apparently did exist is just not within the range of permissible decisions that the piece of discretion second issue is that the district court found that really what i did not have control over response of documents held by writers ultimate german argument that it didn't have to search for documents because what i didn't think there was anywhere it was likely to find documents responsive to the subpoena the finding was based on a declaration from what is d c interviewed some of what it had interviewed of documents but on the other hand a representation that at least one responsive document existed it was not turned over and that in fact there were other there were references to other documents that were what i had items received from the parent company in the usual course also representation that at some point during the period covered by the subpoena but as employees learned about the transaction that issue something to talk about in the subpoena so certainly the district court faced with evidence and fact that is that you know a big part of this deal was interest in renewable energy and you know one of the things that we want to know about obviously is you know how early was this transaction on everybody's radar if it was on their radar in two thousand and seventeen and this is being expressed through this document and through others that we don't know because there hasn't been a st time then that potentially is going to speak to you know what what were the topics that were interviewed all their employees so they had no response of the material six of them the current ones they checked to see whether or not any of them would be included in any communications with respect to write up on the transaction and i think you're suggesting even that company does business in the united states concerning energy futures as those are what us there may be some overlap there is certainly what appears to have had some involvement in green energy in the united states because it was sending information out to energy and others so you know the extent of that you know maybe it's not a huge expense but there does appear to be some overlap and you know given that there was absolutely no  do an email starts with search terms when there are only six employees no attempt to look at hard copy documents now there is a reference to the one response that document but for what it has not represented that it made a specific search for it how it came up with it it's particularly given the fact that a yielded as you pointed out a potential response a document with respect your honor i disagree if what i had done an actual search i think it would have made that representation in the papers and said the representation that it made with the interview some employees look into what sorts of central files are what they were what to maintain and it determined that there was no quayside that it could search for documents where they were reasonably likely to be found to infer from a reference to one document that really what it has not described d how it found it what are in fact conducted a search on interviewing employees discovery in germany you know before the term in state courts and before contemplated our rituals just you know it doesn't permit the type of access usually that you can get in the united states documents if you can describe them with particularity and ask the german court order their protection but we don't have that sort of particularized information available to present to the german tribe you know and that's why we're speaking  dispositive facts st they establish that rosetta conducted every reasonable search for responsive documents and that the search came up empty and really does two things happening there the court considered both the reasonableness of the search and i agree with the sentiment before i think it's clear that was a search done and also the court wrestled with what that issue in the foreign proceedings what's requested here what ought to be response the reason that we are here having this debate about the one windmill document and policies and procedures that were sent by the parent corporation to the american subsidiary the reason we're having that debate is because the result of a very thorough search that or whatever form we presented all this information to the court judge firm and considered it he considered it against the backdrop of what the foreign proceedings involved what the underlying issues are and made a determination both about what was responsive and what in light of the position of the company is the subject of the proceedings and the nature of the documents described whether the search was to step back for a moment the transaction here the foreign transaction was an asset swap between two german energy corporations and then the nd transaction at issue in the foreign proceedings or potential foreign proceedings which is an agreement between one of those and you companies and essential corporation affiliated with the city or frankfurt the the subpoena documents in eight of these foreign proceedings and granting the seventy two dollars applications the court that allows discovery relevant to those foreign proceedings that has to be the generation and delivery of electricity in europe a response as relates to contact the general counsel of prospective whether or not they would voluntarily provide the documents which use the word it's my understanding that they would refuse and control and they didn't offer a single fact in the district court or in this court to demonstrate that were what i had control over are going to use a g s documents it's a fairly difficult and unusual position of trying to prove that the court's conclusion was clearly erroneous and that the court abused its discretion without offering when they had the burden of proof without offering a single piece of evidence we despite not having that burden went out and gathered a whole bunch of evidence  discussion that they clearly had with our deputy a g because they discussed whether the employees were involved in the transaction you know and the discussion was designed just as essentially you know you've never given us these documents before i assume you're not getting them to us now right i mean the declaration laid out a pretty long history of separation between the companies there are a number of reasons that the companies are intentionally you know kept separate from one another european privacy regulations all sorts of things so in the in the context of their day to day interactions that would be relatively strange for the general counsel of our w e g even though i know we've established our networks to keep completely separate when you give me these documents today i mean they my understanding is that they had a discussion in which it was clear to both the general counsel of  our and the general counsel of our deputy a g that they work very hard to maintain good corporate governance and separate corporate form and they wouldn't be blurring the lines here and so that's that's really all that up that way you know i may be misremembering something but certainly from from my perspective you know i think what we were doing was saying look we did this search and we want to just be completely transparent with the district court about what we found here that anything we found that is remotely related to the interaction between these two companies and and it wasn't sort of   is a fair well so i would i would respectfully disagree i think you know when he says in his opinion that whatever form just search for responsive information and came up empty you know i think it's paragraph where we're discussing this issue and his opinion insight into that paragraph talks about the concept of a search for responsive information he used that exact phrase and then said you know the search came up empty and so i think really a fair description to say that the only issue in play here is an agreement for the generation of electricity in europe this was an agreement for a merger between two large german energy companies and there were implications for that the on your us there were certainly implications in the united states both r w d eighty and its counter parties to that transaction a on made public statements that there were potential u s antitrust implications there were potentially putting obligations in the united states and to the extent that some of the business involved included energy including green energy in the united states that's going to be rolled into the transaction and that's certainly going to be relevant so i just want to be clear that although yes the the main underlying transaction that is at issue in new york p and proceedings is is this merger between two german energy companies it's not is this the implications of this merger and most likely the preparations for that the german border with respect to the reasonable search again this is the st i've heard that what it is claiming it actually look for documents is submissions for the district court say otherwise they say they interviewed employees they checked into the subject matter in what is filed and determined that there was nowhere to search so to infer from that and from the filing that an actual search of documents is done it's just it's not in the documents and presumably you know it's not a long record there was certainly space for all let us to explain if they had actually conducted this search of documents and there's just nothing in the submission that supports that other than a review of documents you know with respect to the one energy document that is described you know it as has been pointed out the judge makes that broad statement but he never really makes a statement about whether or not it's relevant there are restrictions that make it difficult to obtain documents if we can't describe the individual documents in detail there's not to my understanding any pro had bishan on turning over these cases pacifically say that find the real issue is is there some sort of barrier to over information are you asking for privileged information you asking for bank information and they can't be turned over at that company are no i don't disagree about the burden that that's where i will say you know and supported understanding and with respect if that's all that a subpoena target has to do to prove that it doesn't have control then that opens the door for all sorts of corporate  conversation that says she's basing it on past experiences with them i think it should also give us pause that you know this understanding is convenient and was not raised and reply papers when we pointed out that really what i