amazed at having you point to me in the record where you have specifically asked the court to make findings or to rule that each of these various issues raise policy that would be the court's job to tell them the court should make that determination as a matter of law but if they if this occurred then you have to fight for that we believe that it all boils down to this i you file the exact same motion to correct you didn't ever ask the court to actually address the responses themselves nor did you do as is common practice maybe tailor your questions based upon some of the nd basically all of their their responses were they have to admit or deny because they didn't have the information available to make that determination in their possession they all set forth what steps they took to get the information  k but we went through discovery and three years later they never changed those interests that they now we know are the problems of the kid who now we know this or that based on their same answer to the same question so i think at that point then the parties are taking their position these are good requests made their answer or lack thereof is their position they don't have an obligation to look beyond what's in their personal possession or control remain ignorant of facts in their case that's going to limit they're going to basically want to keep the information in their possession or control and make sure that people within the organization basically play dumb and don't gather a new information because then they can simply say hey we're here if we have experts we have attorneys we have industry practices we don't know what happened we don't have anything in our in our possession that could say that a windstorm occurred or that that might knowing i think that's where it would be argued to the court is hey they've got these allegations how can we let them get away with simply responding in this when they say that's the answer they've given anything more than that burden shifting they were asking for help is that answer jury i'm not quite sure what planet meant by that that the jury instructions and specifically the for instance were presented to the jury in the same format and style and they were tainted in the policy so as not to mis previously and given question about all the topics used question about a trial so there was no gotcha moment or a secrecy to any any of the topics that he was going to be able to provide testimony on and he that even not disclosed as a witness previously but i believe the guard corps all too and ruled that at worst that would result harmless error under the circumstances and i think the same circumstances apply here in this scrappy sea org issue related to the extent of damage the plaintiff was claiming in the case and then finally defendant presented a expert witness who was able to provide testimony on the issue of repairing  with any doors being out a plumber any gaps in the door so i think again that's an issue that should have been submitted should have been determined by the court once the determination is made head wind is a cover  because in effect that is the cover because of lost it it doesn't matter because if you take this to the point that after the fact after any of that they sure can come in and say if you didn't design your house correctly we fin