issue that it would have been at that point once we had the opportunity to properly discover that information they had what did they use to base is the situation not to issue of how city or has its past interprets the medical records which she then concludes he had a condition or for high blood pressure he's not another doctor she's in competent she would never been able to testify a trial if in fact they offered her as a witness to testify this case or did not follow the directors of the supreme court and set a case manager conference i would issue and i don't blame them or for that because i think from the very beginning i was clear report writer on the side that paper was what medical records you believe we don't even know judgment that she makes reference to something it doesn't attach to the records do you believe support this allegation that he had this condition and that he had this problem and all that and then he would have been able to ask reverse position and then immediately grant their oath and it was arbitrary who really was there there was no reason why the court could have given us ninety days sixty days something to engage in proper discovery so we have discovered all of the respect to those covered rulings i'm ok to strike them so we're asking that you reverse this and give us an opportunity gauge and discovery and see if we have a case you may not have a case but i really miss turner kids are entitled that i'm mr turner paid the money he can accept the money and they had an opportunity to do what they wanted to respect to their application and medical records they don't do anything to you guys and then the sense i get from the briefs is well if we send in some of that said you don't have any ability to actually go to court and have a jury judge determine were these conditions back what they have issued a policy at a higher premium those abuses that i believe are should be probably before the court we should be permitted to engage in discovery the flush out whether or there's any questions thank you i don't see any thank you then the judge agreed with their argument that you had to file into the insurance company had to file a contest or whatever within two years well the better green that and they know the truth that was unreal but the  affidavit by any stretch of the imagine it was properly structured there you talk about what can the court do there were requests for discovery was one sentence in a reply brief again this is this is the case the pla and a lot of wishful thinking all of which in fact judge jones referred to as wishful thinking a fishing expedition is what he called the request for discovery because it wasn't properly promised and you look at this case he suit to rescind the policy while the supreme court had this case almost these facts before it was our fellow with terminal the terminal lung cancer diagnosed in may of ninety six chemotherapy in ninety six and ninety seven applies for and receives a life insurance policy in april of one nine hundred ninety seven he dies to you two weeks short of the contestability koreans handing the insurance company does the standard claim investigation according to the supreme court claiming desiccation was conducted by receiving the medical records first thing they realize is that you should a life insurance policy that someone who lives who did disclose you to conduct the scare routes a waste of time you know we hear that about lawyers a lot that they're just out to make money they're just out you know their clients and they waste a lot of time picking on necessary actions if the discovery of this case would not tip then i don't know how it could be called a waste of time it would have been within the rules it would have been proper within the rules but it isn't it is not  time they don't apply that that's not this case you don't have to file suit this policy was correctly rescinded and you don't give me any reason to continue to allow discovery or to do anything other than to find your affidavit was