the point the point that i want to bring out is that you know you understand that people have to comply with court orders they can't just ignore that yes it will create it we can see that she did make an  done in a timely fashion and going back to justice corns point it was not done in bad faith but let me ask you this regarding your your position is that as far as the rules for an arbitration hearing are concerned those were fully complied with by tendering the discovery material sixty days before the hearing yes and that included the what  and based on the order that was honored by the arbitration panel that at the time of arbitration the plaintiff in no way acted in bad faith the actual order itself reflects that on our right and the defendant in no way was prejudice at time of arbitration they had all the material sixty days prior as stated before plaintiff was present for a deposition and i think that's the significance here is whether or not a party at the time of arbitration as prejudice by another party's failure to comply with the specific terms of  and that that manual that just cordon was referring to if if it if it if it says you know the person must present himself for a tough position come the arbitration date and the person doesn't appear i mean that's delayed the purpose and scope of ninety one b and the committee notes reflect this is to maintain the integrity of the arbitration process and there was problems with litigants appearing at these arbitration not actively participating using it merely as a hurdle to get the case to trial that is not the case here the plaintiff in no way in no way was trying to circumvent the system they acted in good faith both prior to the hearing and at the hearing as reflected by the order and it is our position that the trial court's determination to fire the plaintiff from rejecting the arbitration where it goes against the spirit in the dismissed based on a mere technicality i have nothing further think you case law that states that you're allowed to have a self executing order while i name them all in my not only the practice but it has been the practice and since i started practicing law which is probably longer than i look how much it was the practice that where has been in effect it was followed by judges johnson ju cider all of the judges that i have had in there all the way back to judge michael t healy who actually i believe wrote the order that's what they have always had in there that is the practice the counsel that was for the plaintiff that was involved in this i was reminded of that by the judge at the hearing that not only has this been the practice but she has participated in this practice or his honor on numerous occasions that is why he asked for the question did you make this decision that was her only request at that point in time she did not request for a retroactive leave for it to in any way resolve the issue other than so behave the award and move forward i in fact she told me before the arbitration that oh well this happened before i just reject the arbitration so i was a little concerned at the fact that it could be a strategy i mean if we ignore the court's order and we go  and we say all right probably either go ahead if they were allowed to but if the order is a trust and as it is wide with forced by the arbitration panel then we don't have to go through this arbitration process we don't have to deal with saying that they were going to well then if he's going to make it the order then i would say that the abuse of discretion what about it hit me the opposite decision and said in this case because i feel sorry for the plaintiffs i'm not going to follow my order that would have been an arbitrary decision that would have been kind of what kind of discretion is he exercising at the time that he entered the order saying comply with my order or the hammer will come down  without any more involvement by this court what kind of discretion is there doesn't seem like there's a well it doesn't seem like there's especially i suppose that there is discretion and being willing to use that order by that as i said goes back many did he say i've i've noticed in this case that the party that the defendant has to come has has had to come in here the three four different motions to compel and given the unwillingness of the plaintiff to comply with prior discovery orders i'm going to make it very clear that  the consequences will be severe if she doesn't comply with this sort now that i can say involves discretion well that but that's not exactly what happened we haven't we had been before the court i'm a number of times we have presented a number of screen particle till one a letters and so we came before the court and asked for the motion to compel to be granted and in fact the judge said i am that's it that's that's the situation every motion to compel right and he asked the plaintiff specifically how much time do you need they got to fill in those blanks they got to say this is how much time i need this is how much time i need and he that we've been using the self executing orders from time immemorial doesn't make right that in fact there's there are there there's a well known saying that just because we've been doing this way doesn't mean we have to continue doing  future and i don't know just a lamp can recall that there was a situation regarding probation matters at twenty six three where all the judges follow the same probation because you don't do this you're going to give your year and yet the supreme court eventually ok i got it i just like to bring back the court issue that is before the court which is whether or not the trial court abuse its discretion when it barred the plaintiff from rejecting  that we're not just stating the fact that because it was seven days late on the date of the arbitration the plaintiff was fired from testifying we're not we're not disputing that sanction isn't right what we're disputing is now that the judge had ruled we can no longer be jack to arbitration where now now that's two penalties or for one noncompliance and we feel that unduly harsh and it goes against provided the arbitration proceeding ok so now if you were if you get to a point that with no one else gets to avoid it and this lawyer gets away with murder i think that certainly she would be subject to discovery sanctions by the trial court that would have the right to do that city and i think she now that's type of conduct you see is irresponsible and not acceptable and i think she did a knowledge that and if you review the what and if you review the transcript it looks as though she believed that she did comply with the order because she did tender the discovery sixty days prior to that arbitration day so it was her understanding that she did not have to go in