employee for example the union members who violate this contract that they have with the union can be fined and sued in state court to enforce that contract but like as well holding of the power to a federal labor law is voluntary union membership in this case today the critical issue is whether bernard mckay ever became a voluntary does not make him a member i do not believe that the labor law of the united states which requires voluntary unionism allows one party to walk up to the other party and say oh by the way you're a member and client because we have in the record the you know there's the hudson policy whatever you call it that the union created and allegedly gave to mr mckay we don't a policy in fact that you have to go through a final and binding internal arbitration procedure and i asked an executive director mr mccormick if that was actually enforced not a member of the union then you say the obligation is upon the union i think you're saying there's to provide all of the present material and i have i think i have to restrict access to the facts of this case and i don't i don't know if that would be the same answer in a different  clean i think i should look at this court cluster because that's parts of adverse action that triggers employer responsibility and employer liability and here we have industrial capital well it's ok what is he supposed to do for the guy he doesn't want to be in memory but without having the financial disclosure now you're asking a gentleman who is not only for a lawyer who is not an accountant to is not a college appeal the first is the jurisdictional argument saying there was a lack of diversity and does vultures diction over the subject matter secondly we're saying the judge committed in error and saying that they are a citizen of that state for purposes of diversion that's  you want me to move on to the summary judgment  conference before the judge ruled it was clear that we opposed the providence prism position and that  clear because we filed a lawsuit in texas which is attached as an exhibit where they were claiming fraud and claiming an interest in the oil field and in private itself those positions were sort of over had asked us to focus on the collateral estoppel issue so that's what we were focusing on i prepared a brief on that and i submitted exhibits and i stepped forth in detail well i set forth an outline of our claims and in any i submitted the evidence on which we intended to support our claims for relief or to put it conversely for our defense against the providence prison claim in montana which and and currently as in response to judge first answer question they have point if only to the texas complaint which i wanted to clarify was attached to their original that's the form in which it appears in this record is attached to the original answer which is it is our opinion is superseded by the amended pleading and should not be considered under the circuits holding in cases such as being verses  answer i believe was the first one that was filed and that was and then they filed an amended and that was the answer that had the texas complaint attached to it then they filed in the mandan answer on november fifteen at the time certainly we were entitled to rely upon the admissions that were made at the time they claimed to have cost the state the error it was after a motion for summary judgment had been motion to him and is made following a scheduling order deadline rule sixteen be applied and fifteen and only applies if a party can overcome the hurdle of rule sixteen b and the second proposition that johnson stands for is that if a court it also is heard here and the johnson part went on to say ok even if we consider this to be a de facto motion to modify which would have to be done in this case to get past and timeliness requirement even if we consider i to the original complaint or then argue on the other hand that motion to a man should have been granted they do and have someone take away say that their amended answer would have been sufficient and they referred to kind of private plans but of course referred in general to the court should have looked at the entire record and essentially made earth facts for us that would have disputed summary judgment because everybody should have known however the only thing that they can really point to at this instant is the texas complaint that was attached to the original they are they are in the record the judge knew what our position was steve johnson knew what our position was we were going to trial at no time was there any mention of taking depositions the pretty cavalier for somebody  to wait for the closure discovery and file a summary judgment motion and then say all i've got to go now i've got to go take depositions by the person doesn't know ahead of time bring our witnesses up from texas and present a short