pale kid and they put it together in a package that is probably will in a broader sense ok yes in good faith they budget diaries showing the allocation method we couldn't document showing that they had not recoup their investment on the films they were allocating to and therefore had an incentive to favor themselves we had not yet a lawyer representing the point is wrote a letter to c b s saying that they were doing their job and that they were going to terminate the arrangement that letter was replied lawyer who grabbed the dock complaint produced a declaration and he said that complaint was filed to protect the statute of limitations with respect to the same city apical distribution issues that were covered by the no afterwards we got accounting from them and it showed they actually weren't for being in the picture in thirty six countries around the world and when we were satisfied that they were actually despite the fact that they are dissolved that they were actually fulfilling their weren't even involved in either the letter or the complaint now it's quite clear this court decided last year in the i'll call a local vs hushing case that california follows the discovery rule even with respect they were packaging and allocating this picture in formal television distribution until the pilot of this lawsuit and the discovery that took place sometime cordie end of two thousand and one in january  minutes that have very little of appeal and very little revenue producing that in foreign countries well the bottom line here is that in any case where the defendant has the burden proof in a case where they hinder our discovery where the discovery rule applies to the statute of limitations issue there is no possibility i respectfully say to you th very picture and in many instances not all but many instances they allocated equally equally garbage pail kids got the same amount of money as the spider and that's just one and that's merits and it's just incredible to me that he could come to that conclusion first off the only legal argument they raised and that we weren't allowed to make a claim for it's not integrated unlike other contracts in the record it doesn't have a clause that says it contains all of the agreements of the parties mr weissman testified that he had an agreement with  and the request of plaintiffs made for a continuance on the first motion only dealt with the fraud cause of action at that time says they needed additional time to find evidence of wrongdoing and evidence of damages they never requested any additional times we played it at the time not having knowledge of all the facts of because of the agreement entered into back in one nine hundred eighty five when they were complaining problems that happened supposedly in the late eight for the most part of the television distribution work such that they on the first exhibit that's we got the money and then on the third and fourth reruns the there's not that much money involved and so the real  the only evidence that they stated that they needed is contained in paragraph forty one of their statement genuine issues as to the next book of records fifty eight and that request only related to budget documents and talking as regards c b s fox video but they never said what they were going to do with the budget documents or how they would dispute the motion the same thing with the c b s fox video documents the record also showed that c b s had already produce theatrical film division and that division which was headed by larry sugar entered into the agreement in order to distribute the film but that agreement was to distribute the film theatrically and by television and by video so it was one agreement with one division that was going to distribute it for and all of those time at the time in eighty seven it probably was just beginning by the time they filed a complaint in eighty eight and in the briefs pointed out where it shows it in the record that approximately thirty five percent of the television revenues are already been under report revenue properly excluded the task is an objective task it's not a subjective test so what the court has to look at in ruling on a matter of law one of the starts with limitations as commands is not what is in the actual mind but what was available to the individuals and what they were aware of throughout a suspension of the california supreme court has expressed the principle this way a plaintiff need not be aware of the specific fact necessary to establish the claim that is a process contemplated by quid for this robbery once the plaintiff has a suspicion of wrongdoing and therefore an incentive to sue she must decide whether to file suit or sit on her right so long as  suspicion exists it is clear that the plaintiff must go find the facts she cannot wait for the facts to find her and hear that nine hundred eighty eight complaint is conclusive evidence certainly of more than a suspicion here  is not entitled to deductions for costs so that money was never available to the plaintiffs if it had been a situation where there was a fax number of dollars and there are going to pla stated that it's common practice on this commission of television that you would have a license or green that included multiple titles that's the way it's done for economic reasons because the television stations need a lot of programming and the distributor has a lot of programming that he's trying to license so there's nothing unusual about that is common practice and the players like sport just by this commonly known that this happens i think you get your decision  the first showing on television for instance and it particular license area will be a lot more money so shoot it with that so when you have with the initial group of lies it was because the spider woman always got the most money and that the elevision show so on those licenses licenses that are going to be closer to the year two thousand you will see probably pretty equal amounts to charge for each of the items and depending on the television person sixty minutes to ride it but that's a series where you have a lot of shows you can program and that's very valuable to a lot of these television stations as opposed to one movie that you're only going to show it once or twice you can skip showing a movie over and over again in foreign countries if they're saying well we thought the c b s was really doing us then when they were distributing it in france sung in theaters how was that them from doing that then we were distributing it as france on television contract the this is an area where it's very important to pay attention to the fact that there were two separate motions the two separate records because on the second motion which was the one relating to the return of the film elements that with the declaration that the plaintiffs submitted subject of the ethical distribution of the picture because to the spider woman i do not recall any complaint expressed pertaining to distribution of the picture on television at that time and then was talking about a different company called island and he was talking about the distribution in the united states this fact exactly and least if you look at the complaint there's nothing in the charging paragraph that says