judge pooler consider our emergency motion for a stay and she granted the motion with respect to use of the documents obtained by a discovery in singapore and paris we submit she was correct to do that and that this court should extend this day to preclude the apple ease from using those documents in monaco until certain things have occurred this court has decided bouvier's appeal but more importantly by that time the court in singapore the highest court in singapore the court of appeal will have decided an important procedural motion that will determine where if and if anywhere the apple is will be able to proceed this is a problem of the apple e's own making they began this litigation by seeking by instituting a criminal case in monaco causing mr bouvier to be arrested there then they essentially brought the same litigation in singapore using the procedural mechanisms available there and obtained a worldwide injunction on mr bouvier's ability to you would the discovery in the united issued in the united states to limit the use of the material discovered to a single proceeding at this point we believe that that that that discovery was wrongly ordered and to stand if ordered you one limited to a single proceed we submit that that the unit of measurement for seven hundred eighty two is the foreign proceeding and that in order to how is it judge sitting in the united states going to administer the c regent or enforce its power when the documents are in the hands of of people turned over to clients that are in another country and those people who want to use it in ten different countries and the  judge here to police it the theoretically could be available in those circumstances to lots of different people that they could but a district judge here could order the apple lease to use it in the singapore proceedings end and come what may thereafter but the point is the first instance of it of the use is subject to an order by a district court here because that's what seven hundred eighty two requires proceeding in monaco a criminal proceeding instituted by the police and in essence and a duplicative case in singapore and there is a slightly sort of separate proceeding in paris that was instituted by someone else and the discovery doesn't concern paris and i think the district court rightly recognized recognize that and what the apple east did is they proceeded with it to attain all the procedural benefits in monaco that they could they cause mr groovier to be arrested then they brought in essence the same case in singapore and obtained a moravian injunction there all the while avoiding the one jurisdiction that actually bears on the parties relationship which was switzerland and the court of appeal in singapore basically said that the law of switzerland applies to this relationship but that's a forum that the at police have studiously avoided proceeding and that's the point of the litigation in singapore to force police to pick one place to litigate their case under the law that governs their relationship and ultimately that's the heart disease is is the discovery order issued in the united states the instrument for achieving quite to the contrary the i believe sought to use it in multiple places in multiple and in multiple ways in monaco and in singapore as well as in paris want to use the discovery order in order to prevent this kind of thing from happening assume it's an abuse an american court ministers the american court can simply order that the discovery be used in the proceedings for which the apple is have satisfy the requirements to get to sears no finding that this discovery is being sought to that if the court reviews the the factual findings of the singapore court of appeal the parents want to wait through one thirty of the of that court's decision you you can be the judge about sort of the matter in which the apple is have to have proceeded in connection with this litigation but the project we did we did but the point is the district judge did not analyze in ordering that the for use factor had been satisfied with respect to mon didn't analyze the effect that the court of appeal in singapore stay had on the litigation nor did the district court properly analyze whether the police could use the documents to their advantage it's not simply a matter of think there should be any stay at all as to any of the proceedings and then judge pullers emergency stay should be eliminated vacated which is the impact in effect of the emergency state it other than to send the issue to all of it limits the use of the documents only to monica but as of the paris proceeding in singapore proceeding it stays there used there these documents have been filed with the court  so the point is there's no basis for the appeal on the merits there aren't grounds for it and the attempt to stop the usage of these documents would be inappropriate t documents to monaco your adversary is asking to what end in other words what what what advantage do you have or do you seek by submitting these documents monica you have a right how the particular conduct occurred over a course of time and i don't know how specific i can be given the confidentiality orders new restrictions the protective order but  i mean i with the cost commission i could go into the case but we have other things on the ground understand if for any reason the court does think any kind of a stay should be in place we would like very much the ability as judge herman allowed to approach judge firm and to make an application in the event that there is some other proceeding that gets started and we think that the documents would be appropriate for that  proceeding or if there's any other reason why we might want good faith to use them so that if the court orders you smiling at monaco is it is designed to advance the prosecution of mr movie cannot make these documents for use in a can't make them an interested party because it's only a system one in a civil case to have the the opposite party convicted of  they as they call it but the point is it can't be that someone has no financial interest and only has an interest in seeking what they believe is justice satisfies for use and satisfies the requirement being an interested party because claim for civil damages and they no longer have any interest other than seeking justice it can't be the rule that a an interest in a big notion of justice satisfies the for use factor and and  interested person factor under seven hundred eighty two if that were the rule any person out there in continental europe who believes that there's been public corruption could say i am seeking justice i'm going to have discovery of the united states  financial interest in say a public corruption case but they could come to the united states to get discovery that can't be the rule under seven hundred eighty two this is a rather unique case because the singapore court has told them you must as a condition with to discontinue your claims in monaco as a condition of maintaining litigation in singapore it is a rather you litigation in civil litigation and what they what the singapore court identified as the condition was discontinue your action in monaco continue your civil claim in the monaco criminal proceedings correct and that is what they've done that is what they have done they have no longer have any financial interest in the case their only interest in the criminal case this is in seeking justice they can't use the documents to their advantage other than by seeking a criminal conviction but that is not there's never been held to be for use under seventeen it would have been wrong or menace about seeking documents production in the united states for to assist their continuing civil claim and sing of the court of appeal in singapore has stated that the proceedings in singapore and there is no permissible discovery that could be taken that would be plainly circumventing the limitations they stated pending the abandonment of civil claims in monaco they've stated  entirely for all purposes that is the the terms of the stay order and to those until when until the court of appeal in singapore has decided the case once they have will be a conclusive determination of element of forms for an election in it and what the singapore court has said is we are staying the case pending a determination about whether the lowe