but i didn't pursue it obviously given the know it do we really care about the merits of the case really what we're supposed to focus on and i know there's some dispute about this as to the scope of our review powers under three away right but really what we're supposed to focus on is the one of law presented to us in the three oh wait certification ok you are whether or not you win or lose depending on how we answer the question unless we adopt that principle that in the interests of judicial economy we could go beyond the three zero eight and decide the case i would rather you focus on this language that was certified as tell us why the trial judge was example i'm representing the defendant corporation i legally refuse to answer discovery i all sorts of discovery threats i don't produce my clients for deposition my clients lie she'll be is the president of the corporation now defunct but everybody knows that it was my opinion that he would be the proper signatory for that response even if he did not have personal knowledge of the facts of the  isn't that the crux of their argument that you get him to say no or i just got him decided even though he didn't have personal knowledge of the facts of the incident and went ahead and denied in the sworn back of that  lawyer is is is openly saying that he did seek out he did gain information and that that information to putting forth was accurate and that you thought the best person to sign off on seven of the defendants three ok did anybody testify or did anybody suggest that the cooperate representative did not talk to the attorney about the information that was going to be included in need answers to the that's the certified question and what he wants this to do is to say that that's a violation of two sixteen because it was based on information learned by defense counsel interviewing the prior employees of the corporation to certify question doesn't say anything about precisely what kind of communication this has to take place between the lawyer and the mr health club manager of a screwdriver if you don't know what your attorneys insurance company people have a pretty good idea of whether the well built reasonable so don't try the i don't know i'm not a guy so a lot holds me to this standard that i have nine therefore mr shill be had a duty to help bail himself of the knowledge of the other corporate employees unveiled himself with the knowledge of the other corporate employees but i thought that's what he did when he talked to high just but maybe he don't have personal knowledge therefore not going to answer because we know the case law is probable that well i didn't do that i denied you have to be able to not to deny based on somebody else's knowledge you don't have that knowledge saw it shows he's the only guy  reached tonight tonight tonight which is effective which i suppose means that you would then send your client home with four pounds of depositions saying go read these depositions to protect yourself is that what they're basically asking us to do you yes given him pack i'm a certified quite well served by question goes into information that was not share by first how do we know it how do we know that that isn't what the certified question by defense counsel for interviewing the primary employees of the corporation we are to win her from bet that somehow there is a deficiency in what the certified here or the corporate officer who is supposed to do other then basis answers are denied an information learned by defense counsel from interviewing the prior employees of the corporation are you missing the clause there that you're relying on for your argument in this case i had there is in proceedings rule when i ask mr rappaport reach reducing factual issues into what is presumably a question of law and what i think you're telling us is that in order for arrest that we really understand to certify question we need to tell the factual background that led up to the not that's fair we're not supposed to do that that's your job your job is to frame a question of along that enables us to answer it as a question along ok well then you reference to the record restricted we can't do what you want us to do we don't have the authority to do it i could rewrite this question i suppose to accommodate your view of what would really want o presentation of the certified question we're missing information is what you're telling i think only in order for us to adequately address this three away we have to  the clause after the word certified question we have to go back to the record yes and and other ways what you're telling us is basically judges you have to read this certified question in cont and envision point is there any other case that you really want to stress the way you drafted to certify question apparently you're saying that he can't even rely on his lawyer for that information i think that he has an independent duty to do without his own  necessarily because when you go back you know when you cite the chicago park district which is a case it really isn't a point because it was a fraud case involving you know discovery but there was some language in there and you cited your brief attorneys or agents of respond discovery requests must search the corporate memory by best to getting the records available to him to ascertain the knowledge of other corporate agents not that particular wall that hit you add it after that comment propounded inset where the attorney our agent who responds to discovery did not search to cooperate ma'am did not ok that that then you might have it then you might have a different answer to the certified question because i know where you're headed and i know what you're relying on you're relying on the whole background home actress of the of the of what led up to the search and what you were trying to accomplish here obviously