essentially the abuse of decision on the discovery issue below as well as specific yours fiction so if i may have questions in that regard however i think the point i'd like to make very brief point the general jurisdiction issue and agency actually even though they may obviously be intertwined briefly i would like to point out the abuse of the discretion issue below where discovery was denied and the reason it was so important is that the original motions were brought up an opposition was brought and also with a request for further discovery for six months further discovery took place we needed to do a little bit more and we made a motion to do a little bit more in the judge says no and everything will be submitted on what happened six months earlier so in other words we were not able to put in the evidence that was discovered which is relatively significant because the red blade which i believe you see in the in the briefs the red blade was discovered finally to have gone through american eurocopter out of texas through to hawaii and then finally here to california so that's why the of discretion issue was it was a major point however it is i believe reasonably before your honor's that we have shown that the red lake it is in fact to go through american europe after on the specific jurisdiction issue however i think and it came through american year old copper then it went to a user in hawaii who put it on their helicopter blue y as a matter of fact they fly around through the canyons then it was sold from them directly to the canadian operation that was then considering and different helicopter that was the one that actually crashed and that was going to be leased to the the operation here in california of your justices just decided in two thousand and six the stream of commerce with more is one of the issues that must be looked at when you're looking at this worldwide marketing business plan eurocopter s a s has they spin if we want to market their products worldwide and they set up their distribution networks and their wholly owned subsidiaries in target country countries very good business model makes perfect sense by putting the red blade into the stream of commerce by itself i would agree with you mr justice wallace but because there's a lot more that eurocopter was doing the distribution network the wholly owned subsidiary the average ties in the maintenance facilities etc then you have that presence it read the whole goes over the threshold of presence and therefore you are then in the state of california for purposes of jurisdiction similarly the california supreme court case the arising out of means what are you doing in a particular jurisdiction as opposed to that specific part how did it get here the point i'm making by that is  there's a sufficient presence of a manufacturer in a particular jurisdiction and the case arises out of a product of their is and the business they're doing in the jurisdiction that satisfies the arising out players from new york say the yankees play the the the giants a lot so there out here there business when they're here is playing baseball but if that baseball player own a restaurant in new york and a california resident travels to new york eats there gets food poisoning he's not going to be able to sue that baseball player here in california because the reason the baseball players here in california has nothing to do with his restaurant but if he hits a ball and whacks a guy somehow and there is a possibility of a tort action then he would have jurisdiction it all comes down to the facts it comes down to what's really going on and what's really going on is a eurocopter s a s is doing business through its agents american you're a cop there in that the burden of proof for us is pretty low it's facia standard of care proof and facts are to be construed in our favor in things like that and looking back at the district court's opinion he really tracked the facts in a lot of pretty well but then you got to agency and and then he went and started talking about used aircraft maintenance services via independent operators and what we're talking about here independent operators in use parts and use aircraft we're talking about new products new aircraft and new parts and that the french have to have this domestic history to do it they do for instance the u s code title forty nine says you have to be a u s citizen or corporation resident aircraft here they had to have a u s presence and the a t c person most knowledgeable said that in his deposition he said well the french have to have us because you know they can register aircraft year by themselves among other things so there's two or three page of the very detailed citations of the deposition evidence where the a t c person is most knowledgeable testified about how the french used and we don't have to have the day to day control proof that all three go has we have a very low standard here and what we what the standard is for for instance cited the city modesto it's what's important to the hub of this wheel and spoke situation and i practice aviation lost in  so and so the french through that texans basically came to california i like the r j reynolds case talks about and they sat down and made themselves at home here in california and i would just like to point out that we with this multinational aviation corp aeration structure that the japanese the chinese the french the europeans the brazilians are using in this circuit they need to know that if they're going to do business here like the way they're using the texans that they need to be held accountable for the consequences of their products failing thank you very much address the agency but first just like to address the evidence of the red blade is not before this court it wasn't considered by the district court and is not properly considered by this court i guess my only complaint is that should have been this discovery that's correct had six months of jurisdictional discovery they received two extensions by the district court the evidence about the red blade didn't actually come about until a year after the last extension so there is you know our position that wasn't met and wells fargo wasn't met and cramer as your honor pointed out a lot of the facts that they've been talking about actually go to the all three alter ego argument that really isn't being presented by a really well first of all your honor the history of this aircraft shows that the aircraft can come into the country be operated here maintained here and even receive spare parts here without any involvement of the american subsidiary american  r secondly your honor the eurocopter itself could obviously provide these services without having a presence here in france so they operate through other third parties totally unrelated to euro copter itself the the case here so our position is the facts are that the standard hasn't been met and with respect to the with respect to the general agency theory in particular it shouldn't have any application where the product didn't come into the united states through the distributions network that is alleged to be the generalization that so you're saying that if we don't have a situation where a helicopter came in through the would argue that there is no general jurisdiction over the agent the purported agent in california in this case is under the high standards set by the ninth circuit decisions occluding the recent decision in to us on where american eurocopter has nothing of the type of correct under rule twelve correct i'm american you're a cop who did not itself asserted jurisdiction defense that independent decision by the independent company was made it shouldn't be a pew to back to your old copter the issue that this court still hostile decide is whether american eurocopter house constitutionally sufficient minimum contacts with the state of california that can then be imputed back to your old copter but the waiver of one entity shouldn't be binding on the others that's where we're missing in this appeal in a way that we're kind of missing that piece of the appeal everything's on agency and if you can't have agency be relevant if there isn't jurisdiction over my right that's i believe that the district court made a finding that there wasn't any basis for imputing the contacts if they existed back to the parent company based on the alter ego and there being no finding of an alter ego because of the history question is if if the if the american subsidiary in texas were found to have minimal contact with california and again those contacts are totally unrelated to the helicopter entering california so word agency so it might sound like the ninth circuit opinions are clear that one or the other alter ego or general agency would be sufficient to impute the contacts back to the foreign corporation jurisdiction there is a statement about relationship with california customers but that is not a finding that it's credit that has a type of physical presence in the form to allow for general jurisdiction so sometimes if i could just make being pushed as evidence of general agency the court correctly found that they are not relevant to the general agency and that the plaintiffs were arguing alter ego and so it looked specifically at that generally just the test where the subsidiary would have to do with the parent otherwise if you were the parent would have to do what the subsidiary as otherwise doing and it found that the test hadn't been met and that these other factors weren't relevant to that analysis to the general to general agency analysis i'd like your honour's to focus on the fact that what we're dealing with is not just a helicopter but a helicopter that has multiple parts the original helicopter that was ever sold to australia i believe originally probably now has  eighty to eighty five percent different parts on it different engine different rotor blades except so we're focusing on what part realistically is the one that is involved in the end if i may touch on the agency argument for  american eurocopter could be an agency but in this case they have a controlled contract which france controls and so i think you have alter ego and you also have agency at the same time but for our purposes of jurisdiction the