to the united states because it overstayed his immigration be so he was given leave to appear of by video from taiwan tempted to travel to taiwan he was halfway there he was on a layover in a city in mainland china where he was stopped by the chinese authorities and told to return to his place of residence in challenge in which is in northern china near beijing that was i believe the day before to provide for their briefing on how was this a final order that we did order that you peel strikes the video testimony and imposes sanctions but i am not aware of there being a final appeal the order in this case could order it is tantamount to dismissal in this case because mr g s testimony scuse me essential to proving his claims there are no other testimony or evidence that can be a do used in this united states for about ten years he overstayed his immigration visa as closure that was done by the drug he is precluded from giving further testimony in this case have been introduced but the trial judge denied introduction of that of that deposition transcript we would be happy if this court would order the introduction of the deposition  money that would take that down we don't have jurisdiction and we're not about to order anything and then you have to explain to us why this into like a jury or there is an exception to the final judgment rule and used to will have not done that because the judge has the precluded further video testimony the judge has part has denied entry of the deposition transcript and there is no alternative let me as of introducing of testimony what lies between you and the final judgment in the district court what is the status in the district court right now you said that this is tantamount to dismissal that you have basically no case without the testimony we've been talking about and therefore it is our motion to dismiss the case pending our motion for judgment what's what is the status of the district court of this case in the middle of trial trial was stayed pending the resolution of this appeal and who who says you have witnesses to put on  the two witnesses that we had are the two plaintiffs in this case one of whom obviously has been pretty clued in that is the reason for this appeal the other of whom is me is another employee whose employment overlapped only briefly with the with mr g s if you're saying that this ruling is tantamount to dismiss such a judgment wouldn't be appealable and you'd be able to raise all the grounds that you're raising now that as judge fuller was pointing out you have to persuade us that this is a matter that would be review on final judgment in order to obtain review of what is otherwise an interlocutory order your honor this would be reviewable on final judgment however that it would be also be extremely inefficient to do so oh you're saying is that it's a lack of tory appeals are efficient and there's no doubt about that but that doesn't give us jurisdiction over that you know that a final order is what you need to pursue this case in our court of this testimony means that a final order will mean that when judgment is entered it will necessarily be against mr g there is no doubt about this all  can raise the issue of the denial of the video deposition within your appeal from that final order you cannot raise it now that's the point we're all mak counsel mr jan how has submitted his credentials regarding the chinese law he has been practicing china for more than ten years until today the percentage although challenging the chinese who's there two minutes for rebuttal briefly your honor excuse me the panel noted that there were a lesser sanctions available to the district court for instance the introduction of  deposition testimony that was also a full day's worth of both direct and cross examination taken of mr g the issue of where he was located came up on the nd day of his cross examination  as far as mr g making himself available the court was aware from i believe two thousand and sixteen sorry two thousand and seventeen so were defense counsel that he was unavailable to a  in the united states that's why he was deposed remotely and on video and that deposition testimony could have been taken by the district court scuse me and as far as making him of vailable to testify at trial by video he did his utmost to make themselves available in taiwan he was literally on his way there when he was stopped by the authorities in china  this was not a circumstance beyond within his control and was an extraordinary circumstance that he and we did our best to essentially deal with so that he could still present his trial testimony