that a grievance that suffices to notify the correctional facility of the nature of the wrong here in idaho the facility is administered by the idaho department of correction which is no longer a of this litigation in their wisdom have basically created a two track system that is if it is a medical grievance then the inmate is to use  it is not as clearly a delineated system now my client was for merge and was aware of both systems however and have utilized though whether he was questioning or grieving the conditions of his confinement or he was questioning or grieving the quality of his health care even though there were two systems relative to the facts the bring us here today they were all related in turn mr the warden a warden the i don't a partner of correction ward lordi and john legally henri the defendant physician named in the case recognized that it's the h s our system that is utilized for health related grievances so here you have mr merchant incarcerated individual and he's trying to ferret his way through the system and the evidence in the record before this court by the very fact he swallowed a razor blade to obtain them have so i do believe and i agree with the judge hunsaker that yes it's an unfortunate set of circumstances but when you have the medical director as well as a as well the razor blade was immediately transported to a local hospital away from the correctional facility going to the sanction i have to imagine a that others are just barrel of jurors is not the most excited about having to handle these type of discovery and procedural deadline issues but this one is particularly important in that it was such a drastic when we look at the record before this court a disclosure of experts by mr margin happened two days after the deadline re days after that which would be five innings after the deadline it was a we are always looking at the facts the rarified and clarify what sanctions appropriate in a given situation the cases that have come out of the circuit and even the cases here in the district of idaho make it clear and thirty seven again what i believe the standard is is whether it be today or five day delay in the filing of the expert disclosures was substantially justified whether there was  good cause and i believe that the declaration that i have what i have laid out what i have tried to explain as it was under these circumstances we don't have a situation here where the appellant was a non diligent litigant we have a situation where diligence was attempted but as robert burns said the best laid plans of mice and men there had been an effort to have staff follett timely with the necessary attachments as soon as it was discovered that that had not occurred two days later the filing happened and as soon as it was discovered that that  expert dr tao's i think expert testimony or opinion on causation was delivered only later but isn't it true that it was not delivered until the rebuttal expert deadline so that was just a temper so states in her conclusion that massacre the series of facts directly led to the horrible outcome that the opinion on causation was timely disposed or d under rule thirty seven c one because they feel that and they disclose experts by the court order deadline the parties agree there was such a deadline plaintiff admits they violated the court ordered by and for expert disclosure s they try to downplay the expert disclosure violations as minor and it was these sanction of striking them was not justified but they are justified it was proper  the court and it is a discretion discretionary of you standard regarding the exclusion of experts it was woes in the district courts discretion history its roots because for many reasons i know standard of care expert then there was a disclosure of five days later or maybe sooner to care and it was unclear what the non retained experts were really going to do then two months later there was another disclosure of n in a situation where the sanctions really result in dismissal then you need to have certain findings and particularly whether there might have  additionally after they come back from the hospital they can also lodge a grievance about some complaint well what if there is they're having a experiencing a medical emergency you know his leg was was fully in a crowded in and a ctually going to die and he wasn't getting a treatment there's no way to get a grievance appeal done without you know taking those weeks long days long process separate process and as i explained the as disclosed d perceive you was supplied prior testimony was her fees schedule everything was supplied two days late and for the district court to have simply said it's always