there was an argument to know a rule twenty three decision issued an action in connection with an earlier stage or and because there is a good deal of interconnection between the principal arguments against by many types in this case with some of the things that were discussed in the stay order i just like point those out because i think it may allow us to cut through some of the us for example  plaintiffs in support of their position this crisis that this was a frivolous shield rod had faith in our mind the courts that it page twenty of that rule twenty three order the courts  and also the rule twenty three order of page five of the court indicated that with respect to the inspection that kind of pervades its case the plaintiffs in conflict made it clear that that inspection was in the salvatore case only which was read their brief beginning here but i believe that also it is clear from the earlier row twenty three order that when the of documents is necessarily a waiver of the objection to further production that's not persuasive authority plus the court lot when you know i read a maybe i didn't make myself clear my experience in all the cases are good to this point so if you've got a role in c objection you make it before you produce the documents before you you've turned the ball over that isn't the place of the trial court's ruling here that's not the discretion she exercised what celebrity law i'm well she said that isn't anything that you and the four two on her part because she would celebrated a lot of stuff was going on to try and honor that salary or to all the stuff that you have to do it was sort of ok let's assert these relevance why i think the court after making it she knew because she invited us this friendly content that there's never been  we agree that there is some basis to clear that the party can turn over produce for inspection ninety thousand records and still maintain agreement that you reach that agreement screwed something to be recognized but there every sponsor was not so you could either litigate it or turn them over and you turned them over having turned them documents whatever they were going to do with this farce their further copy i don't see how you have standing in the longer to object to their being turned over i think people that think the court is going to really just swayed anybody lost any claim that they can't look at him because you produce that they look at it now the only question they're after is hearing they want to make copies of these x number some percentage of relatively small percentage of way it's we'll tell you we were not asking for all ninety thousand we'll tell you which ones we want and here we want these five thousand that you've lost because that makes the you was an injection to production b weeks later if they were so compelling and relevant at that time why didn't you raise them to the trial court for a ruling before you turned documents or for inspection because we had no idea what it would  we thought we were going to go on a protocol that addressed multiple cases not just this one and then it as it developed like day a day or days before the scheduled inspection the the green meant that it was going to be limited then that's something which the court could have understood and resolved but that's not the argument you made the parties under an accelerated trials as you were working were attempting there i'm not saying there's an agreement i'm saying but there was there was a proposal and you know familiar did not come to an agreement but now there's an inspection and the and the thing that allowed it to go forward is we unless i mean i i don't think there is any dispute that they have all the documents that relate to the jobsite misters work that these records are were different time periods of her job sites they admit that they are all the sales they saw in illinois part of the reason expressed was they wanted to you know be able to show them to other council if necessary and so in the absence of any illinois  client's advantage by federal district courts who right you consider about discovery disputes much more than the appellate justices get the opportunity i think that people my office are going to san francisco to look in ninety boxes the cullimore invoices next week because they do it in that way you don't go back over and over again for expense for them an expense for us now as far as the idea that this was all so that's what he says nobody good he ought to tell people are practicing spots because they do it routine to gather their doc owns own oil they've got a collection of all their respects documents in toledo and you go or i went there  twice in twenty five years because some stuff came up i want to go back but i've only been there twice you don't do it over and over one thing he said was on rule twenty three order page five paragraph twelve there is a statement that players counsel indicated he would never agree to one time special the made it clear he would review only those in the index cards relating the south to the respect that's wrong i even know how you got up got to the wrong place the attorney i was dealing with my partner  one time inspection back in twenty six hundred seventy so we talked and we talked it even january night the letter from swallow to me is in the record it's in our opposition to exhibits in opposition to their motion stay and you can that can be found at the exhibits start ye letters one of them swallows letter to me on the night my letter goes back to him and generate ten my letter generates fences you know we're going to go dealt with our production to them or they could come look at our stuff in our office and i say the say i'm not going to look at cars or myself that relate to other cases yes correct well says that the reason period twelve probably says that is that in their statement a tax paid seven this repeal and in the last one what they do question question her issue with the pollard was was there some agreement some kind of traction or agreement or whatever you want to call between a plaintiff and the defendant concerning how your i don't think that's frankly that's how i knew him and following up on that was there any claim made before the trial court here that somehow there was some agreement or some limitation upon  o the parties had reached with regard to these ninety thousand cuts no no as to both and i can cite you two i think something that supports my positions ok there's first as i said i talk to swallow i go along here i go along  pulling out of that they're still pulling out large numbers of boilers we're ahead what we saw there it's not talking about pulling out eleven or thirteen boy lucy knew what we were going to do because again that way we wouldn't be their concern was going to run back up there over and over he i don't know that there is because again i've not and i don't have i only got thirty nine years doing this but i've never had somebody say here's the document now you've seen it but you can't get a copy of what you've seen on your memory well that's what strikes me is kind of peculiar here because it i what the issue on discovery is not here making copies of them but you're seeing right now that's i mean this and that typically with the issue is whether or not you get to see them and if i can as an example going back to  ninety thousand is it true they're going to go through and be marking those a one and those will be copied correct your honor and then she says anything else he says well we'd like for a language and she says i'll interchange written motion and they follow three or four a day instead they produce the ninety thousand documents twelve restriction and think about it also i mean i've we've got a one point eight people there are other times six we're copying you know we're happy if they thought in their ear they got two people watching us at all times and their attorneys are in and out of time sitting there also and you could look at the first drawer like six rows of these index cards and say well geez or looks like there's a lot more in thirteen situation we've been given access the documents you've seen them to your hearts the wide earth with today's earth you say you are have copies of some of them but not all of them and you were told no and i would know if you ever heard of such that no no other defendant has done there whether it be in a specialist not discussed and sent from our side you go through what you're going to produce ahead of time and you hold out and i've had people hold stuff out on psychotic shop thirty pages of documents will be available that day and then when we follow up and say he where the kurds say well we've decided now you only get thirteen let me change the rules of the road because while it's true most discovery issues produce them for inspection it's over and then after the fact object on relevancy grounds so you can't get what you look there i've never encountered before it's you know that's a thought on the way down but i've  florida couple things in radius best of switches were cited deep into it that's a case where it wasn't produced they didn't produce them and then say ok be coming on where you can get copies it wasn't produce it was more than a sales records it was to compel warm ups to produce invoices records specification bills of lading is correspondence publications i could go on in any other document on knowledge but they were there so it's impossible for us to do that in the court and also they have a specific order up there is judge rowley referenced in the sting of jennette case a case management order and a master discovery answering system in cook county and none of that was here but secondly they were never produced has there ever been a and see some other stuff it's sort of like so he says will give me give me those two and the trick district court judge says you get all the stuff response you subpoena but for the other stuff you're going to have to go back and you know serve another spino problem is a place attorney loans cover whatever you know about them but we get the copies and any one of those copies any one of those index cards i mean i may not have the skills but my partner's skills to have a live in part of their corporate route which is my own jamie twenty seven the same nature in the latter prior to the inspection protocol we asserted should there be any disputes over all events those disputes shall be addressed into one k conference part reduction at the g a n u r e twelve twenty sevent we said we'll make the documents available for inspection subject to the objections that we made plaintiff's counsel said they will have their counsel look at those and say whether they should be  over relevancy determination so that's why you made them available for inspection but not for capital subject to write subject to asserting relevancy determinations think it we may be because this is the first time in illinois i've heard the distinction being also point out that while some people make their documents available in this process litigation others don't you saw a whole litany of turn over everything else i got it but there was no contrary illinois authority at times and saying not to certainly not that anybody said today and so given that i think it was a good faith basis to asser relevancy objection when in the manner that we did and i think that it's very clear that under the all its best is case the facts should that should rule the day and the relevancy