appellant appellant worked for the state of connecticut for over twenty one years she believed she was being discriminated against by her employer so she filed a charge of discrimination with the u s equal employment opportunity commission the e c found her employer to be in violation and they sent her case to the department of justice then the department of justice issued the appellant a notice of right to sue appellant took that notice and filed suit or a complaint in the united states district court appellant does not believe she got a fair legal process and the district court judge thompson dismissed the case with prejudice pursuant to federal rules of civil procedure thirty seven b and forty one b this case is not about a failure to produce documents or failure to do something in fact the plaintiffs did turn over the majority of her documents to her court appointed legal counsel it was in reviewing those documents once she once she received some of them back from coun decision began to have some concerns some serious concerns in january of two thousand and fifteen appellant filed a letter in district court addressed to judge thompson explaining her legal counsel's professional conflict with respect to a claim against which is the commission on human rights and opportunities since the appellant did not want to lose her ability to argue the c h r zero piece and her legal counsel felt his firm could not argue it on the they felt there was no other option but to part ways unfortunately rather than trying to handle the situation in a professional manner suddenly the court plaintiff's former counsel and opposing counsel all tried to portray the appeal in a negative light the opponent was denied combinations she sought from the court and the americans with disability act the idea a in the form of additional time that was additional time to submit discovery documents to the other side in addition the appellant stated that she had uncovered some discrepancies as it related to her prior counsel and she needed further time to research and investigate these she added that she wanted to preserve her remedies this was outlined in a motion for extension of time filed in district court on april thirtieth two thousand and fifteen appellant believes there were several factors beyond her control that prevented her from meeting the last discovery deadline and she notified the court of this in writing on numerous occasions required more time to accommodate her disability and more time to review the dish she had received from her former counsel let me interrupt for just tenet how much more time would you have needed do you think to completely comply with the court's order that you produce documents what happened that was of concern was i'm just going to back up a minute we we were at a hearing and the pro bono counsel had listed all the different avenues i had been into regarding my case and he left of them back to review in order to send them to opposing counsel and what i saw in those deaths was very concerning to me and i believe that they were my the attorney who was appointed by the district court for me on a pro bono basis was actually intervening in my case on c h r rose behalf so suddenly i had to look over so how much more time would you have needed f you made that discovery because i think the district court was concerned that he had said a number district judge was concerned that he said a number of deadlines and they had not been met right i think that the issue is the condition that those came back to me in so now suddenly we're looking at documents that were no longer in the condition that i had given them to my pro bono counsel so it it became a fine tooth comb now i have to go back through everything and much more time do you think you would have needed  i'm not sure because i it came down to i'd have to go back to what the original document looked like versus what he's giving me back so i don't know if you gender sound like he was yeah he was weaning out t suddenly my documents weren't in the same form that i'd given him so suddenly to turn them over you know i was like they've been you know it's concerning what yeah so i don't know that i can give you an exact time i can think about it i don't have an answer right on the spot ok and i only had two paragraphs left here appellant does not believe that the judge adequately considered a sanction less drastic than  the case for a fair and impartial trial before an unprejudiced jury on proper evidence and under correct instruction as is just and proper and then i wouldn't mind bringing two things to your attention when i filed my notice of appeal which i was told i had to from the district court my case all along in district court has been against the connecticut department of children families and joetta cats in her fisher capacity as commissioner of the park and children film and when they filed it with your court the second circuit court they reversed those and they put joetta cats at the top and so now the short name of my case is leave versus cats and i just think that that that one example i think shows fourteen oh ok that's over not ok now you're over that much want to take a moment to finish up ok so i just you know there's just i felt like that went on a lot in the district court there was a lot of covering up my case would always be heard last there was a lot of they didn't want it out and also my case has ties to the gentleman who built my building where i got sick on the black mold was to ma so who is tied to our governor who was indicted who i believe just last night again one away under indictment charges so i think there are many reasons why they didn't want information about my case getting out to the public and i think some stem from that your case is public everything is publicly file ok we have your papers  which we have read and we thank you for your argument we'll hear from the other side good afternoon your honour's my name is jennifer bennett may please the court i represent the defendant in this case joe at katz and the department of children and families your honor this court should affirm the district court's dismissal of this case under either ru district court below considered all of the factors required under either rule forty one or thirty seven for dismissal of this case including duration notice likelihood that further delay will prejudice the defendant  requests for productions for a year in eight months from january of twenty fourteen through the dismissal of this case on september thirtieth two thousand and fifteen the district court held multiple conferences gave the plaintiff in this case notice multiple times as outlined in my brief that if she did not comply her case could be dismissed she did comply with she attended deposition correct she attended a deposition or inner harbor that deposition was not affected because of the fact that at the time that counsel tried to depose her counsel did not have any of the documents that could in fact have relevant information for a case as was noted by her prior publisher counsel on the record in the may twenty fifth hearing in front of in front of judge thompson and i will also note that the district court judge miriam specifically notified the plaintiffs that there was a mechanism in place if she had documents she had concerns about to identify those documents just produce the documents identify those that she had concerns about and it