of the sanction after given that the supreme court that the trial court define on a violation the court did not examine the underlying question of whether or not the trial were properly founded two thirds of the violation in the first instance appropriate to know whether or not dr crossett was under the control of car of recognizing that he's still works for somebody else but is under all so let's go out and contract with this other entity and have their employee doctor exclusively provide services to our employees and therefore we shut off any ability to discover anything with that doctor's office well i mean i understand how the rule is written right my question is would it be would it have been possible  your client really your company to construct such an arrangement so as to affectively forever preclude scullery in a case like well i think the answer to that really is no because it's really it's not an issue of suffering were discovered ability how it's done in vic will do thirty seven b is the the g serial a shows it's not there to change how not party witnesses nonparty employees are third parties are brought in subject to compulsory process and again that is the normal course that is how third party one party witnesses are brought into court increases every day there is nothing new about th suggestion we again have corresponded there are rules corresponding throughout history that allow a party you don't know on who needs testimony from a witness in most missouri to file an action and to get that witness under the subpoena power of missouri court and again we have our rule that the comma daves actions pending in other jurisdictions yes the way it is to be done when you're talking about a non party and this rule we're talking about here if the drafters wanted it to apply to any anybody with whom the party has a relationship if they wanted to totally alleviate the need to ever serve a subpoena to bring any kind of witness in the trial the drafters could have draft maybe brought in under notice and interesting leave the court also accommodates the rule also accommodates for the fact that people may have to travel a great distance be brought from other parts of the country by allowing farm if we look at the transcript where judge south conditionally is contemplating what he's going to do in the situation the question he asked do i have to apply the rule based on what the text you have to apply them the way the language says there should be applied by them in a manner consistent with the language you  record don't have a specific records site i mean that when was it presented to the trial court it was presented i believe in the context of the two thousand and five motions aquash leading i believe it's in the dark j our documents that we submitted because they were originally not included in the in the record on appeal and they were subsequently added through a motion supplement so they're not in the then have if the facts were such that the shims reveal that fact the doctor spent one hundred percent of his time that the doctor was paid through the the part that the doctor was addressed and decided and i don't think there's any any fair way of reading the court's prior decision that suggests that look at anything but the appropriateness of the sanction without looking at whether or not the violation o are different you're looking at different time frame what was going on in two thousand and three two thousand or five thousand five persons what was going on in two thousand and eight it doesn't tell us anything about dr house and status so in this type of question  so fact based on the issue changes yes as time progresses it's really not the same issue but frist more importantly if you look at what resulted in the your case that plaintiff makes monetary contribution or economic loss to stand by the plaintiff were the a state so the jury was left to decide the case at least on the damages standpoint based on passion based on sympathy here for that reason well what a guy life is and you get a good job of setting forth frank unbelievable facts flexibility of gaar first like well it really it wasn't inconsistent with you should be ticked off on the other issue you did say in your opinion well when we asked whether johnnie do and we got the answer we found that he really did it so we we approve the scorning cases when some of those old employees were just down for the director straight they weren't even in foley's anymore but they were still directors and he said you know that's that's in the rule that's a relationship you have to break if under two thirty seven b has written that curls it was an employee of information about other things i don't find any shortcoming or self in whether the iraq the forest service or these people whatever you're asking who's who's monitoring the health of your employees because that has to do with you know what we believe that makes a circle why our just like it makes our people sick as well if we disagree with you that the term employee they have no power they have no power they should never be punished for for not bringing the guy but if they have the power to bring him they should believe that that's what our whole that's the whole idea of getting together a get things done you can't otherwise do you can push aside things that look big because of concessions or whatever there's there's just the whole human history of why we get together do that that's why none of us would about terms of art and what these terms mean as opposed to the legislature would be presumed to know i think the case is a sprint court we know they know what these terms mean and particularly in light of your argument that employees should be broadly he would as being someone control under the control of the party how why should we interpret the supreme say the supreme court of illinois understands the concept of who is an employee and who isn't so what does not worry that's the end of the input oh i'd like to get back to the evidence about about the relationship but the answer to your demonstration that the only thing or is the economic relationship we never would require nor am i suggesting that they have to send out a bunch of straw men in russia look i only do is if it was a president  medically monitor to do all these other things there's nothing wrong with with our or the court system asking the best you can to bring that guy up because obviously knows about things relevant  said he's never done anything for since zero three well their own records show he didn't know four or five or six or seven and only so i don't know how you give so much credibility to that guy who's been clearly teach by their by their other records showing that they're still playing in iowa i think there's sufficient evidence of this record to show that  corporation which sponsors directors to suggest that a director who is part of the governing body of a corporate entity is somehow less attached to a corporation less religious or corporation than is one of its employees or officers i'm sure and that's why the rule identify sponsors directors and employees if we look at then the the overarching question put aside the rules language check with the rules