please the court are the letters for navigators and i would like to address so the judge thomas questions perhaps about how this policy was negotiated and whether or not there is a copy of the policy in the record i think we understand who the players were but where's the proof that's the problem i'm having is a question of evidence law what what is it that the district court can look to like there is to record this declaration of david paving who is the the navigator's claims adjuster sets forth the fact that this policy was negotiated not with dependable directly but rather through their professional marine insurance broker capacity marine managers and it is with capacity really manager not happen it's file a signed copy of the time track between the broker i am the underwriter as to whether or not there's a sigh don't believe there would be such a remember which paragraphs specifically but they admit that that policy was issued they so if the district court and remain and if we send it back we're to try and determine whether or not there was an arbitration provision in clute it within the terms when the district court also need to look at any communications between the broker and fell and i think so and i think that's the key to that in the missing link if he well if that's the issue is is the broker and one of the reasons that that discovery wasn't done is it kind of defeats the purpose of having an arbitration clause and saying that this has to be arbitrated london if all of a sudden where is thrust in the position of having to undergo discovery here secondly i think it subjected us to some attack that by participating in discovery in the district court we've waived our position that this was exclusive a little bit of justice to him a little shod to me that as soon as mr woolley filed his action in district court here that your client immediately goes into an english according gets an injunction to stop the district court proceeding from going forward and then you come in and say because there's an arbitration clause but the responses we didn't agree to arbitration why the district judge shouldn't first resolve that initial question before it decides whether or not to stay proceedings and grant comedy or whatever it's going to do that in favor of the english arbitration i think the the initial issue is the issue of comedy and i think in the record but you don't get the comedy until you first determine what the obligations are under the agreement i disagree because i i submit that comedy provides that there has been decision of the english court that meets all the standards the american laws provides for recognizing the doc and comedy and clearly the record is that they had an opportunity to respond proof was submitted to the english judge of what now gaiters position was also a dependable  by definition comedy is the recognition that a district court or a court in the united states would give to a foreign judgment and she clearly put in her order in light of the english proceedings and all that was before her and so i counter i understand the distinction that you're making but i thought i guess i read it that cheat part of what she considered was the fact that in the english court had determined that this was  the issue of crown with pardon me if the english court had not proceedings weren't there we wouldn't have an issue of comedy you know we wouldn't have an issue of comedy it is not your view that she implicitly was deciding that arbitration was proper when she said it should go for proceedings including arbitration i think on the record before her i think anyone would have to conclude that arbitration was was proper i did she didn't express state that in her order but i think again on the record that it would have been proper and and i think the analysis is it hits not under the doctrine of comedy it's under chapter two of the federal arbitration act which is i still find it curious mr leonard that that in the face of a response from the insurer that we never agreed to arbitration and we don't agree that this boilerplate clause was a political in our particular contract of insurance why you are not under some obligation to schedules that they received when it described the coverage said navigators transport wording and their argument as well we never received navigators transport wording titled the such suspensions are nothing more than what we would call domestically by minders right right and so why why can't i look at those binders and say aha there is an incorporation by reference here to the columbus transport terms which must be part of this contract of insurance because when it says the the type of coverage effected is the transport w that is just a generic term for columbus working for that but you have to in order to get in order to get where you want us to be we have to conclude that the concept that the agreement included all of the provisions of the columbus wording correct me the agreement between the parties which is not the schedule of the schedule though i understand that and i am still wrestling with the form of the evidence that was before the district judge and i think mr woolley is correct that the burden is on you as the party asserting their right to arbitration to prove t satisfaction of the district chord that view this was an integral part of the agreement between the parties so that when you move for a stay of the proceedings in the district court here the district judge can be satisfied that's the reason for this day is to let the arbitration proceedings go forward in england and i'm troubled by the fact that your client hasn't done anything to pursue the arbitration in england and that the only proceedings that occurred in england were injunction proceedings and once that injunction issued the proceeding was over as far as the queen's bench  that we did provide to the district judge that the columbus wording clearly the district court had that columbus wording before it and there was nothing else i mean the schedule say there is something else reference to the columbus wording and as we mentioned the policy itself it's under the caption navigators columbus wording coverage for transport operators worldwide i mean it's it's the transport insurance i would find that there had been a failure of proof on the part of the insurance company to adequately prove what the terms of the agreement were and i'm troubled and if that's true then i'm troubled how by how judg have made a determination that this was a dispute that was subject to english arbitration and therefore she was entering a state in order to let that arbitration proceeding proceed and be concluded  negotiated through dependable broker and provided to dependable which depend both admits and upon that policy they in fact to mean that their whole case is predicated upon that insurance policy so i don't need there's really not an issue that that's insurance policy i appreciate their argument more as this is an insurance policy but we don't agree know i can i can only assume that  secondly we do have this proceeding here and it is you know it's expensive to be litigating two things at the same time he'll concede that you know them some money we on one claim i believe yes we  states recognition of the uniform convention  on the convention on the recognition and enforcement before an arbitrary article or two and and under that as we briefed there's a specific analysis to the court must go through to determine whether or not their argument is that well it's void because it's an unconscionable and the response is and this is from the case referring to something being voiced in such a language has to be interpreted narrowly arbitration agreement so i think that's the analysis that has to be gone through your argument is that the sri be basically overrides california law absolutely under the supremacy  going to go to london arbitration because london has a well established suitable facility for arbitrating coverage claims and you know we've cited cases where those types of provisions  think under any analysis it's unconscionable the it's in one thousand page policy it's not a very long policy that all this stuff is clearly set out again it was agreed to through their professional broker my guess is and there is no evidence in this that the broker was very familiar with this type of terms of these these terms knew the policy very well and of course the knowledge of the brokers and f insured so i don't think that the broker would be surprised that there was an english arbitration clause in any of this i'm going to ask your opponent why he didn't