experienced i think that i would like to my time to focus on two points and one is that in an uphill climb like this you faced with a question over what is and what is a reasonable person going your side because if no reasonable person would have decided this way then it goes my way if any reasonable person would decide the other way i don't know where in this particular case the two places where the reasonable person would have decided differently are one based on proportionality and the second based on raked and not touched pushed proportionality first what's important about proportionality in this case is the fact that the only person who was the party here the only person for whom a sanction was moved against and the only person for whom a sanction was awarded was c g secure it i made a point of this in the objection  because of the fact that it seemed like the vast majority of the time by the magistrate's recommendation was spent on criticizing counsel she specifically articulated things for which counsel had obstructed in discover this was then brought up with the article judge the article judge said but this sanction is not based on the conduct so then the question is what of all of the very very specific items and when the sanction was entered in the sanction was all of the discovery expects that is not what a reasonable person would draw from the conduct of c g expressively not the conduct of the boy or in the outcome specific things about c t you can identify and were identified but but it's not a reasonable draw it is not a proportionate draw from the conduct of this individual who is very very expressively singled out as the only person and the only persons conduct a section in proportion arguments typically are in this court is certainly heard them the nuclear option that is the fault is a very special well in terms of disproportion i view the fault in this case which was not rendered as essential in a long  disproportion i view the sanction that was delivered as a geometric disproportion because it does not intend not in is not drawn directly from the sole conduct of c g to the same in my view the reasonable decision is an arithmetic sanction if any sanction at all this is not a way we're talking about this is that this is a an unsophisticated small businessm granted they still are in lawsuits they're still defendants and they still have to do their job but but to to make this case into everything falls at the feet of c g security is entirely consistent with the magistrate's order with in this case i think that the reasonable decision is to identify what exactly was the conduct of c g as a party and how did that error map arithmetically relate to the extra work that had to be done in discovery that was not done here that was suggested here that was rejected here and that's the difference and i made a point to make sure that it was only c g who us who and i asked the court not to sanction c g for things  attributes to the lawyer but yet we see in discussion if we if we took a black marker and we drew through everything that had to do with the lawyer and not c g all of our stuff is a lot might and a lot less my second point is rate the court simply rejected that another attorney in this exact type of case in this exact market who's in this exact market all the time is at a different rate consuls rate was her standard rated to fifty if you look at her affidavits there their rates in divorce not in personal injury tort this is a this is a been talking as there are no dead people here this is not in some very very expensive market we're talking about a rate and in fact this is a pla personal injury kate so technically her rate on this case was zero because she didn't prevail so we have to say what is evidence of a reasonable rate evidence of a reasonable rate would be somebody who does this every day that evidence is in this case or perhaps the average that wasn't done the court didn't do anything other than say i find it reached now granted there are certainly plenty of people say that as long as it's within the two edges it could be considered reasonable the job of this court i think in deciding both proportionality and in rates and things like that is to bring decisions within the standard deviations this case by anybody's means the way it is for the way it is structured and against the individual is structured is out on the edge of standard deviation it is in my view out on the edge past abuse of discretion is there something between what was awarded and and zero that would be within discretion i think so but that's not my job my job is to simply demonstrate that this ward is in is an abuse of discretion because no reasonable person would do that this court would not typically and i know these u s judges do not like to say we're going to second guess the credibility of the individuals the magistrate decided the conduct of c g was intentional i argued against it there's i i see it very unlikely that this court is going to do anything with that but the reality of the situation is there's no good explanation for tossing my break in the trash compared to her rate there is no good explanation because you deny there was any misconduct i'm sorry don't you decide you deny that there was any misconduct it is my belief that his conduct is not sanctionable conduct and if you trace the motions the relief sought to the activity they're not straight enough they don't go is there one motion yes was there was there some if you can for yes do they match up no i can't stand in front of you and argue i think because of the way this court looks at the opinions of the magistrate and say i think that was unreasonable i think it was unreasonable i don't expect you to change your mind or the change that so i go to the two things that i think are easily identifiable as on as unreasonable as not what would be in the end as as legitimate  no abuse of discretion that he's pointing to produce certainly there's no abuse of discretion by the district court that he's pointing to and in fact the arguments that he's part of the argument you today are not the arguments that they made at the trial court level and they're not even the arguments that they highlighted and focused on in their briefs they seem to be concluding today that c g was killed here misconduct they're just saying that the returning if i may your honor to the issue that they now urged courts to do is to say it's all about proportionality c g was the one and committed these facts yes the attorneys behavior the tourney sitting out documents that knowing that his client his clients just created those documents and not saying that they were just created an acting like they were the real ones yes all of that's a very just but it was the entirety of not just  actions in the attorney's actions that resulted in this what i consider to be the worst discovery violations i've ever seen in twenty plus years practicing law because it wasn't repeated supplement is they to attempt to recast it and they didn't they resisted providing things from the very beginning not responding to the subpoenas not objecting to the erotic tori's in production documents it wasn't until i got court orders and discovery conferences and got court orders that they began to provide information related to the identit to contact guards and it wasn't until i filed my first motion for sanctions on july tenth that they ever even bothered to go out to the storage locker to look for the documents i've been requesting since december before so if i hadn't filed the discovery motions if i hadn't pursued court orders if i hadn't filed to the for the motions for sanctions they would've never produce the documents in the ultimately it was not until fully december of that year that the truth came to light about the documents being created in the course of the litigation by the attorneys by the c g and ultimately being passed off as documents yes was there much more as far as discovery misconduct that they cancel depositions at the last minute for no reason did they make an appropriate instructions and objections instructions not to answer absolutely but this permeated and in fact at the discovery process it required hours and hours and hours  unraveling what was going on here so i think the district court and the house street were entirely correct they were the ones with the boots on the ground that that were intimately familiar with what was going on and who was at fault in the role the way the replay r should be the reasonable hourly rate for myself for a person practicing in this area in this area excuse me and two hundred fifty dollars is what i charge per hour it's true that in person i've done quite a bit of great deal of litigation and we work on contingency fee basis is generally but in other matters not just divorce but contract frankly mr congress hasn't other than saying it's not what he is it's other than him saying that the courts have applied here's our leave rate he doesn't really cite any other reason reason and i don't think that makes it unreasonable on the part of the district court in the findings clearly if you look at judge lawrence order he looked at all of their arguments related to fees and hours and some of them he found persuasive and he could be did cut the hours i slid in and he ma modifications accordingly with respect to this issue i think he was on solid ground and it's certainly not an abuse of the discretion to find is he dead with respect to the other issue i just want to briefly touch upon and it is one of the issues that they have really made as a primary argument a primary argument in their brief and that was that that i didn't comply with procedural requisites for filing these motions they number one at the district court level they did not even argue with respect to my second and third motions for sanctions they did never and they never argued that i failed to meet the procedural requisite it was only with respect to the first motion that they raise that issue at the trial court level and as judge lawrence noted in his order they never specifically identified the rules of the local rules that they were saying i violated he assumed it was local rule seven one and local rule thirty seven dash one even though they didn't specifically identify it and he considered that and he said no and she has met the requisite and i find that are not persuasive most notably with respect to local rule seven one that doesn't even apply it only applies to certain efforts to confer and work things out with respect to three things and those three things are a motion for attorney's fees a motion for sanctions under blanched that made the decision that those would be too harsh given the court's summary judgment rulings as to the hiatt and that she found the appropriate remedy to be attorneys fees and costs and she felt that it should be a meaningful sanction and that is something the judge lowrance adopted as well so local seven doesn't apply here local thirty seven a does not say that a court t m not grant a motion for sanctions if there's not a certification of the confirming entirety of the circumstances the entirety of the circumstances is the combined behavior of c g and its counsel that's not what the same question was supposedly about and that's my problem is is that you cannot get up and argue about this case without talking about the conduct of the lawyers and she didn't ask until we got into the cross appeal judge thirty seven is a documented dismissal she did not ask for that sanction at the trial court level the trial court went out of its way to say that the sanction against c g was not for that behavior and yet every time we hear it the argument is in fact inclusive of that behavior and that's the internal inconsistency and that's the disproportion in this that i'm talking about here when i say i don't expect this court to go back and decide whether or not c g s conduct was malicious or just not very bright or accidental i know that because i've read enough of you keep the opinions just to in collective three of you but i do know that you all hold lawyers responsible as opposed to clients and clients responsible as to opposed to lawyers and if we have a clean record and docket below which we don't in this case from there was only one order not a bunch of orders one order about one type of documents there were no motions about the quality or the arguments of how counsel behaved or what interacted tories were good the subpoena was served before this lawsuit was even five we're not responsible for the docket to be perfect in the movement is in my job is simply to say no reasonable person would have found exactly this way and i asked the court either to a just this on its own or remand for proceedings consistent with want to reverse and thank you thank you all thank you very much counsel and the court will be a n