next case on that morning back in five seventeen zero three nine nine granger versus the court of claims council to about that and there's no question there was a serious violation the question is the court has the opportunity to fashion a remedy and it did and it may not have been the remedy we would have fashioned or the court or us or the fashion but they did and there was an opportunity to be heard at that time and there was the opportunity to to take a deposition if that's what you thought you needed to do for over a year prior to that time and in addition to that occurred is there i think it's to eighteen they have the discretion or they're appellants were given the meaningful hearing that they are required to behead this require given to them under the under the basic limits on talking someday so when you talked about the remedy that was fashioned are you talking about take mean there are ways to learn you know other side and even there was a court conference this month in the senate there was a court conference where one of the parties wanted to extend discovery and the court said no at that time there was nothing mentioned to the court and about of late disclosure there was no question raised by the court the state are you going to use these witnesses we were essentially more likely waiting for the hearing most things that had been done during cx underlying trial case i think that probably played this council intended to rely on most of that information regarding  witnesses so i don't i can't speak as to what was occurring during that time i apologize  these three witnesses and they're going to talk just about the intersection question i get and i think that's true but it doesn't change the fact that the wall allows the plaintiff counsel at that time to say you don't have the witnesses and i intend to gorbals witnesses this is an instance where there is a due process violation i think that when you look at the fact that due process deals with fundamental fairness fair trials and everything that comes with a fair hearing and i think when you look at the fact that the case law surrounding two thirteen concludes that if you violate two thirteen you do not have a fair trial i think when you take those two things you can action and you connect those two dots i do believe that two thirteen violations through thirteen d can be had in the court of claims in potentially the circuit board thank you good morning your honor may it please the court assistant attorney general honore more on behalf of the great plains the only issue for this court to review on appeal is whether or not the plaintiffs receives due process and the  equate to due process violation and it does not automatically require that those witnesses be barred due process is satisfied by an orderly proceeding where notice is given and the plane tickets and meaningful opportunity to present witnesses and to confront the witnesses of the opposite side and if there is a circumstance where ruutu thirteen words may lead it and the claim to spare and he will present their argument then it could potentially right that michael but the case and whether after that situation just maple to present their argument let's say that the court did exactly what they did here which was to offer them an opportunity to depose them that day again not adequately present specter argument because of that but it would depend on time which witnesses were testifying the information that they alternate we provided at trial and whether the painters were actually able to a ok do you think that you can testify as to what all the rules and procedures are for the attorney general and i personally cannot testify right to that so they have to lay a foundation that she was g yes they did and so in order to do that sometimes addition had to have been late so it was curious to me that everybody just calls for an employee but truly she was control controls user control it interesting that the state takes position well she was just an employee and she had a lot of technical information that was not disclosed not available but was introduced at the hearing well it was close to your disclosures really and we don't have the opportunity to get more information they didn't work with them to try to alert the court to the fact that these witnesses very disclosed on time and they didn't tend to get the depositions hearing and so looking at the facts of the case here looking back to the fact that the plaintiffs where where these britney spears and that the department intended calling them about a year and a half if you're looking to the fact that they waited to attempt and i got to do thirteen hours and i'm going to rely on exactly what you have said no more no less and i'm not going to take you there deposition under two  calculus but i do still think that allowing the plaintiffs to fire all of the state's witnesses would have been an extreme remedy and even in your circumstance that you hypothesize here that would be an extreme remedy then the commissioner would have to look at whether there was unfair surprise as a result of the leak disclosure and in this circumstance even if they sent a letter to keating that they were going to rely on that you thirteen after th agree with you on that and that's all that this court can review for is whether there is a due process violation so again when you look here the court of claims did give the plaintiffs multiple opportunities to make their arguments  regarding this issue as well as their underlying claim and ultimately determine based on the facts of this case that it was appropriate that the department was and i was to call witnesses and so they were able due process violation if you can't answer that in the affirmative you don't go any further i think that's consideration but i think a response needs to be made with regards to this idea of two one k s and plaintiff counsel touching base with