simply because he was deported during the course of this occasion in this case that person is mr rodriguez or to bill taking stroke while he was incarcerated and then was the victim of retaliation by prison officials when he complained about the an adequate medical care he received after some years after he filed his case he was then ported to the dominican republic where he remains today in the modern world the plainest look physical location does not and should not dictate whether he can pursue his case i think appellate complain about not being able to do a medical exam mr rodriguez whose complaint is that medical treatment in prison how do they do that honor unfortunately there's been no rule thirty five motion in the district or below to explore this issue if the defendant's objection is really whether they can do one it's the cost of doing one dollar they don't seem to suggest that they can't go to the dominican republic and actually do a physical examination there they just don't want to pay to send an expert to do it there's nothing in the record actually quantify what the costs that would be there is just conclusory assertion by the defendants that doing it would be cost prohibitive and i think if you were i do know that of the current conditions i know under the current conditions that we're living in at least my primary care physician and i expect some experts are doing telematics and as that been explored that is not been explored your honor but that's exactly the type of thing that should its board on remand when the proper rule thirty five motion is made it's also been nothing in the record exactly but it's from the physical examination so i can't say what could be done by telling health what might be able to be done by an expert directing a physician who's in the didn't can republic to work or do some sort of examination again that's all this that's all the sort of things that should be that should have been explored by the district court the st instance rather than mistreated closing this case i'd also note that the defendants reject have rejected without prejudice and this is the jurisdiction and embrace that the case is due to the possibility mr rodriguez ever meeting the court's condition that this case is effectively closed it's unlikely they'll i'm not i wasn't here i don't think that it could have closed the case in the way that it did there there are certainly this is where administrative closure would be within the district court's discretion for example if you have there are cases where plaintiff is located outside the country does not have counsel if we just simply impossible to try the case with them abroad that's a case where administrative closure may be maybe permissible in this case though he has counsel who can appear in person will be able to do use video conferencing technology to owes him and for him to appear at trial so there's this again this concern about cost with physical examination is something that can be explored on remand so there's monkeys out of the th circuit and others says that administrative closure has to be a quote last resort and quote that can only be that should only be used when other alternatives have been explored and found to be unwork that also explore the option of doing an impersonal physical examination in the dominican republic it just says that an physical examination is likely to be necessary and concludes that defendants will be able to do it without exploring and of here in light of the plaintiff's deportation to the dominican republic secondly we recognize that the court didn't discuss every factor when it did its analysis of the court  inconvenience and cost to the defendants of having to arrange for the plaintiffs to be undergo a medical examination in the dominican republic my understanding it is is it costs several one thousand dollars generally just to have an expert examine somebody for a physical examination in this case we would have to pay the costs of sending but someone an expert round trip to the dominican republic and you know in addition to paying the who would meet your needs if you investigated that i don't think you investigated that that you know there's no evidence that we investigated that i think we don't you know we don't know any any doctors in the dominican republic  we don't we feel like we would be acquainted with them usually the experts that we are drawing from that pool are people that we have worked with before or recommended to us i don't know that we have anything to gain you know maybe they know doctors in the dominican republic or perhaps they know somebody who might be vacationing in the dominican fully qualified to get paid for the vacation that's that that's true that's been explored right but there are there are there are aspects that haven't been explored i'm i'm you know i i'm the other i think the other thing the court looked at was the possibility that  basically trying this case you know all the discover all the all the deposition testimony or a lot of the meaningful deposition testimony is going to be in the dominican republic and then well let's let's say hypothetically that this person was s citizen from the state of washington and had suffered the same problems as alleged was pleaded and had moved back out to the state of washington you mean to tell me that would be a reason for dismissal because your problem my father away to go to the state of washington and you are to the minute well you know again it's i think it's its closure but i think another thing that struck me is that's well that the case it could be reopened that the case is administrative closure it's not a so so what needs to be done to reopen it get it going well one thing one thing i think that the court should that the plaintiff should be required to do is at least at the very least apply for re entry into the united states that make the odds the odds may be love but i think it's a threshold matter somebody who has been deported and is not allowed has the ability to gain reentry perhaps for a limited purposes such as this i'm not sure but they can they can make an application to the attorney general to get it paying any attention to the news about these kinds of things going on just as a general matter i think the chances are low judge extremely low but i'm just saying that if i was if i was say writing a law or you know i you know as a threshold matter i think that's one thing i think i would i would want now it may be that that's not going to happen the person is not going to get in but maybe a time should be made as a threshold matter look i'm not it's not clear i mean i think we've we've kind of raise not clear that all the alternatives were explored i don't think the court directly addressed the feasibility of depositions or for trial or video which i don't think the court did and that's why very well the cases you know for some of the propositions about administrative closure i think the cases are a little bit all over the map you know sometimes as a pro se individual you know and a lot of the cases are you do week you know it was an interesting philosophical question you know it shouldn't be completely impossible or just extremely inconvenient if we're talking about you know the district court's exercise of last thing impossible would be the very end of the scale but i think they were saying no it's the next to last is so it has to be as you look at the different possibilities this has to be the last resort and i'm just wondering if you find that in the standard or here again something short of that sort of in general assessing all the circumstances and leaving it to the good judgment of the hist course i think that's a that's appropriate formulation i think it shouldn't you know all the possibility should be explored and i you know a litigant shouldn't be thrown out of court when there are if there are possible solutions to the logistical challenges posed by them being another and another form another country you know obviously like socially now what we're doing so much remotely he explained the basis for the administrative closure don't reflect the full consideration of all the factors i think that's an option the court could certainly take here so we may and they forego their development yes because i it's not clear on the face of the decision how all the factors were weighed such as the fact that the plaintiff is represented by counsel and the fact that a lot of a lot of discovery i'm i think i think it should be i think the ministry of closure order is defensible i think the court should get a chance to reweigh the factors we weigh after we've just asked  one because as we've discussed today the inconveniences of mr rodriguez being located abroad are not so great that there is that they can be worked around that we can't continue this case there's anything  continue to represent him in the district court thank you for that yes now i wanted to briefly address the point that i dropped at the end of my initial presentation which is there's a corollary to the physical examination that was raised by the defendants in the district court which is the need to depose mr robert is treating physicians in the dominican republic and on this i just want to emphasize that this is not an issue that's going to be cured by mr rodriguez returning to the united states the records order focuses on mr rodriguez dislocation and says this case can be reopened if he returns regardless those medical finally your honor i would like to i would like to point out that the the defendants are continuing to raise this issue of the cost of sending an expert to the dominican republic i think it's going to be if we were to explore that in the district court below i don't think the cost is going to be great as defendant's counsel pointed out regardless they're going to incur the cost of the expert doing the examination i looked at flights to the dominican republic from new york city they're a little north of case will be able to continue it using the methods we've discussed today there is simply not no reason for the district court to administratively and we would urge that this court reversed the district court's decision thank you