minutes for a bottle i've got a timer that i started myself too so hopefully i can keep track as well you're probably and my time was pretty much right on with jeff collins and like i don't want to start with a matter of st principles here this court like every court in this nation is loath to cases being decided other than on their merit didn't pay their lawyers they didn't answer discovery requests including written in iraq or tories they didn't show up at depositions it wasn't just one time problem  do we have any obligation to defer to those sort of factual losses and findings by the district or no your honor you don't and the case for that is the original case versus allen in which this court said quote this court will accept the allegations of the movement's factual statement that keep going so i apologize for getting sidetracked here that the district court necessarily disbelieve the explanation but the explanation given was plausible on face but it was that part of it that's that's part of my issue with this even the explanation doesn't explain everything yes you actually your honor it does explain everything this because the explanation given is that what he was out of the country he was relying on on his his co defendants assurances that everything was fine he was not aware of the discovery that it insert he was not aware that his his attorney had withdrawn until he returned from the country in december returned to the country in december and at that point he immediately contacted his codefendant to find out what was going on and immediately reengage counsel who promptly prepared by the motion the rule fifty five as the motion this court has interpreted fall versus allen the statement i quoted before as high as meaning that the the court on review is required to accept the movement's allegations is apply that in or in a case presentation  well why would we find that on these facts let's assume for the moment your argument as relates to what the standard is regarding possible it still stands as an argument that what your client asserted was not possible given the issue of the repeated fair given the context and also distracts from the actual legal standard although mr gorgon missed more than one litigation obligation this all happened while he was out of the country and under the reasonable yet mistaken belief that his attorney was still representing us interests and everything was fine in the litigation his explanation that accounts for the mistah geishas i think the hypothetical of the court will indulge me here will show what i'm talking about here but i think you're misunderstanding my question our role is explanation for them only accounts for them because he explained that he was not aware that the discovery had been served he was out of the country when that all was entered he was he stated that he was those that's inherent in all of these cases the point of rule fifty five see and rule sixty b is that the consequences of neglect or carelessness give result from our cause that judgment by default and refused to set aside the fall in reversing this court acknowledged that the excuse given was admittedly weak that he but despite being weak and despite carrying on of opinion about explaining why  sophisticated businessman living in california with global business interests he appeared and was in the country and represented in this matter by an attorney mr perot's he went in february th seen the district court set the discovery cutoff counsel or even to communicate with plaintiff's counsel here in order e mails and mails you made no arrangements to follow that case even though he knew that a pretrial and a trial were just around the corner we posit your who had just withdrawn three or four months earlier defend mr markham claims that he did not get notices that he doesn't speak english although it's clear that his declaration is in english and it doesn't indicate that it was translated and then he did not have his codependent to tell him what to do yet somehow he was able to receive the default order we hired the same lawyer who had just withdrawn he also was somehow able to cooperate with that lawyer mr rosen in filing a motion to will to his friend he can only answer the discovery propounded on him and only he can sit for his own deposition for example mr good work and knew exactly what he was doing after ignoring the deadlines of this district court of the district court if i may i'd like to also discuss very briefly the amount of damages awarded by the district court with prospective compensatory damages the district court considered the evidence before and found appellant false statements in the newsletters and engineer expulsion of a agreed by the district court a jeweler's reputation for honesty is the cornerstone of the success of a successful based business appellant took that reputation away from of halle and did so globally the damages here are based on more than just the complaint the and evidence is found that a punitive damages are awarded with the defendant acts with malice to injure annoyed vexed or in conscious disregard that one to one ratio your honor is well within the permissible range and keep the court this court has held  show for no one is a good proxy for the limits of constitutionality in fact this court is held ratios as high as twenty eight to one especially where the injury is personal it is also important to note that the district court denie appleby's motion for sanctions it's important to go work and didn't raise any serious contest to the amount of damages in opposition to belize motion for for default judgment of it as the state was astounded lehigh a over its own case management proceedings after this court's district court detailed findings and reasoning a reversal would be an open invitation to disregard to game the federal courts ability to manage docket that would be an outcome that would reverberate systemically and up repeated violations going in on a court's orders i want to be clear us to be clear about something there was no prior orders going on the only order we refer to is is just the scheduling order that set the deadline for discovery that same order says instructed the parties do not serve written discovery so that it's due right before discovery otherwise you won't have a chance to for a motion if needed do not serve notice depositions or right before discovery closes because you will have time if you need need to move bring a motion i bring this up to just to point out that that's what happened here discovery was so backloaded there that there wasn't really time to bring any motions and so what what then happens is a district court which certainly has discretion to address problems in discovery but what happened here was to a sponsor without notice the court said your answer is stricken and i'm entering default there's the rules of civil procedure provide provide the district court with authority to address discovery in a certain way rule thirty seven in particular allows a party to bring a motion to compel back and that result in an order that compels someone to sit for deposition to answer certain questions to respond to rediscover e and if there is an order compelling in place and  i don't recall that specifically but what matters here is that he gave an excellent mr he gave an explanation that he was never told that he had the deposition and what is that counsel should we be permitted to consider  on the motion to withdraw his his attorney tourney's representations about his conduct because you're talking about the extent to which of course that except certain representations he's made but can't we also consider what the representations are from his attorney about his conduct do we not take that into consideration and evaluating this i see that my time's up a answer to question these answer the question yes yes certainly you can consider that but i would hope that the court would consider in the context of this same attorney recognizing as of december that that they had the mishap that had occurred and and represented to the court through his hit through mr girkins filings in december that there had been a misunderstanding the explanation was given in december by that same attorney so at one point yes you're right he said that that there is a breakdown in communication but then