management order it was in the nature of a housekeeping matter i suppose to system better to have no such records at the time as it said it was a matter of determining whether there might be any such contract contact then we would have a different situation that would be there would be less reason to expect that the that the the other parties were aware if that where you are you verified a copy was sent to all the parties giving them the option to ask for the records where you know they've made a phone call or both one or the other like it's a less clean break if you will why it's how you unless you're documents that are very similar to each other all right now how did they get disclosed because it's indicated that it was the power of the plaintiff that introduced them through treatment records they're not a record of how she was perceived to be and these are not it is a critical distinction to make in part because it says it reflects the fact that they were not responsive to the state that it was issued or they were simply issued maintains that that this reservation is for more pressure to having to produce these documents we can we must i believe and that that's important to recognizing whether or not northwestern was in violation of that or think they would have made a difference in the outcome of the trial no your honor they would not these are these are not the first confession homecare was not a party there's no allegations that compassionate homecare did anything should fail to do it in it should also part of the question about whether a new trial is called for here that it's considered a sanction not only for northwestern but also for the for its effect on the judicial system as a head to throw out the verdict of the jury  deliberated over this case and you know the jury to address the same issues yet again is not an insignificant thing to do and one of the areas that are contained in the trial court's order and particularly it's overlooking assume you're right there's a duty to supplement the should have been supplemented so now let's go to when you said at the trial that the lawyer for whomever would have received this was no longer with your office was that the at the end of the day you have to get a new trial because you have to show that there would have been a different outcome correct it may be the response to all of this is that you haven't really shown what about these  documents and that they say somewhere she was forgetting what else is there that you were trying to get in front of the jury or that what would this have done with your experts i mean i'm looking at it now so what is it they say you don't really argue this you don't to the knew the answer was no she had reviewed those medical records because they didn't exist there's nothing improper or suspicious about a question of that nature  the plans of care finances here they're not met records in the sense reflecting treatment that was given or a condition of the be deceiving the patients who that was observed they are there are references t hoped to be accomplished through the treatments but this was to be provided by the home health care service these are not they don't do standard of care they don't go to causation they don't believe any of the elements of the  why these documents even if they were it had been withheld or concealed or secreted in some fashion they will tell you did they show really that she didn't talk to them or did she simply say i didn't compare with them it doesn't deceptive and secreted a simple truth is inconsistent with anything contained in the record it's inconsistent with the use of an open in transparent subpoena process that was known to give notice and did in fact give notice both of  back then was involved in the franciscan fathers case where the second district recognize that even if the defendant had not been as forthcoming as a crew back the onus remained on the plaintiff to obtain something that was probably there were met case that was can't speak to the actual action of a trial attorney by i can submit that if it's entirely proper in this in this search for truth as we sometimes talk about to find out if there is more information out there and this was not done in a this and that was the time to make it there was no no such a request made and northwestern should not be penalize as if the consequences of this case have unfolded by being the one to search out more information and by doing those documents were not in a party's position at the time which was true that the issuance of the subpoenas certainly resonator us to read parties backs conceivably there might be documents out there we're going to see if we can find them and that's an implicit were raised there was really no basis for saying that the subpoena was improper that was the time to do it if you had to address any further questions the court might have otherwise i would simply reiterate my request that the court reverse the order granting a trial