because it's facts analysis are very helpful here in that case the court considered whether california crowds had personal jurisdiction over bristol myers for nonresidents true or claims about the drug plavix the company had five california courts lacks state is relaxed just because a defendant has other extensive room contacts instead the court focused on the tight connection required between the street actions and the specific claims at  myers was decided many courts including the district court in the southern district of illinois and district courts in missouri have declined to find personal jurisdiction cases that are very similar to this one and we've cited a number of cases of that effect in our brief they rely on clinical trial activities related to each sure in illinois and claim that that's a sufficiently with their own oil to support personal jurisdiction here but again there is no way between the plaintiffs specific claims and the clinical trial plaintiffs rely on a case called m m vs j f k which is a decision from one of your circuit from one of your sister districts it is of course not binding on this court but more importantly it truly cannot support jurisdiction injuries were the direct result of defendant's failure to disclose the fact of her brother and quite women in the clinical trials that is a much tighter went between the clinical trials and the injuries in that case that we have here and respectfully the witnesses or the documents here equal in this is not a case where denial of personal jurisdiction would leave these plaintiffs at sea each not an illinois plaintiff has an adequate forum many have already afield themselves or another groups about the requirement of nature of causation i respond to some of those points room first please do bear the burden of demonstrating personal jurisdiction here we are argument is that the allegations as they made in their complaint are not sufficient that they have not carried their burden based on the allegations they've made second response would be a regulatory expert is not a judge the question of whether there's the civic personal jurisdiction here based on the allegations of this complaint is not for an expert other than the traditional experts that are before me third bere manufacturing defect when the claim is that the advertising that the playing field was not sufficient was misread endangered in this representations is relevant but not the advertising the plaintiffs use was advertising in illinois bristol myers my friend also indicated that all of the cases that had been to move filed in california had been dismissed our understanding is that is not the case eighteen california cases were dismissed by due filers after we made this understand also the southern district of illinois and missouri district courts are not binding on you we say to those cases for the persuasiveness of the reasoning that we believe is fair finally the decisions on search were by the supreme court are not binding absolutely crystal clear black by the law of the court hears about sixty to seventy places a year at most it quite frequently denies certain cases where it later might engage on the same legal issue that is not presidential that the