here on this case is really two pronged one issue before the court is whether or not with the evidence it's already in the record my client has established jurisdiction over the defendant or the  under rule for k two and we believe that we have the other issue you know where in somewhat of a strange situations it's not very often that i get to the rd line in reviewing my briefing and find that i am completely wrong where i say very strongly the published data protection policy governs this case strongly and as we've identified that's been repealed since that brief can't can you help me understand what difference that makes to this case  the discovery is closed in the discovery i guess took place under the prior law and and there's claims that the magistrate judge of that as recorder did apply the prior law so now the law has been changed how does that affect our analysis of the magistrate judges handling of the discovery i guess it depends upon how you feel about forty two if we have not established that our hands were very heavily tied because the claims that made were i mean i'm sorry that the appellee made were that really they couldn't give us anything relevant under the published data protection policy including stuff like who is your business partner and his response was we can't give that to you because we would go to prison if we did that under the polish data protection law so we would ask that if it's remain ended for further findings under four k two that we reopen discovery with an eye toward what the law is now so jurisdiction i take yes and if so what would so again i'm i'm wondering how would the new law come into the picture saying the magistrate judge with free to apply then current law so i guess i'm still not understanding but we would be the magistrate judge would be free to apply current law however right there would have nothing to do with this appeal no  right yes ok i mean we filed the appeal of the p d p issues were i found pertinent but given that it's been repealed they are so so it would have to be we would have to find that there was errors under the old law and they had say and if those errors had been corrected potentially there might have been jurisdiction so he would send it back for more discovery is that when the new law would kick in or what i think would be more proper jurisdictions already which i believe we are but hypothetically speaking if we aren't remained with further proceedings with the g d p our compliance discovery in place because the law has changed since we filed the appeal ok but that is either of your own i was just going to say i understand your position to be that there are sufficient contacts with to the district court then i would go wherever it was yesterday so if if you have any questions about forty two i think that's really where the i think i just want to say other we had to look at g d p r and i didn't really see any reason we would have to consider at you haven't told anything otherwise i have prepared to discuss it because of this court's order telling me to so really i'm i'm prepared to focus on four k two ok so so you're not arguing that the you're not returning to your arguments that the the district court or and the discovery made discovery errors in its rulings under the prior law  if we have jurisdiction under forty two the no we cannot if there is more information that we feel is necessary to establish that we were only able to gather the information that we could gather from rd party sources claims we couldn't get anything out of the defendant the low because that every every juncture we were told because it's prohibited under the polish data protection law we can't give that to you and i think that was incorrect i think that was a misapplication of the polish data protection law and if we were to analyze it under current law under the g d p our i think that would be incorrect as well however given the nature quality of the contacts with the foreign country under four k two and given the fact that there was expressed aiming and taking advantage of the u s market on such an extensive basis by the defendant that it was simply even with the limited discovery that we could get through rd parties we did establish for k two jurisdiction so so i understand that  global website that is essentially passive i think the district court found that that one at itself or himself did not did not upload that he provides a platform for other the we brought it we brought this under do novo standard of review so i wasn't attacking it at that granular level but both of those statements absolutely cannot be true if it's a passive website then where does the content come from it must come from within the organize i thought the is a small list i want to have a platform where other people were uploading the videos well that's the case then it's highly interactive because if the videos are actually is that i  we take that finding is correct well there are still other pages on the site where essentially this video was taken we believe that the partnership itself uploads the videos we believe that we can show that however but the court found otherwise i guess well are you asking us to overrule the district court that the that you've provided us additional facts and i guess i'm not understanding the tenor of your are we don't have that at this point your honor writes we haven't been able to ok so we have to accept the district court's finding on this point at least for now but once we get jurisdiction we reopen discovery we believe we will be able to show this but if you don't get jurisdiction if we if we uphold if we affirm the district court that there's little under the current record that there's a lack of jurisdiction do you believe that there's grounds for doing additional discovery to revisit that my question and is that question  entitled under the new law to receive discovery that would help you establish those points if you do not believe that under the record that we have right now that we have jurisdiction under forty eight to which you get  if if i'm understanding just to try to simplify this in my own mind your position is that there is jurisdiction under rule for on the current record but alternatively if we were not persuaded of that then you would ask us to vacate the ruling that was made by the district court of no jurisdiction and reman or ok is there any i think there's no evidence before the district court below about this new polish law because it was adopted my correct was adopted after the decision already came out yes it was it was adopted after that so no there's nothing before the court for that but for purposes of determining whether the test recorder and its discovery rulings we're just looking at the p d p right we would look at the p d p however i think given that there's been a change in the law i think on your own remain and it would be appropriate to give instructions on the g d p are really the st step is to say there was an error in discovery and so you're entitled to additional discovery so my question is if we're trying to determine whether there was an error in the discovery rulings we're only looking at the discovery rulings under the p d p we can look at it into the p d p but i feel that even that it's not necessarily an interpretation of the p d f i don't think you're asking answering my question well iran i think you're asking me if i'm not incorrect you're asking me should we really look at the interpretation of the p d p and i think erroneous but the application of it was a rony as instead of looking at the p d p or if we look at the g d p our as an element of comedy analysis as an element of whether or not this discover should be permitted i think that's getting too granular i think that even if you have let's say the p d p actually does prohibit this the p d p was completely correctly interpreted by the judge as if she were on the supreme court of poland i don't think that's relevant every other case that we've looked at is very clear in that it says that u s courts are not necessarily in not at all bound by foreign blocking statutes because if this is the case if this interpretation of the p d p is correct then this case will be a marvelous blueprint for any company that wants to relocate to poland and steal the intellectual property of silicon valley or hollywood you're down to two and a half minutes do you want to say dealt with a web site that was highly interactive that target it through advertisements and through sell off subscriptions california residents and also it took advantage specifically of the c did produce a lot of records including records that were produced after the special master report of accommodation was affirmed and those were amended answers there is only a certain set of documents and data that we didn't produce and i have a list of those systems how the videos are being processed the plaintiffs did have an opportunity to depose one they didn't choose to do it simply they relied on the written discovered that we of course objected in and  grant parts but they did receive a lot of those issues and we did discovery of them produced that could have identified who uploaded the end of the videos that they were complaining about and that is very interesting question  even if the lower court forced us to disclose the identities the personal data of concerning the upload years of the b s we would not be able to get you would produce information that would show that it was anonymous at least and you didn't produce that information we're just taking your statement that it would we as far as i remember we produced a statement to disaffect yes under oath if you tell me about the advertising dollars that you receive in in the united correct those advertisements are specific to the markets in which they have different advertisements in the united states than you would have in europe no the website contracts with only a few other tracers who are all located either in europe as far as i remember in spain i think in and out there is one i'm not sure i have it on the record but the way it works is they the the web say sells the other tasting space to those companies to this other ties and companies  decide what type of other ties they're going to put into this slot sold to the advertising companies so the website itself does not have any control over what type of advertising business plate in a given location so your income advertises they could have that whatever they wanted all in the way of picking the other types or snow they have no control over what is actually being well if they want to advertise for say a competing company would you have a veto power to say wait a nd we're not going to let you put that up now it's been repealed and adopted in the e u version but why why couldn't information be produced under a protective order that would comply with polish law and we were produced confidential documents all the time and i find it hard to believe that in a day and age where you know facebook can produce some of its most confidential information to an opposing party that a website that the european the places on data protection actually this is one of the fundamental rights of the european union the law is simply written this way isn't it so as i understand it the law is written in a way to say you can't give it to another party that doesn't have certain security protocols and while it's true that certain u s web based services are don't have the security protocols why couldn't you adopt a protective order that would require the other party to adopt these security protocols and then you produce the information consistent with that or produce it with in poland and they could come over and view it in poland so there is a way to produce this information in poland through a polish course there is a way to do it so this is one of the things that i disagreed with the special master once you issued the report she said that there is no other avenue for the  statute actually to get the information but the reason cannot we cannot produce it is because that would be a violation of the polish law and and so highlighted this fog there's a in the new low g d p our there's a specific provision in i believe i article forty eight that deals exclusively with the legal process in a situation where horde orders disclosure of foreign court orders disclosure of protected information and this  this article states there is between the united states and poland and between the united states and the european union there has been no such agreement and so and the order of course we if the court orders to comply with the requests of documents we would do it even though we would expose ourselves to liability but why couldn't you that's what my question is could you limit that liability by i just don't i have a hard time believing that the european union says you can produce is under any circumstances i could understand where they say you have to produce it in certain protected requirements and what you're reading suggests that that has to be a global agreement so that does pose a problem here but is there any way that the their arguments is that the customers or the users of this website have already consented to providing information which is an exceptional is under the old law and they point t so so i mean for our ng it's a specific and detailed requirements that that whatever language they're pointing to in the terms is doesn't it terms of service doesn't doesn't mean yes that's that's the position and another p v p there was actual closing the identity of the business partner because this is one of the arguments that the other side made the problem with that is that we were never asked to disclose the identity of the business are as we were asked disclose the identities other people but we were never asked to disclose the identity of the business partner and we were asked that question we would have disclosed it because that's public information but but there was no said it is public information it's public information then maybe they don't even need to ask yes and they already have it so they're from a ship that was not disclosed and yeah maybe you're going here with the last last remaining is there any information that you didn't disclose that would actually be relevant to discovery no thoughtful i i may have a very different view of the record than my friend so i would urge you and your clerks to review the record along with this transcript because as a primary matter just the just the issue of whether evidence do you believe was not produced that would be relevant to discovery well you mentioned one that is sounds like there's a dispute on who st of all i want to we don't believe them that they don't have the information that there are what information or data logs that will show at least where the from when we asked for that information like every other bit of information we asked for we were told sorry we would give it to you but we will go to prison what does that matter for jurisdictional purposes because if it was uploaded in the united states would that mean that there's jurisdiction here that would certainly help but if they're sick but also if they're uploaded from perhaps an ip address that is directly right where this company's headquarters are that's another story but they told us they can't even give us anonymous information which isn't true these statutes do not apply to anonymous information they don't apply to information that you could redact personal information from they told us that redacting would subject them to criminal penalties as th secondary source that supported that and that is contrary to the plain language now under the g d p or we were we heard about a number of articles here saying maybe we could do it this way maybe we could do it that way but we didn't hear about article four you know article forty nine dollars of the g d p are like it's prior counterpart under the polish data protection act specifically says that you can give this information up in a legal proceeding the end you also identified consent correct so this statute says that that's the old statute not the new one correct the g d p are does actually have says for both the polish one didn't say it just said for legal claims and they interpreted that that way ok you're over your time does a brilliant job of analyzing this very issue so it goes through the factors and it also recognizes that we're not going to allow foreign blocking statutes anybody no matter what country you're coming from to say we would love to participate in this litigation but we can't because we have a foreign stash of that doesn't allow it you can get consent we say there was consent but it also like you to remember that they didn't ask for consent all of these people that they say now we don't