of trade secrets well well and all of those issues were  that the transfer of judge weinstein to connecticut occurred after i think judge under whom issued the summary judgment makes some sense but why are they combined here i think there wasn't agreement three and therefore he denied summary judgment to the defendants subsequently the case went back to connecticut and judge underhill construing the defendant's motion to reconsider a renewed motion for summary judgment granted summary judgment on exactly the same grounds as he had in the chip case you're arguing he should not have done that i'm not making that procedur granted two because two is aiding and abetting chuck and he was trying to give credit to judge under hill's ruling chugg but he then said that this this could independent she could have stolen the database herself and it was not depended upon chubs conduct all the other arguments that we make in our brief have to do with the original appeal which is a decision by the other panel and you know what the rule jurisprudential rule of this court is correct the first panel to get the issue or issues will write the law the circuit of those issue or issue arguing in this appeal that the distinguishing quality here is that his chum is alleged to have acted independently and judge weinstein found that if the  first panel decides the case adversely to us on the issue the issue preclusion it depends i'd say it depends on exactly how they handled the issue with respect to whether that just would rule out our claim against ms chung or whether you have further arguments to make that should be considered absolutely no so well we'll hear from you that what you have for now states as opposed to a permanent resident i think in terms of diversity she's a citizen of the eastern district i don't know what her whether she is a citizen or whether she is not a citizen because if she's not a u s citizen then there's no jurisdiction because there'd be aliens on both side of the vein but i'll ask your opponent about that press the button to your right yeah islands has has heard these exact issues during the trial where it examine evidence it heard witness testimony the witnesses were cross examined and found that these exact allegations that you shoes that are pending before discord now and they were pending in the so called truth action as the parties have been referring to it have no married whatsoever and even knowing that it is a dishonest abuse of process but isn't the prior panel of our court that h argument in august of this year deciding whether that would constitute or does constitute the residue to condo or issue preclusion in the case that's on appeal and that was h yes you are certainly and it is and that decision will bind us so well that decision will articulate the law which we will then follow would you agree with that that is correct as we are no earlier the first panel to make owns no equity in any of the companies involved in this action or bendis action or the related actions and indeed she has she was never a litigant in action before disses a very new experience for her and one that alternative ground to affirm the decision to be brought here having chosen not to follow the law there's no opposition to that argument and  have between those two do it which is your which is your argument or is it just both either one of mr as no preference between the two since judge underhill went into a so let me ask you this question sort of i we each come to this independently each of the members of the panel come to this independently and without having debated any issues among us but it seems to me and i'm speaking for myself only that it may make sense for us basically to put on hold our consideration of this appeal until we get a decision  from the panel that is sure issues prior to this because many of those very same issues it seems to me on the record here are identical and the arguments have been made there in fact if one looks at the should withhold any decision pending the resolution of the related action that they're going to see so i think you said it would this is the first time it was raised today that she acted independently and there's independent towards running against her before  circuit is correct but it was raised before just wants to know it was raised before judge weinstein and judge underhill disagreed with that factual finding and again it wasn't a factual finding it was based on the allegations in complaint and the issue has not been presented for the appeal before the court if before this court in this particular action yesterday i said i have some time left but if the court has no further questions and please the court i'd like to waive the remainder of my argued ones that judge want that judge under fire hell over rule charge weinstein when judge weinstein held that she had committed an independent toward not pace's the case could go forward i mean that was really the basis for the appeal in her case well even if we assume that what judge under well let's let's say that what judge underhill did was actually take the matter up on reconsideration and  disagree with the prior decision and issue what was seen without authority to do that i think he was without authority to do to grant to a rehearing a motion for summary judgment that was decided by another district judge it's interesting what he said he said i'm not ruling that there was no theft and that was an issue that was raised between chook in colorado who are representing who are representatives of the two parties or c and hyde on one side so yeah i mean the only basis here is that she committed independent tour that's what it's about thank you thank you thank you mr bowman thank you mr savage will reserve decision