start off by addressing that point because my first point i believe there's no question that heartless statement that it doctored the opinions of wares rather sexpert bass was a statement of fact for the following reasons one it sort of two when three disclosures they said we reserve the right when they came to the pleading they said we adopt and we adopt and we were adopted and they played with us and then they did it again in the reconsideration and they laid out all the opinions they argued the opinions they did it orally and one of the points i was going to make to the court is i believe that apartment stood up in opening statement and said the same thing to the jury i think the track court would say hey you ma parameters so yes if it's an employee in that sense it was in writing and orally advocated when it came to a substantive are in the context of the summer which was part of that case was that that's correct it was that third party case they went for it this isn't like the cases where for example someone files a rule to one six one nine motion or six one three you have to you know assume for purposes of argument that it's the facts that was in the pleading because what happens here is they went forward they affirmatively advocate they put those opinions in front of the court they said this is going in front of the jury we adopt their opinions and these opinions have the following consequence if i can now i could just go back to justice harris with you and give so we believe it's a statement of fact in the following respect and not an opinion it is an affirmative positive statement of their belief their intention we adopt the opinions of facts they evaluate them they draw their witnesses from the facts right and this would be one factor that the jury to consider which is to hear that heartland adopted the opinions of mr best so  the opinion we think that's critical in this case like i said why would they be adopting the opinions if it were otherwise adopting if i had a witness for example who was on my witness any witness i call the witness i'm going to be looking at a missing witness instruction whether i got the facts or not of that way so i don't call that witness the jury gets to hear i had an opinion witness out there so it's a key and i think to the same consideration three part judicial admission but what you say about who you might presume no i don't think that's what i'm saying to thirteen is everywhere and i think there's two points here to answer your honor to thirteen yes but if i say beyond what they need to say anyway first of all we never used the words we adopt their opinions as the facts in there we argued that mr past their expert in his opinions given his deposition combined with dr various opinions we felt was sufficient to create a genuine issue of material fact on the issue of whether there was an evasion from the standard of care your say that if they are using this situation exclusively for that  in any fashion that's what the rule books are fairness in order to make sure this completely purposes that the jury doesn't get misled there was nothing about that nobody said anything that was unfair i would argue that there's wasn't anything contemporaneous there that's july the thirteenth that's the first one is somewhat open extend the second so twenty one and he says and he says in there we're responding to the frequent letters and claims well there were no frequent letters in flames first of all and second of tear right into this judicial admission issue because i think it's that the center first of all as judge the army pointed out he had it exactly right here record we never set we adopted this judicial admission theory filing on the day of trial it was so clear that we made edition like mission why did they wait and say upon further reflection we think it's a judicial admission and pursue that what happened here was the summary judgment by which b the plane of didn't participate in the summary judgment proceedings because it was a contentious claim harlan's contingent claim on a professional negligence standard and that was the issue on summary judgment the the third parties were saying harlan you didn't disclose any witness to speak to meet this professional judgment standard engineers and experts from plaintiffs expert and engineers retained experts you know the classic finger pointing and we said no expert might have used the words there was a deviation from the standard of care as to our contingent claim by the record as a whole there are there are testimony about the violation of that steel code in all these improper things things were built out of tolerance  said we said we adopted the witnesses trial lawyers everyone who tries cases and litigates like i know this is a common practice your opponent does are two thirteen disclosure you do yours and then you have a plaintiff in their two thirteen disclosures didn't adopt hartman's witnesses and i made a motion and it was granted that they say he wanted to put our witnesses on a hard one witness on had adverse witnesses in his case  part of the plan of sue the defendant try that case and then we if they had not the third parties had not been let out the case there would have been other claims against him like it were liable it's because of that and intention was and and i apologize in advance to the court for missing this week both parties cited the north shore community bank case that hartley was doing exactly what it needed to do in defending the summary judgment and it was an argument and it wasn't an adoption of the substance of the witnesses so i would encourage court to look at that case because i submit it is analogous for district case that directly speaks to the issue the other the other things that i would like to mention about this consequence would have been to bar bast from bar us from cross examining him and bar us from presenting dr dr garrett as an expert when those witnesses were presented no object basically admitted liability if we'd made that why did they have to work for leave to file summary judgment that we're going to that there's really no issue why there are three or four a response when we file a three or four a did they be allowed to call any opinion which says they lost that they had an alternative basis in their motion in limine three was that we should be the jury should be instructed of the past that we adopt a vast supposedly that was their alternative basis they didn't call it a judicial action that was denied that on the day of trial they filed this notice of intent to use past testimony as  or did you get it all in all all that we would have wanted and i think the money while i say it's i'm not trying to be cagey but i we were never going to ask huntington opinions about his letters i didn't even try and read from so the letters were i don't know how to describe it just the ten reasons i stated we thought there independently admissible and the judge agreed and the thing is that it is this balancing that the plaintiff talks about it wasn't necessary to balance the record right there that is evidence that the judge exercised his discretion and the last thing i would say and no amount of time is it with the limiting instruction they have to show excessive prejudice there was an excess that's residents here and again another waiver issue in the closing argument they did object the closing argument about the suppose it inappropriate statement referenced t which and i will also say that the witnesses both sides both lay witnesses were allowed to testify that we believe this was a design issue we believe this was a construction issue so in that sense huntington west was absolutely no different than the plaintiffs f one we were the court ruled that the evidence that we want to offer was illegally was not legally proper so nothing was being offered there was nothing to object to nor was any more facts going to come out it would have a bearing on the decision what was  exhibit fifty five this was on the server fifty five fifty seven and fifty eight which fifty seven is a letter fifty eight are the supporting documents and sixty one all of them one right after the other they're addressing the letters we came in the next day we are you them before returning to the stand in the judge said you know these are coming in i agree will of complete he let them in and i'm saying if you look at that i don't think it was an abuse of discretion because look what he was doing rule