experts on materials he reviewed in relied upon her as a basis for whose expert opinions and two the jury was not properly instructed i'd like to start with the two thirteen year three  was actually the same same offer very similar issue and it's our belief that the courts are ruling should be the same dr paulson choose to be two thirteen that's three witness in this case and testify that that's the standard of care and the emetic standard here he was disclosed it to thirteen after three witnesses as i mentioned as such because this is this for helen in jackson is not afforded any protections with privileges that other two thirteen of three witnesses are provided they do not have to disclose in the two thirteen of three they have two other three thirteen after three expert witnesses witnesses even if they are parties to as the materials they were due and relied upon rationally the facts in this case are even stronger than they were in jackson and some of these other cases where already in jackson were just materials in which  provided to him by his counsel but he also relied upon them for his expert opinions and we were you know excerpts in our brief and of course the reference to do that in the record and i think what we need to talk about here which is he there was a time line that certainly would qualify under work product written by defense counsel provided to another expert dr howard which was turned over to us as it should be because because that went to  little bit of the witnesses actual words now normally they would argue this goes to their to their point where they're saying well you can't get our what we're thinking with do the work product and actually goes the other way on this issue defense counsel's own impressions or things like that for his expert opinions and in one way or another it's either there's no fixes in there that he's relying on to create his own opinion or you know maybe attorney my office was not at that time my only kind of an aside comment is that a responded in discovery as a response in the scuppers has no standing to request any type of any motion i can't say what happened in the discussions i don't know i'm not disputing what he says i think he's probably saying what he believes to be true but i don't know whether it at that point the case or controversy ceased to exist fifty six days later the planet came back and had an order entered from burning off at that point we contested we can task to the founders and then a number of respondents and discovered and the court heard clearly hell but this was improper suits against and i'm quoting suits against fictitious parties are the issue which is one of those sins that we looked up in our black's law dictionary those many years ago it means horse from the outside in any order and after that day is of no f we of course sought to appeal the trial court agreed this court did not accept the appeal that issue is despised as strange as it sounds we did go on for a number of years with the room and i want to just read a quote from this dealt with memorandums of interviews of witness witnesses who had not just people these are witnesses that were called the trial had never been to and what isn't and if you'll stop for a minute and imagine a trial where the attorney has those all the question would be why is the why did the attorney who that and not something else why did your attorney do this this would be in a fact and a preachment cross examination opposing counsel for his thought process every piece of factual information is available isn't it pretty efficient cross examination of counsel to say you formulated and medical opinion really you know they are yes and you broke and i mean he did it here they didn't really do it in the ben said and must have said it seven or eight times it's not out of the grooves i probably talked to him at one point he said i talked to him i have no recollection of anything that was said the agreement room to have testified there was a consultation report in the medical records where he had examined the patient and put some opinions in all the actual reverse of that that was repeatedly put before the jury town i represent the corporation they schedule all the time they know when they're leaving when they're going to be leaving town ever consider the missing witness instruction in the context of a medical case where one of the attorneys and only one of the attorneys is far from talking to the potential  we don't know what happened testified we have no idea we never talked to him there's no suggestion we did we've we've never done this deposition was never request much nobody knows what he would testify to nobody gave any advantage for him not the fine and the court was correct in keeping the status quo in mistake in another instance he said he may have proper we cover for each other on weekends he may have seen the patient that is it now on the spot so i would look through the records there were many other simply because his name comes up and they show that his employee was not entitle them to the instruction there must be a foundation sham of a likelihood that this witness has pertinent information and there should be no math inference that one side is withholding something when that side has no access to know whether they're withholding something or not so i think the overriding issue in this case is jurisdiction the fracture very clear there was fifty six days without the case or controversy and just i would asked that howard or dr news or the other two thirty three witnesses they would be turned over work product you know and that's the main point because in jackson in the newest import rules there is no differentiation between the two thirty three expert witness and whether it's a party or retain expert and that's the difference but they very well may be we're part of we've not seen them by all accounts they are but they were used out by an expert witness to come to  his opinion in the case he said he relied on then the court except that at that he relied on him and again the court shows that he was given additional privileges because he was a part and under jacksonville read this court held that