kind of the last in one of these cases and i have and tell both counsel it seems like my impression is that this case turns on two issues that neither neither party as in the custody and control and possession of its independent shareholders the second question is can a court enforce a document subpoena for documents that are not in the pos authority well he did the congress authorize the ages deeply investigate violations of minimum wage and overtime so that substantive response will be providing these cases the document doesn't exist we don't have it we can't provide something that we don't have and the government's position was you need to go look for adam here's my uses where you can look and the court said yes and i have the power to talk to order it and neither of you give it give me any cases saying that either proposition is or is not valid what we're saying is that  to a third party in this case the government is certainly going to visually do them and say we want you to provide x y and z but they can't come to an act on my question do you have a new case i mean this  ask a question to school back to this piercing the corporate veil theory the question i've got at that point is that is a directive to identify your shareholders how does that pierce the corporate veil because not imposing any liability at that point all they're asking at that point is identify who the shareholders are we did that judge and we provided that in the tax return and we said these are the three owners these are their percentage of ownership here the tax that i'm going to interpret the subpoena as permitting me to order that no citation of authority by the district court no citation of authority by the department of labor i  litigate the question of coverage and that's what you're trying to litigate here how are you now know i got that point and that point you make that point in your reply brief and it's wrong this is this is not this is not the defense well but then days turns on the subpoena issue but even if even government is perfectly it's perfectly appropriate to fifteen or documents as part of an investigation subpoena party cannot say all but you have to prove your case first well yeah that's what donna right but that's out to us but our argument is why you said that we could never live the gate coverage but they is good enough to get production of documents by every possible other enterprise we haven't found a single case of said that they can't go in and paint you like they did in this case and b because they're who can go on a tangent well it's not a team well but they're putting the cart before the horse that's where that's where you can move you can they can put the cart before the horses and investigate that's what investigation does but does a cart have these records no no no i mean and i asked the driver of the car for the records i'm sorry and they ask the driver of the cart for the records the owner of the cart and the driver of a card and they ask that person for the record  process argument comes in but don't go there immediately because the second census a printing is all documents showing the names of other business partly fully owned by the owners that's the car driver and the owner of th yet it is a people you're talking about talks about the owners or lucky duck and what we're saying is lumpia that is the corporation that owns the restaurant these three people which we gave you the name on all the operating a series of restaurants that would fit within this broader enterprise doctrine under the f l s say the labor department can investigate them yeah they have plenty of power there's no question about that are we're not disputing that well that's what they're doing they've got that but but can they can they force where's the power to force therefore its order should be affirmed and if you can do for i do not consider this an abus respond to that citation however i think the first issue to establish is that the defendant's claim that no additional documents the definition yes and i think the definitions are important are but tell me first of all what paragraphs in the documents to be produced are we talking about ok that the documents to be produced is  be too which is all documents showing the names and addresses of all other businesses that are partially and are fully owned by the owners corporation and i believe that the definition of document upon agents in the pen the agents do a lot of things most of them not as agents and i if if if an agent if an agent of if and if an owner of this restaurant is independently running another restaurant then then its actions on behalf of the other at a restaurant are not as an agent of this rest of this roster that's just fundamental common you have nothing here in my in my view that a plain reading of the subpoena including the definitions would encompass documents not in the possession custody and control and he has he does have what you reply to in footnote six and footnote six you get close but not six of your brief you get close but it but you write a high level of abstraction there and it's a simple word these owners necessary labor department could have come in with authority addressing this there or that they're investigating the broader enterprise cover question and persuaded the district court that this is this is a basis to read the subpoena more broadly than it's worth it but the department having failed to do that my instinct is all right what controls is the plain language properly construed under subpoena law which is it has to be very clear before you're guilty of a subpoena has to be clear before you can be guilty of contests i think this pretty pretty easy appeal frankly and if i was just going to ask a question you know part of what happens is because these are closely held corporations there's only three owners and we identify the owners and we want to ignore the status of shareholders but if you think more broadly on a publicly traded  corporation no one would ever ask the shareholders what other interests they might have been other restaurants right and so if you're going to go beyond that to establish the existence of of an enterprise  you really have to have some basis for identifying who you're seeking information from and why and it just strikes me that in this case you kept saying owners they kept saying there are no winners we have shareholders and it seems all quite cute and clever in the district judge got frustrated and entered up in order but nobody ever looked at the obvious question is it if you knew the names of would those owners were why didn't you subpoena those people directly and i think the answer to that question is that the defendant never said we don't have possession of these documents in our control you need to go after the owners what they need any keep saying is they think they did say that but what they said is that these documents don't exist and when they said we don't have them we've given you all the documents we have in the end the apparent it was an honest answer well they made that statement they always particularly if you look at their at their motion in opposition to the to the contempt order they always pair that statement with their other statement that is the sole owner of and then they say and no additional response or documents exist i think that the implication is that no additional documents response or documents exist because we are ready provided you with all of the response or documents they never ever told u and i agree that specifically address that however i would you know emphasize that our that our investigative authority is quite broad and that if given the opportunity i could you know produce  authority showing that documents that are in the effective custody or control you'd rather we remain and then reverse that i would i would rather i would rather provide authority at this point to answer your specific question as to whether allow those questions of law be passed on first by district  a proper exercise of the court's distraction because even regardless of the the points that you're raising today make the the defendant did not directly ever has been linked to coming bringing yourself or not no longer in contempt what's the effect of reversing the contempt or i  to the defendant well the tolling order is linked to the defendant coming into compliance with the order enforcing the subpoena and so we think that that th even if the court were to vacate the contempt order that there isn't any reason to vacate that the court's decision to toll the statue of limitations and that would be most consistent with you know equity and fairness in this case  shareholders here's what we said requiring shareholders to disclose other business ventures is not part of the authority of the f s a like that's on page twenty of our brief so we did raise that this  of this court yes the and the argument is the department of labor is overstepping their authority and they're investigating and if you don't cite any authority at that i say you make the statement and they put it in footnote six to their is about the fact that the department of labor is given no power to investigate just the coverage you just mentioned the case is not on page twenty your brief yeah it's not in your brief at all right either one no no i know that i wasn't there are several layers that were skipped the or the analyses to get to a point where a shareholder would have to open their riker's to the government because of all those reasons we were qwest that the decision of