i feel strongly about the issue of fair play and gamesmanship and then and then it's a recognized rule it is wrecked now that the opinion that disclosed in the two thirteen disclosure can be expanded during out if you feel that those opinions were not disclose violation of two thirty those are the facts if you go through with the point you want to check to see that i didn't see any of that and january twenty sixth two thousand and nine and the disc really sure of expert witness this was by the defendant i'm december the eighteenth seventy three years old at the time he got ten needle it does seem a little strange that bet be attorney that retains an expert would decide to have a deposition was in order of that expert when it's his own expert certainly you schedules that was an issue in this case defendants did disclose on december eighteenth the written in iraq a transfer situ thirteen trial counsel for defendant went into court on a motion to continue the trial with  specific intent of saying judge because where we are with discovery in the trial that you set plaintiff maybe let's give him more time so he can depose my experts and at that time plaintiff counsel made his own strategic decision which he's entitled to do that he did not want to take the discovery depositions of those experts and that's where and in most this case we just don't see that usually that opportunity is taken advantage of given that and given the strict rules of rule two thirteen under sullivan and the burden that's placed on the party presenting the expert defense counsel decided i'm going to present my experts so that i know all of their opinions all of the explanations bases are there for us to show the court if there is sufficient notice given her schedule in fact on the day of the first episode plaintiff counsel to the emergency motion he did appear in court immediately before the deposition and simply chose not to show at at the discovery deposition the the next one of the stock there harris that was the following day he didn't show up interesting way however counsel asked no questions for his cross examination on the issue of orthostatic hypotension the precise issue that we're dealing with here certainly had an opportunity to inquire into cross at that time i'd also point out to the court as counsel just advised you he knew what they were going to say this is certainly not an issue of two thirteen where there was surprise as to money given at the time as you say did rule two thirteen she provides that opinions can be disclosed in the sky every deposition plaintiff has conceded page seven of his brief that both dr harris and dr brant testified at trial consistent with their discovery deposition so there is no issue of a new opinion coming out at the time of trial on the issue  file the report of proceedings in failure to object to the testimony at the time why why why shouldn't the plaintiffs experts been allowed to sort of respond to the experts that you had regarding  the subject of the this appeal is geared towards a neurologist dr mark least that those his opinions and it was a six days prior to trial it was a two page supplemental report filed by the plaintiff that he wasn't he wasn't intending to serve dead this case in chief he was intending to use it as the boss at the time of the trial if you read the reports of proceedings the argument of her bottle was not based at that time it would it was simply raise the supplemental opinion deposition that he was never asked to to consider or to determine what caused the plane this fall it simply was and i think the word he used was it just didn't occur to me i wasn't asked to do that and that was one of the things the trial court considered saying well certainly this is a supplement these are just new opinions but also work related to orthostatic hypotension the type of supplemental opinions if you will that were offered had to do with the plaintiff pushing while he was on the toilet  sweet i want to make it very clear that i did not say here that i knew what they were going to testify to after a deposition which i didn't know very shortly within thing what was the doctor to do the doctor says you're you're you're not sitting up i want you to sit here for five minutes he the patient says no i've got to go to the bathroom the doctor and  privacy and and the accident happens i don't understand where the real problem was the real problem was that yes he heard the man's history he had been