underlying fact all circumstances st they did discovery there was ordered by the lower court has not actually been completed now a key part of the remaining are the depositions of the hon who and the and therefore her deposition has occurred either individually or as a corporate representative of the entities at appellant we contend that all written discovery has been completed it's possible that a police may have a different position  this so there may be a question about whether those depositions should still happen and perhaps that issue is moot but what about the recent discovery issue doesn't the sanction for the written discovery does that make it not moot because we have to resolve at least the circuit split question do we need to resolve that in order to figure out whether the sanctions that were imposed were proper we believe that it's necessary to have a ruling fro the sanctions order for your noncompliance with the earlier discovery order what what if we were to agree with you on the merits and reversed the order that's under  arbitration doesn't count as that the right kind of proceeding you would still pay the thing actions we've already paid the sanctions and you wouldn't try to get them back even if it turns out you never were supposed to have to do the discovery at all maybe your answer is you would try to get that ad so you must've paid money to the other side because of the sanctions is that correct yes correct and we have and you're saying that if you were in this and it turns out you never should have had to do the barred by but certainly if there is an instruction from this courts that there should not have to sanctions order the sanctions were incorporated in this case considering the appeal the significant legal issues that were raised in the appeal i would think that no no the basis for the sanctions it was the failure to produce the discovery by the deadline and since there was no state order in place the courts conclusion was if there's no stay in place you have to produce the discovery so there was it was a slightly different basis for the sanctions it was more of a timing issue and what about flying back any discoveries so if we rule for you w you try to claw back anything that you produce we would ask that all all humans would be destroyed and the at this point we would ask for an immediate stay from this that there were no findings by the lower courts about using discovery for other contemplated proceeding so we're in this position now where we can't make a written is available for a definition because  corps in a similar circumstance just reinvented to the district court to consider further whether that change circumstances have changed whether the discovery was appropriate is it your position that that's what we should do the difference between our gates and their pro incompleted obligation to make her the developer deposition but without a basis to do so so we're we're in a little bit of a a limbo status here which is why i asked for an immediate ruling saying and it all made a discovery in this case and then subsequently a ruling on america addressing this as it's her interpretation issue and as well the abuse of discretion issue even though within the statute you helly is largely mischaracterized if you're going to get ready and it's not a question of whether the word tribunals and sometimes need in an arbitration proceeding since the beginning is there phrased foreign or international tribunal could conceivably include arbitration but it also might not include private arbitration and this is the source of the ambiguity of course if tribunals couldn't possibly me in private arbitration there would be no ambiguity and so you're arguing that the ambiguity allows us to look at the legislative history do you think there is anything affirmative in the legislative history that answers this question or do we need to just look at the silence in the legislative history to answer this question i think you're exactly right your honor that this is this is a threshold question and if you find and unity and we are then it opens the door to look next to the legislative history from there to relevant president from the supreme court and policy consideration there isn't anything intended or the revision of the navy to do substantially expand the scope of the statute since reason there would have been thrown mention there wouldn't be a word in there in the legislative about whether this statute should extend to private arbitration maybe you could address why you think that would be a bad idea why if congress had been focused had its attention focused on this question it would have the from what we said no we don't want sensible way to read it in light of the larger purposes congress is trying to achieve with would be an acronym some to do so help me understand why you think again that congress is attention been focused specifically on this when it would have had sound reasons legislative history but if you're going to all of a sudden come when this other realm of private dispute in your private proceedings where you don't have that governmental involvement is different if you're in  and why would we view just doesn't our country why would we be we view arbitration gals as just kind of adjuncts of the countries establish court system yes it's not directly under the auspices of some respectfully i would disagree with the characterization of arbitration as being part and parcel with the judiciary is intentionally different it's framed in a lot of case law and seeing an alternative arbitration but it's a way to peacefully resolve disputes just like courts are and so why wouldn't congress have thought well we think it's good to further the effort of peacefully resolving disputes in ways other than violence and so arbitration is what i'm courts are wada and for interviewed over one i think that if congress had intended for the statute to include private arbitration there would have been discussion of that in the legislative history it would have been addressed there would have been some consideration on the merits of whether this was a policy decision that congress intended to make early at the time for every commercial arbitration was a relatively new field was an assignment as it is today and i think that looking at the legislative history we don't get a very clear answer one way or another when i look at the legislative history it seems very ringback to me that there is no evidence of congressional intent to include prioritization but i do think we need to look at other points to get a full sense of how does that seem to be interpreted and that would include arbitration and it had a narrower meaning in some contexts that meant just courts but we know from the history of the amendments the statute good congress clearly had in mind something more than just courts because they want they are courts but not private arbitration i haven't seen evidence that that's but that was a permissible meaning of the phrase in the sixty's and i wonder if you can point me to anything but would support  because there's a broad range of potential evidence it's not simply one or the other and if you don't choose the meaning this court therefore is everything but if everything doesn't make sense then therefore it's court you're in the range and the use of these diplomatic channel wouldn't make sense for a private proceeding such as arbitration if you look at that that suits the implication is clearly that there's some sort of governmental involvement as well as i mentioned the amended that was given to the revision committee was to recommend procedures for in your assistance to quote foreign courts and positive usually agencies and this information is contained in the intel decision that try to clarify because i'm not sure i understood your position on this this issue with i just would like to try to clarify so as to the discovery that has already happened is it your position that there is no reason to resolve at this point whether that was appropriate or not bust in as long as those materials are destroyed and not retained any remaining discovery is then stated terminated so where we get out from under the current court order underlying proceedings have concluded there is no more use for that material as ordered the court's order was to use those materials the those materials were provided based on an order that they would be used for the current proceedings those proceedings are now done and was there a protective order or something that said once those proceedings are done the documents need to be destroyed there is a protective order your honor and does it say that i at the end of the day the materials were interested him and nobody wants their financial records shared on that is i really wouldn't say that they were that particularly do we certainly don't want them to be held by  narrow and in fact the same materials are relevant for that and it is in addition the arbitration and requests for provisional relief somewhat the last time to freeze assets and to preserve evidence has been only not moot here because of this arbitration that was filed last week that is totally outside our record i don't know that we can use that as a reason to decide this case now rather than arbitration proceedings are in the record we've briefed to the district court we said look this is relevant to the pending arbitration the other side the appellant were arguing look the arbitration is almost over so you shouldn't brief it is no need so we argued vigorously look there are some issues that will not be resolved by the tending arbitration so those records are before you and it is exactly not exactly but it's very close to the a cutting edge clinic in china they were kicked out all their ip was been seized they got some compensation through the existing arbitration but the problem is they still have our stuff they don't have our ip we're concerned they're consenting to use it we need discovery to find out what's going on i agree that the detail the details of that certainly would have to be limited looked at the just in court but i think in terms of judicial efficiency this is actually stage because what typically happens is the proceeding as either finished or the discovery is completed so i reason our discovery is not completed because of the covert nineteen issues and we do have unfortunately we would have loved  it did not result in what's your position on the sanctions order if we were to agree with your opponents on the nd circuit on the merits and reversed the order that appealed d it would you have to pay back the different court judge found that was a violation of the order that if they wanted to move for a stay they should have done a lot earlier so it was really just a violation of the court order it was the timing issue and the will even if the court order was wrong i'm sticking with the sanctions but if you think the district court would have discretion under sixty five dollars to grant some relief i really can't speak to that i mean i think that you know you're right that's a fairly to produce any discovery yes you are and of course they were arguing that but the issue presented by the sanctions motion they were arguing that even though no state had been granted they had a right to ignore the quarter over quarter and just found don't until and unless it's especially when you have ample time the st time we had there was actually a prior order which was state and then there were three men that time they move or stay within a day or two this time they waited in the last stations are rotary regardless because it seems like the appeal is about the question of the discovery whether the summary that the sessions were about should never have been ordered i'm afraid i'm just repeating myself i  think the issue isn't actually wasn't the issue was do you have an obligation to ply with a court order that's been issued that has not been stated and has not been reversed it may be reversed later that doesn't undo the obligation to comply at that moment you have to remember there was a timing issue that sea tac arbitration was about to and it was urgent and all that so forth they were delaying on purpose that was the reason they court to set it aside but if the court thought this was a real issue that was still be an opportunity of course we don't think the order should be reversed so can i move to that issue now i think where they're way more international business activity we have to modernize our little legal system to cope with this expansion in international business activities and we want to encourage eighty four report and one hundred and fifty eight report that's what they talk about this is the purpose it's not focused on courts or even governments should st focus on business activities private activities of u s citizens doing business abroad they want to improve your digital support for resolving those peacefully absolutely international arbitration part of that in fact it is a major thing that has actually fuel the development of international business including in china in china people would not be investing in china unless they had a well established arbitration system he fact is quite you know well regarded and people have confidence in  in china because they have the system so if you look at the underlying big picture purpose i would say absolutely if congress had thought about this would be completely consistent with that ok then i'd like to add to the but i think and this is somewhat ironic one of the parts of the ledge that of history that the nd circuit relied on most heavily and most other courts every laid off is actually highly in favor of our clients between the united states and another government then there are certain kinds of powers that relate to that for example the tribunals and issue subpoenas and there's some kind of discovery process so that was adopted ok because that's what the statute said it says international tribunals or commission established pursuant to a government this kind of agreement what happened when seventy two was adopted of course this is a different seventy eight  they had some problems with it you know we shouldn't limit the u s government we should use limited cases where the u s is a party could be just private but again we need to have this and so yes you want to get rid of that and that shows up and he suggested it and it i think that's the most compelling piece of legislative history i know about i mean think about it if twenty if there had just been twenty eight u s c seven hundred and eighty two and they had said in a foreign national should drive you know established pursuant to government agreement and then presume  improper but i understand of course the court will want to consider it i'm going to make my argument if you think supplemental briefing is appropriate and have to provide it back they had no chance to address it but i'm prepared to address it  is governmental and that is a little unusual but our points themselves have cited the supreme court case called robinson which in the context title seven said employee can have two different meanings in different statutes and some includes former employees for example if you're being retaliated against after you are fired and others that use it means current employees so it's unusual but it's possible because the contents and i don't think it would be impossible to come to a conclusion because you have the word letter of robert or in seventy by the way your on it in answer your question i did look i don't know the details history but i believe these two statutes were adopted together initially in one thousand and forty eight they were recognize the issue but i think there is a way around it and i don't think you need to actually decide seventy eight issues and let me mention also there's also this issue i'm not sure you have to decide the international tribunals if you could you also asked for is also undisputed this arbitration is a foreign arbitration i miss a foreign drive you know it's in china right so i understand you know this bees are very important issues so i figured it would be best to address the issues that need because of the dictionary definition and the think about the dictionary of course they give you every possible definition because they don't know the context here the court has the benefit of the contents that's why i think judicial decisions are the most relevant they have been relied on by the six circuits and we started a couple supreme court cases where you look at not only dictionaries but you look at judicial usage traditionally you should see is the relevant context so i think that's relevant and the one thing i'd like to add is if you look at the judicial usage i'm actually not aware of any court decisions where they suggest that tribe you know can i mean only court i am aware of decisions where used to refer to a court like the supreme court sometimes calls itself this tribe you know but that doesn't mean it can't be used elsewhere the question is is there to a judicial decision that uses it to me i mean really i think policy is absolutely an our favorite because there's a strong policy to promote our tradition and basically what you'd be saying look if you entered into a contract with a dispute resolution was with litigation you get the benefit of the statute if you enter into arbitration you lose out on that you would be defeating kind of the idea that arbitration supposed to be strong or to support it now the other appellate divided well this would be a disaster for arbitration is going to have too much discovery one of the benefits of arbitration is that companies yes discovery is generally more limited but that is a minute no no longer exists and abolishing entirely would be a very blunt instrument fortunately we have finer tools more precise tools to control it it's good court made it absolutely clear and intel courts have broad discretion to limit or deny seven thousand eight hundred to request in fact in our case just court judge denied or limited a number of our requests and one of the particular factors that that's especially relevant is whether the foreign tribe you know is receptive to arbitration and we cited a couple cases cited discovery we cited a couple  cases they were in arbitration but they were eighty two dollars cases where the party it was like one was before the korean f t c the fair trade commission and they were trying to get this cover for use it and the korean fair trade commission submitted amicus brief saying we don't want it not surprisingly it was denied same thing happened in germany so that's awful the tribe you know doesn't want it they simply say they don't want it but what is the to know this is somewhat off for question but just if we took the flip side of things you know whether private arbitration panels you know our country i'm thinking maybe would be under the hague convention are allowed to one was what the discovery submitted and one was it actually a valuable profits or and we think the answer was that a valuable process have said the answer's yes it's true it's not submitted and of course we're now on staff that are outside the record but there was kind of a perfect storm struck consensus once the arbitration was moving quickly too there were a lot of delays three and most importantly properties we weren't able to take depositions we didn't expect the documents to be that important and they actually ended up producing only financial damage from this century with a few on the merits that very few said they didn't have we don't we're not sure about that but we needed the deposition th the last point here is the financial documents were in fact very valuable the issue here is we're trying to freeze assets in china when we went to the bank account there wasn't anything there we had evidence that they transfer a large amount to maybe we wanted to be able to take discovery about here in the u s and then find wire transfers from china to trace back that's why we got it we were on the path we got stuff there is actually still supplemental we don't think that the discovery is complete we would want to pursue it  it's a question as to court but we are on the path and we believe that's one of the reasons they paid it ward they did pay the award quickly but they knew we were on the path they didn't want us on that job we got the g back to the lower court further proceedings in order that if you'd at the end of february compelling us to produce documents to prove deposition and then we proceeded to exhaust central to the case you may get a date ending appeal once those were denied you mediately begin producing documents we've actually produced documented by the time the court issued its actions or so we certainly