grant the irwin's petition for intervention and to modify the july fifteenth two thousand and twelve agreed on a post protective order to allow the irwin's to obtain copies of previously filed discovery and this appeal or this petition for intervention being collateral yes i mean that it is that circuit court is now going to resume jurisdiction so we don't need to convince the support that you know our petition jurisdiction for our town this and try our request relief that the court remand with the russians there are now six captioned cases involving forty eight injured individuals some of them are children some of them are adults they have been consolidated for discovery and trial before judge irwin so gallic and judge so again it will be trying to first of those angeline kena this october and within the week all of the council plaintiffs and defendants below are going to start an intensive course of expert discovery and deposition we're going to take about twenty expert depositions in the next seven weeks and a number of those experts are going to be talking about judge you know judge pierce pointed out you know things of this sort of some of this discovery with respect to what many call a new and why it was not necessarily relevant to the issue of the releases that you considered and you rule out recently but it may be very well may be relevant to the issue of whether there was coverage whether there's a duty to defend a duty to cover and it's certainly relevant in the cases before  to present the petition to intervene to three or four any order had already been entered and just brought into client to even exercise any jurisdiction over our collateral petitions and belief that everything there was state pursu repetition for intervention and our motion to modify the protective order that was the thrust now that the court has ruled on this that jurisdiction is going to leave vast but  the stage that the underlying tort cases are wrapped and just the posture of these cases going forward it's imperative that the irwin's be at the table where necessary parties to any coverage case no order did is going to be read vast i'm not sure if that's exactly the right phrasing but i guess we could have a whole nother discussion about that point but if if it's going back to the circuit court and the reason for the stays is  e i'm not really sure i understand why the appellate court should be telling the circuit court what to do next i'll take it to do things first and then we tell them whether that was right or not and that otherwise i mean would we be i believe can answer a remained with directions on this issue is that those underlying tort cases are proceeding and they're coming to a critical juncture and if i may just did the intervention motion wasn't really decided intervene first is absolutely that's a that's absolutely a correct approach to do we believe that it's also the correct and appropriate under circumstances for the sport to remand with the directions what is  court to rule that this is the way the court should rule for the courts and after the rule seems to me to be usurping the circuit court's role and  in october involves a thirty three year old hopi woman who is totally disabled and she's cared for by our sixty seven year old father and her mentally disabled sister we we can't sit and wait with the  coverage cases to go on if i can speak from experience in the in the tort cases what we've been dealing with is a extended extended briefing read briefing rebreathing reaping affidavits amended affidavit we come back on an on an intervention that plaintiffs an underlying tort case are not necessary parties to the coverage action that will determine their the availability of insurance when we come back that when we come back on appeal there could vishal economy and could this court promote truth seeking process i think they go hand in hand so that's really the basis for our quest for relief but you see here's here's where the crowd you know and but our job appeared is you know to get it right and to this intervention petition if it was denied then we could decide whether it should have been granted but it was steadied and now it's back before the circuit court and the circuit court has to make a decision and then unless you have some piece out there that you could rely on that tells us otherwise we're trying to do is get it right for both sides and you know if you have a case that shows that working now something is stated and the trial judge has it back of it we could go interfere with his business see that's the problem do you have such a case i deny of course when he gets the profit and it would be a terrible precedent to set the stack telling story but i you know if you're asking us to take control of somebody else's case and i don't know any authority anywhere in america little i was that couple that's the problem came down late late friday and and you realize that very likely that many members of the panel here are killed this morning  we're again because of the pastor essentially there was a jurisdictional gating issue that kept even the to be briefed below as to whether or not intervention would be appropriate and whether or not the documents should be turned over so  out and do that and this is also a relatively unique issue but it's not the case that if intervention is read it automatically petitioners would get to see all the documents that have been pr confidentiality order so that the parties to the coverage action that weren't involved in the released offense even though they have not seen the documents so many roles hope that we can remain the case that let the lead judge brennan rule on the intervention motion after it's been briefed and if the plaintiffs are allowed to intervene that will on any discovery motions motorola to respond to your question about the status of the case motorola wants to refused to rule on these matters because of the stay and i feel was bryant's saying that the court should have brought so that question is out there now it's to you know as we have been saying it's going to go back but is there any reason for us to answer that question is a reason for us the answer to question whether it was right for her not to answer those not to rule on the intervention motion of any nature will take place in this court pending the resolution of zircon associate its appeal to the first district appellate court and further order of this court so we know that the predicate of her decision not to reach the intervention motion has been resolved that no longer exists i don't know that it's really any justice shabelle issue anymore and the question of that was presented mean there are some specific reasons for her to have done this here i mean one of the issues that was up on the interlocutory appeal was what should be produced i mean there was a summary judgment issue there was a travel issue but there was also a motion to compel so the very best in all of you know the universe of documents that are going to be at issue in the case where as a muslim was a moving issue when she was faced with a motion to intervene so i mean i i really can't conceive of any sort of broader public policy or presidential reason for this or to you know reach the particular question that i think has been effectively mooted by the court's decision issue the same question is do you need an answer to that do you do you need an answer to the question that was raised on appeal often more is an answer needed probably not as an answer desirable yes well it's not operate for all order with respect to a couple of specific issues to essentially stay an entire matter to the prejudice of a party like your wi that's we believe that's inappropriate we have we cited to the physicians assurance case in the other case to say that there are collateral matters and the court trial court circuit court should retain jurisdiction over those collateral matters and that's because those are issues not involved in you appeal but they are still important issues and they may affect parties who are not involved they have appealed and i think it's important that a circuit court understand that it cannot just dump everything in israel for a pocket and then just drop its but that the owners be allowed to weigh in and so i believe that's important and the fact that counsel brought up our petitions and our motions never asked for future discovery we never asked to do anything  asked for was a everything that had been filed already so there was no overlap between that december two thousand and twelve or denying their motion to compel the c r s p notebooks and what had been done that's going to be addressed when we go back down it was just the chance to allow the irwin's to catch up with where they'd been because they had significant rights that were being prejudiced and severely impacted by this hope were brought stay so that was there was a purpose restraining the appeal and to the extent that this court can provide guidance to circuit courts that three or four he orders are specific and so the answer my question is is as as  practitioner that you are in the field that you that you work in that that this is a matter that you think that even though it may have been mooted in this particular case you think it might be helpful to him guidance in the future plate of lawyer that you are you want to get this case go if you want to get it finishes this and the defense you know they can live there exactly and the other end