's version of events with respect to the contacts illinois is it's gutted solely by patel even if we don't get into all the emails the emails themselves  how court ruled that calories concerns their cause of action has to be litigated in illinois and there isn't that decision came down they've been completely silent about it and have ignored that there is a pending controversy now by their own admission and that is not only is there controversy but illinois is the place where it's mitigated as a practical effect or it's practical matter  not convenience factors the trial court tendered that and the appellate court then rule we've been up twice on that so i think that's that's important and other than that we believe that the we are we used contradictory testimony and exposed basically false testimony using calgary's own witnesses and own words against them i would submit that the there's no better way to contradict calvary then to get calvary to admit that calgary was wrong there aren't any on material facts that are i don't think it the court wasn't obligated to use a counter affidavit specifically we had other options available to us to make any positionally actions were that supported your or your position where we could in support of their motion and plainly when when they come before the court with a sworn statement that they have personal knowledge that none of this happened in illinois and then they come in with an  there really isn't anything in here that where they say what the facts were they they say over and over and over that they submitted an affidavit we didn't they don't get into materiality at all and  so really i don't know what specific facts you're should have been disputed we say that there was the basis of their motion was totally unsupported by the affidavits they submitted it was they were basically two different planets by the end i had to contact between calvary and patel that you alluded to contained in ohio choice of law provision and was intended to be performed nationwide is that correct i believe so so why shouldn't we consider this factor in our analysis of whether minimum context of an established with the patel and calvary can agree amongst themselves for their own disputes but again if they have a contract dispute but but the contention that the two of them are either one tortured me interfering with an illinois company or i'm sorry when the two of them tortuously interfere with an illinois company they can retreat to their own contract well we've chosen our own state where we would where you have to litigate to dispute we were not a party to it and we're not saying that they had a contract that authorized even patel to see our trade secrets rule that i'm sorry i think i made misspoke the in the motion to dismiss calgary argues that illinois should require action because that would be taken up by the ohio court instead and after they made that argument the ohio court went opposite direction and so now we do have a dispute that they have identified that calvary identified between coral and calvary where it has to expanded to to include all of these meetings in illinois and all the actions edition actions that took place in illinois and i think it is an important question we're going to go now if not here jurisdiction i do think it's still a fair question where should the dispy be litigated because coral and calgary agree that there is a dispute that requires a adjudication so i believe the congress should be bound b prior assertion that we have a dispute that needs to be subtle and so it now would be binding on calgary but of course the illinois or the ohio  we're talking about a case in illinois we're not talking about a case in ohio i think that's a red herring and i thought i thought it was needed for a nd and doesn't really need to be you agree that when you have two disputed sets of facts here that that issue must be resolved in plaintiffs favor and assert determining the motion to dismiss the correct here you have allegations that are not disputed by mr berger that these are documents that for example i think mr chapin's pointed out about the documents it documents that we did not receive that are not for says i think it's something that d you know obviously i would not be so bold to tell the court what they can and cannot consider specially something that's in the record i think it's something that the court can look at and think think about but i also think you know to mr chapin is his point and so extend your honor's question a little bit further you know the allegations in this case are that actions that mr patel  customers in georgia so maybe the ohio i wasn't privy to the high of our analysis and or their argument you know i'm not licensed in ohio so i couldn't be but you know that's not to say that