provides pornographic material to visitors the question here is whether the defendants can avoid jurisdiction in california by adding complexity and setting up hurdles to discovery of who the appropriate person is and when they are brought into court they say nothing except it wasn't me and refused to cooperate with discovery appellant contends that the district court should have denied the motion poor personal jurisdiction because the advertised website is an interactive commercial website because the e mail itself was directed to california and be it the district court did not agree that the plaintiff had made a prim then should have allowed the parties to conduct discovery to figure out where the truth lies if if the district charge is right that there's no jurisdiction how can district judge order order discovery i mean the plaintiff made a choice not to go to florida and sue and that's true if if the if this wouldn't be a question of where in florida but the disc plaintiff made a decision of who in california i don't see how his power power or power there's court has no power and lessers tourist attraction well we're limited court how with the district judge on what basis with the district judge allow any type of discovery if he had no may be or something like that was there such a request here yes your honor and where is that where where do i find that i don't have the record in front of me but i believe that it was made in the original opposition to the motion to dismiss verified first amended complaint thank you the issue of personal jurisdiction is confusing because the defendants in operating the website set themselves out as the owners of a particular domain name sex search com dot com this is the domain name where the website resides that provides the material in exchange for payment from customers the person who sent the email included in the email advertising the domain name sex search com so i'm sorry sex charge dot com which itself does not have a website but merely redirects to sex search com dot com and so the defendants have gone to the extraordinary effort to essentially hide and then when they do come into court and say it's not need they won't say who it is they make the claim that they own the domain name but that they leased it to some other unknown person plaintiff did allege in the complaint that this is a civil conspiracy it appears that this whole sex search business is a joint venture involving multiple companies one of which has offices in los angeles but the only company that we can definitively tie to this enterprise is experienced internet because it is the one that  registrant of the domain name where the website resides i would like to reserve time for revival thank you you thank  to do in this case is to create jurisdiction for the convenience of counsel for as the record is clear the only time to the jurisdiction of california is once the pla because there is no evidence whatsoever that there's any systematic specific jurisdictional facts what we have in the record is one e mail and again the court should be well aware that there is zero targeted toward any specific person in any specific jurisdiction looking for jurisdiction for example when one sends an email you don't know where it's going you don't know whether it's in three or the district of california or alaska or some other jurisdiction but in this case the record is clear that none of the defendants none of the defendants websites spent a single solitary e mail to anyone the pla every time he tries to access the people who are sending him the email he gets routed somewhere else that by saying that wrong well know that that's partially true let me explain the answer  we said look it's not just here's here's the people here's the people it's here's a registrant for setzer thought com and here's the name of the individual who sent the emails  ownership interest in that nothing there's another site which which is called sex search com and dot com which is a site that is license plaintiff made these allegations we came in the declaration saying no ties to california no business california our websites half of haven't seen a single solitary email and the plaintiff came back and this is said well you must be involved there's nothing there and what he's done it with all respect is cast is trying to cast a big fishing net to try to identify certain individuals or companies and instead of going to florida like the court has movement and doing discovery there or doing more due diligence before for a lawsuit determine who the true people are is attempting to put my clients in the fishing boat with him and take him out to pick him out to sea while he that the complaint does it on information and belief and what the district court judge found was that allegations on information on belief may be fine until you have evidence papers that there is no not a single solitary request or a mention for jurisdictional discover it now in terms of the burden of proof and i think that's what we're getting down to here is that the burden of burden of proof with the standard relative to the request for jurisdictional discovery is a different standard and the standard there is is number one he didn't ask for number two that's within the discretion of the judge and this court would have to find i would submit that would have to be abuse of did that discretion for the district court judge not to grant jurisdictional discovery was never requested to begin with in the first place now sway you some in some manner but we cannot respond to that our opposition papers that wasn't presented in the moving papers thank you your honors there is one fact that is in evidence and that is that experienced internet was the registrant of the domain name sex search com dot com and that the website address that was advertised in the email ultimately lead to sex search on dot com and it wasn't just one e mail it was bulk email sent to the far ends of the earth and on federal cases have big consistent that e mail advertising in violation of can spam results in personal jurisdiction in every jurisdiction where the papers right this moment i also would like to point out that part of the lack of evidence here is the lack of the defendant providing any evidence with regards to this company site tac that's mentioned merely in the briefs it doesn't appear anywhere in any affidavits or declarations the court has to take the defendant's word for it that it wasn't them when they say it was  you can't tell us what you asked for this was some years ago but it was my practice to speak in limited jurisdictional discovery i was not looking for a rule twenty six conference after said that we couldn't have one i was looking for specific information about the this brother organization that goes by sec search and appears to be a joint venture between multiple companies and i don't have your motions you don't have the motion papers here i do not i think if you look through the record you'll find no motion papers you only think i found on the record was an offhand comment about jurisdictional discovery and oral comment and you'll find it at the expert on page twenty three and page thirty but i found nothing in the record of any motion that you made written motion thank you you thank