unfair for mr shikar or there was a factual dispute upon which he was denied discovery and he was denied discovery repeatedly in this case the first the technological issue that formed the foundation for the two opinions was his told and laptop no longer had e mail access and you no longer doubt that alice was the district court did not credit your client's testimony and so it effectively drops out for us on appeal unless you can give us some basis for challenging the judge's credibility finding against your client i can't and that's a very steep burden of proof and i didn't see anything in your briefs that caused me to question and i kept holding i'm sorry the test what they offered in response was by question it was a question of evidence offered by both sides the court accepted rothman's testimony even though he admitted a cross examination in response to counsel's questions he did no idea at what point mr karr was cut off therefore there was not conflicting issues of credibility to his admission by the expert and essentially that mr shikaris testimony is correct and there was a further exacerbation a problem because there was an answer in this case i don't i don't  say i do not comprehend you can say when the expert says he can't be perfectly sure of something that's an admission that the other person's testimony is correct it's not the other person's testimony could be a tissue of lies but the expertise candid enough to say i can't completely prove that we still have findings of fact by the district judge spring court says in anderson against city of bessemer city but the court of appeals has to  them basically you know our line is unless they aren't just screamingly obviously will what makes these findings by the district judge screamingly wrong with respect to that particular sure two things number one he didn't say it wasn't a close call they could fix a time period he couldn't more importantly there was an objective answer here there were server logs which are documents maintained by the company in your ordinary course of business that case demanded not only informally they be produced but by way of motion repeatedly that the server logs be produced because there was an objective answer to the question even if you believe there was some credibility dispute the second issue deployment injunction then you have for these for cause hearing all of the period by ninety days and i agree with you at that point in time no attempt was made to conduct discovery in that about sixty day span however your honor after that at the hearing they were allowed to contempt or not which was the exact same issue however what we believe was inappropriate over the course of time repeatedly teledyne was allowed to augment the record they're allowed to give subsequent if they was from mr manley they were allowed to give subsequent affidavits from their expert mr ruffin on several occasions there is no just basis to say we should be denied discovery when they're augmenting their testimony and providing new evidence that goes to the question of whether contempt so even if we had waived the earlier discovery discovery foibles as you point to the time period after the contempt hearing they often augmented the record on several cations and there is no reason why we should have been able to conduct discovery which is targeted and reasonable to new issues they raised in all the new affidavits they submitted the other prompt of the court's decision which again has nothing to do the credibility it was actually the attorney's testimony you could find in the district court found that mr  was absolutely full of it about the phone but his attorney testified under oath that he met with him at a hotel he provided with a teledyne phone that it wasn't completely usable condition it was fully operational contain all the then went to the expert rockman after last being in the hands of the attorney the district court made no suggestion that the tourney was lying or fudging or manufactured facts the only rebuttal that came was the district court's revolved in a footnote web site instructions on manufacturer's sites about how you do that perhaps judge but you have to rely you have to not have you cannot have a factual dispute unless there's a good faith basis for there's not even a he could face basis for dis but i think respectfully there is judge and then what according to about your phone again the district court enters an injunction requiring your client to turn over the teledyne phone within five days he turns it over five weeks later the contempt is clear his statement about the pass code is i modified the phone to eliminate the pass code that's a confession to violating the injunction because the injunction says you must turn it over  modified you have a client whose contempt is on him big us and whose defense of that particular charge concedes another contempt you have to understand that the district judge would never would the other technological issue was u s b drives now it was unreported including by name of teledyne employee who currently work there including by name of telling customers by name and company of all the different individuals server which would be a bad inference mr parker the expert categorically said no i'm not saying that i can't tell you that there was a data transfer one where the other did just recorded its opinion ignore that testimony and forgot that it quiz the expert on th it please the court this is a case about teletypes former employee russia car who took company information refused to return it notwithstanding an injunction and spent more than two years admitting false and perjure testimony to the court refusing to comply with the court's orders and threatening and making outrageous personal attacks on witnesses counsel and the court alike after eighteen months of this type of litigation the court found which a car was still in contempt of court had repeatedly lied to the court and terminated the litigation as a result of that misconduct now there are two primary issues in this appeal first whether the district court properly acted within its discretion to find mr karr in contempt of court and second whether the district court properly exercised its discretion to terminate the litigation on account of that misconduct after the first issue it was televised burden to show by clear and convincing evidence that the preliminary injunction set forth unambiguous commands that your car violated those commands in a that in any way it was in big us having conceded that point he waives any challenge that order therefore the only question is whether the district court properly exercised its discretion when it found that he had violated the injunctions command focuses on the findings of that of the ways in which he had not complied with those commands and this court reviews those findings of fact the clear error meaning that your car can only prevail if on the basis of the entire record this court is left with a firm attention car tries to meet that high standard by focusing almost exclusively on the testimony daniel rothman the computer forensic analyst retained by teledyne testified at the hearing in this matter but there are two important points with respect to mr ruffin's testimony first the district court did not realize only or exclusively on mr ruffin's testimony to find your car in contempt of court it also relied on his own admissions of the ways in which he was not in compliance with the court's orders shifting testimony on things like the i phone and the court's own credibility assessments the second important point is that your car's conduct and statements throughout the course of the case show that the district court did not clearly err inviting him in contempt of court after hearing mr had violated the injunctions commands those findings of fact were not clearly erroneous now on appeals to karr's main argument appears to be that there was a rule twenty six federal rule of civil procedure twenty six violation he says that the court should not have admitting rotman's testimony because there was no expert report produced but there are two fundamental problems with that argument first rule twenty six's expert disclosure and report production requirements are triggered by the parties are ninety days out from trial or where deference to the district court's credibility determinations and will not disturb those determinations unless they are without some foundation in the record here the district court did not clearly error where it based its credibility to terminations and having seen shi testify twice in front of the court as well as all of his various affidavits that were inconsistent with one another inconsistent with his prior testimony and inconsistent with the objective evidence that had been produced so far in the case the second important point is that your car contends as counsel just argue that he was denied discovery and additional hearings which again he says would have shown that he had courage and self of contempt but he can't show an abuse of discretion here either where the record shows that he was repeatedly given opportunities to do discovery for example in july of two thousand and fifteen after being found in contempt of court the district court three times invited him to bring in an expert statement or report challenge walkmans testimony and to reopen the evidence rehearing at the end of that monster car abandoned that effort and moved on to efforts to show that particular external hard drives did not exist he pursued that for several months until abandoning now for when it's when the evidence show that in fact they did exist and one of those had actually been shipped to his own house in july in february of two thousand and sixteen the district court invited shikar to file a brief to reopen discovery including among other things to allow him to depose mr oxman shikar never filed their grief and therefore he has again abandoned that effort at discovery and waived it on appeal as two additional hearings the record again shows that your car benefited from multiple hearings over the course of the case where his attorneys were able to come in and argue about the ways in which he was in apply for the court requires that he get a second evidentiary hearing particularly where here he was allowed to make any hour he meant submit any affidavit present any evidence he wanted throughout the case his problem is that he consistently relied on his own testimony and the district court repeatedly found that that was just an act credible the district court never found any legitimate dispute a fact that would benefit from an additional hearing of an injury hearing and she part cannot and does not show that that was an abuse of discretion power to control litigation and found on the basis of the entire record that your car's misconduct was so extreme that it was going to terminate the litigation this court reviews the district court's exercise of its inherent power for abuse of discretion and personal attacks on witnesses who provided adverse testimony to him counsel and the court alike the district court also identified several lesser saying sions that it had threatened him with that had proven successful in controlling and correcting m in response only that his misconduct didn't affect his counter claims to at least those should have been allowed to proceed but that misses the point where his conduct was a total disregard for the truth and the integrity of the legal process and that was broader than any particular