decision discretionary decisions denying discovery on the jurisdictional issue i don't worry fees to my client i'd like to go over each of those three issues and leisure honors have some questions with respect to honor i think it's fairly clear there's two ways to establish jurisdiction personal jurisdiction one is general jurisdiction and the other is specific there is no evidence at all in the record i think it's agreed with those in council no evidence no record of this specific jurisdiction whatever so the only basis for personal jurisdiction and the general jurisdiction as to the evidence of general jurisdiction the only  evidence set out as a declaration of attorney and that is that declaration talks about a visit that he made several months after the complaint was filed to a store in the western district of washington and he took certain pictures and if you count up the number of units in that picked those pictures it's less than forty he alleges in that in the declaration but it's sort of carefully worded that there were trips to that store over the past four years but he doesn't state in the declaration is whether any of those trips were before the complaint was filed whether products were there or how many products were there do doing  say never but frequently there's not a situation where you can sue anybody in any state whatever but almost always that it's a us company there's at least one state you can sue them and so for example our client has a headquarters in california principles of general jurisdiction apply we do it's our headquarters that's where we do our business i think frankly the only reason that they filed in the western district of washington is because they had an attorney their mother frankly made a motion to to transfer the case to washington and we pointed out that the only connection between this lawsuit and western district of washington was their attorney actually objecting witness may object it but court denied the motion to transfer as moot they were both pending at the same time but since the court granted the motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction it just didn't treat the issue of transfer whether it's small or not seems to be significant well that there's a reason the main and the answer to both questions your honor i think is proof there has to be in the ninth circuit i think also the federal circuit there has to be aphasia showing of jurisdiction initially and secondly according to ninth circuit law there's a procedural requirement that there be a declaration or an affidavit of someone showing what evidence they would like fish case well we would agree with disagree a little bit with up with those characterizations rather i don't think it's a significant number of products i don't think there routinely on the shelves there was a showing several months if the complaint was filed but forty units were on the shelf now the question is could they get discovery and show that there is general jurisdiction based on that i don't think so your honor i think that for general jurisdiction there's an extremely high bar and practice that had been ongoing and that the declaration that was that show products on a single day was reflective of a pattern that occurred for years where your honor of first of all we have a declaration of evidence denying all of that saying that we had no place of business in the state of washington we had no trade representatives there we had no one ever visit there we don't sell product we don't sew the accused products there we have a lot of that of evidence it there's additional evidence that was at the ports was just what they wanted that's what they wanted to do your honor boot but think of the extreme suppose for example they found a single product the state of washington that we sold after vast investigation by them both pre filing and close file and they found one product does that give them the right to take a discovery with respect to general jurisdiction i don't think it does suppose they found new products because they said hey i just want to sue here because i have a lawyer and i'd like just to sue and i'll ask for some discovery and maybe discovery will through discovery i might find out that i've got a good basis or i don't think that's the law your honor i think what the law is  got to do a pre filing investigation and sometimes you can't always get those facts necessary for pre filing investigation for example your honor mentioned a stream of commerce theory well maybe for example you might have some facts to show that there is personal jurisdiction here and we have a fact for example you found a accused product in the state but you don't know whether how we got here whether it's through an established trade channel or something like that i think that might give you the basis for doing some discovery with respect to stream of commerce but we have nothing and it seems to me that forty units is nothing there's no basis for  jurisdictional discovery besides later on that they didn't even ask for discovery with respect to general jurisdiction they thought they had it made the line crudely on that declaration for general jurisdiction general jurisdiction absolutely clear about it they had two points in their brief under argument the first argument was general jurisdictions appropriate their request for general jurors for jurisdictional discovery with respect to general jurisdiction and the second point of two there's only two close in total to this coverage on the issue of specific jurisdiction it's a very very clear that that's all they were asking for they never asked for a jury for discovery with respect t general jurisdiction so i think they have waived that your honor the in the ninth circuit anyway procedurally you have to file this to be and why this person would have that knowledge that kind of thing so it's got to be pretty specific it can't just be gee i think i might or i have a hunch or i believe i'll get it they don't even put that declaration in they just simply in been there were three opinions with respect to fees and those opinions can be found in the both the main appendix in the supplemental appendix a one a nine and a two zero seven and are three opinions had to do with first of all just a general statement that fees will be allowed secondly a decision with respect to the what fees should be allowed third having to do with the reasonable list of the rates and the number of hours let me say right think the most important aspect here is that melatonin never filed any paper in opposition to any of those motions and any of the cases that it cites now to suggest that the field work the discretionary feel ward was inappropriate never was brought to the court's attention by either malice or by us but it was there an argument in our opposition to the motion we point out to the court that they didn't oppose our fee request so if we went on the mertz we should get our fees that was basically our argument and they've never made any argument whatever on any of those three motions we put in they didn't discuss it or that there were two hearing held when you say there was no argument or what i'm saying rather is they never opposed the issue before the district court at all either in briefing or any other  way we didn't have a oral argument before the court all was all done on the briefs and the court's decision so no no opposition to the fee issue whatever on any of the three motions and i think that they have waived that i don't think they can bring that up and ask you to decide that issue for the first time on appeal and besides that it's a discretionary issue anyway kind of a high burden of a high standard of review