growing i heard that you're talking about the district testimony from car by right in which he said it was his belief or understanding that seaver sent representatives and he an ask you what was his basis of what you're saying it was based on correspondence that he had with sievers and so i guess we would just look at the correspondence and see where their end stablish is the relationship but it wouldn't really be that car b you may thank you for your argument is anthony will hear from you if you have to make the court can you hear me all right yes thank you the presented sufficient evidence that it was the proper party and interest as rex's standing is the result of a variety of mergers between can be in mexico and an entity called as rex holdings and then into the and in exchange it received twenty percent ownership and what it was told was an enforceable shareholder agreement outlining its rights as a minority shareholder that enforceable shareholder agreement require that any merger be subject to unanimous shareholder approval there was no unanimous shareholder approval and for that reason the defendants challenge the plaintiffs standing at the outset in the firm and of defense what about the  leged dispute about whether the shareholder actually signed the agreement that allegedly was standard barbosa us as he did not sign it but there is deposition testimony where he says he did not sign it and the question is whether that creates a genuine dispute a fact about whether there was an agreement to get a one hundred percent requirement w b and told w c b here are the agreements signed by arturo now that is a party upon it admission that would be admissible at trial arturo testified there were no other arturo's that were part of mexico he was the only one mr by both his testimony that he didn't sign the agreement came conveniently after plaintiff had alleged repeatedly that w c v was a shareholder including a claim for breach of fiduciary duty on the basis that w c b was a shareholder and after as rex had extracted a settlement from w c v on that basis so that testimony was not only at odds with testimony provided by a party opponent in this case but it was at odds with every other represent a representation that the plaintiff had made in the underlying case the court considered that evidence and determined that it would be fundamentally in correct and directly contradictory to all the other assertions made before the court and for that reason could not raise a genuine issue of material i just wonder whether it's it's a credibility question if you have the man who actually is purported to have signed it saying i didn't sign it you may have some good arguments that he's not telling the truth given what you just laid out but does that mean we can say as a matter of law that he signed it you know that's just an open question you may have said what you want to say about it but i give you a give you that if you want to  don't think it's a credibility question your honor i think it's a question of whether this is a genuine issue of material fact and the reason that i say that is in order to be genuine it has to be a fact that it would be reasonable for the jury to find in its favor  signed by arturo that is the agreement on which w c beer light assuming that it had its formal shareholdings and rights as a minority shareholder i should mention that there are other documents in the record that support this notion that w in mexico in particular you're out of there is the dallas agreement which explains the w c the would be entitled to the same minority rights as nicholas pereira's company was entitled to in the enrolment prize those minority rights include the right to approve or disapprove of a merger so mr proposes testimony is just frankly not sufficient to raise a genuine issue of material fact under these circumstances but i think it's important that we not miss the purpose here of a standing inquiry which is the plaintiff always has an obligation to prove standing the defendants don't have to disprove it so even if the plaintiffs were to say before this court well there's a genuine issue of on on whether the that that is true your honor i think the problem here is that the plaintiff has now injected mexican law and we can't ignore that under the mexican law in order for that merger to be the jamaica you would see filings in mexican with the mexican authorities to show that that merger was legitimate even the plaintiff's expert in its late disclosed opinion that you would see filings with an atari if this merger ringback had actually occurred none of those documents exist we haven't seen a single document to show that the merger was actually affected operative question is whether the notice was reasonable under the circumstances of this case and whether it resulted in any sort of undue prejudice to the party who was not the noticing party and hearing that happened the stance of defendants did not have an opportunity to review the law in its entirety to analyze that law or name their own expert in response and the plaintiffs knew long ago that this mexican law was going to be used to invalidate the shareholder agreement they had an obligation to provide that notice at the most reasonably practical time not to wait and sit on that until summary judgment to spring it on the defendants so that the defendants would be deprived of any opportunity to depose their expert to get an expert of their own or to bag with the law provisions so this idea that the shareholder agreement would provide for a unanimous vote is in february of two thousand and eighteen at the deposition of guy ross greg and that is in the record and our appendix twenty seven a motion for summary judgment or was it earlier the matter i believe it was the motion for summary judgment there wasn't an opportunity to raise this issue until the facts had been fleshed out as to what was the shareholder agreement we were talking about and was there a unit described i understand why it's not reasonable because the plaintiff is the party that bears the burden to prove standing and so to the extent the plaintiff took a look at the kind in mexico shareholder agreement and determined that it was going to disk was going to prove it standing as a successor in interest by invalidating that provision of the shareholder agreement it needed to raise the mexican law issue the moment it determined that it was going to use that mexican law to invalidate that shareholder provision i am certain that if the plaintiff did not learn about this issue the moment it was raised we all knew that w c claimed it was a shareholder we all knew there was a shareholder agreement and we knew there was no unanimous consent provision if the plaintiff planned to prove its prevention standing as it's required to do in federal court it needed to raise the mexican law issue earlier i want to think it's only a credential standing issue three issue such that the court could just resolve could bypass this and consider the merits earning potential standing that's why i ask i think it's probably both the party has to show it's the party suffering the injury or hold of the right to the injury to to pursue the redress in district court i want to make sure i address the attorney client relationship piece before my time runs out if you others have additional questions on standing i'm happy to take those as well with respect to the attorney client relationship counsel's correct this is counsel has no argument for a genuine issue of material fact on the existence of an attorney client relationship if the declarations of these individuals are properly ex and they were the district court did not abuse its discretion in excluding the five declarations that provided at summary judgment the information included in those declarations was requested not only in the request to admit that counsel that there is no written agreement of attorney client relationship the plaintiffs could have just said no but the plaintiff made a strategic decision that it would qualify its answer to that question and when it did so it incurred the obligation of circumstances underlying the verbal statements over acts and e mails that allegedly form the basis of an attorney client relationship plaintiff answered that in the rugged terrain with a somewhat longer paragraph but did not include any of the information that was then later disclosed in the declarations in response to summary judgment and that is improper the district court has discretion not only to enforce the court rules on a scope discovery abuses but to enforce its own scheduling order and frankly the decision to do so is an remarkable the district court explained that it had to had to redouble its efforts and review the entire discovery record in this case to determine that the  had in fact not complied with its discovery obligations making that decision under those circumstances and with those facts the district court did not abuse its discretion in excluding those declaration in the record that support the notion that bill c verson and convent mexico had mutual assent because of the and implied relationship for attorney client services there is no evidence that there was either a request for legal since client and he was communicating with were to occur by on those facts and the records are very clear that both the depositions and the documents but that my time is up this court should affirm the district court's decision on summary judgment thank you in the district c