contention that the trial court granted summary judgment to the defendant in issue that it was not asked to render an opinion on both parties filed motions for summary judgment the trial court plaintiffs and granted the defendants it granted the defendants because it found or concluded rather that no purchase orders had been issued and therefore  representation agreement gam co terminates that agreement shortly before it gets this big program that would have to pay big commissions on and the representation agreement though does have a provision for post terminations commissions and that provision indicates that he can cope commissions to wrack as if it enters into earth receives any newly created or existing purchase orders arising out of any long term arrangements accepted per she's the prior to the effective date of germination and your honors that is the sole issue that was before the court the defendant's motion for summary judgment concludes is under spewed that general aluminum did not accept any one term arrangement to produce the relevant castings before the parties agreement terminated indeed no long term arrangement exists as of today accordingly there is no genuine issue as to any material fact in general women and is entitled to judgment as a matter of law in its motion in brief it raised one sole singular issue and that is even in the light most favorable to recognize the post terminations commission provision cannot is a matter of law have been triggered for chrysler  castings because no long term arrangement for the production of such castings had been accepted by general lumina as of the termination date that is the only issue of material fact that was raised by the defendant nevertheless the trial court ruled that because the party said not presented purchase orders that summary judgment should be entered in favor of defendant and it's  a long term arrangements so this whole issue of purchase orders was not before the court it was and it was not material and i think that's really important because it was not material to purchase orders and in those in this business as we indicated in our brief what happens is the parties enter into this long term arrangement and down the road oftentimes years as in this case undoubtedly years then the purchase orders are entered but there's the obligation to pay arises once that long term arrangement is exempted ation arises from the purchase or don't they get commission on the purchase orders right now if there are no purchase orders there are no damages are there i mean you may have agreement for a long term relationship but until you get a purchase order so what there's no there's no damages to collect or a right debt so that would be that's where the purchase orders come into play so is when there's damages that you're alleging a breach of contract and to to a subtle to that you have to have some purchase orders from they didn't pay your commission  determines that there is a long term arrangement that was accepted by gam co prior to the termination date then the parties recognize them when those purchase orders were to be issued or received they would have to pay the commissions but if there is no long term arrangement if that if that st step doesn't exist then we don't have to worry about just order that the contract says that they can terminate the relationship prior i mean if if the relationship is is terminated then they don't owe commissions or purchase orders that that occur after the terminations that after the termination date yeah no no that's not what it says it says if these are over they are still really even once they terminate the relationship they still have to pay if they accepted the long term arrangement for that part of prior to the termination date and that's with c s you hear they did except that in the long term if they agreed to your period then they're responsible to pay commissions on purchase orders within exactly on to because that's how this industry works there is it is in this case in july of two thousand and fifteen gan co excepted the long term arrangement i see that you just don't have any damages because your commission arises out of failing to pay commissions on purchase orders and i don't have any purchase orders in front of me to establish that there is a breach of the contract have them and that that's a very important point if i may or are not i believe there are i believe based on the that what we presented to both your honour's and the trial court that in january or in early two thousand and eighteen production of sufficient for your claim and the other side oppose a summary judgment in part on that crowd you say that they didn't looks like that and the answer is to throw it out and then once you get some evidence  bring another claim but to say that they did it should have been thrown out when you didn't have the elements of the cause of action that's i think what was motivating the district court i think that may be your honor but i think that what's important is i don't think the defendant must have thought the purchase orders were material if they did i think they had an obligation to do with this language that they respond to that argument in in their brief and they cite portions of this declaration gentlewomen and that's not received a production purchase order for d t castings right then they go but that's not argument that statement of facts but then you go down to the argument the argument seems to rely on the well you say that and say that you see chrysler d t related purchase orders were from components people as of the date of the attached declaration general general aluminum had not received a production purchase order because no long term arrangement exists it's it's for you to say well they never raise the absence of purchase orders is a little bit i mean that's a little bit oversimplified if i may if they raised it in the context of their argument that there had to be purchase orders to two points to that to your to your question one is that the assertions that there were no purchase orders as of the filing of the motion and the response in march and june of two thousand and seventeen number one that was those assertions were made in connection with dan coats argument that purchase orders had to be received prior to the terminations day which we argued and i suggest to you is contrary to the language of the contract but number two if that was a material fact if that was a material or something that they believe was material to the outcome of their motion if in fact prior to the date on which the court ruled that fact no longer was true which i believe to be the case that under the rules of professional conduct the defendant had the duty to come back to the district court and say your honor we made these assertions in our brief they're no longer true we're the only ones who have access to that information the plaintiff does not i can't issue a subpoena i can't do more discovery because we've got the stay so either why do you have to stay we have a stay because we both based on our  we did because we knew that the state because of your own actions well we have to stay because both parties recognize that if that if there was a finding of a long term arrangement this is going to probably resolve a discovery and a lot of depositions that had to be taken and we both thought it would be in the interests of both parties to get this long term arrangement issue resolved now if that assertion when it was resolved they you know i don't want to deal with this purchase well in if that's the case if that's a material fact then i think that it was incumbent upon the defendant to come back to the court prior to the time to argue that your brief yes we do it in a reply brief about if you basically if there's a basic fundamental agreement that you there or whether you don't based on this other issue of whether it was a long term agreement or not that you just needed a case where there were some purchase orders then you could resolve that case and it would in effect resolve the rest of the purchase orders well your honor just so you understand the so that the deadest of that case we did file it again remember i'm trying to preserve my client's right there's a lot of money at stake they were to hard to get these commissions and they didn't get them so we did file again and the response was a motion to dismiss along with a motion for sanctions well based on what that what  good morning your honor said i'm koechner for on behalf of general i'm in a manufacturing i think that this appeal is resolved base and two very simple legal principles number one if you're a plaintiff seeking just summary judgment on all of your claims you have to address all of the elements of those claims they moved for summary judgment they did both did you know so you can't blame the court if you as a pla are seeking total victory and then you only dress one of the elements of the claims you brought that's especially true your evenings down in the court though don't address that very directly you can sort of read it as part of your analysis of the apple here in the interest of fairness and judicial economy it's incumbent upon the liggins to present their evidence before the motions are decided not after and if we agree on those who we call principles i think that's what really resolves the appeal the st element that's the st one and then we get that and then if there are purchase from like if you agree with that you would be litigating so hard to try to get out of that obligation if it's your obligation if there are purchase orders then that ar issue but the other issues never been resolved shouldn't the should the court resolve that issue well the court didn't because the found it didn't the development simply weren't there and that's out how should they proceed in order to get the money which you agree they should get if there's a long term agreement before that certain date you agree they should get them money but you've got to you're down here to be defending a position that they should never get that regardless of whether there was a long term agreement prior to the terminations date but what we're arguing is that right to center on its rights in the previous litigation and under six circuit case law right they set on their rights be by suing before they were supposed to and that big on your rights they they sat on their rights because according in their own words they believe that they had information that showed that purchase orders existed that there was a virtual certainty that they're under rule sixty emotion for relief from judgment so if i go back and you know you sue based on whatever violation whatever contract breaches there are you say there were none because there were no purchase orders no evidence or source when wait until they get purchase orders and then they sued why can't they do that when they file their complaints the elements weren't present to assert a preacher's contract it was premature it was premature so if it's  premature you wait till it's mature and then you bring it down but you don't get told oh well you saw it you saw relief when it was premature therefore you don't get it now it's mature that seems a little strange i think a lot of hard position though right i think a lot of what you're trying to do is to get out of decided to bring their motion for summary judgment before one of these two critical elements was present dacha you use it too soon he's sort of referred to it in your motions and then the district court notice that it was too soon and threw it out and now you're saying two critical elements were missing if you look at righteous motion they said there's an alleged christmas i was trying to see what's motivating this continued litigation seems like there's not much purpose to it but now i see exactly there's all kinds of from judgment under rule sixty and this is important in the by the basis for that is that they had newly discovered evidence there was three pieces of newly discovered evidence number one was a declaration claiming that a motion asking for the stay of discovery that they agreed to be lifted be lifted it didn't do anything until the advantage of seeing the court's opinion and then started changing its strategy that has offered some excuses for that to say well we didn't have a copy of the purchase order well you don't really need a copy of person what you need is you need to show an issue of material fact that a purchase order exists in order to meet that element but also rachel's claim reps claimed since motion that this newly discovered evidence quote unquote it was bringing meant that it was a virtual certainty that was the words virtual certainty that appeal had been issued if that's the case the state of discovery that they're talking about is relevant according to them they knew they thought they knew that a purchase order had been issued and they decided to enter into that discovery stipulation and the six circuit has says this quote rule sixty was not intended to relieve counsel  consequences of decisions deliberately made although subsequent events reveal that such decisions were unwise and what ratchet's has said in their motion for judgment relief that this newly discovered information is quote material and controlling and clearly would have produced a different result if that's the case why didn't they bring this to the court sooner case law states that the parties bring a motion for relief from judgment have an extremely difficult burden that's the quote  complaints that's again reviewed for an abuse of discretion and six circuit stay than amendments after an advert straight judgment can only be entered if the standard for change in a judgment under rule sixty or fifty nine  for rule sixty b newly discovered evidence that's the basis for trying to bottom any complaint and again they rehash all the old arguments they bring up those three p of information they have before they also know in a deuce two additional pieces of information two additional documents and by the way ratchets had those documents nearly a year before the court had decided the cross motions for summary judgment and then for those reasons the descriptive courts that was it by due diligence you could have discovered or had this evidence before the court entered its opinion denied under those basis that's why the district court's order should be upheld i do want to address though and tell the court talk a little bit about the existence of a long term arrangement or three sentences that address the part that we're talking about but they won't talk about duration it's a long term arrangement you can't read out the term long term out of the phrase long term arrangement there's nothing in duration about that and i think it's worth in the data you shouldn't part that was executed in two thousand and seventeen february th day i think that's after the terminations date recall of the lp element they were dressing the rest to be a long term arrangement before the terminations date and they've you in our response to the defendant's motion and in our motion we also attached a number of documents a number of campo internal documents that talked about production starting in two thousand and eighteen production and start to purchase orders are issued if the court felt like the existence of purchase orders was crucial to a determination there was evidence before it that we test multiple documents that talked about that issue then it should have found a question of fact and whether or not there were purchase orders and i do reiterate that i think that we can't ignore that game kono's and game canoe in two thousand and eighteen whether the representations made to the court that there were no purchase orders if they found that that was that they thought it was a material argument they had a duty to correct it now counsel indicated that rakesh decided to file a motion for summary judgment before it had the purchase orders we have to keep in mind with the timing was filed its motion st filed this motion in march i don't believe purchase orders would have been entered before discovery closed discovery closed in august so we we stayed discovery in june it was scheduled to close on august th even by then it's unlikely that purchase orders would have been in answered so the argument that we are suffering from our own decision to enter into a stay doesn't really pan out when you consider with the timing of it was and i don't even think we need to get to the motion for reconsideration because as i said there's there's other hints in the record that we presented to the court that production was the start in eighteen both of the parties limited their their i mean would i think we're entitled to rely on what coast says when they say our argument before this court is that there's no long term arrangement that's been accepted by and that's the issue we're presenting to your honor's i think we have the right to rely on that's the argument they're presenting to the court that we need to respond to we did present the documents that we had granted indicating that there was a long term arrangement which the well evidence of i'd like to have a case before that's pretty understandable but we did present the evidence in forms of e mails internal documents internal summary sales report that purchase orders were coming that's enough we should just we don't like that so we should just  i think that i would suggest to you that at a minimum there was a question of fact on the purchase orders if that is if that's something that needs to be decided at even at that time we presented all kinds of documents that the future well because already said they're not going to pay that's why we have to have that's why this lawsuit is filed because i already said we're not paying you commissions on the d t that's the whole reason we can't know about the purchase orders until we sue we don't have we don't get them as a supplier or as a sales representatives they don't get the purchase orders under we have to sue we have to do discovery turns out things you lose having done that it's too late for you to get them in the future that is their theory but i think we presented enough evidence to show that there were going to be purchase orders but it's in they use the word trigger and it's right not of the purchase orders the the responsibility to pay the commissions isn't triggered if there's no long term arrangement you know i'm sure you get the case that you can't sue because you're only a purchaser you could sue for  would have to have a basis to ask for the accounting i think the response to that would have been you're not entitled to it because there's no long term arrangement that would have entitles you do post germination commission of  i'm not sure i agree with you couldn't your honor i guess i respectfully based on my experience with this case i think we couldn't ask for an accounting in last there we had a in less than that portion of the contract that required a long term arrangement was satisfied so they're going to argue you're not entitled to an accounting because you're not entitled to any commissions because there's no long term arrangement and so that was the that was the necessary step in resolving the dispute between the parties if there is a long term arrangement they're going to pay on the purchase orders they argue there's not a long term arrangement that it's basically you