to start is the question of whether the document is a forgery or not we did not hear any argument this afternoon saying that the document was legitimate and in fact all evidence with the intent of that schedule being wrapped around the deposition larry met with the insurance agent who supposedly quite at the document the defendant that was built into the schedule then a hearing was set it was the defendant's choice to have their president testify via another affidavit it was the defendant's choice not to bring in anyone as a witness the crew brought in anyone they wanted in the hearing was they chose to do it that way they could lay a foundation for employees the defendants insurance agents deposition testimony clearly document that the contract is a fraud it was plain there's a lot of building findings rate court made credibility very clear did make credibility findings best it was based on those i mean it's not much of a credibility question when the defendant's employee is sending another i understand i would only just add that they could have asked for it that way they could have requested an evidentiary hearing if they didn't think that hearing was sufficient they never asked for any of these things they d not just producing a document that was not true you know in defendant's brief they say this is not the first time that he's committed perjury that's true this is not the first time a document is fastly produced not an isolated incident where the court says fix this it's me here's a here's another fine fix this and let's go forward this was written throughout it's also important to remember that talking about is one thirty seven things it's a false statement so fast vacuum it filed in a court right in the certainly as it relates to the motion to dismiss and the affidavit filed to the court that would be that could fall under rule one thirty seven as well but there is also discovery sanctions as well they would like that well be they expounded on this document explained it in depth in discovery responses in deposition testimony all a lot but yeah a throughout their interactive torrie answers they lied about it in their document production they lied about it in jest deposition testimony that's all discovery under tonight t here but it was first presented a motion to dismiss if you want to get technical but again and though what the quote was looking at with this case everything every document they've produced is in question now as this motion was being briefed it turned out we discovered the defendant was running the second set of books totally fraudulent quick book ledgers the court did not take that into account in ruling out its motion to the motion sanctions but it that would be yet another example of him lying about everything all the documents in this case are documents produced in this case are in question that's what the court is looking at here the court is looking at trying to have a trial when you cannot trust a single document that was produced by the defendants in this case you certainly cannot trust the president i think we understand the importance i was fake yes you are if you look at the briefing of the motion for sanctions in our reply brief during the brief it was discovered that the defendants were running the second set paid trends out there totally fake they admitted as much they had produced certificates of insurance for companies that were supposedly subcontractors during discovery we served subpoenas on these entities called them up and i understand they got it i think the problem here is we need to start discovery over again just to figure out what the real documents are in this case and that is a punishment on the plate if the defendant gets away with what the document being not per testified to a trial i should hope that it doesn't take members of the court to say that this document is not admissible at trial so what's the problem with starting over the judge was the big two hundred thousand dollars a policy in its name that policy did not cover any of the truck drivers issue this case premiums were a minimum amount i don't recall the exact amount your honor it was next to nothing the drivers only this is what's in front of us is the fall for discovery sanction when there was a compliance with discovery i'll believe your position is it was fraudulent but it was complied i think th you think this is not a question of in century wrote for example where you're trying to figure out who the state of mind here it is a question it is as plain as the documents themselves the it was happening again none of that is right here if they'd had a question about documents authenticity or any of these issues they could have brought anybody expect that hearing they could have made it proffered to the court they didn't object to the deposition testimony being an issue none of those were objections made big they wanted it this way essentially  test i guess the only point worth remembering here is this was not the first time judge brennan disagreed with their discovery approach you know motions for her were granted but the motion caught for through our discovery work where it turns out that they were up they were employees they had documents showing that was but not a better produced unless we found them out through our own third party discovery that is when the first instance of change sanctions happened here that was bad enough the draft was believed very reasonable