this new wish members of the panel this is one of the northern district court before you today deserve reversal i shall briefly explain why in eleven minutes i would like to is served four minutes for reb first the district court issued a defective conditional order of dismissal defective because you did sue the order without receiving the agreement that defendant would comply with the conditions that issued the order despite the fact the defendant actually expressed lee indicated that he does not agree to make available documents that are necessary for a civil action unless these documents are required by a french court the sake of argument that the defendant in this case didn't do what the judge assumed they were going to do you could you could take additional relief from the district court at that point could you that's a very interesting point if we look at the federal civil rules the federal rules of civil procedure i think one of the only angles would be rule sixty b motion now the rule sixty be motion would probably require fact using rule sixty three showing a misconduct on the part of the defendant if a defendant hypothetically makes representation to a district court but if this case goes back to another country will do x x isn't done i would think your chance of relief and processing district judge would be pretty good i would agree with you your honor and that's precisely what's lacking in the conditional order there were no condition that goodyear actually issued that statement and because they were not that condition present we don't have a statement and so we don't have a promise and we can't really use the b three as easily if there were in fact a promise and other than that there would probably be very little ways or ways at least that i don't that i haven't imagine yet and certainly that the other side has not proposed every problem we all would agree that it would have been better had the district court made that a part of its order but how what standard of review do we apply to the feature that it is not included is it is it not an abuse of discretion standard it is your turn of usually in light of the other agreements the other statements by good year in various ways in briefing etc that it would that it would cooperate well so to the of the law and here when you refer to when you want to refer to the previous statements that goodyear made it's actually very interesting to look at them because if we look at the condition of the district court the district  well i will grant you dismissal if you provide evidence for a fair trial well during the proceedings good your said i swear i will give all the evidence required by a french court now give the documents that a french court will require necessary means that they will in fact dispute plaintiff's request for documents because it's only when a request for documents is refused by a party  then the parties move to the court and ask for a ruling so in fact the very statement that goodyear made during the proceedings and then remade during that appeal that he would agree to give the documents and provide the witnesses that a french court deemed necessary means that they will dispute the production but it's not a french court says you must produce these things that they're stuck with producing them per that that stipulation that's actually very interesting point you are you're making because in this particular case and i will come back to it later on but this case is very peculiar it's not exactly the same as other cases that have been cited on both parties account in this particular case we have a track record of a defendant relink reluctant to produce any piece of dr or the french courts can handle such reluctance we have actually a particular example where we have a court order and then just the failure to implement it in back in two thousand and nine the sub a before because they refused to provide the employees with that a sheet detailing the toxic products that was used in two thousand and nine the ruling eventually came in july twentieth eleven and right after that ruling in november twenty seventh the employees meet with the management and say we require the information and the management says we don't have it we have sent a request to akron and since then this information as been provided that's a different case we're talking not so different case but making the point that the information is not akron they don't really care to provide the information in false even with a court order i guess i mean i would be interested in hearing about the merits of proper here of form convenience  from any defect in the form of the district court's order and i guess you know on that point just first of all it is a deferential standard of review that we must apply and these are harms that happened in france to french workers it seems like the evidence a lot of it's in france is in the united states  i mean france is a great country with with excellent courts it is and and i'm sort of scratching my head about why why would we say it's an abuse of discretion for the district judge to say the french courts are the better courts to resolve this dispute which whose events happened in france well actually you're moving to the merits is part of my second point  point it is true that it's a differential standards and as i tried to emphasize earlier the court disregarded some of the facts that were presented to it and to a certain extent when that this regard is  i can see the appeal for a district court before any court of appeals to say look after all false is the country of human rights declaration what the heck if they can't have a problem you know proceedings they're almost disrespectful the say that they can't claim that happened on their soil and the risk of repeating myself some of the plaintiffs already tried other actions in falls where they were opposed with blocking i would say strategies and and complete refusal to abide by the laws and even the orders is there any reason to think that that would not be this same problem in the us it's well structured this kind of approach obstruct justice if i was to make a request for documents under the regular discovery process they would have to answer and if eventually they don't answer or they don't want to provide me with documents i would go to the court and i believe that record would be particularly displeased with the blocking strategy if it actually requests the different as opposed to a french court as opposed to a french school i would have i don't quite get why you think there is more social pressure or knowing what i think your honor is let's admit the case goes back to front asking i'm asking the the other side to provide me with documents they refuse as they already said they will we go before the french court and the french court actually says give them this document but has they did in the past they don't provide us with any information or documentation now at this point i'm stuck with going back to who  headquarters trying to either enforce the judgment i have in front or restating the action now go back to the french court and say they're not complying with your order your honor and either you know hold them in conte sanction them to the french courts have that power we  discovery now let's let's say the rest of your time that you apparently say time yes every counsel ok well your time is up for now and we'll see hear from you again a rebuttal thank you thank you good morning and may it please the court jack newman of jones day for the defendant ap l e goodyear tire and rubber company i suggest to the court that the pivotal point here because it comes up repeatedly in the cases and in the analysis is that what we have here are overseas plaintiffs that's point number one and secondly that what we have is a situation involving incidents that did or didn't happen warnings that were not given controls that were not in place representations that were were not made exposures a did or did not happen on a factory floor and in a way it helps it's in france because as you have seen from the cases and as you know and and as  judge kathleen you pointed out france is a well recognized jurisdiction for civil litigation i don't think i've seen one case at all  france is determined to been determined to be and i'm except the bull venue because it it it just didn't have the remedies and so forth and it's been repeatedly found to be an acceptable jurisdiction to to that your honor the documents once a court requires that a french court requires it to turn them over ok then what did we agree to we were the ones that proposed the conditions your honor and you have seen in the cases that sometimes conditions are imposed and sometimes they're not and when they are imposed you impose the conditions we suggested the imposition of the conditions if that's just your court yes your honor we said we would agree to these conditions that's in the uber sex affidavit so we raised them in the first place court sometimes impose them sometimes don't in the six circuit it's not necessary they really first came up under circumstances where a court was unsure whether it would be an adequate forum and so it impose conditions but we suggested them now when courts do suggest do impose them they're more or less the same but not always hyperbola if you will in this particular case the judges were not quite we didn't ask for reconsideration we did not appeal and we have not cross appealed that's an order of the court we will abide by the order of the court and if it's necessary for someone to say so i'll say it we will abide by the order of court i don't think that's necessary because it's a court order and so those are the conditions that he that he laid down and we will abide by them they are more or less the ones that we suggested and in one way or another are ones that reflect what other courts have suggested to and heaven forbid if under some circumstance we were found to have gone astray from those because we will be right back here i'm sure and we won't we say we will abide by them we will abide by them and and so it's as simple as that now there was some discussion about the merits of form one convenience and i go back to the key point that i opened with and that is that the cardinal factor here i suggest to you is that it's the overseas point it's you if you look at all the cases that's not necessarily definitively dispositive but it is critically important and courts including our own sixth circuit in the dowling case which involved foreign plaintiffs what the court said was with respect to private interest factors this is  characterizing piper with respect to private interest factors the court held supreme court where it was shown the trial in the plaintiff chosen for him would be burdensome for the defendant this finding  sufficient to support a foreign one convenience dismissal and so there is a lot less deference given to the choice of form when it's a foreign plaintiff and i sick i'd offer to the court  what should be obvious to everybody here and that is these plaintiffs did not come to the united states in order to sue goodyear they sued goodyear in this case in order that they could come to the united states and have a hook for having the case here and among other things putting goodyear to the burden of having to go through all the complicated processes overseas in france in order to develop its case to encounter the blocking statute there's been discussion of the blocking statute which is not frequently enforced over in france but it is a statute that says in aid of foreign proceedings you can't be over here informally or otherwise doing work you've got to go through the hague convention and we have a situation your honour's where this isn't let's negotiation where there are a couple people in france and a couple people here we know who they are some and something could be done this is a situation where in order to defend itself goodyear must do a very substantial investigation over in france there are lots of people that it would need to talk to former employees of the g d t f that will  be true anyway we'll it yes yes it's required but it will be in france with french lawyers and french local people who don't encounter the blocking statute and who can do it in connection with their own procedures or over there and they would line up some kind of like subpoena power or something as opposed to going through that yes yes your honor and and let me just say that if it were and you see it in the cases if it were a domestic plaintive that wouldn't necessarily mean that the case wouldn't go to france but courts say wait a minute it's a it's a plaintiff who's here in the united states it's our legal system our legal system has certain ways of going about doing business if someone in the u s wants to bring a case that's located in france in the u s they'll look a little bit more carefully at that course and this is the very kind of case and this is why i mentioned that the factory floor element is so important is the kind of case that inherently doesn't have u plaintiffs it has foreign plaintiffs it had people who are french who worked in france who worked in this plant in france owned by a french company and who and who did or did not have their exposures over there so all of the work and the understanding about how to go about gathering evidence including from third parties physicians the labor i mean this is you know we understand  know this is part of the case so we have made it clear that we will goodyear has made it clear that will put itself before the jurisdiction of the appropriate french  court when it's required to produce documents it will produce documents and by the way none of these other items i believe that have been suggested as circumstances where there were difficulty getting documents had to do with goodyear u s who or in the context of this case where goodyear has said if we're told to produce documents we were produce documents will defend ourselves i mean you would your is not go down whether the case is in the united states where the case is in france it will defend itself but if it's order if it has to produce documents according to the french procedures we good year will produce documents if there's liability goodyear will pay a judgment pay a final judgment that's just very clear but the point is that this isn't about being in france for some reason other than that's where these events occurred that's where the witnesses are that's where the vast majority of the documents are so we're we're given to believe by mr pradelle that that a lot of the scientific documentation is in akron and the and the chemists and all those people would be problematic for french jurisdiction your honor that's the same argument that's been made in other fact foreign factory floor cases and been rejected but i i suggest to you here that particularly where the question is warnings and representation that's what this case about this isn't about a manufacturing defect it's not a but some design problem except to the extent that absence of warnings becomes a design issue  really has not had nothing to centrally to do with the suppose and science in akron now will there be some materials in the us yes but they're not the ones that are see first of all in volume not the ones that are going to going to be in the same volume and secondly remember that goodyear has said if there are documents that you need and are entitled to will produce them on the other hand over in france it's a whole lot of third parties former employees people who never were employees ever that are in possession of documents and good you're going to have to somehow go and figure out a way to get those and and bring them back here so it's a lot easier for a plaintiff in a french court in this case to get party documents hours than it would be for goodyear in a u s court to get nonparty documents and that's that's a particular point that some courts have made and i would make again to you if there are no further questions i don't i don't think that i don't think that there's going to two to the merits there were a few points i want to stress first of all the very peculiarity of this case is that goodyear caused in akron's harm to people in  t with asserted as part of our claims and it is a different point than the one that were made in the cases cited by my opponent is that goodyear in akron actually committed facts that  little details it actually controlled what ventilation system if any is installed in front of us in that amount to balance that were all we were also thinking as you're  describing that the the place where all this took place the factory with the ventilation etc i am the individuals in the factory and the workers are all in prot right i understand the and in fact it is our burden to prove harm but before we can come close to discussing harm who will be the questions of discussing their conduct establishing that precisely the focus of the inquiry that thirty or get suggested should have been made was what type of evidence is going to matter if we don't meet our burden here if we don't produce  differential review that you have of the district court decision well when it commits errors of law such as not giving to play with any degree of deference to plaintiff's choice well there is authority to allow this court to reverse the district court decision and in fact on that point the degree of different the district court just restate the rule established by the u s court in paper and doesn't say what should be the level of difference they say foreign planet are entitled to less difference and that's it and we don't know what it applied and in fact in those situations courts again the thirty in lonely in the lonely case considered that because they didn't tell actually the standard they in fact didn't grant any difference and we have cases where such as case of the second circuit that i will finish now we're basically says  case which is often cited here basically says look you know order to establish the degree of difference that you should give a front and a planet you should look at what were the motives to come to the jurisdiction and