the claim which was denied several months ago so the timeline now is that in approximately six months the department of the interior must respond as to whether it to documents in order to make a determination whether what the defendant c b e says is true that in fact the c v a did not receive adequate warnings of the perils of a hike along fully advise of the perils here and certainly the that poses a complication in the form one convenience analysis which wouldn't otherwise exist for the district court dismissed this case on the form on convenience docket the standard of review poses a very high hurdle in front of you abuse of discretion to the district court make any errors of law in making its decision should be dismissed or for a non comediennes but our position is most of the error committed by the district court is applications of facts to law the district court looks to the fact that both parties are from calgary and look to the fact that there are a number of potential calgary witnesses and on that basis determine that the overwhelming weeks of the evidence is located in calgary and in fact the evidence in calgary is for the most part depositions of any california witnesses and any third party witnesses and what's the difference between a deposition in a commission to record trial testimony a commission or a court trial testimony number one you cannot actually  trial objections including relevance and all the information taking is presented as trial testimony now we believe that we need discover b l m representatives about signs posted about literature about warnings in literature about permission available regarding search regarding pride regarding whether  all public information officer that you're talking about your honor that's a good point and some of it is available publicly but was not available is actual witness testimony it is someone someone taking the stand someone appearing for a deposition no witness testimony or after you're just fishing you know some of the witness testimony we're after we're after witness testimony which specifically goes to the presence and content of the warning signs at trailheads and on the beach which the board of education has publicly stated did not exist and so it did not see at the time and there is in the publicly available information it's not clear what exactly when the state of the warnings was at that time and we were after the testimony of the eleven representatives who had conversations with the calgary board of education i think excuse me for interrupting but it seems to me that you're simply asking as to reweigh a decision made by the district court and so far as i read the cases the cases this record is considered all the factors that we tell the district court to consider that relate to this doctrine then you have to show us that this is a clear abuse of this question not just this record arguably is wrong was wrong or than another judge circumstances i don't have to consider this if i were to i'd probably choose alberta law but so why is this a clear abuse of discretion seems to me the district court looked at all the things that you're looking at and came to the conclusion that it did  the fact of the matter is we get one side of the story from the c b d we want the other side of the story the other side story comes from b l m representatives it comes from coast guard representatives who can talk about other drownings which occurred in this vicinity case given the uncertainty of this appeal and given the fact that we can still join the b l m should we prevail on this appeal it makes sense to wait for the outcome of this appeal to bring in the v l and see what i'd like to you say and maybe doesn't exist is that by force in this case back to canada this deals a death blow to the ability of your clients to pursue this lawsuit and you know i hear a lot of maybes and can't be sure and mights and all that but where is difficult or impossible i want to give the case away if this court doesn't reverse the court below it does not make it impossible for my client to prevail it makes it very difficult and makes an unfair to my client  civil jurisprudence in america now is predicated on each side being able to discover the relevant facts and present evidence presented for picture to the trier of fact my client will not be able to do that in alberta foods case and that is that the motion should be granted only if the case being the plaintiff's choice of the forum imposes such oppression and vexation on the defend has to be out of proportion to the plaintiff's convenience which itself is shown to be lights or nonexistence not existing this is more than a matter of the plaintiff plaintiff having convenience in the northern district california it is essential for the plaintiff in order to develop the evidence in this case to the venue in the northern district of california and any oppression or vexation of the very strong words which may be imposed on the defendant is also suffered by the plaintiff in this case is an even playing field or both coming from canada is the plaintiff must take depositions of the defendant's representatives in canada careful well i think they they did a very adequate job sometimes you things happen maybe it's no more aggressive i know they're examining their program that's why this case is a very great interest in calgary the  be filed in federal court if they're going to sue the b m i and there's not one charging allegation in their complaint against the b l and i think even today mr munster you know that they're just doing it as a defensive mechanism they don't really file a claim against the b l m almost two years after the the accident occurred and only after the cult calgary board of education indicated they were going to move for a change of venue back to considered all of the factors the fact that they had screwed up and in county where they knew they couldn't get your section on the b l m they never would have sued them because they couldn't sue them out there only we removed it under the foreign sovereign immunit fall of the son we're going to open a war on two fronts here why should we wait to see what we're and before we make a final decision i just think again these are matters of i suppose discretion a court determined lawsuits in two countries going at the same time the only answer i can give you to that is that i think they do not have a case against the b l m i think the b l m is going to get out if they do move this way and i move that it was clearly a tactical decision to turn your attention to something else as between calgary and california you have in california something like over fifty i'm sorry california in calgary the parties all residents of calgary the witnesses the vast vast majority are thinking so much about facts but what it is to canada elaborate what is more restrictive mean that they have to somehow get to get a commission i don't think it's any more restrictive really he says yes you say i don't know me can you give us not well i'm going by what they said  in the trial of the case canada as well as california well i don't think there are any differences other than according to the plaintiffs that there are some restrictions that is more of a trial as opposed to trial testimony what they say you know you haven't looked into this you really  and when you look at the at the cases old cases that are found tended to be an adequate form you're not getting it down into that detail of saying well here's a applies or it doesn't apply or whatever it's an adequate form to preserve that question i know that they can do it and we're going to let me talk about what it's worth happened when somebody brings one of these commissions over here that serves on somebody  honor because we're talking about the difference you get the two witnesses back and forth the kind of the end here the fact of the matter is that there is over fifty canadian witnesses and all of the parties and you're talking about  l here fishermen helicopter pilots who rescued people after these events took place after the accident took place most likely you know those are americans the quality of the evidence the materiality board of education they're up there the only people who are down here experts will starve or very very good the only people down here are the after the fact witnesses the the fisherman the helicopter pilot other hikers who are not identified and when mr mullen says in the plane of say that the california evidence that's so important is whether a warning