we do have to argue the motions we'll hear the first one accent the light and before we start let me congratulate judge reggie on taking senior status which took effect on friday thank you a simple central point that i think goes to the crux of the matter before the court and that's this there is nothing in the record suggesting that the criminal authorities in monaco in switzerland asked for need or even want the discovery that petitioners presently seek in this petition neither prosecutor submitted an m last request in fact petitioners asked the monaco magistrate twice to get documents from saw the bodies and the magistrate refused that request the prosecutors already have right now the course of the bs documents they would need if they were to bring a keep criminal case against bouvier and those of the documents that show the price that bouvier actually paid for the art pieces that came through so the bees now the fact that the prosecutors have shown no interest in this new tranche of discovery is very important i think for two main reasons the first one is simple it underscores that there's absolutely no harm if the court issues a stay here but the more fundamental reason it's important is that it underscores the petitioners reliance on the criminal justice in producing the documents the prejudice to southerlies your honor is that we are producing documents to our opponent in an ongoing case in in geneva and so we can't unring that bell and in fact you have the situation here where judge firman already found there was prejudice because you recall that he issued honor i i think it's not wise i obviously i'm not going to object but plainly i think they have the ability to control that somewhat by when they put in their response brief i think it's not wise because there are some fundamental issues here that are very difficult  one of them is the extraterritorial application and i think frankly the court would do well by having the full record here or and the opportunity for the by expedite i don't mean to morrow and  trying to sound light about it but expedite doesn't always mean that we file opinion the day after you would just put you in or above the line ahead of everybody else who doesn't have this kind of a time problem i think the problem is that there is absolutely no reason to expedite here and that's because there's no reason for this tranche of documents the prosecutors overseas already have the documents they need and the issues here particularly the extraterritorial issue do we know that or are you telling us that i mean what we stand you know it do i know them we know on the record that they have refused petitioners request twice to ask for the case because that they can use to establish a fraud case this tranche of documents has really nothing to do with their criminal case so if i can go to to back to my argument i think that the fact that petitioners are using seven hundred eighty two to get discovery from an adversary in a civil case by itself should defeat the petition under intel the court's been very clear that you can't apply the intel factors mechanically  said it most recently in the kabul case versus korat so we think it's plain that there is a substantial possibility that will show that the district court abused its discretion here it didn't focus on the fact there is a pending litigation here and they just mechanically applied the court mechanically applied the formal point that there is a criminal case going on in monaco not recognizing that in fact there is a that not recognizing that in fact they are adversaries in that case in geneva right now see my time's up you will hear from your colleague on the other side maybe police caught submarines position on both issues the expedited appeal and stay can be summarized in one word stall that's what this is really about because the monaco prosecutor in fact did say and it's in the record from the last appeal that he would welcome documents that we were talking about so yes they want the documents and that's very nice that subhi says the documents won't aid the criminal proceeding but they're the only ones that know what's in the documents we don't know the prosecutors don't know and the issue about any possible use of the documents against other bodies is counted by the protective order here we have a district judge who used the scalpel within his broad discretion to separate out the question of extraterritorial documents from the domestic documents in the thirty six deposition and that was a very wise and careful approach there is no need to disturb that sort besides a quote difficult burden according to the cases to get such a stay and the protective order requires us to go back to the district judge if we want to use it for any other purpose other than the two criminal proceedings that are going ahead in europe so there is adequate protection for souther because there is no prejudice the real prejudice is from the lay in producing the documents because we don't know when those criminal investigations in europe are going to be completed and they shouldn't be completed before these documents are given to the authorities so they can assess the impact  cross motion for that and in fact i think there's probably an inverse relationship between the need for a stay and the need for an exploitive appeal so that yes what we unfortunate enough not to win opposing the stay certainly we would want the earliest and most expedited decision from the caught on the merits they have to be brief and my understanding is that some of these brief would be due on september twenty sixth so that it's something that could be done quickly but still the the justification for the stay simply isn't there and the first intel factor  not implicated here because that really is a question of committee with the foreign jurisdiction it's not a question of whether or not there is some other possibility of the use of the documents and again the protective order which subbies somehow overlooked in its main brief they didn't mention that at all and that is the key to why the procedure below works so well so we asked the court to concerned a very different tranche of documents of course the court welcome those because that goes to the course of core of the case against the b s second point i want to make your honour's is with respect to the protective order just firm and already found that you can't  protective order they will get our material the be able to study or material and nobody suggests that the court will be able to claw back that material from a former prosecutor another point that i didn't get a chance to make but i will now is that we run the risk of moving our appeal with respect to the u s domestic documents if you don't enter the stay that we request here that was the situation that happened on the initial appeal where there was a question about mootness because some of the documents we had produced made its way to the monaco court and then finally with to the extent there's any prejudice here too there is actually none to petitioners the only one who could be prejudiced is the monaco  not the petitioners but petitioners have foreclosed their ability to recover monetary damages in monaco so there is no harm to petitioners here thank you thank you will reserve decision