there's the basic at times but we asked questions we give you substantial leeway something with that you may start when you're ready but please the court fundamentally this is a texas case that the circuit court should have dismissed based on the dr form not communions for two reasons first the most appropriate form for this case simply is not illinois but what would count three knowledge at corporate headquarters and motorola certainly is one element of that of the one is somewhat less but before you even get to that you have to prove that there was a workplace and that there was an exposure you have to prove that there were chemicals you have to prove that motorola knew of the condition and that the employee didn't categories of people who would be needed to try to defend case for us we didn't submit individual witness names generally and that's true your honor but piper and other cases suggest that's not the point if the point for not convenience is to stop the defendant from having to defend himself in a the other and that is consistent with the deference given to plainest choice for absolutely are two parts that response first yes plainest form choice is to some difference although less so in this case where the plaintiffs don't live here and this is not the sights of the injury but as important we want to embrace certainly it's an abuse of discretion standard required overturn the circuit court's order but before you even get to the exercise of discretion you have to talk about the legal framework in which she was exercising that discretion did she by itself it has some bearing under the very language of the court and to the extent that by being the the the the place looking corporation it concentrates the area out in which certain one is a group of about thirty people who served on various committees and even the circuit court said that there was no evidence that we would have to figure out discovery whether any of these people actually knew anything relevant to the case but we did see if you don't present any what is a judge to look at what your honor pla out the davis that pointed out where the groups of people are who would be relevant to this to our defense again our defense is were these people exposed what chemicals what dosage i mean fundamentally this is a workplace exposure case that would come as if you really only then or is it about drugs in the united kingdom where the drugs had gone over there and people claimed that they were injured due to a corporate headquarters failure to warn and the plaintiffs said the corporate headquarters of several is in cook county and so the case should go forward in cook county because that's where the evil knowledge is that's where the corporate people who make these decisions and establish these policies and the circle court said absolutely not if you could make every case a case about we don't want willfulness just by saying there's evil knowledge of corporate headquarters then my gosh motorola's far flung operations across the world any time anything happen anywhere that trial would come here to cook county that's not what the doctor for not convenience is about it's a step beyond just a venue analysis no one's disputing that venue is proper here it's a question about the most appropriate form and when you've got decisions about chemicals being made as  do we know that we need to first establish that there are some who are supposed to just follow whatever you say your arguments and ignore the other you know we'd ask you to look at the balancing test again this is not as it will be the balancing t right and the prejudice to motorola i think is where we have to focus most importantly certainly play to say that there are illinois witnesses the circuit court said she wasn't sure if any of the knew anything and that's what the discovery left us with but certainly they said they're really witnesses to the extent way to the extent th the assertions of love of the plaintiff in that regard it's one thing if you resign asked if you keep both of these witnesses and you find if nothing to offer otherwise aren't you vulnerable at least to the another facet now that you may want to address the fact that it's not all localized in the same state even excluding online you still have verizon so that now the fact that you're closer to each other i to the extent that they're to place their proximity to each other other than the fact that he's there being a border state texas doesn't mean it's convenient to the other side but in any is significance in this case first i want to absolutely agree with ron this point that this court can look at the categories of witnesses that are in texas and we tried to lay those out as best we could in the breeze but the second point i want to point out is the prejudice of having this go forward in illinois and this is something you won't find a plaintiff's briefs and i would actually encourage the court asked them when they get up right now what they're advocating is a one way ratchet if they want these motorola witnesses the circuit court that they deposed two of these people who knew nothing about this case nothing relevant at all the circuit court said even if these people do know something you know that they're here in illinois our point is if they know something and they're motorola employees we're going to have to bring them to texas there are employees on the other hand if this case if we're forced to trial here all of these family members he's treaters these friends case of this magnitude is going to know how to take the scot free and is not going to deliver twenty witnesses where three could do it and if three could do it then of course you do have the availability of doesn't put your proof out of reach certainly around all the cases do as you point out suggest that evidence depositions can't make up for trying the case in the most appropriate form again we just ask you to think about how this case gets tried the elements these are these are people where you talk to the doctors you talk to the witnesses you're going to need to talk to the treating physicians to figure out if these were preexisting conditions if these were genetic there are all sorts of things before you get to expert witnesses which frankly don't matter much that you're going to need to know before you get to that level of what's going on in the corporate s and again illinois they've got two kinds of witnesses they've identified thirty witnesses who sit on committees a two bit of the post didn't know anything be there are duplicated witnesses of those people sitting in texas who actually worked at the division which was headquartered in texas until it was spun  that that's the duplicative part that's what we don't need to grab them in of this workplace exposure case about people being exposed to chemicals while making semiconductors in texas is in texas and i want to add one point i know the courts don't generally view location of documents as the division and with the plants in texas we sold that division off seven years ago so they're now with a new owner not even motorola there with freescale in the tennis separation agreement we have a separation agreement although the law is clear that you can't rely on that to be sure that we're going to be able to get any witnesses on anywhere all those documents reside with the new owners we haven't had those plants in seven years forcing us to trial in illinois where our witnesses to defend ourselves are outside the subpoena power is not in the fundamental fairness mode what we're not comedians is about especially where it's a because she's been reversed in the appellate court and other occasions that that has reason to suspicion that she has to be reversed here and i think that's unfair to the merits of these important cases and also to the trial because i don't think that issue is a decades and it's outlined in the brief the increasingly alarming we're learning which came out from even organizations which the executives of the really belong to the beginning in the late one nine hundred seventy s ratcheting up in the hundred eighty s and these warnings were given to motorola management and leaders in schonberg ok so that was that was where some knowledge resides in very important secondly the health and safety and industrial hygiene sampling that was done at the plant level was sent to schomberg and monitored there that's where the decision making took place when every aspect of this in terms of what chemicals to use how are the plants filling what was the health of the importance of the tree physicians here i mean clearly where there has to be some baseline evidence gathered on what the the medical status medical condition of the children is but then really the evidence in this case the  interrupt me but the the the ad will offer specific affidavits and they've been discussed already and we have specific with this disclosure we've we've  disclosed fifty people who sat on these committees now they're dismissed by the fenice and simply committees but that's the decision making that's where the corporate decision making resided was in these committed so it's not as if we need to simply have a committee and it's really important what really happens was on the plant floor this case is about the decisions that were made here and made by the members of this committee chair except of course if you co recent question were about no ability to control some of these people a number of them no longer work from a role and so for moderate to say well come to texas because we can bring any more well people you want to texas makes no knowledge  if there was some thought that well we know a coworker in texas mike important in terms of what the coworkers are something like that there was really not much to the scene we're talking about the design of the facility we're talking about the decision to use the chemicals the ventilation systems the design of the building was in here so really this is the heart of the case and not whether something was spilled in texas on one occasion all that there are certain things that even the liability no no no doubt about the fact that there are some in texas but then we come back to where are the reports started this morning and that is that balance has to strongly favor and secondly that there is no predominance here  there are a few legal contentions made in reply brief which are simply wrong and i can't get to all of them but i want to talk touches on to first the defendant argues the two points in reply brief that there is a different rule of law for interstate transfer to and they said that propose a rule that convenience is no longer an issue when the only question is the more appropriate form and there is no support for that either as being the rule of law or there being a separate rule of law for interstate versus intrust state transfers langton horse obviously icky supreme court cases never get cited by the by the defendant all and lincoln course expression he says that the more appropriate form test is not to test and you know so there is that you know language and some of the cases secondly that i noted that in their trying to say that there is a different rule of law for interstate as opposed to introspect transfers they confuse they accuse us of conflating two lines of reasoning and then they cite three cases into the three cases they say are intrastate cases and secondly the other rule where i want to talk about that they suggest that the balancing the public factors here the public interest factors that in saying that in illinois a court for the state of illinois has interest in examining the conduct of a corporate president even though the injury may have occurred elsewhere cases secondly this case bears some relationship to those same cases which happen to be product cases because we're talking about corporate decision making which acts at a distance that is the decisions here to use or not us particular chemical they decide the decision made here to warn or not warn cunt decisions made here about concentration or high and it acts at a distance in those cases and there are many of them we cite pitch for three of our she did not focus so early or even the un purely on the location of corporate headquarters which is the predominant theme in their brief and it is simply not true she doesn't deserve the criticism which has been placed on her and it cannot be said that no reasonable person would have cited the balance of the factors in this case and countrymen  review your honor from it i just like to make two points first i want to respond to just sort of point we just heard counsel say that liability approximate causation are in fact the center of what they're going to do and if you look at the elements of proximate causation they talk about whether the employee was exposed to chemicals the dosage whether they were preexisting bertha facts whether resulted from an exposure at motorola and whether the parent child had anything else before they got there not a single one of those comes from illinois witnesses every single one of those comes from documents from people from cases same there is corporate liability and therefore is in fact what you just said probably accurate absolutely right i mean i don't have to prove if i prove that the corporate in these people i don't have to prove that each one of them was sick and injured by a local physician i'm going to have some expert that says this chemical cause they are fundamentally you need to prove proximate it's the director of environmental health and safety it's the person who did the training at that plant it's those people who will bring alive for the jury our defense and it's those people without whom we will be unable to mount our defense here in the state of illinois which is why texas is more predominant and again this is just beginning these same lawyers to go forward really runners that there's not an illinois connection here the fundamental locus of this case the exists in texas where the people worked where the people lived where the people were rich you know the questions we does that sort of