us in this case the circuit court on page five and seven of its opinion articulated various forms were evidence was located including turkey but the court eliminated turkey from consideration which is in our appendix and if you look at every case on this issue and scattered scattered evidence will in applying this kind of categorical reflexive rule respect with the circuit court here in two ways one the requirement that evidence be located in plaintiff's chosen form and secondly he overlooked the fact that even though evidence may be located in more than one forum it may be predominantly concentrated in one of those forms we did we established that the evidence was in predominately in turkey into race one we had or we identified by category a plethora of damages a liability witnesses that are essential to our defenses in this case and those are set forth in the brief but they range from employees of the right focus and doubtless jet people who are headquartered in istanbul relating to the training of these pilots there are the maintenance done on this aircraft and on this components traffic controllers the operational history of this here point the knowledge of the plight of the pilots to have the flying but more importantly just scarcity we also agreed as a condition of dismissal to provide players with the product liability evidence in our possession in short subject that forms rules concentrated in here's in this particular case if you look at page five of the justices when you when you say no one can bring those witnesses to cook county i you saying that those witnesses are keeping your defense or could they be something that the plaintiffs would have to bring in if they can't then they made those the case here very good question just of course you have the answer is the answer is they are key to our defense plaintiffs have brought as you know a product liability suit claiming that the aircraft manufactured by mcdonnell douglas and the  product in the same condition as one of left our control and the witnesses on that issue are in possession of the atlas jet really focused who had burst of these point of us and who they do not have any control over and we can't help but evidence to cook county now in this case on page five of the record that this judge maddox the circuit court judge respected could not identify any evidence located in illinois but based jersey witnesses in california that the court held in balancing the factors that the case should be sent to california because the party witnesses one of the things th to be emphasized that we mentioned it in our brief but that the turkish government has in addition to leading the investigation has also broadly criminal action against those who would believe or not only respond to provide a defense at trial in this case respectfully it appears that the story was more persuaded by the geographic proximity of boeing or the fact they do business here then is to close their case from the supreme very clearly but in that particular case plaintiff we sent a resident sued state farm and it related to what it was clean versus salvage titles misrepresentation cases but the short version of the answer to your question is the supreme court specifically noted that perry yeah this could be brought would be a bad one illinois or louisiana but the nonparty evidence in that case the auction retailer and other parties that that could not be compelled i hope clear answer to that if you go to page one eighteen to one twenty two of the record you will see the defendant's stipulation as a condition of dismissal to produce ever product liability evidence in turkey live witness testimony prejudice parties as the court knows from their trial experience and so because of that only in turkey are we able to join them the necessary court's order here is if a product is made in the united states it's ok to keep the case in illinois even though my happiness is located in illinois and because bearing one of the two leading manufacturers of your phrase in the world was located here cook county has already become the form sure for foreign nationals and international air crash cases in this case we ask the court take a very hard look at how the court applied the scattered evidence to arrest the book if you do so what you'll find are that there's three major problems with what happened in this influx of the school then in adopting a categorical rule that are here jackass been weighed everything and he decided the cases more probably brought in indonesia because that was indonesian citizens who were killed on the indonesian flights even though the evidence the ba illinois that's what the rules based analysis stuff so that it does not vindicate private interests it does not  would that be a alternative car just position to remain and duck down with specific instructions that the factors be the fact that out the way properly the notion that turkey was the site of the accident turkish airline turkish regulators turkish criminal investigation that you other decisions would weigh heavily in favor of the public interest look at this from the that in this case it was deadlocked and if you read the order of opinion you will see that there is not a way there is not a way there is application if i can one of the elements there and it goes to discretion once again there are private and public interest factors that are not discussed by this you know it's work in prominent among is the potential for duplicative litigation which i think should be of great concern to us these plaint connection is that boeing and honeywell do business there is no other connection to political issue on one one final notify me who we clearly believe that turkey is the place where this litigation should proceed we believe that the texters turkey should pay for the sleep but we as an alternative even the sports observation envious concerning the fact that the parties there did not suggest transfer to another form within the united states we in the alternative move the state where the product is designed and manufactured it's going to have a greater interest in a void in defective products not a state where a company happens to do just as you know what's there for the question so and i think it's also clear that under the the precedent of of you you got damages evidence and you got the accident so the accident is the damages evidence that's on our shoulders if we can't produce that evidence here if we can't testimony of the turkish air accident investigators well that's true if it is true and there's also the flip side issue we would face those sort of challenges the place of it as a turkey but it's there how do we know that well you would face that problem  a doesn't include former employees but it's their burden to show with specificity that they won't be able to attain that evidence what's to say there are people that they want to depose in turkey how do we know they're to refuse to be deposed refused to cooperate or no affidavit submitted the trial court level to establish that it's essentially just speculation and a third think even mine and the accident evidence of this is also an actual issue about the way trials actually unfold is the accident evidence those experts are not going to come from turkey they're going to the united states or some other country and the evidence that they're going to rely on anyone but participate in this investigation they're going to have that evidence the accident investigation reports in the public record either fashion without abusing it he would have that here but maybe that's the distinction in vivus as well that discretion can be exercised in that fashion and in this case because i really wonder what what what what would have to be present in this case to have prompted the circuit court exercise discretion in sending it back sending it to really need i mean what did the defendant's not present that's you know you would have said don't bother appealing when in our judicial system when we set up the standards of review they're so deferential like a piece of discretion and in  action watched in turkey against those really responsible what does that have to do with anything it is a demonstrated in specific interest a public interest of the turkish government in addition to leading the acts and just occasion which differentiates it from defendants have agreed to provide here which we think is significant i know that they have claimed it's a phantom offer but the exact same offer the judge asked indorsed in that indonesian case which is a two thousand level u s district court blocks this two six four seven there's a stretch of twenty eight u s c seventeen eighty two that i woud as a person to open up an action in federal court to take a deposition of a former former employees of persons who are outside the control of these