underlying case first the underlying appeal is a sham this court has been conned on three looked at whether a pay should be stayed while an issue in the case is in a lot of the tory appeal and the con court fourth district citing two other fourth district cases wiseman and shaw said that if agreed to follow the trial court order and then later change its mind refused to follow the court's order and was found in friend friendly content and appealed to th court and this court not only ruled against youngblood on the issue of the discovery order the court sanctioned youngblood and said that young blood cannot have filed his appeal in good faith because quote youngblood cannot not claim he had a good faith reason well grounded in fact for failing to comply with the court order he agreed to follow and if  we said yeah we'll come up there and we'll look at the cards they produce and think we were broke said well before he calmly wants you to sign this inspection program setting out all these onerous terms that we would have to follow for this production the reason so forth in the briefs we declined to sign that inspection protocol minded redo it simply rip said ok well then we're going to have to so they filed a motion for a protective order and that motion was or january twelfth twenty seventy that was the hearing that set out the terms of the production at that hearing be subject to a confidentiality agreement during that hearing on january twelfth the trial court stop peter brooks his attorney and said i'm paraphrasing but the direct quote is in the briefs said just so i  understand plaintiffs aren't going to get all ninety thousand dollars what they're going to do is going to look through the cards have the ones they feel are relevant and then those will be copied in response to that question from the court leader versus attorneys correct your honor leave iraq's lost its trade secret argument that day an order was drafted an e mail to an attorney in my law firm saying bring your own post it notes for the production obviously anticipating that we'll be going through and having over two days hundreds if not thousands of these cars that was the whole point of being as well as we now know if i were here we were books never produced the photocopies of the cars that the court never sought relief on that point when the court asked them my understanding is that plants are going to be having these cars and those to be photocopied in other words they'll be given to the plaintiff afterwards on separate lever books said him in fact for failing to do something then to comply with a court order that they agreed to follow here or leave or post did comply with the order of inspection the production took place all we're doing is waiting for the photocopies of plenty of choice plenty of said just agreed or confidentiality order they had you know not soft compel the production of the photocopies none of this would have happened we could have gone to trial well first of all they say this in their brief they say a point of live just produced a reply of would have just agreed the confidentiality order who would have produced them they say that in their brief if that's true then what does that say about the relevance argument that in the entire not just the certain aspects of this rather than just the outright the fall the fault that's what the supreme court says should have happened before and that's what i'm happened in the case did on scorning a fourth district case that we cited to the trial court in that case only scorning refused to produce a witness under rule two thirty seven meanwhile they were trying to se inconsistency is as i see it is that here we have a defendant who's not complying with a court order you know and and sort of the trial court offering relief to the plaintiff another defendant sought every view of a discovery order under friendly town and the fifth district said that it was irritated and didn't understand why this case is even before because  because that goes to point a second point which is this the stay is jeopardizing our case we can't do anything in this case while it stayed there for defendants left in this case three to impart with the state but maybe not as to cleaver brooks i believe it does yes i think the court has you for this the stay is tantamount to an injunction and i think the court as the independent of in collateral to underline case that's for the baseball silberstein who is family management and the trial court explicitly disagreed with that at the urging of the defendant or said this is not a final judgment it's a discovery order and discovery orders are not appealable so if court doesn't have jurisdiction over the other appeal that appeal should be dismissed and and even of those circumstances station still be lifted because this court in khan said if an issue is just collateral to the case that's the word of the court uses collateral then  the underlying appeal is in good faith even in cases where the issue significant the station not last forever should only be in place for a reasonable amount of time no matter what  from the state appeal number four seventeen zero one seven three has a tentative of the clerk's office set it and of oral date of september we don't have a firm date but if all the briefing goes as planned it'll be the argument so really what is at stake in this appeal is whether this quarter should reverse the stay and send this case down so that trial court proceedings  why because three of four the five is one of an arsenal of things that are available to trial judge when a party refuses to comply just connect you wrote in the in the man's case the real for the five is there to facilitate the purposes in so when a court believes the p issue she's very familiar with her rights and options and how to handle the issue in man's first real was should financial records be produced in a court holds my partner in contempt and stays case spotted that's been pretzel here the parties had to come back and argue over the stay and judge  took all the arguments into consideration and she said and i understand your desire for this man to have an expedited trials but i think in this that are going to be an issue in the merits of this appeal just as folk are judge fully decided that this was an issue that was meritorious you haven't heard a word that more than thirty eight of these cards relate to then you go out there and you review in the discovery is limited to the to the south toward us so we say there are thirteen cards that are job sites time periods implicated here and well over four that's not a huge in fact that's not even a shoo in the merits we file a notice of appeal on the contempt which calls into question the discovery want that x without a trial date on the thirteen cards or you want to stick to your position and i'm going to do a for whatever strategic reasons they had and we're going to move for the stay which she considers great life and says the doctors are in favor of the notion of it also didn't involve imposed was reasonable attorneys fees which had not yet been reduced to a number and so as a result there wasn't a monetary final yet and so this was so so that was because of noncompliance with real wheeler versus well in the supreme court consider that case on the merits of the jury's verdict it talked about how party shouldn't mess around discovery is it stick to it doesn't it doesn't support anything this is this your arm this this case would be the first case in the worst stay entered into a properly executed three  rebuttal counsel says that the forty five isn't available tool to the trial court that's true but it's not the only available tool and that's what the difference the financial records weren't already produced when that issue went up on appeal here the records were already produced the plaintiffs and our own expense in milwaukee over two days at the reserved to preserve any right to inspect the cars for relevance after we'd already inspect them as they've already produced there's been no case ever where a defendant or a party has produced records to another party pursuant to a court order and then a week before trial says we're not going to produce a photo op use of these like we told you before would like we told the court we would because we want to be held from the contempt so we can get this case out of the trial court and into this force and that's why that fact is important because if this  honor and then a week before trial it changed their minds according to this court and youngblood that is not in good faith in this for those reasons the stay should be lifted and