was leading on file two which are related in this case we're dealing with probate of the will this is a will contest of this filed in two thousand of two thousand and ten the subpoena was issued this is more than a year after discovery close and will contest and also more than a year prior to the time when the petition to remove the executive was filed so what we have is a situation where executor personally and also to him or aeration now that procedure is to say the least i don't believe that there's they would like to get information however there it's exactly what happened in this case now the argument of a case and the subject matter of this case is the entire administration of state so we don't have to worry about claims or defens therefore it's alright it's all good you can do it secondly it's argued well if there wasn't something going on becomes proper seeking relevant information which i there's no support for and i don't think should be supported by this court and they say what we  his personal conduct in defending the will and we think he's paying attorneys with the state money in order to defend his personal conduct that's bad and that's part of our titian to move and therefore it's proper during the course of the you will contest to yes some kind of personal interest that motivates them to defend them will do not make the defense of the will proper or use of state assets to defend the will property because the interest of the executor as executor and personally are aligned the will is to be defended really the only time the executor would have a conflict under those circumstances would be is declaring the will invalid would benefit the exact person which is hardly the case here so there is no issue at all to which the detail in the few bills plates so we go past that issue and they say well you know what even if we don't have that issue someday there's going to be an argument about the reasonable of those fees and we can't deal with that issue until we get the bill details however there is no issue pending now regarding there maybe in the future there may not be but to base relevance on something that might happen in the future do bills even though it's not needed right now but maybe needed in the future because it's during the course of an ongoing case you will  it's not appropriate to have a look at the other side's bills during the case allowing that we see this use of discretion free that there may be an issue in the future a shoe is not before the court now what would be appropriate future when and yes at such time as know the issues that they're raising is your defending your personal interests the issue of reasonable notice is not in the us what you're doing is you're just so with respect to the subpoena for all of those reasons just not relevant to get bill detail at this time they have everything else checks same question one would think there the goal here would be to get the will contest tried however it seems there instead of wanting to try the will conferences in this case other then a number of appearances before the court and various matters including discovery matters but any and including scheduling issues but in from dues this came in september of twenty eleven the documents of concern to us with respect to the request  three year of john wooden steps personal tax returns and three the bill details for the attorneys bills for the defense of the to remove the exact with respect to the personal financial information our position is that it is just so unbelievably they said we want an the judge stated that is philosophy with respect to discovery was look that's it there is no detail and i'm sure mr weaver can fill you in more on that there's no detail resented in the trial for saying this is this is what we're go the so pro court didn't say those will be important in order or need to eventually decide whether the compensation he was giving himself was we said that is correct that was not said but the argument they at least generally make or with respect to the tax returns yes with respect to the personal financial information it's really oh i just like to know about his financial resources doesn't stand argument doesn't really extend to reasonable compensation i think maybe they spend it that way a little bit your honor but on the compensation issue which is really the three years of tax returns the first point with respect to the compensation issue probate has not been completed that stack has not been distributed it remains in the state so bud the assets of the corporation are not assets of the estate it's just fundamentally you look at any corporation it's a fundamental concept that the assets of the corporation  not assets of the shareholder and that whatever happens to the assets of the corporation using those assets to pay compensation is not a of the shareholders assets and there are of course alternatives available to shareholders to see really if they have issues with respect to the of any effort to remove the executor it's a corporate law issue belongs in a different venue we shouldn't even talking about it however when you get to this question of what is reasonable all types of other information do not tell you and are not relevant proof of what is reasonable compensation or conflict in sta efforts and president of looking staff farming or group made a little bit elsewhere with their say that he's not worth very much if you made a lot elsewhere that that mean that he could be underpaid say if you made a million dollars doing something else that mean you should be paid more  aeration absolutely not it doesn't have any relevance at all and again we have disclosure of private financial information is not relevant not appropriate to produce in this case it's no soon it's whatsoever doesn't dance any issues doesn't help anyone do anything all of the payments from this corporation have been the spoils every every script paper bill every  when you weigh it against the bigger picture when you weigh it against the invasion of privacy when you look at what's really going on in this piece why this probate state is still open seven years after it was o there shouldn't be any worker to disclose their personal financial information they have everything they need to me every argument they want to me without invading dictators personal pri want to turn now to the privilege issue our position is and candidly that privilege is she was not extensively argued in th that the feed bill is unifications between the attorney and by and that's part of their professional relationship or privilege and there was never any challenge on that basis turning i'm privileged it's not why our position is that once the issue was raised and it was raise the resumption was raised presumption was not challenged was there was extensive discovery extensive summary judgment practice the judge took place under advisement and then once he ruled we end up in a situation where we've asked for discovery there was a motion to quash that's part of what we're here and a half years they still didn't do a motion for sanctions and that in addition just feeney once we filed the petition to remove the executor he decided they asked that he had a more immediate need because it had to do with actual allegations of waste mismanagement of your state that was something you want to get his arms around because he thought that was a more pressing that there was money that was in its expense when it should've been you want to deal as to why there's use of privilege or there's your relevance but as for us well aware that used discretion is the most deferential standard and we don't think they found you know when to come from miles showing that the judge actually used this expression here the first argument they make is let's go back to the subpoena and the only thing we're talking about the we're not saying that we can do discovery beyond we'll counter terrorist skiver deadline but we are saying we cite the court so there statutory duties are the executor and powers of the court will require during the course of the open raised for the court and we presented the arguments they have to this is not a fact you know somebody ran through red lights and now the defendant wants to yes the sunni doing work submitting bills so it it makes for kind of a confusing every couple different hats are being warrior but the point is they're still the administration of the estate that's going on we think we're in title even if there was no specific situation or remove or a specific objection to fees we think when you're in probate everything is fair game the our ministration state they never produced anything so by the time we get to the point we were on a motion for sanctions which is what leads to the contempt ruling which is why brigadier all of that is now paying attorney's fees for what in practical terms this is own defense he's the one getting all of benefit of this will after years and years of prior previous wills that was for unequal distribution now not after yet but be that as it may eventually they're going to have to be determined and again had we gotten these females when we were supposed to two and a half years ago we may have already had an interim hearing on the reasonableness of the report says we see and how we did your show of ok a month in november six thousand dollars a month of july one thousand dollars that doesn't give us any bearing on what actually was done and i think it's crucial it is really two fold on that issue against the terms of leases van buying machinery putting up buildings things of that kind and that also after years of technically being may say when we get to a trial we can't get evidence but that's not what we're here for we're here for that it be discoverable it could have lead to the discovery of admissible weapons we believe if we get to see the financial records if we see what other endeavors and we say the record debt and what the staff has another corporate answer to that if you work for you also as an employer we believe that we should be able to see what he makes in these other endeavors so for a couple reasons one if he's working to old time drabs that made public and to show that he is on the evils of work the type of hours that would allow him to  number of hours that the amount that he works that will also show a cap and sation rate for him that could very well be relevant when we would attack how much or how many hours he has the works on produce her which are human the right way and i think the last thing we want is to go back and have to start over all these discoveries because we've seen a lot of these cases i've never seen one where we talk about five personal financial  law that seems to us to show that john's financial if they're trying to say that he would have the money to pay back this so efforts at some point are going to have some relevance to what doesn't terms of assets or what his tax returns show in addition on the bank statements there may be something in the bank statements that show he has paid service charlie's these bills proceed again we don't have any way for you to look at what was thinking obviously or what even the arguments were as you don't have a transcript but i remember arguing this point they asked the  we made this argument to judge feeney and the point being on the necessity we need to see this tax or if he's going to argue that i didn't have the money to pay myself to pay these attorneys fees that's why i had to dip into a state we need to see that we need to be ready for arguments that we can't come back to you after the fact and it turns out they made arguments that we needed this financial records to rebut so and again they did that they made a blanket assertion you don't get anything they didn't say well you know what we'll let you just see one part of this or was give you one tax return we'll give you the front of the tax return we'll give you one schedule they said w you got done i've done my best i think it's about is that's what the judge said he said these are all this is all relevant to what he is hourly rate per capita sation would be the number of hours that he would because when you get to the end of the day when these fees were generated these bills were prepared they had no use of the beginning or the middle or the end there in a new their bills to establish a right to state his money  with regard to john's personal benefit they have no case law we have two cases directly on point there's no conflict there's no issue with defending the will when you're personally charged with misconduct all of the respect of the corporation is not in a state issue but the president doesn't work on an hourly basis that's not how you determine what reasonable compensation is it's pointless to argue about what didn't or did happen in the trial court there's plenty of evidence with regard what the president of the corporation does in addition to putting up with outrageous demands of grass which has some value he does a lot of work on the