call this st case for argument nineteen dash two a topic that's been from the western district of arkansas j b turner versus zero energy very well i'd ask that all thousand and seventeen this matters because of the two different matters in which mr turner holds his interest he has paid one way for hale's on gas and paid another way for violence and gas read my brief i thought well for for argument or argument purposes it really pays it really makes sense to start at the back end rather than the front end to demonstrate that the the way the the well as showing equalized line pressures beginning in two thousand and one through two thousand and three pausing here for a moment the reason these equalized line pressures are important is because that are shown there are admittedly enough to produce gas from the hales therefore it will live pressure from the viola zone would indicate a fact question on gas production during that period of time production during that period of time then there were certain tests that we will show to you in our grief and in october of two thousand warning showing gas production from the violet zone or the tubing zone while the case in zone was shut in so that that production could not have been from the casing zone and in those same documents show no water no barrels of water produced during that period of time so all of that adds up to evidence that there was gas production in the vials i don't think anybody can tune the documents don't say those say i think where the rub comes in in this case is  through ninety eight documentary persia tests they found the person who did those pressure tests who points out that there is other information contained on those that he was producing he was testing the hales that that is a good explanation that is something that a fact finder could hear and decide that x t s was is correct that the t question for you i think i understand your argument and i guess my question would be in this summary judgment record what was before judge helms that would that out for and that those documents a layman someone without any expertise in all in gas production and completion an operation where else can i understand those documents and explain what they mean yes well you're talking about a problem with the sponsoring witness which is something that has been on my mind since i began to look at this case and the st response i have to that is there was never any contention by x to the lower holding by the trial court that the documents didn't didn't show or mean what they say  experts they could come in through bobby morris the observations of mr turner in two thousand and seventeen can come in through him and there's there just doesn't seem to be any real question that equalized line pressures could could without another explanation indicate gas flow so that was never my my best answer to what you're asking is how do we get this in and h jury understand it is that it was taken as a given in this case now would it have been nice to have an expert on the stand say this is what this means perhaps and perhaps that c be on re manned although the scheduling were has as has passed and that would have to be allow us to do it but the documents themselves are the evidence of gas  the thirty six dollars witness would be another way that these things could come in and there are there are there are other ways that it could be done but the the big problem that actually would have with that at this point in time is it was never argued that the say this document saying what they say x t o's experts say they don't mean that those are other explanations the way act to best understand this case is to flip it around and  moved for summary judgment based on his observations and these documents the way x t elkanah the board it having summary judgment read against it on the issue of this production would have been to produce the experts that they produce it doesn't this is a classic fact question this is what we have trials for in examining these witnesses before the fact finding them down to two and a half minutes before my rebuttal time  when the district or granted a summary judgment on a motion that was filed about a month earlier had there been a trial that same district judge would have heard the case as a bench trial there would not have been a juror the time for designated witnesses has logged past the discovery deadline likewise what the district judge saw in connection with this summary judgment motion is precisely what he would see if there were to be a trial according to the official production records of the arkansas i gas commission the bio was produced only briefly they show clearly that the viola was on last produced in october nine at the one of the documents that mr terse counsel relies upon careful because you have to look carefully at these documents not superficially experts in this area convinces them that the bylaws zone produced you know if you look carefully at it it will show the extent of the production from the that same number forty two thousand seven hundred and ninety three m c f that's the number that was according to the oil and gas commission it requires more than just a super visual reading of these documents to understand what they may and in many cases most cases it requires turner has the same no experts to testify on his behalf in this case and in fact he candidly admitted in his deposition that he never talked to a geologist or  air or one minute about what he claims to what we have here is the equivalent of a man on the street diagnosing office it requires a great deal of education and experience to analyze data points created by this well but well that at that point it had produced exactly forty three dollars or forty two million nine hundred and seventy three thousand cubic put it and that is just total cumulative therefore pro all the agony either your evidence has got to be something which would lead a trier of fact in this case judge helms to the reasonable inference that your case should prevail and it's just not there expires it's just not there now i want to talk for a minute also about the statute of limitations because that's the other reason i suppose the primary reason for the judge holmes route and it's immaterial whether or not we are dealing with a statute level that mr turner would cite it is supporting his position a car way way way way before the beginning of the three year window which would have been august that recently it just doesn't exist and arkansas and this is important i think arkansas is not a discovery rules state i'm statute of window but the thing that went on appeal was judge barnes ruling that t quick question what's what's your best case for the proposition that you just mentioned that it would support your proposition that records of that nature as she say speak for themselves letter on that your honor because that was never an argument that was raised there was never any in any inkling that these records didn't mean what they said they were just other explanations for not that the records can't be understood by  you mentioned that the jury could find something that mr daly says this was going to be a bench trial what's the real story on that yet that i missed polk he is correct to the jury the jury trials was was not requested in was therefor waive that doesn't mean that the trial court can exercise fact finding at the summary judgment level before hearing evidence as a conceptually odd thing which i've been in this situation have been in before we still  all right thank you for your argument thank you to both counsel the case