and a company called bio med technology means limited and as you may recall could bear and this is not the first time i've been before this court on this case this appeal raises totally different issues and have been raised in the past has nothing to do with these past appeals and it's actually kind of interesting because there's a distinct discovery issues that are raised by this appeal that are unusual in the sense that most times discovery issues don't make their way to a a discovery it should come but there's a serious discovery issue it did it has to do with the scope of post judgment discovery and in particular whether or not discovery of nonparty of silvia claim immediately by by the defendants well they would have to articulate but the basis of their claim that the assets are owned by the affiliates or the non parties are actually is just a theory that this point is that is that your client said to be at the bottom of a sub sort of speak in nonparty affiliates to protect them from the probably substantial judgment that has not yet been satisfied about the assets to see if they can file a proceeding that's what's happening here and you know excuse me an odd thing that the district court wasn't titled to look at these discovery requests in light of the shi non parties including of selling goods you have to but there is some reason to believe that with the assets of the judgment debtors in the hands of those parties and in this case regardless of the allegations of force on transfer before w is not just being decided in the context of this procedurally messy case this is and one of the few opportunities this court has to rule on what the proper scope of rule sixty nine discovering it is and it's going to be used in all kinds of cases and the way our power society works is that usually corporations are organized in a series of groups and non parties so it's many of them are not subject to  this asking for information about our assets located in the united states and there is an incredible incentive for the defendants not to hold those assets that are in this country and therefore can be potentially seized by re there's only one possible reason why they're not producing it and it's entirely consistent with their behavior throughout this litigation they're not producing it because it wouldn't help and your dynamics are do exactly what your questions earlier w information you're saying that if the history of the case there was enough evidence of past transfers that there is reason to suspect or whatever the standard is that there were transfers of a kind of being a rise and the only way you could plausibly find it out is to get of fraudulent transfers and credit for is in the finance of all of court orders and you've got some evidence of the defendant's moving assets from one company to another set this out about the size of it proof of a fraudulent chance for some particular reason says respect at some particular entity was engaged to transfer that is necessary to trigger more than enough to make a general office claim conclusions about what the exact has done in this case but as i say even if we accept and there's never been any decision on the merits of any frogs on transfer or has ever taken place within these companies but if even if we accept the fact really super excellent way of hiding them that you use but you see maybe there are other also ways of hiding them that might not be as great as the one you already exist but i don't know why that and i mean up to the first circuit and you may be able to persuade them that my discovery order was and correct i'm betting you want but i can't i have a little uncertainty about that that there's arguments on both sides an argument i didn't really appear to be not modest and that was you are very good out and you just ponder says not only back but their arguments on both sides now thirteen months later when he issued his written decision and he doesn't address these remarks and i agree with you here's here's here's his decision is much more harsh as to whether or not we didn't raise substantially justified arguments but the reality here is that the case law that we have cited is fairly uniform and that case law says that there are limits to post judgment discovery and that the general rule is and assess the assets of john parties whether they're failures and not is the exception not the rule i think we've made at the very least a very compelling and substantially justified and not just fine thank you very much th