were offered and received at trial in fact the trial judge said you cannot give the transcripts to the jury yet correct and and so how did they wind up getting the transcript it was cisco york i mean there's highlighting all of a lot there is highlighting and notations that you didn't mean you indicated to the court that you didn't write those things right no we do not a jury went into the jury room they looked at these exhibits these transcripts that they weren't supposed to see and they went through them with highlighters yes you are correct however at least we have to see when not these is a st or when the confronted by that th you have some time for about all we hear from the other side authority in order to sanction counsel without showing of bad faith if there is evidence that the council has acted recklessly irresponsibly and through those actions had to put resulted in duplicative proceedings and wasted the time of all the parties involved in this case it is absolutely clear that counsel had caused deposition excerpts to be provided to the jury even though it was a clear border budget by the district court that such material should not be admitted into evidence we held that the ability to sanction in the absence of good faith even for reckless conduct that that does not apply to sanctions for fees that when when the court invokes its inherent power to impose attorneys fees the district court must make it explicit finding of bad faith have we held that are related to the nd trial we would not have been you would you the sentient is proper because with an absence of the act at tiffany's that counsel had done there would be no need to the nd trial where both counts so i understand your grief and here i do but i'm just wondering whether this particular sanction required a finding of bad faith and not recklessness i'm not sure if that's the i believe that in this in this context it is clear that based upon the fact that there were highlights in the transcripts that were that the court found that the court was skeptical as to whether or not mr yang had in fact not put in the highlights and had not written in the margins and that it was skeptical of whether it was bad  correct all right but if it's finding is it's finding it did not they did not find that i understand your ok i don't want to intrude on the rest of your argument and also your honor there are a couple of issues that i would like to address st there's constant statements by mr yan about cumulative that the deposition transcripts were cumulative in fact  are the key thing and that there was overwhelming evidence in support of the jury's verdict as against mr again mr assange however the court specifically reviewed the deposition transcripts excerpts and also consider the testimony during the trial and held that far from it being overwhelming in fact the deposition transcripts could very well have influenced improperly influenced the jury in order to find mr zang an employer under the wage and hours laws for both new york and federal law and that so and it based upon the fact that you had deposition you had testimony from the manager of the restaurant who in fact was responsible for hiring one of the plant the plaintiffs in this case who testified that he was in charge of the day to day operations of the restaurant and that mr zheng was spent most of his time abroad and did not exercise any authority with respect to the operations of the restaurant that was also  corroborated by the by the accountant for the restaurant who stayed at the same the same thing so it was definitely not overwhelming there is definitely testimony that cut in favor of mr assange and that the court threw correctly found that the deposition testimony could have very well have influenced the jury in that respect also the testimony in the nd trial the jury found correctly that mr assange is not an employer for purposes of the federal and state wage and hour laws in fact the judge in fact counsel had failed to make a motion before the case was submitted to the jury for a judgment on the pleadings on the law therefore this therefore it's a more heightened standard in order to overturn a verdict and that standard is that you have to show that the jury's verdict was wholly without any legal basis and based upon this record there is no way that counsel could  counsel has failed to show that there that the court had abused its discretion in st ordering a new trial secondly imposing sanctions it shows in the wreck in this case shows that counsel had been directed by the court by the district court to show cause why sanctions should be imposed and or a retrial we had a hearing about that council stated his case and based upon the court consideration of what was said during the hearing and also her the court's analysis and review of the record found that there was a basis for overturning the the verdict against m also imposing sanctions so there is clearly a basis in on the record to show that the court rather than abusing is this question carefully considered what the arguments were carefully considered the evidence to issue the order  for a new trial and also for imposing sanctions also your honor counsel alluded to the fact that there was an a judgment that had been awarded to the corporate defendant but at the court had decided in exercise was discretion to inform the or direct the clerk not to enter the judgment until after all the issues involving all of the defendants in this case were adjudicated you still had the issue of whether or not mr azango was an employer and subject to a judgment there was also evidence showing that counsel in support of its motion had submitted a an article from the legal aid society which related to a restaurant with a similar name but not the same restaurant as in this case in which it was reported that that restaurant had been avoiding paying off private judgments in wage and hour cases and we advised the court specifically that that restaurant was not the same restaurant counsel acknowledged that so therefore there was no evidence before the court that somehow there would be a manifest injustice if the at the judgment had was not entered forthwith is any suggestion that was representation that it was the same restaurant and the same defendants yes there were there was a there was a representation the judge in the most in the in the counsel's papers which attached that legal aid article which named the restaurant which had a similar name is there any indication that it was knowingly false representation made by mr yet there is no in there is no indication there was no testimony about it we can only infer that because it's the same restaurant name and subsequently when confronted with that count so acknowledge that it's not the same restaurant we can infer that there that this was improper and it was a way of trying to deceive the court in order for it to obtain a judgment again or have the judgment it seems to me that holding pertains to shifting the attorney's fees from one side to the other and i'm wondering whether that's really what the court did here the plaintiffs this hour the defendant is still bearing the cost of his attorneys fees for the st trial the judge just said that it wouldn't have to bear the costs twice and that those were going to be paid by the defendant by the plaintiff's counsel had triggered the  has the authority to sanction and what the argument now is is whether he can sanction with this award of attorney's fees for the nd trial i'm suggesting to you that that may not require a finding of bad faith because it's not a it's a violation of a court order the court ruled that this evidence wasn't coming in and this evidence was then introduced to the jury in violation of the court's order correct yes ok so that's not that should be called a mistake that should be called a violation of a court order and when it's a violation of a court order then a court typically is able to sanction even without bad faith isn't that correct saucer case stu's in that