that an expert from an out of state sees me from going to not a state expert be suited illinois even if that out of state expert never steps foot in illinois in this case opponents of course argue that the expert can't opinions in a affidavit with his pit opinions and that in my medical malpractise case and he said that report and that affidavit to illinois illinois attorney sent retain him he testified it deposition sensible he was hired to testify at a trial that would take place in the royal court in the briefs there were it in the underlying case at the motion to dismiss there were discussions about the contract with between the plaintiffs and the referring agency or the service that found dr morse and for the plaintiffs defendant seemed to argue in the underlying case and again briefs that because she's me they seem to argue that there was only a contract between the plaintiffs and this referring agency the service that finds experts for attorneys that there was a river that was there there was signed by it was signed by the point of and that was it was between the plaintiffs and tasa it was not between the plaintiff i'm sorry tessa that somehow that brings that also included of the agreement between the plaintiffs and dr morrison which is not the case the resident agreement with tessa but there was also an agreement in this case between the pla memorandum or or the agreement with tester which says that they do provide the service and they do collect the monies and they do pay the expert through their service but they clearly state in their memorandum and also in an affidavit from their he provided report he testified at deposition and again he was ultimately going to testify a trial should the case go to trial and that that was the agreement went once tessa found the expert was he was not only did he agree to do such things here he taken substantial steps the only thing he did not do in this case was testify at trial and that's because the case was dismissed before that could take place what he said at the deposition right and by the time we get by the time the plaintiff's got to the deposition based on his report based on his performance of  up to that point his performance of the agreement they had no reason to believe that he would say the things he did his deposition and that what he said it is deposition caused as you pointed out the case to be dismissed in once a case was dismissed the plaintiffs in turn sued the expert depositions and yes exactly at least regarding this is this this case never never stepped foot in well well of the things the doctor did is he put himself out there is an expert through again his agent tasa which basically markets itself to all states including illinois also you know once once the agreement was formed dr morrison did participate in a pending illinois medical malpractise case he wasn't just directing his activities it into illinois he was actually directing his activities into into an illinois court will hear music aiding with eleanore lawyers yes on a better which it was reasonably foreseeable would be a matter tried within the state of illinois yes right correct but other factors he also added to it with the state but he says there are some of the cases discussed communications of course phone calls but they also discussed written he also off after let's just say he blew the deposition after he blew the deposition he signed an affidavit essentially admitting that i blew it i broke and in the affidavit as we pointed out you know i don't know that this is dispositive but it certainly support if he said he's signed an affidavit pursuant to you know criminal penalties in illinois he also  you know said in that affidavit in the in the preamble of the prefatory rights that if called to testify in illinois which contemplates that he might be called to testify here in that case or another case and he had to know that there were there at least the potential for litigation arising from his actions because he in that affidavit he was admitting that he you know he didn't provide the right service that he agreed to performance here which is not really at issue but i guess what i would like to say is from the defendant's standpoint given the procedural nature stance of the case we take the complaint as it's alleged absolutely there are other issues with regard to the parties his performance in this case and those would be at issue should the case ever get that far but one of the things that we need to focus on then if we're going to take the complaint as it's alleged which puts the blame on dr morse and of course is that the plaintiff several ledged about their own behavior and i think that the primary statement in the complaint that is of most importan allegations ten we're talking about hiring we're talking about contracts we're talking about other things paragraph ten or scuse me allegation over ten the plaintiffs selected morrison from the list provided by task plaintiffs lot went to pennsylvania and asked them went to ohio after interviewing a national list of potential experts so lack did their word selected an ohio experts and he was retained by the pla through a contract with  certainly did make the allegation that there is a breach of contract against dr morse and himself in as part of the motion to dismiss dr morse and provided and an affidavit that there's no contrary evidence to that he had no contract with the point they had the opportunity to create that record in the trial court and failed to do so so what we're dealing with is a circumstance where d morrison didn't reach into illinois in any manner the plaintiffs went to ohio and selected the expert why did they select the expert they focus is on testimony in a cook county court that's not really the focus here why did they need an expert because they needed to create expert evidence they needed someone to create evidence which would then be admissible at trial that testimony is delivery of the service it is not the purpose of the of the retention they needed expert testimony and they chose to go to a high there's absolutely nothing in the where we are right now if we're only talking about contacts in the case i haven't heard a thing in the brief certainly don't reveal anything about his contacts w created the relationship i think the sabbahi case that is cited in my brief is the most important case here and that is the plaintiff in that case crossed the state line when in indiana and received professional services which is what we're dealing with professional services she got a server she came back she sustained an injury due to the alleged negligent prescription that was issued to her in indiana the holding in that case which relates back to the yates case from the spring pork years before says professional services when season when an illinois plaintiff crosses state lines to receive professional services in malpractise action as a result of that service cannot be brought in illinois that's the building of the case and i think that that's exactly what we're dealing with  the the plane or excuse me whether the defendant dr morse in here in inserting himself and illinois originally to create the relationship the fact that he's dealing with folks you know no i mean we wouldn't be here if he wasn't dealing with folks in illinois so to the reasoning in this spot of cases comes right down on the it's a due process case in addition to that you have the allegation in the complaint which is the retention was through the t tass is no longer part of this case is because of the the form selection so what you're end up having is dr morrison who is retained through that contract having to defend himself here this would expose all the fairness comes down to whether the agreement to create the evidence that the plaintiffs needed for the for the underlying case for the medical malpractise case he's not i haven't heard anything and i can't think of any manner in which he has a veiled himself of illinois law in doing that i he certainly i mean he gets paid he does all sorts of things but is he really transacting something that is giving him a benefit in the state of illinois he's here to provide testimony is going to spend the night probably fly out afterwards what is he doing in the state of illinois that is making himself but he's availing himself i don't see that and that's why i think the fairness is not there in addition to the fact that there is the underlying aspect of the fairness of the form selection clause that is in the contract that the plaintiffs themselves it's ultimately it's his lack of inserting himself into the state of illinois it's the illinois lawyers coming to him and selecting him just as they've alleged but defendant morrison in the underlying case i'm sorry if you know a medical malpractise case which gives rise to all this dr morrison signed an affidavit that said as we talked about support of his motion to dismiss for like a personal jurisdiction betha david in and of itself was contradictory to the affidavit he already he had already signed so to that extent there would be no reason for plaintiffs under those facts and under those two competing affidavits to file a contradictory affidavit his affidavit in his motion to dismiss based on lack of personal jurisdiction was a contradiction enough itself of his own words in a prior to the counsel brought so he said it was particularly persuasive here and i would agree that it might be persuasive if dr morris had went to i'm sorry if the attorneys in the room in the underlying medical malpractise case went to dr mor so bottles talks about cases where won't exactly what they talked about in their case where a patient went to see a doctor in indiana and that patient received medical services in indiana and then subsequently developed a argument the other part is what's supposed discusses is the professional services of a doctor or an attorney for instance if i went to california to seek advice from an attorney there and something  talking about so bottles don't mirror what was going on here especially in light of the fact that the services were inexplicably linked to an all knowing medical malpractise case also they this is this idea of a contract between the place and casa has come contracts are mutually exclusive to each other none of them the contract that's approach plaintiff's argument here i'm sorry opponents argument here that there is personal jurisdiction for dr mor