thank you thank you thank you your honor as this court has been fairly clear that in exercising discretion under twenty eight us c one thousand seven hundred and eighty two the district court should consider the effects of their decisions on the procedural parity between the parties in the foreign litigation and issue here the district court abused its discretion in rejecting a request for reciprocal discovery without conducting any parity analysis w said in denying the motion to quash that the reciprocal discovery she would not consider at this time because she had not been presented with specific request for reciprocal discovery accordingly  discovery and in that context the magistrate judge said that it would rule one reciprocal discovery in a subsequent decision haven't haven't we i mean haven't haven't more with respect to reciprocal discovery certainly courts have been given wide discretion under seven hundred and eighty two dollars but it is also clear and this court has said that a district court will abuse its discretion under seven dollars if it fails to consider the proper factors that this court that the supreme court has outlined for how that discretion should be exercised under one thousand seven hundred and eighty two dollars discretion with respect to reciprocal discovery that is our submission your honors  as yours is that with the case law says the case law says that the district court should consider the effect of its decisions in the seventy two context on the procedural parity of the parties in the foreign cases when presented with a request for reciprocal discovery procedural parity should be the touchstone for the statute as i read it please correct me if you think i'm wrong requires or enables the use of discovery opportunities here for use in a proceeding that's correct right what was your client going to use what proceeding was going on that your client was involved our client was involved was the respondent was the petitioner invoked in making an application for seventeen and our client is the board of is on the board of directors of the company that was the defendant that case but was not named parties in that spanish litigation he was not your client not a part y not a party not a party but we submit that the standard is not whether the applicant for reciprocal discovery is a party in the foreign litigation the test should be whether they have a sufficient interest restrictions that lack textural support when district courts in the discretionary review adequately can address the concerns raised that was in the context of analyzing the statute seven dollars the court made clear in accent delight that the district courts maintain ongoing discussion about how discovery under the statute should be used there are factors that guy that discretion and we submit that one of the factors is procedural parity in the foreign cases accordingly when a request for reciprocal discoveries made procedural parries should be considered an artist and i think the problem is that there's a spanish litigation they ask for discovery that they can use in that litigation your client's not a party to that litigation you're saying because this discovery might be used in the i c c litigation then the court should have given your client access to discovery as a matter of request that the court foreclose the ability of the appellee to use the discovery in the i c c arbitration and the district court denied that request accordingly the district court should have therefore considered when we made a request for the reciprocal discovery the effect on procedural parity across the foreign litigation issue there's nothing in this court's precedent that suggests that the parity analysis should be limited to the foreign proceeding that was the original basis for the seven hundred and eighty two d decision correct and we're not arguing that there should be some limit on the use of the discovery in the foreign proceeding we're arguing for procedural parity in the foreign proceedings for which discovery has been permitted to be used so you go over to bank of america and you give them a seven hundred and two subpoena and you get them to produce records and the other side says well we want some more discover appellants have been subjected to american style discovery depositions sweeping document requests about their decision to terminate a penalty and his brother from the company and they've been completely denied reciprocal access to the own records that we legitimize their decision to terminate him his own spending records it was a termination over the use of company funds to hire fleets of luxury cars personal the district court overlooked with respect to their motion to deny reciprocal discovery for use in the litigation they are in fact not parties and as far as the arbitration is concerned the that is a function of the facts as as often pointed out at the district court in a prior order denied a request for a protective order an injunction and it did so in part on the finding that or on the basis rather that there is nothing in the record that would show that the arbitrators are would be unable to address any concerns that the respondents here may have in the arbitration deferring to a foreign proceeding even if it were proper to look at the arbitraries as the at the arbitration as a relevant proceeding is perfectly permissible under this court's cases and under the supreme court's case in intel where the supreme court said it is perfectly fine to defer to the foreign proceeding in your ameba this court said that the  proceedings remain of course the foreign tribunal who are mean of course masters of their own domain the only way and that's at eleven a one of the of the report the only way that the court could conclude there's an abuse of discretion here would be to find that there's a requirement of law that the court order reasonable discovery at a district court order reciprocal discovery and that's a proposition that this court rejected in the mallet case saying that there is no requirement for a district court order or circle discovery relevant to granting the initial section seven hundred and eighty two discovery versus reciprocal discovery i've i think that the court's jur consider whatever it deems relevant and i think that's true as well for reciprocal discovery that a district court can consider when he deems relevant consistent with the statutory objectives of seventy two which are to provide  means of of of discovery to form that against and to show by example of the twin aims of the statute in the context of this particular case what is the standard of review that typical case and i think the standard view is remains an abuse of discretion and factual issues are used for clear error and and legal conclusions are reviewed as a matter of law i don't think that changes the analysis  it's you know one reading of the magistrate judge's order when the magistrate judge said that he had reviewed the district court's order on the motion to quash and on that basis concluded that the only relevant proceeding here was the litigation in all the arbitration that he was in fact interpret in an order of the district court and that again is gives it and then another layer of deference so so at a minimum it's the courts should review it for clear areas it would any discovery order under seventy two dollars and there may be an extra layer of difference now do we have to get into this tentative review with the outcome be the same whatever the standard review would be i think the outcome would be the same thank you owners just briefly an argument was made that in this case the district court made a sound discretionary determination to leave procedural parity to the arbitrators and the i c c arbitration but that was not actually the analysis that the district court and gauged in the analysis was whether allowing the discovery that obtained to be used in the i c c arbitration would be contrary to the character and policies of the arbitration proceeding itself it was not a parity analysis the court did not at least expressly say it was leaving parity to the i c c tribunal to handle instead based on this court's guidance we believe that the parity determination should be made by the district court something the district court failed to do here there was also suggestion that for this court to rule in our favor it would have to hold that there is a requirement in every case to ordered it reciprocal discovery that's not our position we're asking for the limited holding that when considering procedural parity in the context of reciprocal discovery requests and seven hundred and eighty two dollars the district court should consider the full suite of foreign litigation for which it's allowed the seven hundred and eighty dollars to discovery to be used thank you thank you thank you both for your arguments the court will reserve decision