identification in other words regardless of whether the information sought can be used to obtain a ruling in the form proceed this incredibly broad interpretation defies the text of the congress and in judicial proceedings to get closer to be extraordinarily broad discovery rights that there are in domestic ones this will bet really where bit law has been going well i i disagree with that your honor i understand that the statute was amended on several decades ago but the statute tory text clearly states that the discovery is this was to help but for him proceeding or whether it was simply to find out were money was so that they could get there and that while it sounds like a question of law could be described almost as a question of fact in the next case and so my question is how much deference should i owe to the district court's judgment and what was really going on here because it seems to me but that's a question of what was going on here were they looking you know last that same question to opposing counsel were they looking just for money in which case was not in their innate or were they doing something that would aid before and proceed well your honor a couple points st of all it's crystal clear under this court's precedents that this is a question to be review didn't know here number one number two there is a very serious legal question as you're under indicated as to whether as to whether the statute may be used simply to identify assets and they've asked us court helping show that indeed there there was fraud in fraudulent transfer for example well that now alleged in this case not in connection with this application that is before this court now  and i want to make a couple of points about that number one course and never alleged that that was the use for which it was seeking these assets from ms bullock's family members and associates it on the contrary they asserted that it was for the same purposes in their two thousand and thirteen separate out the occasion which was clearly asserted to be directed at the merits and the as to which the vast majority of the request related to merits and the two requests that related to assets were clearly those requests were overlapped with the marriage there was a different time frame that was relevant for the underlying fraud here by contra corson explicitly admitted as the districts were pointed out and s t a fourteen that this discovery is unlikely to bear on the fraud itself so we have a concession on that point which the district court took to be accurate and i to modify that michiru i want to give you an opportunity to tell us why we should be persuaded but if i understand it correctly they now try to stitch together the fact that the merits proceeding in cyprus is not concluded and they used that to distinguish this case from some others that had concluded the merits determination so they start with that is number one number two that there is a possible contempt of a prior order of the cyprus court requiring just squillo sure and freezing of certain assets which they say if not complied with would const would support a contempt citation and that a contempt citation might limit their ability to offer defensive evidence on the merits that would seem to be yes your honor well let me take the st part with respect to what i think the st part of your your question was the fact that there happens to be an ongoing form proceeding is not the statute the text of the statute says the discovery has to be quote for use in a proceeding before a foreign tribunals and this court has repeatedly held that that means that it has to be something that can be injected into the current proceeding in order to gain some advantage or increase the chances of obtaining a favorable ruling so it can't just be something like what we have here which is an apparent attempt to identify assets that might hypothetically satisfy a judgment if they were ever to produce your won in the form proceeding that's number one number big possibility of contempt in order to get a u s court to to its huge discovery like this and this court has made clear that  you're going to say that this is a question of you know if if you were you previously were arguing that certain hard lines to keep drawn is a matter of law and if that is so we have reason and that starts looking very factual to me i understand your honor and perhaps pretext wasn't the right word and let me just let me just state undisputed facts that are in the record blo that that no one can possibly argue about number one this as i mentioned the order was issued eight years ago courson has never prosecuted since  it in recent years in its twenty example cation made no mention of this rationale and indeed never in the just for court proceedings ever even made an affirmative representation that it possibility that that a finding of contempt could be made there's no representation ever that they would actually have a valid contempt motion and indeed i think it's highly telling that  has run away from this rationale and instead is urging this court to adopt this incredibly broad rule that would allow any party to obtain non adjudicative asset identification with seven eighty two well let me let me see if i understand the argument that they're making and give you an opportunity to respond to it i gather they're saying that if they can find out what  assets existed or were transferred within this family and then demonstrate that they were not identified pursuant to the cyprus order they're going to be able to argue contempt the point is they don't have those facts now and the sense that they're not just fishing might be supported by the records reference to  the defendant having sold the long island property shortly before declaring in her deposition that she had no assets so to that extent i'm not sure that they would have no basis for pursuing this in order to support a contempt that they think has occurred here help why is that not sound well that's not what they represented book below and at the time of the application which is what certain fund says is the is the the point for terminations and the claim was that these subpoena those were seeking information that related directly to the merits of the cyprus litigation whether the fraud was committed and and so that just isn't simply wasn't the the basis and this court has said that it has held in certain forms that one has to look at the time of the application center let it you when you finish up because you're way over your ratchets up question the cyprus order included a who were of for discovery of these assets that was supposed to be provided within fourteen days so to the it would open the floodgates to many many other situations in which people simply seek assets identification under the guise of a theoretical contempt motion thank you thank you m document we have not gone well but that wasn't what the district court will with and it didn't say that there just wasn't enough specifics and he generally and so but or even attempts to explain how a document specific process could even work and crafts and preserve the privilege so there certainly is is a rationale for requiring an explanation we don't dispute that that there are documents are concerning in this respect and talk generally about it and then try to resolve it before you get to the issue of whether in fact the th amendment privilege is appropriately and to responses that you are  absent discovery sakon section seven hundred and eighty two has long allowed discovery of assets including where as here such discovery can demonstrate an individual's noncompliance with the freeze in order abroad and rd and finally that proceeding already there i just respectfully disagree we have evidence and this is at age three very want to be and conduct the transcript before judge abrams what this additional evidence proves is the actual an explicit noncompliance with the phrasing and disclosure under this bill that has refused to participate or excuse me has appealed the freezing interest closure order abroad in cyprus and she has refused to provide the compilation a list of her assets that exceed ten they allege fraud took place while fifteen years ago some of the assets are keeping are from one of the respondents who was seven years old at the time how did how do her tax records or her financial record was pointing out as earlier there are sanctions available on approving of contempt in cyprus and those sanctions include a decision that this bill it cannot assert offensive just defenses so essentially because we disc this asset discovery to do that and that's what raises suspicions about what your real motivation is here am i wrong in thinking that you could have argued noncomplian question is did you already what you needed to claim noncompliance in a way that would affect this group's proceedings and what  you gave doesn't answer so could you try to answer what this discovery would inject into the cyprus proceeding and what is different than what has already been established in cyprus is specific evidence of assets that has a link has in it as any trial court can appreciate that the sanctions vary according to the level of proof that is put in if we can put in proof that establishes that ms dollars in fact alienated you know that asked amounts of money to her mother her to her daughters to mr someone then that makes the determination easier and more likely by as i pressed court that ms bullock in there's almost no contempt little contempt big contempt contempt that goes directly and you are claiming and this is a key point that the cyclist courts case will be affected and i think it has to be and this is as much as i can respond and i appreciate the question but the sanctions not the finding of contempt can vary and i just did let me be sure and to stand you on this so this has very little to do with the merits of the fraud action it has to do with the fact that a cyprus court entered it disclosed and friess order and you're saying they did that she didn't comply with it and you're entitled to the evidence to prove that that's correct that's the a judyth proceeding so the right let me ask you to tell me how if at all the following concerns might inform any decision we make that kind of us just blows or and freeze order would not be obtainable in the united states court that's right that's correct greg and you basically want us to order that kind of discovery from a woman who is now a united states zero for possible use not on a merits determination but on a contempt in a proceeding that could not be held in a united states court so that is that where we are here that's briefing that your son was required to tell me yes he has said to me that the reason this is being sought is for contempt on an order that can't be obtained in the united states the united states does not not allow the government to proceed in that way or allow private parties proceed that way so i want to be very clear we're not obviously looking to have a federal court freeze nests aleck's assets were looking for just either you're looking to have a more like what discovery is going to be for americans in america respectfully i don't think this is a broadening i think that we have precedent within the circuit and i'm looking at delta not to case from  and three that has has always allowed the identification of assets and that such a land competency proceeding and the determination from this court was not what stay each at what stage was the merits litigation there that was ongoing your honor well but it was in connection with that it wasn't it wasn't a pre determination friess order like we've got here but i again we're just with throw another fact in the mix i mean you talked about comedy cyprus is not the site of this sprawling cyprus jurisdiction was chosen precisely because cyprus would enter this kind of an order and so to that extent it doesn't seem to me that we have quite the same scenario is if the site of the injury we're looking to vindicate rights that had been violated in  submitted that the entity was created in cyprus purely to be the litigation vehicle and to understand that and the district court on that argument said that ms belich and the respondents were not able to substantiate that allegation about faith and that was one of the arguments that they made around the intel factors ok i don't want to pursue that but let me let you make your argument no i appreciate the question and i sort of return back to the sort of general view of otherwise i'll rest on the phrase ok and you can address the th of may i think there's a threshold issue that needs to be that respondents did not meet and that's the risk of incrimination and that was the st issue the district court took up the district court found that it was conclusory that it was speculative and and that they did not substantiate what the actual risk to them was right now and the opponents briefs were seeing the specificity around the money laundering you know this is the actual risk they face at the district court that wasn't what we heard in a series of briefs we heard only we have a th amendment right represented by counsel we understand the contras of the right basically take us at our word and that's that's not sufficient and not what the judge rested  on the question of the act of production privilege and whether or not they're going to be required to you know to then make out that privilege on a document by document basis or if they're allowed to sort of make a blanket assertion that they did that you only come to if they're able to say this is do no but i i believe and i think this is this is borne out in the case law that the standard is abuse of discretion when we're actually looking at what the district court determined with respect to that sort of initial threshold question are there the facts were due to circumstances actually support the rest of incrimination on that issue the district court said no in never apply brief in the district court israel of course and to clarence that it could be used as part of that to prove this the court explicitly said i disagree so on the question of the th amendment meant that the respondents failed to make even the baseline showing that they need it and that we don't even need to approach the question of whether the act of production privilege needs to be e council went into a long spiel about the ways in which any evidence that they might derive from the subpoenas could theoretically strengthen any contempt motion none of that was was brought before the district court in fact the district court record on the cyprus law issue consists entirely of a single paragraph from the cyprus lawyers declaration that my adversary referred to as the page appendix  assume that we don't think this has anything to do with the merits of the underlying fraught why isn't a proceeding that out the compliance with a court order not an adversarial proceeding for which seven hundred and eighty two dollars discovery can be sought i mean obviously if if the your adversary moves for contempt your client is going to fight that it's going to be adversarial that's right your honor and just to be clear and i think we acknowledge this not reply brief we're not taking the position that seven hundred and eighty two discovery could never be had in connection with the real  which was eight years old just as your arm pointed out and indeed there was a finding from the district court in connection with the two thousand and thirteen subpoena as early as two thousand and fourteen consistent with their repeated assertions that ms bullock did not comply with the discovery order that was available so really we're not saying it this could never happen we're saying this is in this case it's way too speculative way beyond what we have in certain funds and that really particularly in light of you know the point that we made and that your honor commented on with regard to the raven junction and united states policy is it's a it shouldn't if it it's going to open the floodgates to on any foreign living again who happens to have a moderate on junction coming to this court i also want to the only other point i wanted to make of judge chin if you'll indulge me very very quickly just the i'll do not take cases completely distinguishable