would you disagree but i'm just saying for purposes structuring the issues if we find that there was no showing of abuse of discretion and isn't that the end of the people it would be ok to be a miscarriage of justice well  trial well we have three days of evidentiary hearing followed by a thirty some odd page opinion by the magistrate judge which could be fairly read to report to reflect a record of total obstruction late but he gave them one hundred percent of a complete list of every single solitary item with that he took with him everything that he took with absolutely everything in this was after a motion to compel yes recognize that the whole discovery began the district court had made a decision which was flatly contradicted by the law that there has been a  choice of law clause and you are in a diversity case the court must apply the law of the form with no dispute about blacks case the question is whether there was no motion in this case showed that everybody who ever was going to be pushed to the bank someplace who could possibly have been hired as an at will employee was required to sign that it would probably be more helpful for me to provide a supplemental resource regarding that i do know that mr brown never made an objection on those grounds and it's never been raised before it was not raised in mr opening brief or in his reply brief but i understand completely your honor the question which you would have and i would suggest that with your owner's permission following this that he have to provide additional information regarding for example  that in the rocketry was please state the revenues you and your associated entities earned each month from alyeska from march first one thousand nine hundred seven to the present this is a fundamental fact it has to do with with a basic that's incorrect your honor to this day has never obtained monthly revenues that mr brumby and all of his companies earn from alyeska never and to this day even if you if you leave aside the monthly revenues we noted in mr brought these opening brief that monthly isn't referenced there's a general reference to iraq for number twenty one but it doesn't say that the the exact total revenues and that's the problem so to this day we do not have that information and nothing that my opponent mentioned undercuts that one of the one of the key points which came out of my opponent's discussion was that not a single citation to the record was made to support any of the statements made wonder one of the underlying problems in this entire case and in this two profits opening freeth is the lack of record citation to support broad statements of having of having provided the required discovery and in here it would be impossible four hundred but all right for mr brock his counsel to point anywhere in the record where the exact monthly revenues were provided in addition we don't even know i think if completely different story under oath both are under oath in the context of a different motion and that's one of the just one small example showing how to this day we have no idea any of the most outside counsel mr flamm dated february two thousand and one with some documents attached mr flynn's letter represents that to mr al in this are often you've asked me to look here for example mr brumby is claiming reversible error on a document which mr bruff did not give the court before entry of litigation and in thanks ns but even there even after the fact that document the letter in the attachments don't resolve the issue of what about all these other companies it gives one kernel of information it seems there's no doubt that mr  made at least seventy one seven thirty three because of private provided services to alyeska but amounts beyond that we don't know thank you thank you that there had been any breach i think you made that point before but i'd like you know what your thought is that seems to be your statement of the pivotal issue in this case yes it most certainly is i think i have a bunch of them but i think i can find one for you there was not a proper interjection objection interposed but that tour hapless lawyer had been denied any opportunity to prepare the case at all and there had been no don't do process not