word and what i believe to be much more factual dispute than a legal dispute the the soul saying you were a student before the court today and that was before the court back at the district well is whether these two defendants in the asian dredging actively when they made a can out of the issue in this case the lower court ruled basically said look if there's evidence that dredging took place then that is substantially related to maritime activity because you have maritime claims nobody is appealing that decision what what the court did rule though was that for several reasons these defend come forward some evidence that they did that's correct and it would what is that well i guess my question to use was different and are you for going to florida florida national get well i want to take them separate same as you list to florida nat with the permit permits is what somebody is allowed to do yes you know as not evidence that they actually did it is it well as is evident you couple that with the remaining evidence of the fact that there's actually a come out out there sort of sort of permitted activity was to build a pipeline in a canal there is a come out there today we submitted on the record a photograph of a canal we would suggest and there's no bone to pick that there's actually a pipeline out there what floored us position is this this and look we've got our pipeline out there but we didn't dredge the canal that that pipeline is in if you take their position and they basically are saying look record documents eighteen seven thirty seven and seven thirty eight and eighteen seven forty one and seven forty two and you look at those those drawings that are submitted to the cool range nears in order to get the they show where they buy one is going to go they don't show that there's any preexisting canal you couple there with what we found later on in the deposition with other natural gas all of this back  back in the sixty's just just months later so the natural gas literally months later about two or three miles up the river from where florida gas pipeline was so the natural gas is proposing to put in their own pipe company are they good yes we were we were happy with their direction or all right all the floor of gas has is the speculations in the contingency of their corporate opponent which i would suggest a self serving testimony but basically all that they've said is look we can't really answer the question how i can now got there i think it may have been a lowing canal it may have been this canal may have been whatever but but my look at the record bottom line they do it they didn't point to an absence of evidence submitted on our porch and we we're dealing with fifty plus year old project we're lucky we have the documents that we did have on the case and that's it but the fact of the matter is is it industry standard we at some point or another we had almost fifty companies in this case the industry standard was very simple flotation process which is referred to florida gases coverlet of the i actually find the argument with regard to them a little more compelling and i don't want to rush it well i need it i need to rush to get our seven minutes left here so southern natural gas ya know so i'm sure you guys read our brief she see the situation we're  bottom line is this we have this case of me one for going on twelve years now we have taken well over one hundred depositions in the case there have been so many dispositive motions filed in the case was well look let's get a dispositive motion deadline in a case management or and and everybody was agreeable of doing it that would be the end of all this ongoing training of this positive motions at the though we had not you know having to post all these other individuals and corporate entities the cetera we did not have the opportunity to depose other natural gas here so we made it a point talking with with the opposing counsel we were preparing  in the case management all right we will have thirty days from the date of the receipt of the transcript of that deposition in order to supplement our opposition's candidly i guess  in hindsight looking back at the wording of it is this we shall submit it with we supplement with information learned during the deposition so the natural gas has taken the position well you didn't learn anything you knew dredging involved when we when we opposed it that the whole motion was based on the idea that oh we were just engaging construction of pipelines we weren't gauged in any sort of maritime activity we opposed it by and they've made it three days before the george ruled in our case all right and you don't need a major understand there's no warning that this judgment is coming in the western district basically the judgement just com whenever it comes now i was under the impression the court was aware of the case mansion order and there was no sense of urgency on our court we're still waiting on our transcript come in from this other natural gas right and i'm thinking all along we were comfortable we can move forward because we're waiting on this deposition transcript in retrospective with him been good to say we need more time to respond to the summary judgment and in retrospect you are i would i would say yes but in reality we were under the impression all along the court was aware of its case management or the court openly admitted in his denial of our rehearing that it was on the case management or of those specific provisions and you did file a response in accordance with what you believed to be the deadline under the sea of yes you know we did we had we had fallen opposition and i guess the reason i'm hearing is because i'm interested in this canals there already because i thought the drawings show that they were not adequate with drawings of and your honor unsupported by any testimony do not show that in the testimony of our corporate representatives said they weren't in fact they were timber canals all through is that when they took our deposition florida guess deposition which by the way was in two thousand and eleven not around the time of the sun the judgment in two thousand and one of our corporate representatives looked at all the documents that existed including contemporaneous documents contemporaneous construction documents contemporaneous engineering documents and he said what it show that we had out there was not an indication of floridians doing anything other than flowing a pipeline and so that's the evidence that we have that's the absence of evidence that was indicated and  with when it is shown there's another party still still standing there's another part i'm still standing in this case which is one of the dow entities they are summary judgment with denied their permit says the permit application says it is for quote excavation of canals so there's not enough to for them to say to the jury these other folks all had to dig in so florida must have had to that's their argument your honor they had to support that in the record with something more than a tourney argument they didn't do that if the burden is on them drainage ok they have no evidence that florida gave us drainage and to the contrary we have the reverse of that we have the contemporaneous documents we have the corporate representative on a beach on remodeling on contradicted by anybody else saying my review of the records is that we did not grange so that's the state of the evidence as before the evidence on the same well do you agree that if it is a fact that this n g engaged in dredging that that's the fission to defeat this motion for something it would have been if they would have idea that they would have attached it to the opposition to the motion some judgment this is not a fact this is a fact as they say was known for years this is a fact that was just well a court the documents documents say what they said they did the court the plaintiff attached to the opposition documents as to dow so they have there was their view about the c m o and the fact that they still had time up until the moment they learned that a judgment had been issued on much for them because it was their view of the sea a more reasonable view of when the deadline one i don't believe so it doesn't say you can present any evidence as to s n g thirty three days later the father opposition what's he been in for a lot different to have them do you agree that the strongest evidence that someone can have is an admission of a party opponent that's the strongest level of and so how can a court then because you said the court did not consider it how is it appropriate for a court not to consider a fact which is a stamp list in the case according to rule thirty si judgment which is brought to the attention of a court squarely a few days after the summary judgment has been issued and now you tell me that the court just did not consider this a stablished fact in the case and that's all right regardless of the purpose satisfy it as is it is a maritime tort so the plaintiff's argument which was adopted by the court required two things one that will waters which we agreed to into dredging that was a factual issue the already established area which is fairly consistent again he says he strictly sadly these are based on contentions isn't based on his theories about what's out there he'll believe it or he was unaware of there being any ruled against some summary judgment here was right after that that they got on the bandwagon oh this is what we meant in the case management or this is what we meant you're supposed to use those who are supposed to do evolution gotten this deposition reality is it and if it true that you made an attempt to convene that deposition sooner for us we were asking for that deposition in june of two thousand and fifteen after we settle the deadlines for the final