thousand in the satellite categories and category and two thousand and four to two thousand and nine in the cable category we've described these precede the procedures that we're discussing here in multiple documents not just in this matter but in previous appeals but just in short what this concerns are royalties that are collected by the united states copyright office for television programs that are retransmitted  of who gets what for those pools of royalties is handled by the copyright royalty board which is the appellee in this matter the real party in interest or real parties in interest rather are the selling devotional claimants and the motion picture association who represent the owners of other television broadcaster delvin programming rather who make application for these royalties the adjudication of this selling devotional claimants and the motion picture association but our main focus is is that to sanctions essentially wiped out vast portions almost an entire portions of our claims the st one had to do with the devotional category which concerns programming which is of a religious nature in short the copyright royalty ford aerated my client's claims in that category on the ground a basement because of a failure to produce a single e mail from two thousand and five which of my client's claims and again why do you say it was not responsive to the discovery was going as well because the discovery quest asked for you know that there was it was a very broad request asking for communications regarding it was just very open ended however in a prior decision prior rule being cut by realty board had limited that the scope of that question to documentation which which would go towards perhaps showing that my client did not have authority to pursue specific claims for specific programming and so that it was based upon that prior c r b ruling that was the manner in which my client responded to that discovery and the document it issue had did not demonstrated it was not a document which showed that my client did not have authority to pursue its claim the document in the document a lawyer for two of my clients clients said that my client should at the you know that need most a long rambling e mail but at the certain point of it was for this purpose was that my client should quote unquote expect that there could be  weren't sanctions it all had to do with whether the presumption was in effect and that you had opportunities that you did not take on behalf of your client to reinstate or to you know to bolster  reliability of your presentation and that that that's really what was what was missed on your part well the question of is the presumption in place there that's two different things the presumption of liberty has seventeen or they could have said we're going to you know ten percent of what you're awarded will be it'll be reduced by ten percent or something like that but the other thing that's really important to your honor is this is that they wiped out the claims for three different programs or three different that that is in response to that and the question is whether or not what else could they have done at the very minimum what they could have done was not throughout the creflo dollar claims even then i think the more sensible solution would have been to limit them or something like that but but once again  just said this is not a case coming from federal district court that is correct and that the standard is is is alternatively whether or not well i felt certainly it's whether or not there is this constitutes an abuse of discretion and of discretion is generally considered to be take place when the rulings were deemed arbitrary or capricious argument is that with regard to each of these points the right opposite acted in a manner which is arbitrary and capricious to deny twenty eight million dollars worth of and their mind this money doesn't go to my client directly my client gets a small percentage of this most of this goes in with respect to the twenty eight million dollars if you ever use it is somewhat buried in the thousands of pages that the that are have been presented to the court the exact number to be honest is is is relevant only because of the dramatic size and draconian nature of the sanctions the real point is should there have been a sanction and you know or not but the twenty eight you know the twenty eight million dollars figure comes from the fact that what we're dealing with here was a fifty six million dollars royalty pool and there's noticed no dispute that the royalty pool was fifty six million dollars then the question becomes how much of that would would invent a producer's groups clients be entitled to and the the quote unquote evidence for that is is is well i guess the best argument is the c r b in other rulings on discovery matters refused and you know made a ruling saying we're not going to impose a discovery sanction when there is no pr of matter is when we don't have a detailed statute a rather regulatory scheme describing the goalposts and the rules for discovery in these proceedings of course where is the next ace we always have without even regard to looking at the federal rules we always great great we always for greater deference to an agency's determination than we do  federal district court where we have much greater scope of review well nevertheless ron i think you would agree with me that it would be if nothing else instructive to look i mean if there's no other authority i mean you know then then does it does this exist in a vacuum i mean perhaps it's not controlling authority but it would least i would think would be persuasive authority i mean that's something that happens all the time with legal questions when  directly on point one says courts will say all right there's not something directly on point there's nothing that controls our conduct here but we're going to look to other jurisdictions for guidance i think by the s separate companies that you are claiming to represent is not correct that's correct and we did in volumes we did and we actually went to show them the point of there's a lot of the presumption is not really all that relevant then the only question is whether the evidence that you produced without a quick well according to c r b in its decision it was relevant and it was controlling and on the end despite the fact that we introduced evidence from all of the clients ok ok great we'll hear from the government a different party rather it said i p g you did not come up with enough evidence to rebut the presumption to establish that you are in fact the rightful receiver of these sorts of royalties on us or any questions procedural or evidentiary rules and based on that statutory authority they then came up with the presumption that i should add that i p g doesn't you know call into question itself it just merely says that it was improperly confusing because of the inscription on the top of the page and discoveries but to give the bumper sticker version here's what it had to happen for i p g story to be correct the board would have had to receive a folk lame in july two thousand and that after the board would have purportedly lost the pages then after i did you copy the claim and then i p g would have had to decide to turn over in discovery not the copy of the claim from its own files that supposedly had all the missing pages but instead produced a copy it got from the board and we respectfully submit that it was not an abuse of discretion for the royalty judges to reject that fanciful story complete and therefore for violation that relates directly to the parties that are involved in a sanction and so the three particular entities mentioned in two thousand and five email are the  i would leave that to the three entities yes brief and the fact of matter is that yes tracy productions was in and in an initial place holding filing however what's more significant is that when these proceedings began one of the st things that happens is that you have to file partitions to participate and those petitions to participate tracy productions was never included not once not ever which had the effect of meaning meant that they could never possibly have any kind of a claim and so you was to withdraw those claims no we there's no regulation or statute that says you have to withdraw but in fact what they say is when you make an initial claim on an annual basis in july all that doesn't hold your place momentarily same exact thing you don't you can't with there's no procedure for withdrawing it the way you withdraw it is you don't include a claim in the position to participate which i p g never did for tracy productions so there's a predicate for the position is is tar for being patient with us as we all struggle with this less than perfect way of hearing argument but we're grateful that we can do this and thankful for your participation and hope that you will be safe