was the court compared to what you have heard this morning this is a relatively simple case since very simple inducement for breach of contract it arises because we have we had it was there any evidence in the record regarding tensional procurement yes in order to in order to obtain a document from a chinese supplier you're going to need to submit a purchase order from the chinese supplier to the chinese supplier they're not going to willy nilly walk into your place of business and offer it to you another purchase offers are part of the record the documents that went from steel well you have to purchase orders but the invoice seals to steel city are in the record those invoices would not have come into existence in less there were a purchase order from steel city to subject of the evidence we put in here because the discovery was limited there may be a lot more positives in any event for the moment we're talking about correct jonica and what i have the same questions  subject to disagreement and exclusively ours so if they previously audit from us they saw the agreement demonstrating that anything that was made for us was part of the exclusivity involving the chinese manufacturer then they would have known that if they are buying the same part that they bought from us from the chinese manufacturer then they are buying our tooling which is subject to exclusivity under this yes i believe it was made in ok i'm looking at one thousand three hundred and sixty dollars your honor which says the agreement was given to them the agreement was part of the or the record and we talked about the fact and this when you say undisclosed products your honor the four pro four cards if we look at pages ten and eleven of our brief record it provides the record cites for each and then in the district the magistrate judge had phase one discovery and in phase one discovery you do what you need in order to try to settle the case at the conference on june th of seventeen he said don't go beyond trying to identify what parts were sold by the chinese manufacturer to steel city there was no other discovery that was allowed at the conference he explicitly said hold everything else so that's the reason why there were no depositions of the steel city people asking them how did you know what did you know when did you know it because that the magistrate judge would not let us get that far now i think there's clearly enough evidence to establish a question of fact with respect to each of those elements of the inducement clan but if you're asking why isn't there more it's because as your honor said this was largely a decision made on the  declarations of the channel was which explicitly say that we showed this agreement to steel city in march sixteen and they saw the full blown agreement and they knew or should have known they know that the parts that they were buying from the chinese manufacturer were exactly the parts that they were blind from us what are pages that are deemed twenty six and twenty seven  don't think the answer is mr dunn's declaration i think the duck i think the answer is the declaration of a client saying that he had discussions with mr levine of steel city that he gave the document the contract to mr levine of steel city in march of sixteen and that if he had read the contract he would have seen that anything that was purchased anything that steel city purchased from us from nationwide would have been purchased from our chinese manufacturer which would have been subject to the agreement because all the things that we bought from our agreement were tooling and to link at parts made from tooling could only be purchased from us and the fact that there were invoices from the chinese manufacturers showing that steel city bought parts at least one of which was after that agreement was shown to steel city which showed that they were buying from city knew that these parts were covered by the contract with their purchase and they have not shown evidence that steel city intentionally procured these parts for purposes of breaching the contract any one of these issues is sufficient to a firm summary judgment that was granted here point the court had a record for summary judgment and if the court allowed discovery it asked the parties an early discovery hearing what discovery was necessary to determine if the parts were made of tooling if there in this case that discovery was taken that discovery did not provide evidence either that steel city knew what parts were covered by the contract or that piece for parts identified in fact are covered by the contract and so when faced with the record of the summary judgment stage the court ruled that there's no facts that would have been resolved in some sort of the contested trial would not well at the summary judgment phase there has presented evidence that a reasonable jury could look at to resolve the facts in favor of the nonmoving and here nationwide presented no evidence that the contract covers the parts at issue they presented no evidence that steel city was aware of a contract covering those parts and significant tooling are covered by the contract but there is no evidence in the record that indicates that nationwide ever communicated to our client what parts were covered by their tooling we're talking about s client requested to move to dismiss on just the pleadings and the court permitted the parties to take discovery permitted nationwide to take discovery to determine whether or not there were facts to support its claim nationwide took discovery and provided evidence documents were produced in opposition to our summary judgment brief nationwide presented the evidence that they said created a fact disputed that evidence however did not show that the parts at issue the parts that  client purchased were covered by the contract they also did not show that our client was aware of any parts being covered by the one they say you present council says that you saw a contract i'm not sure the record requires that because on the one side the declarations don't actually say it was sent and our clients that were rationed says it was not received and the question is whether our client had knowledge of it but even if we assume that it was sent and our cli or that's a disputed fact the contract does not specify the parts that are covered by the contract it specifies that the parts made with nationwide's tooling are covered by the contract and there's nothing in the record that says that our client was that nationwide ever communicated is there anywhere in the speak clearly now is there anywhere in the other side's declaration that might reasonably be read as saying that those four parts are made with nationwide know there are not there are so there are four communications in the earth four pieces of evidence in the record that go to the communications between nationwide and my client if those communication argument there's a letter that supposedly attached to the agreement that the letter is that  toiling and for perspective on this our clients from purchasing its undisputed products from this chinese supplier since two thousand and five and it purchases many products of this klein from this distributor so there's no way for our clients  to having conversations with our client regarding their concern about the chinese supplier and whether or not this chinese supplier was making parts with its two and for other people but it does not indicate that they ever provided notice our client about what products are hundreds of products that our client purchases from the supplier and only a very few have product numbers that nationwide contends could be their products now these product identifiers are still city product  rs these product identifiers identify what vacuum these parts are compatible with they do not identify who made the park what tooling part was made in these are often standard parts in the blue brief nation opening brief they have made it from those numbers you cannot tell if the parts were made with their tooling as that page twelve their brief nationwide said they did not inspect the actual part steel city purchased nation once chinese manufacturer to determine if they were proprietary parts they want went on to explain that such an inspection would be necessary would be necessary to uncover steel cities purchase of nationwide's proprietary parts from nationwide chinese manufacture so we do not have evidence from the part numbers that any parts that were actually made with nationwide's tooling were purchased from the chinese manufacturer additionally if we look at the earlier invoices when steel city did purchase these parts nationwide i guess thirty nine we cannot see in the invoices from the chinese wire this is part number thirty nine or any nationwide are we only know that it has the same steel c r number and i still see a lot of the same type of art from any manufacturer tha not in the record here but my client's been purchasing this part since at least nineteen or so are two thousand other suppliers the invoice that we have and thirty seven shows that a one thousand of these eight cent parts were purchased from the chinese supplier but it doesn't say these parts were made with their tooling so we have their admission they  fourteen specific parts so the complaint mentioned some parts and others came up in the discussion why is it relevant that there are other parts that are not involved what's what's relevant is that for all of the parts that have been identified at any point so far at the parts they want to nuke use the entire device it's not really right this this case isn't about the devices they go into the question is whether or not the supplier through the same relationship so the other person back up our client's been purchasing from the supplier since two thousand and five and that's undisputed in the record  about so there are only four parts that they raise in this appeal that were raised in opposition a summary judgment those four parts we have no evidence that our client was ever aware they were subject to a contract and because our client wasn't aware that there was some dinner and received a letter stating that this particular relationship from the supplier was a serious question so  received a letter the letter does not specify what parts are covered by this contract our client had been buying parts from the supplier for us we're going to have the lawsuit to bring out the evidence right we didn't get to that stage so got the question before well that's correct but that's not all the evidence they provided also does not show that our client was aware of a contract covering these parts or more importantly that our client didn't intentionally breach the contract  for the other documentation yes the affidavits do not state the letter was sent they do not explain which parts are covered by the letter or the contract we don't have evidence of what tooling nationwide supposedly provided to the supplier and we don't know what parts would be made from that tooling so even if our client had knowledge of of everything that they allege our client had knowledge of that would not give our client the relevant knowledge to potentially induce an earth induced breach of this contract because they just simply didn't know what parts are covered by this contract but separately our client was also purchasing these parts from the chinese supplier before our client received this letter so even when this letter gave them that our client was already purchasing these parts and that's supplier and so i don't think there's any evidence to support that our client intentionally purchased these products to induce the breach of a contract when they're only continuing purchasing the products they were already purchasing that's not  honor we're beyond the issue of whether the district court erred in what he decided and on to the issue of whether or not there's any other basis in the record to affirm the result that was reached and the overarching through which i'd like the court to look at this from is although there was not a five thousand and sixty declaration on the law they're not saying that there wasn't sufficient discovery i think you have to analyze the extent of the evidence of  how to how do we get past that well i think on a motion for summary judgment the other the evidence has to be construed in favor of all twenty six applies to the determination of motions for summary judgment is that not r opposition you can do it at the success saying i don't have the capacity but there was no quick i agree i agree and consequently under rule twenty six and you have to provide and sixty one paragraph eighteen as far back as two thousand and fifteen we including him have had conversations with howard levine of steel city really we what does we mean take the word i i had a conversation with howard levy in back in two thousand and fifteen and we discussed whether or not who what when where why how you know who was present what was said what were the words oh come on i don't i think that's fine cross examination try this or no this is conclusive and i disagree with your on i disagree paul didn't happen and i disagree with you that's it i think whether or not this comes in is going to be discretionary on the part of the district judge there was no motion to strike this and there's no motion to say this is incompetent i mean it and my experience at least in the southern district in new york this would come in  and in voice from the chinese manufacturer which is date it strike that one thousand three hundred and thirty seven dollars or an invoice from the chinese manufacturer which is dated april th of two thousand and sixteen that's after the letter with which judge strike says for purposes of summary judgment we need to assume was sent and received now that refers to part and being in ninety two or fifty four and then we go back and we find at why do you know you've got a problem here or parks says they knew or parts were subject to remit you don't have any evidence that's the next issue your honor what we're showing through these invoices is one they bought this part specific does the argument in your memorandum have to be and i apologize i have not read the memorandum so they can specifically address that question because i think the obligation of the party in opposing summary judgment is to put in evidence and if the evidence is there relying on george tyke which i don't think he said that we have to assume and you know a summary judgment stage of the documents were sent and received without foundational evidence well it just throws the federal rules and for several procedure out the window while i don't think it throws the rules of evidence out the window here and then splits them ok the the witness says we sent this letter to the other side the other side said they didn't get it that's a question of fact the letter itself says attached is a copy of the agreement dated such and such now i think a reasonable inference is it attach what it said it attached if it didn't there would be a communication you would expect that saying hey you said there was an attachment and there was an end to his they didn't receive the letter that's a question of fact if they're saying they didn't get the are oh yes all of these invoices were before the district court and could could the presentation have been clear yes in hindsight the presentation could have been clearer but i'm glad you agree ok but yes i can always agree that something should be clear i mean arguably i would have done a better job arguably i wouldn't have but i don't want to criticize it because the evidence was there and if you look at this evidence in the totality there's a question of fact on an even the