directed to the corporate defendant and mr kelley hand was the only person who could appear on behalf of the corporate defendant so that's my answer he was nasa painted and there was no notice entered for his deposition so therefore there was a court but become subject to the jurisdiction of the court but he didn't simply appear as someone who connected with the with the the litigation he was the only person that could provide information against or read relating to the corporate defendant that is correct he only represented it and there's no one else that could appear i gree and he appeared in that capacity he was not a party to this case president as the second amended complaint away just say that i said he's the only one who could testify regarding the defendant if and when the defendants in a corporate entity agree he's your only person because as we know party he was never subpoenaed and therefore the only capacity you say that the trial court can is is powerless to force the only individual who could possibly testify regarding a name defendant i he's powerless to enforce this discovery rules or or just him and i can't sanction that individual or can't do anything if that individual should fail to comply with with proper discovery that well maybe we're talking to the actor i think that the later court of the later court proceedings might lead us to to conclude otherwise because the court ordered him to answer questions with regard to and but again it mr callahan is the representative of west monroe office can't answer those questions because he doesn't know the answers to those questions and i want women to see literally issue a for him personally and there's no reason they can't fix person no there isn't and once you sit service a peanut then he's now obviously under the power of the court and would come in and say i don't want i want a quiet or here's what i don't want to talk about here here's the problem with of the person taking a deposition set forth the basis on which they want to take and when you have a corporate defendant only and you want to depose the president and sole representative of that defendant i think it's implicit that that's the scope of your deposition oh the on the other side is the other side is that if the defendant want the proponent wants to make that contention he's the one to make that contention and it's not the burden of the deposing part say i'm calling you under this capacity if the individual says hey i'm only here under this capacity as justice palmer suggested maybe you know if he were told that you know are the questions themselves tell him that he's not under there he's not in answer them why would that entitle the defendant to be in the witness to have an immediate appeal why and why do we have jurisdiction over this issue you have jurisdiction either for the first notice of appeal that was filed or the that i don't read that that authority in that room i will i know you refer to clinton's yes we refer to claims and i will say that you view in a in candor i think you probably have the better of this argument those questions so i don't see the distinction between the corporate entity and the individual if if they're one of the same but i mean i was he the one the same person in a sense of mr gillingham can't be split in half or can't you know be some sort of fictional corporate entity because there is a constitutional right to of as of right to an appeal for a final judgment found that's not what happened here the point that you're raising regarding  there was an order and everyone acted like it was yes and it's all some other court meaning you says it's not the circuit court and they're treated as valid but if it's mr callahan can't appeal from a diffuser to say that you know this appeal he filed la sanction amount before the litigation and that's my position yes you can't have it both ways in the sense of saying i mean that i'm talking from what the did the plain just position is here now they a motion to dismiss the first appeal well if that's their position that there was no jurisdiction then i don't see how in good faith or good conscience they can trying to force that order at the same time because again that's stripping mr kelly his right to an appeal please the court and tell us that we have jurisdiction here for this appeal under section three zero three you do not yet here's what should have been done it to options that there were available to him if he said that the court didn't have jurisdiction over him he could have gone under three of six and had he asked for permissive appeal he did he could i think justice garcia  he could have asked that to be held in front of the contempt of court under three or four b five and he didn't he brought it under three zero three eight two he's not a purty to the case that's why we get that i think you hit it right on the head justice that it's just press section isn't a political i'm not strictly asking this court to strip him of the right to an appeal what i'm asking him to do well seasoned attorney is to follow the no noise supreme court rules there like seven hundred eight rules did give this quote church stiction he he did not follow the right one as as a party but judge here's the thing it's just fine to have it both ways right and justice amr indicate he i didn't designate him as a two zero six one witness never did he answer your question that you raise at the outset of the appellant's argument judge he the the deposition was agreed by the attorneys for them so that's what you did then judge goldberg entered in their order ordering him to appear for his deposition before i was a prof arrives to proceed forward with his deposition so what if you ask him some personal questions questions that didn't pertain no no because with the things with r colleagues to certain current attorneys of his and i want to know if he was claiming because they were maintaining that ok alan han the the actual defendant was no longer in business even though it was active ok i want to find out what was the relationship why was this company pain bills of the defendant when he had no obligation to do so so it barring the questioning and i didn't eat it doesn't doesn't the person is objecting to the questions have to provide a transcript of the questions so that the question itself can be evaluated in determining whether or not it is in the sense of personal and outside the bounds and yet because before that because it seems to me that if you're talking about a continuation of the deposition he asked that the deposition beat be concluded after an hour because he had other obligations he had to meet with a client it is obvious and then he three as his basis for jurisdiction he should have gone under three o one he didn't all right he didn't and saddest situation is yes mr ok i'll hand once this court to adapt have to subsequently gets subsequent orders to finish the depositions yes they did but he but he he subjected himself and he never never said before and i'm a true zero six because i didn't he was given two opportunities by judge by judge goldberg and nevertheless he he basically said to him i'm not going to adhere to what you say judge goldberg was his if we use the on reasonable standard in terms of evaluating his sanctions order there was nothing unreasonable i doubt head since the outset of this case i would i've been fighting to get whatever i get everything that i was it's not not to it's not up to just talk about the sanction yes so let's say we were we were just agree with you that there's no jurisdiction in this appeal why would we want to do that if the case is already over and there's an other appeal pending before this court and the only reason we're saying this isn't that we have no jurisdiction or if we say we have no jurisdiction where we don't address the issues that he w but there's nowhere to return to is that we were seeking a return at the case is already over so why should we simply consolidate this appeal with the now pending appeal from the jury for it and try to address the issues in the context of a final order as opposed to this no jurisdiction issue because he didn't cite the right so where's he going to go back if we agree with how does this issue ever compete for it the issue of is going on and he said why i don't have to raise it in this following the jury verdict because it's already before the court he he what he did here believe again if if you have the right rare then invoke the right role but don't start invoking wrong rares and saying merely because i file a notice of appeal i think i could list whatever i want and i'm ok i just don't think so but for again for the reasons that i've articulated and we've discussed i asked it such goldberg's orders be affirmed by school thanks for your time at power over him i don't think that's the way the discovery practice should be considered and when he was asked questions that went beyond the scope of his feeling question of behalf of the corporate entity he said i don't know and i can't know and those appeal the question under this court's independent obligation to examine its own jurisdiction is do we have jurisdiction or not whether with a plaintiff says we do or don't under a rule or not is immaterial but putting that aside this court certainly hedger a station after the think that distinction that needs to be considered and taken into account and again he did necker to asli sit down to appear as a person he set down because he had to as you only person who could testify on behalf of the corporate represented so for those reasons we would ask that of eleven before the judge was entered in april or stair about two thousand and twelve so they were separate it time and that's why this separate appeal was filed in this one was consolidated again you are free to do as you see fit with those appeals for these made a determination to come to the public court separately with regard to the sanctions and the and the obviously the antitheses judge brack yes separate notices of appeals were f but we're talking it was relatively the same time right now yes because because you waited i think as i remember in your filings in the motion practice that you you said something like well on the abundance of caution here we're back again with a new notice of appeal now that the case is over with regards to their right that's what we consolidated them to yes ok and so but you made it you made a conscious decision to come to the public court ah on the sanctions a determination was made and i think it was because of the fact that there was already the appeal docket in two thousand and eleven and the sanctions issue the thought was and i didn't feel the appeals but i think the thought was let's keep the sanctions issue with the prior sanctions appeal