three laptop computers nine hundred times further software issues to check it twelve times forensic software was used to see if anything's left second computer was a hard drive was taking out hit with a ha something that could not possibly be done ordinary course of business their lack of computer was accidentally suppose we lost at rest stop our case we had the installation of a single operating system on a single laptop something that only the other party cannot be shown by a single act of maintaining a computer something that can be done you were very coarse a business also and proportionality where there is widespread destruction direct evidence in fact admissions in the organic you mean record that it was done to deprive the other side of evidence and here you have the simple loss of one computers worth of eviden i'm arguing that it's clear or that it would be an abuse description because would be outside the scope of the law the circuit for them to impose that sanction even though the computer was white right around the time that the stolen file was on reference to was on the computer and that you failed to turn over anything relating to this particularly the timing of the suspect operating system a pl the ability of the opponent to proceed and do we look at that in isolation or in the facts of one of your call anees employees was convicted in an italian court of stealing trade secrets your honor i think i have to split that in half obviously we're not going to ask the court to to parse each piece of evidence and find it so we can have fish so you think we can't look at the course of conduct that this company which intentionally tried to get an employee of your competitor to steal data was convicted an italian court that employee i think the record shows met with the person whose computer is an issue here i know you may disagree with that but it seems like that was at least one of the facts a lie we can't look at any of that we just look at the in your view friends if we get a look at the whole course of conduct and the fact that you were convicted and it's high in court of this firing to sell trade secrets that would seem to support an inference a bad way of wiping the computer's memory right around the time order is a separate point because it's not record based we say that the fault is too broad because it is it goes to the issues not related to the receipt use the trade secret goes to the scope of the domestic industry  that raj would never have evidence on and it goes to the questions whether the operating practices that were found and despoiled or even trade secrets in lieu of default to dance a judge thanks question what what for one else and whether the operating practices were in fact trade secrets or as the expert evidence shows they were basically publicly available not very valuable i think it's also important  that the commission decision finds ample support in the record the length of the exclusion order to pen's on the evidence in the record the record in this case supports the limited exclusion order there is no record of schizo putting sixteen point seven years there's a single allegation in the complaint which we believe the exhibit we showed you is and is not well based it's true the entire use period and average roots secrets from that same exhibit were done in the twenty first century start two thousand went to two thousand and six isolated those trade secrets you'd find the time for their so called development here which the c describes as the period starting first manufacture that read a stainless steel to the current time current time being two thousand and six when the episode was prepared that modern period is is two point seven two point eight years in the current time with russia being already established same the steel manufacture with heavy modern equipment in place with it not taking in the twenty first century more than perhaps weeks or months but certainly not more than years develop any greater h just say many years just say you know practices have been you know developed or research and development had been in use for many years of trial and error no particular period in time  secret shouldn't have and within that hall which is one of the arguments the mr jaffe made but he talks about the domestic industry fight he says that the whole shouldn't be extended to that and perhaps there's an issue there as to whether there was a reasonable possibility that the material that was destroyed would relate to the domestic industry or could you address that question  any information that was in her possession was highly relevant for robin and improving its trade secrets which includes all the elements here it's fairly easy to understand just a question about impact on domestic industry it's a little more the commission rules specifically allows the commission to consider the fault and to present and to consider facts actual allegations presumed to be true in determining what relief to issue against the respondents found greater authority to extend the default to the remedy than the district court does but let's let's talk about the well what evidence the commission heart of because mission did say he even if we didn't extend the default the remedy they were still evidence that supported this sixteen year period but the evidence is just the period in which the at and t was many for the whole of the plate secrets was was manufacturing the product that doesn't seem to really be very good evidence in the period that it would take someone now to develop trade see it's a crime to keep in mind the nature of the treats secrets here these are not all process improvements over time and the evidence show that that nissho those that erna spent an average of sixteen point seven years for over three hundred operating practices and continuous trial and error that's true but why does the stablish how long it would take to independently develop it is evidence supporting the commission's finding as to how long r evidence destroy in a case and early on in the case and for a action not the benefit of having destroyed evidence in that case and i would also like to mention that russia not challenge and has to do with the evidence that the commission had before your honor discuss the evidence that of felt for an independent developer in time i think we all have to realize in the background is that there is missing evidence on the statement you said they destroyed evidence of that it would take to develop a trade secret independently i don't see what the basis for the basis is that the evidence that was destroyed is research and development serial it's on her computer on her u s  drives we've course don't know what was destroyed but we can reasonably infer that as the head of research and development she has access to materials that involve research and development i can cite a specific example a record appendix two twenty seven fifty five through fifty nine this is the fragment fragmentary information we got from the forensic inspection is that she accessed about bruna trade secrets from a u s b drive and it was sitting in a folder that was named important the file for project so she's involved in the research and development process she hurt her materials or evidence of how long it would have taken for raj to develop steel and the end of trade secrets themselves she in fact is ac remedy determination is the evidence of valbrun is development time the trade secret is appropriate to look at the trade secret onerous time to develop trade secrets that's what the commission did in rubber resins it's what it did in  appendix of forty fifty two to fifty three appendix forty sixty three to sixty nine and the struggles to give specific examples with respect to an operating practice of chemical composition changing form of that still evidence evidence of the raj melting the greatest feel a certain time and then accessing the operating practice that matches that that is actually evidence of roger's development and reliance on the operating practices but also the development time it took if it had that's you're asking us to draw an inference from something that doesn't really seem to to have any kind of firm evidence one way or another i mean maybe they were just looking at all the various practices i mean that's i mean when you steal somebody's train seekers i say me just look at everything he stole it may not have any bearing because you may have already figured it out so i'm not sure how much weight what you're i mean i get your theory but i'm not sure i much weight really well it really goes to industry to be honest i think you would look out to get an understanding of how the product and the technology is developed in the context of the specific industry and i believe that's what we did we looked at the time of  evaluate whether it's what it all sanctioned consider the deterrence factor i think it also appears on the question of of the calculation of the remedy as well it cannot be the case where a party like iraq which deceived the court sual in the this appropriators files you would have for example in the l saying well we better steal this trade secret because it would take us ten years to develop there could be evidence that if you have a default chest to be to all issues and therefore you don't get to challenge it doesn't really get i think the government anywhere the bad faith just quickly was raised in our brief twelve thirteen showing without the intent you don't some testimony that forty fifty two it says many years trial and error research and development developing its operating practices for many years and that's as far as allegations he was able to go the evidence shows that the garage does not have evidence of the actual development period any particular great deal that in some of this is confidential i ask you to look at our reply brief that there was not evidence