electronic records even still i would have hoped that the record would look exactly the same a electronically as it didn't paper as you can tell it didn't so i appreciate you right we had the bird you will but to walk us through some of these issues we could find some of this there are multiple on issues here i'm going to start with the issue of what we believe is the failure of the trial court to comply with the court's mandate and i will conclude ultimately with the conclusion every artist of how procedurally we look at it  about where they legally served or were they factually know if i factually served and every one of them said no every one of them denied that they were served every one of them said so in answer that question the answer is both factually and legally they claimed they they were not and i could go through each one of them if i mean just generally ya know he was hospitalized during that period of time and lived in a home that was owned by his brother who are not the same demographics that he did so and he said he was never served he didn't get served until the garnish of his i don't understand of the situation where you're not even trying to serve you know which sometimes happens to people there are people who push you're not supposed to do was happening steve farm but i think very important here is the law imputes the knowledge of the litigation attorney to the litigants so litigant can say i didn't know my boy or was doing in the course of litigation that's important because hired the lawyer as state farm ratified the behavior well one state they benefit and utilized all of these judgments not not just in the form but other switch that goes into the discovery on on all the others they were routinely getting these default judgments which were improper and getting a benefit all by itself is gratification where you have to you have to know that something's been done that's wrong that did separation they knew how segregation was supposed to be done they were doing audits they were physically there they were paying for shares fees by they had no there were no sheriffs returns and any of these cases  that i was sorry what was the bases that they knew that they were they were built and they paid the bill let me what establishes that they knew that this year was never used for service well the record individual client they had a whole lot of lawyers with the day they had two thousand cases where getting bill for sure and every single time they're going to go for a process server to somehow i think two thousand cases none of those mean august he's now facing it and it and it runs up to two thousand so something happened and all that time and that knowledge is imputed goal to state farm because he was there litigation trying to say well factually we really didn't know they did him being intentionally ignorant intentionally not understanding what is in front of them which is getting built for two thousand pieces for shares certainly at some point do know what's going on and they don't just about they don't say when they're faced with this complaint for example they all say my goodness we had no idea what was happening look at this we have this lawyer that sort of out here and he's doing things like we do not want this to happen we do not agree that this is accept acceptable all and consequently we're going to fix this we're going to make sure he doesn't do it anymore we're going to go back we're going to fix what he's done but that's ok he refused to acknowledge that this court had they hated the dispositive orders just missing state from from the case in other words the orders on the abuse of process claims and march for summary judgment he was required to acknowledge something that also may be utilized to do an amended complaint or to argue against any subsequently postured motions the plays or have the option to do that it ma than any other motion that's in a record with something doesn't bring it up and say ok and  what he looked at but even if you assume for the moment that what he looked at was proper in how you look there are in all you all need to do with that is say i've looked at this i've looked at the privilege like there's nothing new now where  know what was new i mean new to him new at this time knew that what would have been you to meet or knew back when it was done those are very different things and when we were here before and see f before he made the final order he said there are no new facts and therefore this court told us to do i don't think the court did that because anything the court would have ordered necessarily would not have gone in that direction and we know of multiple multiple communications and the record is very clear that december th was not the st really cation between state farm and obey there is very clear and that they had prior communications the to join legal defense before this ever night so w arguing in a vacuum there shimmered by clearly that communication it was not the initial communication of the fact finding information that was done started to tell him the things i needed and he said well no i'm just talking about what you need right right now for this thing not the summary judgment but right now i'm going to limit you to tell me right now what should be and that's why i said well i  rejected versions of state farm's claim fights of those four of those for nothing else and they're rejected version so and i believe they're the activity lives although u were but there were whole things that were just rejected information from just just blacked out so i don't know if it was it just for example up insurance policy number blacked zero date specifically used to share to try to serve young albeit that didn't work out and a special process server needed to be appointed in addition with regards to paul i still am at a loss to understand what the abuse of process claim is with regard to coal because all day specifically filed a motion with the trial for this the municipal trial court and said i can't find whole i would like to specific alleged wrongdoing and you're not finding anything specific in this complaint you're finding a lot of random allegations and next point that are not brought home to these four named plaintiffs theory is the theory here is that the that the a process server is not proper unless you are a licensed private detective and in the border there is a specific number of the license for that private detective while there's not there's not a lot and that misconception undermines much of the allegations now it's only i'll regret after receiving a ruling that was unfavorable that now we see that well we should have gotten this information and then we talk about the any problems with the culture i friends there was nothing there so there was nothing to show so there isn't any reliance on any particular affirmative statement it's a function of what is not  it what should those documents then be there for us to be able to review and the trial intends to be able to review whether or not what he was saying was effective how do you support that those statements and when you say you're basing it on something you reveal that you know there's this information is not there how how can we possibly review them without knowing we're seeing what the documents st of all of these requesting it in camera from birth view of those documents that were a lot that wasn't done i guess i should also mention that the very beginning of this case when we were negotiating a protective order i asked for specific get your position then you can take a set of diagnosis and look at these and these are communications between me state farm and attorney of the day and there's nothing here that shows that we ever talked about service of process say you have not and then say because we've made that those allegations now are all of your privileged communications which by the way those directly inform knowledge because it's the absence of the information but all of those communication is are now subject to review by by plaintiffs no no no they're not because you can just claim the privilege can shut her case down but if you move for summary judgment you say hey just look at all these documents allegation is that that require you to disclose the the privileged communications that's the nature of the admission dr that you're actually putting it at issue where you have the burden of proof we don't have the burden of proof here before the motion for summary judgment and then we had the trial court said all right what more do you need she got what she said which in essence is kind of the scheduling order that she suggests is not part of information with the idea being that because you can find the absence of information all the sudden information that isn't directly relevant you need to know needs to be produced in some fashion without the motion it with with with ignoring our request that a protective order be entered that would allow the quick quick peek are we done what we could do in words to cost him to get it out of the place where the scheme was sort of and remember i would also point out respectfully your honor the rule actually for service in cook county is that it doesn't have to go to the sheriff st and there are exceptions to that  in excess of three thousand people which is the only county in the state that i'm aware on is cook county you must st place with the shirt that is the state law don't ask me why so i don't push as i don't think it's right but with regards to the plant privilege and not attention i guess there's no exception underground because there's no exception when making one that says only not prove his documents and once they do raise the privilege then they want to use it for offensively to get out particularly remember i do remember there were very expansive requests by state farm that they wanted to keep everything under cover and i said no we should have all of these things under cover on and i guess that's th