[00:00:00] Speaker 05:
Previously submitted, Clark v Zang Health Company, and we'll take up Nicola versus Foley.

[00:01:02] Speaker 05:
Ms.

[00:01:03] Speaker 05:
Anderson?

[00:01:04] Speaker 05:
Yes.

[00:01:05] Speaker 05:
Let me proceed.

[00:01:08] Speaker 04:
Okay.

[00:01:08] Speaker 04:
May it please the court and counsel, I'm Allison Anderson and I represent the plaintiff's appellants in this matter.

[00:01:14] Speaker 04:
And two of them are here with me today, Rosie Fletcher and Lindsay Nicola.

[00:01:19] Speaker 04:
I'm also here at counsel's table with Associate Mariah Noah, who is prepared to separately address jurisdictional discovery.

[00:01:29] Speaker 04:
If you have any questions,

[00:01:30] Speaker 04:
about that and would like to hear from us on that.

[00:01:32] Speaker 04:
And I'd like to reserve one minute for Ms.

[00:01:35] Speaker 04:
Noah and six minutes for rebuttal.

[00:01:38] Speaker 04:
All right.

[00:01:38] Speaker 04:
Watch the clock.

[00:01:40] Speaker 04:
Will do.

[00:01:40] Speaker 04:
Thank you, Your Honor.

[00:01:42] Speaker 04:
Today, there are three points that I think are critical and key that I would like to make.

[00:01:47] Speaker 04:
And the first is that our claims are so much broader than just the sexual battery claims.

[00:01:54] Speaker 04:
They include sexual harassment, negligence,

[00:01:58] Speaker 04:
negligence claims and breach of contract.

[00:02:02] Speaker 04:
I think the second point that I'd like to hit today is that under the second prong of this court's specific jurisdiction analysis, the relates to test is a separate and distinct way of meeting the second prong analysis and appellee's significant contacts with California certainly at a minimum relate to our claims, both the sexual assault claims and our broader claims.

[00:02:27] Speaker 04:
There's no causal requirement.

[00:02:29] Speaker 04:
And as explained in Yahoo and global commodities, where a defendant's contacts with a state are greater, the nature of their relatedness to the claims can be even less.

[00:02:40] Speaker 04:
And third, I would love to detail for you the California-specific contacts for each of the appellees that relate both to our claims for specific jurisdiction, but also that separately support general jurisdiction.

[00:02:57] Speaker 04:
and especially for the Olympic Committee and USSS.

[00:03:03] Speaker 04:
So with that, I'll start by talking about how our claims are broader than sexual assault and sexual battery.

[00:03:10] Speaker 04:
We allege sexual harassment, negligence, negligent hiring and supervision, negligent infliction of emotional distress, and breach of contract, all of which are claims that can stand alone, separate and apart from the sexual assaults.

[00:03:27] Speaker 04:
Our claims are based on the systematic practices and the course of dealing between the parties, going well beyond that snapshot in time when Peter Foley engaged in penetration or groping of my clients.

[00:03:43] Speaker 04:
This is why there are organizational defendants.

[00:03:46] Speaker 04:
This is why the USSS and Olympic Committee are here and named in this complaint.

[00:03:51] Speaker 04:
The USSS and the Olympic Committee facilitated

[00:03:55] Speaker 04:
These claims of negligence, harassment, and breach of contract, especially in regards to their funding and facilitating of travel to trainings, competitions, and events in California where Foley, a grown man, would by Appellee's own planning and design be sharing hotel rooms with his, and sometimes hotel beds,

[00:04:24] Speaker 04:
with teenage girls who were his athletes that he had extensive control and authority over.

[00:04:29] Speaker 04:
And Appellee's California conduct also aided these claims and supported the cover-up of what was happening on the US Olympic snowboarding team under Foley.

[00:04:44] Speaker 06:
I'm a little bit unclear on the theory.

[00:04:48] Speaker 06:
Is it that the defendant's activity in California enabled the assaults outside of California, or is it that the defendant's activities in California created a culture of sexual harassment that enabled the sexual assaults outside California, and the defendants would have foreseen that that

[00:05:08] Speaker 06:
those assaults would have caused harm to the plaintiffs in California?

[00:05:11] Speaker 06:
Or is it that the activity in California alone is what gives rise to the sexual harassment?

[00:05:19] Speaker 06:
I'm not quite sure how it would give rise to the sexual assault, because those were outside of California, independent of assaults outside California.

[00:05:26] Speaker 06:
I'm just a little bit unclear.

[00:05:28] Speaker 04:
I think I understand the question.

[00:05:30] Speaker 04:
And I think I'll take it in two parts.

[00:05:31] Speaker 04:
First, I'm going to focus on these sexual battery claims, because I do think it depends on the claims that we're talking about.

[00:05:38] Speaker 04:
With the sexual battery claims.

[00:05:41] Speaker 06:
I do think let's can we do one thing I would just clarify because there's so many claims here Yes, what are your best claims and can we focus on those?

[00:05:49] Speaker 04:
I think our best claims are the sexual battery and the negligence claims and the sexual harassment claim, okay?

[00:05:59] Speaker 04:
And so if we focus on the sexual battery claim I do think and especially when you think about Rosie's assault it did arise out of a

[00:06:07] Speaker 04:
the contacts with California.

[00:06:10] Speaker 04:
USSS and the Olympic Committee, they're announcing their first inaugural team in California, Mammoth Mountain, their first training, and that's where Rosie travels to California, and it's only on the traveling back just across the border in Reno that Peter Foley assaults her.

[00:06:27] Speaker 04:
So that's the sexual battery.

[00:06:29] Speaker 04:
I would also say, you know, the court has, you know, sort of

[00:06:37] Speaker 04:
given guidance that you don't just look at the specific moment of the wrongful act of the tort, but you look at the course of dealing between the parties.

[00:06:45] Speaker 04:
You look at the process between them.

[00:06:47] Speaker 04:
And obviously, there's a lot of California contacts with the teen.

[00:06:51] Speaker 04:
But I think for sexual assault, it also just has to relate to.

[00:06:55] Speaker 04:
So while Rosie's assault arises out of and shows that causal connection, you actually don't even have to do that.

[00:07:03] Speaker 04:
You have to say it relates to.

[00:07:05] Speaker 04:
And clearly, the California contacts

[00:07:07] Speaker 04:
of this team being in California for a third of the time relate to what is happening with this team and with this coach.

[00:07:14] Speaker 04:
If we take the sexual harassment claims separate and we look at those and the negligent.

[00:07:21] Speaker 06:
And for the sexual battery, is that purposeful direction?

[00:07:23] Speaker 06:
Is that the sort of theory?

[00:07:26] Speaker 04:
I think you could say that we meet that, but I don't think that's the easiest path.

[00:07:30] Speaker 04:
I think our path that is the easiest

[00:07:34] Speaker 04:
is purposeful availment, which is what the district court agreed and found, ultimately, purposeful availment from a combination of both purposeful direction and purposeful availment.

[00:07:46] Speaker 04:
So while I could argue that, I think that's not the clearest path for our case.

[00:07:51] Speaker 05:
So are you not advancing a theory of general jurisdiction at this point?

[00:07:57] Speaker 05:
Are you exclusively focusing on specific jurisdiction?

[00:08:03] Speaker 04:
I think we're focusing on specific jurisdiction as potentially the easiest path for all three of the appellees.

[00:08:10] Speaker 04:
However, we do think there is a strong case to be made for the Olympic Committee and for USSS.

[00:08:16] Speaker 04:
And the reason that I think there's a strong case to be made there is because it's been said that it's a comparative analysis.

[00:08:24] Speaker 04:
When you look at general jurisdiction, you look to compare

[00:08:30] Speaker 04:
their contacts with other states.

[00:08:32] Speaker 04:
So while appellees rely on cases like Daimler and others where there's the same amount of contact that they have in all 50 states, it's a lot of contact, but it's the same in all 50 states.

[00:08:44] Speaker 04:
We're very different here.

[00:08:45] Speaker 04:
And if you look at Lindora versus Isagenix, the court explains it perfectly here.

[00:08:53] Speaker 04:
If the magnitude of a corporation's business activities in the forum

[00:08:57] Speaker 04:
state substantially exceeds the magnitude of the corporation's activities in other places, general jurisdiction may be appropriate in the forum state.

[00:09:06] Speaker 04:
For both USSS and the Olympic Committee, California has the most substantial contacts outside of their principal place of business than any other state in the United States.

[00:09:18] Speaker 04:
And so we are still advancing the general jurisdiction, especially as to the Olympic Committee.

[00:09:25] Speaker 04:
and USSS because California is the most substantial place outside of their principal place of business when they are at home here, especially when you look at

[00:09:37] Speaker 04:
The sheer amount of Olympics and what it takes to bring the Olympics here they started so are you?

[00:09:42] Speaker 06:
Arguing that the culture of sexual harassment in California enabled the sexual assaults outside of California is that one of your arguments or not?

[00:09:49] Speaker 04:
That's one of our arguments, but if you take the sexual harassment claims separately which we do this analysis by claim yeah There wouldn't even have to be a sexual assault

[00:10:00] Speaker 04:
for that claim to be supported by acts in California.

[00:10:04] Speaker 06:
Okay, but to take advantage of the state statute to get around the statute of limitations, you need to have a claim arising out of a sexual assault, don't you?

[00:10:13] Speaker 06:
I mean, I don't know how narrowly that's read.

[00:10:16] Speaker 04:
Yeah, or related to.

[00:10:17] Speaker 06:
Or related to.

[00:10:18] Speaker 04:
Or related to.

[00:10:19] Speaker 04:
Okay.

[00:10:19] Speaker 04:
And I think, and I believe it includes also sexual harassment and other sexual misconduct, but yes, it needs to be

[00:10:28] Speaker 04:
related to, but that statute obviously is about statute of limitations and not jurisdiction and whether or not it's fair to hail them into a court in California to answer to those questions.

[00:10:37] Speaker 06:
Now the related to language, though, isn't in the statute, right?

[00:10:40] Speaker 06:
It says damages suffered as a result of sexual assault.

[00:10:44] Speaker 04:
I believe it is, and I will bring what I find on rebuttal for you.

[00:10:49] Speaker 04:
But I believe there is broader language in the lower portions of that statute.

[00:10:56] Speaker 06:
OK, OK.

[00:10:58] Speaker 04:
But again, obviously, it's statute of limitations, which is different than personal jurisdiction.

[00:11:07] Speaker 04:
And so going back to the specific jurisdiction piece, it's vitally important for us to recognize that the court has established that related to is a separate problem.

[00:11:28] Speaker 04:
beyond to say that these claims here, especially when you think about the sexual harassment and the negligent hiring and supervision, when this team, I do think an important fact, and I'm just going to take a step back.

[00:11:41] Speaker 04:
These Olympic teams, it's not like the snowboarding team at the time when my clients were on it.

[00:11:47] Speaker 04:
They're living, practicing, doing everything in Utah, and then traveling for the competitions and trainings.

[00:11:54] Speaker 04:
The team events, they travel to.

[00:11:57] Speaker 04:
Erin O'Malley, for example, one of the plaintiffs, she lived in California.

[00:12:01] Speaker 04:
And then she would travel to these competitions and these trainings.

[00:12:06] Speaker 04:
So when you think about where they're traveling to and the fact that it was majority California, this team really is happening in California, mostly.

[00:12:16] Speaker 06:
Your specific examples of harmful actions in California, is that the pervasive culture of abuse?

[00:12:26] Speaker 06:
Pervasive culture of sexual harassment.

[00:12:29] Speaker 06:
The inappropriate touching.

[00:12:30] Speaker 06:
That's what you have.

[00:12:33] Speaker 06:
And how do you respond to the arguments about the Pico case and the other case saying, look, if you get harmed elsewhere just because you decide to travel to California or some other state and you happen to carry your harm with you, that that's not enough for personal jurisdiction?

[00:12:50] Speaker 04:
So the Pico case, they're carrying it back

[00:12:54] Speaker 04:
But the injury is not continuing to occur.

[00:12:57] Speaker 04:
Peter Foley is traveling with them to these states.

[00:13:00] Speaker 04:
It's not that they're being harmed in Utah and then they go home to California and they're feeling the emotional distress.

[00:13:06] Speaker 04:
They're feeling PTSD and those issues.

[00:13:10] Speaker 04:
It's that he is continuing to travel through California with them.

[00:13:14] Speaker 04:
And I think to say that someone is not experiencing additional emotional distress or additional injury from, especially our broader claims, while they're having to

[00:13:25] Speaker 04:
practice, compete in front of a coach who has sexually abused them, I think is obviously incorrect.

[00:13:35] Speaker 04:
I think that if you're trying to compete and at elite a level, train and compete, you are continuing to be injured, hence the negligent supervision and retention claim.

[00:13:46] Speaker 04:
You are continuing to be injured during those competitions, during those trainings, because the person in charge has sexually abused you.

[00:13:54] Speaker 04:
versus had the assault just occurred, Peter Foley was gone as a coach, and then they're training and competing under another coach, a new coach.

[00:14:03] Speaker 04:
That would be more like PICO.

[00:14:10] Speaker 04:
And with that, I'd like to at least close my opening by saying, you know, I want to emphasize the courage that my client showed in coming forward to report Foley.

[00:14:19] Speaker 04:
And then 60, almost 60-year-old man who spent the entire tenure

[00:14:24] Speaker 04:
as the head coach of the Olympic snowboarding team.

[00:14:27] Speaker 04:
Instead of apologizing or removing Peter Foley, USSS and the Olympic committee officials turned a blind eye and even tried to silence my clients to keep them from reporting

[00:14:39] Speaker 04:
who was then still the current head coach.

[00:14:41] Speaker 06:
I apologize.

[00:14:41] Speaker 06:
I asked this before and you answered and I just, my notes are inadequate.

[00:14:45] Speaker 06:
You said your best claims are your sexual battery, sexual harassment.

[00:14:49] Speaker 06:
Did you say negligent supervision and retention?

[00:14:51] Speaker 04:
And the negligence claims.

[00:14:52] Speaker 06:
Okay.

[00:14:53] Speaker 06:
And then the what?

[00:14:55] Speaker 06:
What about the intentional or negligent infliction of emotional distress?

[00:14:59] Speaker 06:
Is that in your?

[00:15:01] Speaker 04:
So I'm including the negligent infliction of emotional distress in the negligence claims.

[00:15:07] Speaker 06:
OK, but not intentional infliction of emotional distress.

[00:15:10] Speaker 04:
I think it's an important claim.

[00:15:12] Speaker 04:
It obviously has a little bit higher of a standard than the negligent infliction of emotional distress, so that's why I'm saying the negligent claims.

[00:15:18] Speaker 06:
OK, so your four are sexual battery, sexual harassment, negligent infliction of emotional distress, and negligent supervision and retention.

[00:15:23] Speaker 06:
Is that right?

[00:15:24] Speaker 04:
Correct.

[00:15:25] Speaker 04:
It would be my four top claims.

[00:15:26] Speaker 04:
OK, all right.

[00:15:27] Speaker 04:
Obviously not abandoning the rest.

[00:15:29] Speaker 04:
I assume that my time is up, so unless your honors have any further questions, I will.

[00:15:35] Speaker 04:
And then.

[00:15:36] Speaker 04:
If you have any questions on personal jurisdiction, Ms.

[00:15:40] Speaker 04:
Noah has a minute to address them.

[00:15:46] Speaker 05:
Does anyone have questions?

[00:15:49] Speaker 05:
No.

[00:15:51] Speaker 05:
I think we're fine on that.

[00:15:53] Speaker 05:
Mr. Moore.

[00:16:02] Speaker 01:
Thank you, Judge Ward-Line, and may it please the court.

[00:16:05] Speaker 01:
My name is Abe Moore.

[00:16:07] Speaker 01:
I'm counsel for the defendant and appellee, United States Ski Association, or referred to as Ski and Snowboard, a non-profit corporation organized and headquartered in Utah.

[00:16:22] Speaker 01:
The court should affirm the district court's determination

[00:16:25] Speaker 01:
that it lacks personal jurisdiction over ski and snowboard.

[00:16:30] Speaker 01:
I'd like to discuss just a few points, and in doing so, also address the court's recent en banc decision in Briskin v. Shopify authored by Judge Wardlaw and why it supports dismissal here.

[00:16:44] Speaker 01:
So first, because of the nature of the claims at issue, this court should apply the purposeful direction test when assessing specific jurisdiction.

[00:16:55] Speaker 01:
I'd like to address why the plaintiff's continuing harm or traveling harm theory of jurisdiction shouldn't be accepted by the court.

[00:17:05] Speaker 01:
Third, I'd like to address a fundamental problem with plaintiffs' purposeful availment analysis, their alternative analysis, in that it relies, at least in part, on post-incident contacts with California.

[00:17:20] Speaker 01:
And finally, I'd like to explain why skiing snowboards' contacts with California

[00:17:26] Speaker 01:
do not relate to plaintiff's claims that arose outside of California.

[00:17:32] Speaker 01:
So first, Your Honors, because of the nature of the claims here, the court should apply the purposeful direction test.

[00:17:41] Speaker 05:
The district court properly found that... So you're just arguing specific jurisdiction?

[00:17:46] Speaker 05:
You're not arguing lack of general jurisdiction?

[00:17:50] Speaker 01:
Well, Your Honor, I think that it's pretty well established.

[00:17:53] Speaker 01:
There isn't general jurisdiction here.

[00:17:55] Speaker 05:
I could address any questions the court has on that point, but... Well, I think counsel for the plaintiffs said that there is general jurisdiction as to Olympic Committee and the Ski and Snowboard Association because of the saturation of their

[00:18:11] Speaker 05:
their contacts with California, they say there's nationwide.

[00:18:19] Speaker 05:
Like, if you read Shopify, you know, we talked about some of those cases where they're saying, we're present everywhere, so we can't be present anywhere.

[00:18:28] Speaker 05:
And I think that she's arguing that's not a viable defense for you to general jurisdiction in this case.

[00:18:39] Speaker 05:
Because you're more present here.

[00:18:42] Speaker 01:
Sure.

[00:18:42] Speaker 01:
With respect to general jurisdiction, it's a high hurdle to get past the place of incorporation and principal place of business to impose general jurisdiction over any corporation to show they're essentially at home in California.

[00:18:57] Speaker 01:
And here we have a declaration in the record from our in-house council stating that less than 8%

[00:19:05] Speaker 01:
of skiing snowboards athletes are located in California.

[00:19:09] Speaker 01:
The rest are located around the country.

[00:19:12] Speaker 01:
Only a small minority of competitions have been held in California, less than 10%.

[00:19:17] Speaker 01:
And that out of 185 employees, only eight are located in California, and they work remotely.

[00:19:24] Speaker 01:
They typically are working when they travel with the team.

[00:19:29] Speaker 01:
So under these facts were a far cry from general jurisdiction, which is why I intended to direct my analysis mostly at the specific jurisdiction piece.

[00:19:39] Speaker 01:
And why purposeful direction rather than purposeful availment?

[00:19:46] Speaker 01:
The plaintiffs point to the language in Davis.

[00:19:51] Speaker 01:
This court in Davis recently said, well, yes, we would typically apply purposeful availment to contract claims,

[00:19:57] Speaker 01:
purposeful direction to tort claims, but it's not an ironclad rule.

[00:20:03] Speaker 01:
But even if it's not ironclad, this court hasn't abandoned the rule.

[00:20:07] Speaker 01:
In the Briskin versus Shopify case just earlier this year, the court acknowledged the language in Davis and nevertheless looked at the nature of the claims and held for claims sounding in tort, like the privacy and data use violations there.

[00:20:24] Speaker 01:
We most often employ a purposeful

[00:20:26] Speaker 01:
direction analysis.

[00:20:28] Speaker 01:
So we have to look at the nature of the claims here against ski and snowboard.

[00:20:32] Speaker 01:
And I'd like to initially point out that the sexual harassment claim is not against ski and snowboard.

[00:20:38] Speaker 01:
My claim is not offended in the sexual harassment claim, which leaves the primary claims that counsel just identified of sexual assault and the negligence-based claims.

[00:20:50] Speaker 01:
And they're unique in this case.

[00:20:52] Speaker 01:
Why?

[00:20:54] Speaker 01:
Because as Judge Coe noticed, they are circumscribed by California's Sexual Abuse and Cover-Up Accountability Act.

[00:21:02] Speaker 01:
This is the revival statute, and it's an extraordinary statute, doing away with the statute of limitations under very specific circumstances.

[00:21:12] Speaker 01:
And what are they?

[00:21:13] Speaker 01:
In order for the claims against Ski and Snowboard to be revived, they have to, number one, arise out of a sexual assault, not relate to.

[00:21:23] Speaker 01:
arise out of asexual assault.

[00:21:25] Speaker 01:
What else?

[00:21:26] Speaker 01:
The claims have to seek damages.

[00:21:29] Speaker 06:
Why isn't it foreseeable that the plaintiffs would be harmed by Foley's sexual harassment in California?

[00:21:39] Speaker 06:
And that was going to create a culture that made sexual assaults happen, whether in California or elsewhere.

[00:21:45] Speaker 06:
And that's negligent supervision on the part of USSS.

[00:21:51] Speaker 01:
Judge Coe, the negligent supervision claim states that my client failed to prevent a sexual assault.

[00:21:59] Speaker 01:
It has to.

[00:22:00] Speaker 01:
It has to allege that in order to survive, in order to meet this revival statute.

[00:22:06] Speaker 01:
That's the basis for the claim.

[00:22:08] Speaker 01:
My client failed to prevent this sexual assault because the other element of the revival statute is that

[00:22:21] Speaker 01:
ski and snowboard has to be legally responsible under some legal.

[00:22:25] Speaker 06:
I guess I disagree with you.

[00:22:26] Speaker 06:
I'm looking at the 14th cause of action.

[00:22:28] Speaker 06:
The negligent supervision of attention says, um, Foley was unfit or incompetent to work directly with plaintiffs and pose a particular risk of sexually harassing, assaulting, and or mentally abusing them.

[00:22:41] Speaker 06:
It says, USSS knew or should have known not only that Foley was unfit or incompetent to work directly with women and pose a particular risk of sexually harassing, assaulting, and or mentally abusing them.

[00:22:52] Speaker 06:
So I guess I'm, you're saying it's limited solely to sexual assault?

[00:22:58] Speaker 06:
Perhaps there's some paragraph that I'm missing, but I don't see that.

[00:23:05] Speaker 01:
It has to be narrowed to sexual assault by the revival statute.

[00:23:08] Speaker 01:
What the plaintiffs have represented

[00:23:11] Speaker 01:
is that their negligence claims, that all of their claims, their negligence claim, their breach of contract claim, their sexual assault claim, they all arise out of sexual assault.

[00:23:21] Speaker 01:
They all seek damages that are suffered as a result of the sexual assault.

[00:23:27] Speaker 01:
And that my client, Ski and Snowboard, is liable under some legal theory for those damages.

[00:23:33] Speaker 01:
Otherwise, these claims would never be before this court.

[00:23:37] Speaker 01:
This is conduct that occurred more than two decades ago.

[00:23:40] Speaker 05:
And in fact, if California doesn't have jurisdiction, these claims will not be asserted at all.

[00:23:49] Speaker 01:
Well, not necessarily.

[00:23:50] Speaker 05:
Well, other states don't have this revival.

[00:23:53] Speaker 05:
Or maybe you can tell me one that does.

[00:23:55] Speaker 01:
Many other states have implemented similar revival statutes.

[00:24:00] Speaker 05:
This is California's second revival statute, right?

[00:24:04] Speaker 01:
Right.

[00:24:05] Speaker 05:
So it's scooped up a lot of claims.

[00:24:08] Speaker 01:
It has run, but in this case, the claims against my client just don't fit.

[00:24:20] Speaker 01:
The revival statute sort of frames the relevant conduct and it frames the relevant injury that has to be.

[00:24:27] Speaker 06:
You know, I'm just looking at this statute.

[00:24:29] Speaker 06:
I'm looking at section four, I guess it's five.

[00:24:33] Speaker 06:
This subdivision revives any related claims, including but not limited to wrongful termination and sexual harassment arising out of the sexual assault that is the basis for a claim pursuant to the subdivision.

[00:24:46] Speaker 06:
So I would suspect if we looked at the legislative history of this statute, the legislature that enacted this wanted this to have perpetrators be held accountable.

[00:25:02] Speaker 06:
And they were not trying to weave this in the most narrow way so that plaintiffs had no remedy, right?

[00:25:10] Speaker 06:
I mean, this includes the revival of sexual harassment claims.

[00:25:17] Speaker 01:
It may, Your Honor, there's no sexual harassment claim alleged against my client.

[00:25:21] Speaker 01:
The only sexual harassment claim is alleged against Coach Foley himself.

[00:25:27] Speaker 04:
Wouldn't your client be liable under a respondent superior?

[00:25:31] Speaker 01:
No, Your Honor, and certainly we aren't named as a defendant in that claim.

[00:25:36] Speaker 01:
Any such conduct would have been far outside the coach's scope of duty or any authorized conduct by ski and snowboard so there would be no respond yet superior in that situation.

[00:25:47] Speaker 06:
And I misread this.

[00:25:48] Speaker 06:
The subdivision revives any related claims including but not limited to wrongful termination and sexual harassment.

[00:25:58] Speaker 06:
Including but not limited to related claims.

[00:26:02] Speaker 06:
So why would that not include the claims against your client?

[00:26:06] Speaker 01:
Your Honor, the claims against my client, whether they're revived or not, they aren't.

[00:26:10] Speaker 01:
The question here is whether there is specific jurisdiction over my client in California.

[00:26:16] Speaker 01:
So in order to prove that my client is liable under this revival statute, the claims would have to show under some legal theory that Ski and Snowboard was responsible for the conduct that others allegedly engaged in, the actual assaults.

[00:26:32] Speaker 01:
There is no claim against my client for sexual harassment, but if there were,

[00:26:36] Speaker 01:
would have to demonstrate my client was responsible for that harassment.

[00:26:41] Speaker 01:
And I see that my time is up, Your Honor.

[00:26:45] Speaker 01:
So if there are any other questions, I could certainly address them.

[00:26:50] Speaker 01:
In closing, the court should affirm the district court's finding that it lacks personal jurisdiction over Skane's notebook.

[00:26:57] Speaker 01:
Thank you.

[00:27:00] Speaker 05:
And Ms.

[00:27:01] Speaker 05:
Barnhart?

[00:27:10] Speaker 02:
Good morning, Your Honors.

[00:27:12] Speaker 02:
Lindsay Barnhart for the United States Olympic and Paralympic Committee, which I'll call USOPC for brevity.

[00:27:18] Speaker 02:
I don't intend to reach red ground.

[00:27:19] Speaker 02:
We've already covered, but I do want to use my time to underscore that each of these three defendants are differently situated.

[00:27:27] Speaker 02:
And of course, the plaintiffs need to establish personal jurisdiction with respect to each defendant.

[00:27:34] Speaker 02:
USOPC is only a defendant in the Fletcher case.

[00:27:37] Speaker 02:
And the allegations against the USOPC, considered in the context of the personal jurisdiction jurisprudence that's been well developed, even more clearly require dismissal of the USOPC.

[00:27:50] Speaker 02:
And there are three primary reasons for that.

[00:27:53] Speaker 02:
First, the vast majority of the conduct that is alleged focus on Mr. Foley and USSS.

[00:28:01] Speaker 02:
that alleged conduct cannot be imputed to the USOPC when assessing personal jurisdiction by federal statute, USSS must operate autonomously from the USOPC free of outside restraint.

[00:28:13] Speaker 02:
And it's well settled that even if the USOPC and USSS could be considered in some sort of apparent subsidiary relationship, obviously a subsidiary's contacts with the foreign state cannot be imputed to the parent company in absence of showing of alter ego.

[00:28:29] Speaker 02:
Once you set aside the allegations against the other defendants that cannot properly be imputed to the USOPC, you're left with a scattershot collection of jurisdictional contacts.

[00:28:41] Speaker 02:
Which claims are alleged against USOPC?

[00:28:44] Speaker 02:
I don't have the fullest handy your honor, but it is The negligence claims.

[00:28:51] Speaker 02:
Negligence, correct.

[00:28:53] Speaker 02:
The sexual harassment claim is not alleged against the USOPC.

[00:28:57] Speaker 02:
Defamation is not alleged against the USOPC.

[00:29:01] Speaker 02:
Obviously the assault itself, the battery is not alleged against the USOPC.

[00:29:04] Speaker 06:
Negligence supervision, retention, negligence infliction of emotional distress and breach of contract.

[00:29:13] Speaker 02:
And so that's a good segue to the California contacts that are alleged by the USOPC have no bearing on any of those claims.

[00:29:22] Speaker 02:
The California contacts relate to Olympic Games held decades ago.

[00:29:26] Speaker 02:
Obviously the Olympic Games occur for a very short amount of time and the USOPC's involvement in those claims has no connection, no nexus to the claims being alleged here.

[00:29:37] Speaker 02:
And the other allegations relate to training facilities to la vista and Carson training facilities where the plaintiffs Do not allege any sexual abuse occurring at those facilities nor do they allege that they traveled to those facilities with Mr.. Foley Such that this culture of abuse traveled with them there.

[00:29:56] Speaker 02:
There is no allegation of any

[00:29:58] Speaker 02:
conduct by the USOPC in California that relates to any of the culture of abuse, any of the alleged abuse incidents themselves, there simply is no tie, even if you accept the traveling theory of harm or if you accept that the allegations of USOPC California contacts do relate to California.

[00:30:21] Speaker 02:
I know I'm almost out of time, but I did, I actually am out of time, excuse me, so I'll answer any other questions, but otherwise I'll conclude.

[00:30:29] Speaker 06:
So I guess I'm unclear so the one-half to one-third of training camps in California where mammoth is the primary site for Olympic qualifiers You're saying US OPC has nothing to do with that US OPC does did not organize the training camps There's no allegation that the US OPC organized for example the training camp that Rosie attended that then led to the travel to Nevada, but these are these are the promotion and training of Olympic qualifiers for US OPC correct

[00:30:58] Speaker 02:
There is no allegation that that event was an Olympic qualifier and there's also no allegation that the USOPC did anything other than quote-unquote host certain Olympic certain unidentified Olympic qualifiers during the relevant time period.

[00:31:12] Speaker 06:
So why shouldn't there be discovery on this?

[00:31:16] Speaker 06:
of discovery on exactly what is USOPC's role in all of these Olympic training camps in California?

[00:31:22] Speaker 06:
For these domestic competitions that are in California for the purpose of identifying and recruiting Olympic athletes?

[00:31:30] Speaker 02:
Well, the plaintiffs know that the USOPC had nothing to do with those, which is why they do not allege that the USOPC had anything to do with those training events.

[00:31:38] Speaker 02:
Again, according to the federal statutory construct, the USOPC does not govern the day-to-day activities of these sports.

[00:31:46] Speaker 02:
That's left to the NGBs, of which USSS is one.

[00:31:50] Speaker 02:
The USOPC cannot, by federal law, engage in that sort of governance and day-to-day operation.

[00:31:56] Speaker 02:
And so I don't think there's any discovery required because I don't believe there's any dispute with respect to the USOPC's involvement in the kinds of training, competition, media events, et cetera, that are alleged in the complaint to have occurred in California.

[00:32:10] Speaker 02:
There is no link in the complaint between the USOPC and those activities.

[00:32:18] Speaker 05:
All right.

[00:32:19] Speaker 05:
Thank you, Your Honor.

[00:32:23] Speaker 05:
We have one more.

[00:32:25] Speaker 05:
One more D here.

[00:32:27] Speaker 05:
Ms.

[00:32:27] Speaker 05:
McCord.

[00:32:40] Speaker 03:
Good morning, Your Honors, and may it please the Court.

[00:32:42] Speaker 03:
My name is Megan McCord on behalf of Appellant Peter Foley.

[00:32:46] Speaker 03:
With the Court's permission, I would like to take three minutes to briefly discuss the facts that

[00:32:51] Speaker 03:
Appellants have not and cannot meet the minimum requirements necessary to confer personal jurisdiction over Mr. Foley Crucially Peter Foley is an individual domiciled in Oregon where he intends to remain as evidenced by his long residency in the state He has never resided in California as such there's no basis for personal general jurisdiction in terms of purposeful direction it is the appropriate test as my

[00:33:22] Speaker 03:
Co-appellants council addressed and it's the appropriate test for mr. Foley as all the claims against him are sound in tort Under the effects test none of the appellants have alleged a single factual allegation of an intentional act by mr. Foley Expressly aimed so let me ask a question so mr. Foley

[00:33:44] Speaker 06:
was the head coach for the Olympic snowboarding team from 94 through March of 2022.

[00:33:48] Speaker 06:
And the complaint alleges that from 1995 through 2005, a third of all of the 109 USSS domestic competitions occurred in California.

[00:34:00] Speaker 06:
So you're saying the head of the U.S.

[00:34:02] Speaker 06:
Olympic snowboarding team never attended

[00:34:06] Speaker 06:
Those domestic competitions in California.

[00:34:09] Speaker 03:
I'm not saying that your honor.

[00:34:10] Speaker 03:
Okay.

[00:34:10] Speaker 06:
So how many did he attend?

[00:34:12] Speaker 03:
I don't have that requisite information.

[00:34:14] Speaker 03:
I believe that the declaration from USS's in-house council address the amount of tournaments and events that were in California.

[00:34:23] Speaker 03:
I do know

[00:34:24] Speaker 03:
that his appearances and his travel to California are scant.

[00:34:29] Speaker 03:
In his declaration, he talks about just in the last 10 years of his employment, he traveled to California less than three times.

[00:34:37] Speaker 06:
I understand that's what he is claiming, but from 1995 to 2005,

[00:34:46] Speaker 06:
They're saying one half to one third of the training camps for USSS were held in California, including at Mammoth Mountain.

[00:34:54] Speaker 06:
So you're saying the head of the US Olympic snowboarding team would not have gone to the training camp for Olympic qualifiers in California during the time that he was head.

[00:35:05] Speaker 06:
It just seems odd, does it not, that the head of the US Olympic team would not be coming to training camps and competitions

[00:35:15] Speaker 06:
for the promotion, recruitment, and training of U.S.

[00:35:19] Speaker 06:
Olympic athletes?

[00:35:20] Speaker 03:
Because Mr. Foley is no longer employed with USS, I don't have specific access to information regarding how many events there were during that operative time period.

[00:35:27] Speaker 06:
So discovery would be helpful on that point, right?

[00:35:30] Speaker 06:
If his recollection might be off, it might be helpful to have discovery on the number of times that Mr. Foley actually attended a training camp or a competition of USS in the state of California, correct?

[00:35:43] Speaker 03:
What I look at is the last 10 years of his employment and the fact that even though appellees say that there were just as many or similar amounts of tournaments, he can specifically say that he was only there on three occasions, leads me to believe that his contacts with California are scant and there is nothing that happened

[00:36:05] Speaker 03:
before those 10 years that would change the amount of tournaments or his participation in California.

[00:36:17] Speaker 06:
He says I was only there from 2013 to 2023 three times.

[00:36:21] Speaker 06:
He doesn't say the number of times he was in California during the time he was

[00:36:26] Speaker 06:
head coach of the US Olympic snowboarding team, which would include 1994 through 2012.

[00:36:32] Speaker 03:
He's providing his last 10 years as the head coach.

[00:36:37] Speaker 03:
And I don't have any reason to believe that those numbers or that pattern would be any different prior to that.

[00:36:43] Speaker 06:
But he didn't provide that number for the entire time he was coach, correct?

[00:36:46] Speaker 03:
That is correct, Your Honor.

[00:36:47] Speaker 03:
In terms of what allegations appellees are alleging occurred in California,

[00:36:56] Speaker 03:
there is an issue that needs to be addressed in that appellees make no reference to any specific conduct that occurs in California.

[00:37:11] Speaker 06:
So for instance- The one issue I have is that he chose 2013 to 2023 to disclose his contacts with California.

[00:37:19] Speaker 06:
But if I look as to plaintiff Fletcher, she says she was assaulted in 1994.

[00:37:26] Speaker 06:
and then again in 97 and 2006.

[00:37:29] Speaker 06:
So he doesn't give the number of contacts with California during the relevant time period as opposed to Plaintiff Fletcher.

[00:37:39] Speaker 06:
If I look at Plaintiff O'Malley, she joins the team 2005, she left by 2003.

[00:37:46] Speaker 06:
So he didn't give any of the contacts during that petitioner's

[00:37:50] Speaker 06:
claim, and I mean, if I just go through, he specifically chose to give a time period that didn't overlap with any of these three plaintiffs.

[00:38:02] Speaker 06:
I'm looking at the last one.

[00:38:04] Speaker 06:
She joined the team in 2005.

[00:38:07] Speaker 06:
She says she was raped in 2005.

[00:38:09] Speaker 06:
So he chose to give his contacts eight years after the last assault.

[00:38:14] Speaker 06:
from one of these plaintiffs.

[00:38:16] Speaker 06:
So why would that even be?

[00:38:18] Speaker 06:
Anyway, go ahead please.

[00:38:19] Speaker 03:
Because I think when we look at what appellants are saying in terms of their conduct, in terms of their attendance at events in California, we are not talking about a lot of events and I don't have the specific numbers in front of me, but they are in the second amendment complaint and they are not often.

[00:38:35] Speaker 03:
I think it also needs to be said that there is no specific act

[00:38:41] Speaker 03:
that appellants are alleging that occurred in California.

[00:38:45] Speaker 03:
So they are not saying that a sexual act took place in California.

[00:38:49] Speaker 03:
They cannot point to any specific conduct that Mr. Foley engaged in in California with respect to the plaintiffs that would give rise to a sexual harassment claim.

[00:39:01] Speaker 03:
And because of the scant

[00:39:04] Speaker 03:
travel to California that I think is also evidenced by appellants.

[00:39:09] Speaker 06:
How can you say that when he has not identified his contacts with California during the relevant period as to these three named plaintiffs?

[00:39:19] Speaker 03:
What I can say, Your Honor, that I don't believe that it was left out.

[00:39:22] Speaker 06:
He chose a period almost 20 years later than the first plaintiff's allegations.

[00:39:26] Speaker 06:
In 1994, he chose not to disclose them until 2013.

[00:39:30] Speaker 03:
And Your Honor, that was not left out by deception.

[00:39:33] Speaker 03:
That's the last 10 years are to his best recollection so that he can swear under oath that that is accurate.

[00:39:39] Speaker 06:
And when at the time... So discovery might be helpful on this because then that would

[00:39:43] Speaker 06:
decisively be able to identify when Mr. Foley traveled to a training or a competition in the state of California and whether these three plaintiffs were present.

[00:39:52] Speaker 03:
And respectfully, Your Honor, I don't believe that jurisdictional discovery would be helpful in this case.

[00:39:57] Speaker 03:
Appellants are the people most knowledgeable as to what occurred to them and how they were victims of sexual assault, battery, and sexual harassment.

[00:40:06] Speaker 03:
They are the people with the most knowledge to say that this occurred in California

[00:40:12] Speaker 03:
On this date, at this time, and Mr. Foley engaged in ex-conduct.

[00:40:16] Speaker 03:
They had three bites of the apple in their complaint, their first amended complaint and their second amended complaint, to identify what specific acts took place in California, and they did not do so.

[00:40:28] Speaker 06:
OK, these were teenagers, and you're asking them to identify with detail things that happened to them 30 years ago when your own client, a grown man, can only remember what happened in the last 10 years.

[00:40:41] Speaker 06:
And he was an adult, and he was the US Olympic head coach during this time.

[00:40:46] Speaker 06:
I think there's a little bit of a different standard there for your client who was an adult grown man.

[00:40:51] Speaker 06:
It's fine that he can only remember the last 10 years, but for these people who were teenagers at the time.

[00:40:56] Speaker 06:
They have to remember everything with detail what happened to them 30 years ago.

[00:41:00] Speaker 03:
Your honor, in looking at the fact that they could recall and remember specific acts of sexual assault, I think demonstrates that the onus would be on them as part of demonstrating their causes of action that specific things took place at specific times.

[00:41:19] Speaker 03:
My client intends to deny the allegations

[00:41:24] Speaker 03:
And so it would certainly be more difficult for an individual to recall specific events if nothing occurred.

[00:41:31] Speaker 03:
So while I don't believe that there are separate standards for my client versus them, I do believe that the onus is on the plaintiffs to demonstrate a prima facie case of sexual assault and sexual harassment and to demonstrate that these occurred in California in order to support jurisdiction.

[00:41:54] Speaker 05:
Great, counsel, you're well over your time.

[00:41:56] Speaker 03:
I apologize, Your Honor.

[00:41:57] Speaker 05:
Thank you very much.

[00:41:59] Speaker 05:
Ms.

[00:42:00] Speaker 05:
Anderson.

[00:42:03] Speaker 03:
Thank you.

[00:42:04] Speaker 05:
Thank you.

[00:42:05] Speaker 04:
We should have six minutes, I believe.

[00:42:09] Speaker 04:
I've reserved.

[00:42:14] Speaker 05:
Okay, so you've used up a lot of your time, but they went well over their time, so.

[00:42:18] Speaker 05:
Okay.

[00:42:19] Speaker 05:
Yes, is that okay, Judge Gilmour?

[00:42:23] Speaker 04:
And I would love to start by responding to the back and forth about Mr. Foley.

[00:42:28] Speaker 04:
I think you'll look at their declarations and both declarations specifically picked the last 10 years.

[00:42:33] Speaker 04:
Something substantially changes that changes what happened when my clients were on the team and after.

[00:42:39] Speaker 04:
And that's the opening of the facility in Mount Hood in Oregon.

[00:42:43] Speaker 04:
dedicated for the U.S.

[00:42:45] Speaker 04:
snowboarding team.

[00:42:47] Speaker 04:
And so, yes, there is a shift, and that is why they're focused on the last 10 years and not at the time that my plaintiff's claims occurred.

[00:42:55] Speaker 04:
We address that timing.

[00:42:57] Speaker 05:
Your plaintiffs were at the beginning of the formation of this whole team, right?

[00:43:03] Speaker 04:
Correct.

[00:43:04] Speaker 04:
And Callen is one of the later ones, and she leaves the team at 2014.

[00:43:09] Speaker 04:
Her assault is in 2005.

[00:43:11] Speaker 04:
And so it's within that time frame, which barely overlaps.

[00:43:16] Speaker 06:
And Mount Hood was formed in 2013?

[00:43:19] Speaker 04:
I don't know the exact date, but that shifts right around that time that they opened that facility.

[00:43:25] Speaker 04:
And we allege the facts.

[00:43:27] Speaker 04:
I mean, we include in our allegations facts about the 109 competitions.

[00:43:32] Speaker 04:
And to suggest that Peter Foley, the head coach of this team, was not at competitions and trainings, I think strains credulity, and I think

[00:43:41] Speaker 04:
our allegations include that they talk about they are traveling with the team and the coach to all of these trainings and events.

[00:43:47] Speaker 04:
And so while they don't pinpoint specific dates and specific times, they talk about what's happening, they talk about where they're traveling to, and especially when you talk about the culture, which is the basis of these negligence and sexual harassment claims.

[00:44:00] Speaker 04:
And by the way, the Olympic Committee is a defendant in the sexual assault claims as well.

[00:44:06] Speaker 04:
You know, I think that's important to keep in mind that while they cannot say a specific date, there's plenty of allegations that very reasonable inferences are that that's occurring in California.

[00:44:18] Speaker 05:
What is your position vis-a-vis jurisdictional discovery?

[00:44:23] Speaker 04:
Our position is that we should have jurisdictional discovery if the court thinks there is not enough facts here to support jurisdiction.

[00:44:31] Speaker 04:
However, we think there's plenty, especially when you look at the related two-pronged

[00:44:36] Speaker 04:
And so it's probably important that I address some of what was raised for the purposeful direction test.

[00:44:42] Speaker 04:
And I think we know that Davis-Briskin says it in a footnote 10.

[00:44:52] Speaker 04:
Yahoo, this court has consistently said that you can apply both purposeful available and purposeful direction even in tort cases.

[00:45:01] Speaker 04:
and that you really look to the case.

[00:45:04] Speaker 04:
And I would really stress global commodities.

[00:45:08] Speaker 04:
And that's a 2020 Ninth Circuit.

[00:45:11] Speaker 04:
We have emphasized that courts must evaluate the party's entire course of dealing, not solely the particular contract or torsious conduct giving rise to the claim when assessing whether a defendant has minimum contacts with the forum.

[00:45:25] Speaker 04:
And they found that the district court erred by considering only the documents

[00:45:29] Speaker 04:
that were the subject of the breach without looking at their ongoing course of dealing, and also that the district court erred in only addressing a specific claim and not all of the claims that the plaintiffs brought.

[00:45:43] Speaker 04:
And I think there's a lot of analogies to be had there to our case.

[00:45:48] Speaker 04:
As far as general jurisdiction, you didn't hear either counsel stand up and tell you

[00:45:54] Speaker 04:
that California is not their second most state with contacts.

[00:46:00] Speaker 04:
They didn't come up here and tell you, we have way more contacts in this other state or that state or this state.

[00:46:05] Speaker 04:
They just told you where their principal place of business is.

[00:46:07] Speaker 04:
And that's because California is, they have, when you do the comparative analysis and you compare other states with California, California is the number one place they are outside of their principal place of business.

[00:46:21] Speaker 04:
I also just want to stress that one of the facts that was left out by the Olympic Committee for facts relevant to this case, so specific jurisdiction, is that Alan Ashley, the individual, if we all recall, has been fired because of his handling of Nassar, started on the USSS team with Peter Foley.

[00:46:41] Speaker 04:
And he went on to be an official at the US Olympic Committee during this time frame.

[00:46:47] Speaker 04:
So he goes from being, and he's alleged in the complaint to be at many of these activities, many of this travel, seeing this culture and this conduct, goes to the Olympic Committee after that.

[00:46:58] Speaker 04:
And I think it's also important to note, you know, the appellees love to raise Brown versus Taekwondo to say that they don't have control over these coaches.

[00:47:06] Speaker 04:
Well, it's very important to note that that California case said you do have control over the NGB.

[00:47:14] Speaker 04:
And the only reason they said

[00:47:16] Speaker 04:
they didn't have control over the coach was because the coach was not employed by the NGB.

[00:47:21] Speaker 04:
The coach was in a different affiliate group that had been going to practices with the NGB, but he was not employed by the NGB.

[00:47:30] Speaker 04:
And here, Peter Foley was employed by the NGB.

[00:47:33] Speaker 04:
He was employed by USSS.

[00:47:35] Speaker 04:
He was the head coach of the Olympic team.

[00:47:37] Speaker 04:
And that stands in difference, and that's the difference in that case.

[00:47:44] Speaker 04:
So with that, I would just, unless you're honored to have any other questions, I would love to just end on one point that I just think is very important here, and I think it was something that stood out in Briskin, and that's that California has every right to pass a law to ensure that individuals and organizations do not use its state for their benefit, while at the same time facilitating and covering up sexual abuse,

[00:48:12] Speaker 04:
negligence and harassment as as Judge code noted related to claims related to sexual assaults and Abuse especially when it includes one of their own citizens With that unless can I ask did you say your co-counsel is an associate?

[00:48:32] Speaker 04:
I did, Your Honor.

[00:48:33] Speaker 06:
Oh, and you came prepared to argue.

[00:48:34] Speaker 06:
Can we ask her one question?

[00:48:35] Speaker 05:
Oh, yes.

[00:48:36] Speaker 06:
We should let her talk.

[00:48:37] Speaker 04:
Thank you.

[00:48:37] Speaker 04:
I really appreciate that.

[00:48:39] Speaker 06:
OK.

[00:48:40] Speaker 04:
Yes, I really do appreciate that.

[00:48:41] Speaker 04:
I'm sorry.

[00:48:41] Speaker 04:
Thank you, Judge Koh.

[00:48:43] Speaker 05:
Yeah.

[00:48:43] Speaker 05:
OK.

[00:48:44] Speaker 05:
Tell us why you want jurisdictional discovery.

[00:48:48] Speaker 00:
Thank you very much, Your Honors.

[00:48:50] Speaker 00:
I'm here to talk about jurisdictional discovery, which it does seem like the panel is interested in.

[00:48:54] Speaker 00:
And as my colleague discussed,

[00:48:57] Speaker 00:
We do sufficiently allege the defendant's California conduct is more than sufficient to support jurisdiction.

[00:49:02] Speaker 00:
However, there are many facts discussed here today for which discovery would be quite helpful.

[00:49:08] Speaker 00:
That would include, while the district court found that there were sufficient contacts from all three defendants, additional discovery into how those contacts connect with the appellant's claim could substantially impact the court's analysis.

[00:49:21] Speaker 00:
And a denial of jurisdictional discovery will be overturned

[00:49:25] Speaker 00:
where there's a reasonable probability that the outcome would have been different.

[00:49:28] Speaker 06:
And here, there's certainly... What's your answer to the point that your clients should know all the contacts?

[00:49:36] Speaker 06:
Why should you need discovery for something that should be in their personal knowledge?

[00:49:41] Speaker 00:
Yes.

[00:49:41] Speaker 00:
Well, as Your Honor pointed out, they can't even provide what happened prior to 10 years ago.

[00:49:46] Speaker 00:
And appellants do allege that there was pervasive, consistent harassment, grooming,

[00:49:51] Speaker 00:
that occurred on the many occasions that they were training, working, and competing in California.

[00:49:57] Speaker 00:
And if there's any lack of specificity, that's due to the fact that it's difficult for anyone, let alone survivors of a traumatic environment, to remember precise dates and locations when all this conduct occurred, particularly when that conduct was so constant and pervasive.

[00:50:13] Speaker 00:
And to be frank, location and those kinds of specific facts aren't really standout facts when you're remembering a traumatic event or a traumatic environment.

[00:50:21] Speaker 00:
So should the court have any further doubts, despite the complaints allegations of this pervasive conduct in California, appellees are really the only ones who have those records, records of where Mr. Foley was and what competitions he attended, records of

[00:50:36] Speaker 00:
USS's and USOPC's involvement in funding for training camps, including that inaugural training camp at Mount Mammoth, after which Ms.

[00:50:45] Speaker 00:
Fletcher was assaulted.

[00:50:47] Speaker 00:
It would be records of budgeting for these trips that would show athletes and coaches and staff sleeping in the same hotel rooms and the same hotel beds, again, by design, because of the budgeting of those trips.

[00:51:02] Speaker 00:
All of these records are within Appellee's control and would be helpful

[00:51:06] Speaker 00:
to the court's analysis on jurisdictional discovery should the court find that first section is not sufficiently alleged as it is.

[00:51:17] Speaker 05:
All right.

[00:51:18] Speaker 00:
Thank you.

[00:51:18] Speaker 05:
Thank you, counsel.

[00:51:20] Speaker 05:
All right.

[00:51:21] Speaker 05:
Nicola versus Foley will be submitted, and the session of the court is adjourned for today.

[00:51:28] Speaker 05:
Thank you, counsel.