informed d and knowing waiver of the jurisdiction the timing of the form and convenience motion weighs against granting the motion the motion was filed on the day a routine fact discovery was scheduled to end and that late date mood of the very convenience purpose such a motion is intended to serve the scheduling order  the initial scheduling order indicated the fact lines without limitations at paragraph eight which is found appendix page thirty nine dollars the expert witness recent extension deadlines are easily found in the docket sheet at appendix page five in appendix page six the last one being december th twenty eight dollars teams there's no mention of form on convenience in any of these discovery scheduling except at paragraph fifteen of the initial scheduling order and there is no there's nothing in the record suggesting at all that discovery in this case was limited and was scheduled and with very limited exceptions the plaintiffs seeking to extend discovery for very limited purpose belgium which is where this case was directed by the lower court is not an available and adequate form the language in the for legal correspondents record shows belgium is not available or adequate to the appellant's legal correspondence from french attorney and i'm going to use st names because i proceeding must accompany a civil proceeding or claim sounding in wrongful death and point the court to in the appendix page seven hundred and twenty three  happily and it appears that the lord court the magistrate in the district court judge didn't read the contents of the letters they only seem to have looked to the existence of the letters on the face of these letters alone you know with a definition of foreign shopping isn't even met because former shafting is looking to choose among alternative comparing different forums and then choosing the best one minute of the truth is what this correspondent show is there was simply no other place to go  then to new york where they had quarters was located at the private and public interest factors point in new york both because the discovery was completed  absent from the appellant plaintiff's presentation here today is his ability to show that there was any use of discretion by either magistrate or berger or judge carter  and i think that is critical to the analysis here and his his omission plaintiff appellant submission omission all of that you should discretion i think speaks actually i can no longer hear anything i can't hear mr  just connected if you have a problem you may have to hang up and dial back again i do not have a way of inviting you right now  that to to suggest that this case should go to belgium because it would be more convenient that doesn't that doesn't support the purpose of the doct because the case is as is finished here and new york with that limited exception for that discovery and again we pointed out in dismissed it would be anybody's guess but without a public prosecutor filing a criminal case the case is going nowhere and whether it gets dismissed on jurisdiction or whether it gets dismissed on some other basis there's no guarantee that the case can come back here to new york i will otherwise rest on the briefs unless the court has any questions