J. Mcintyre Machinery, Ltd. v. Robert Nicastro, Individually and As Administrator of the Estate of Roseanne Nicastro

Oral argument transcript · No. 09-1343 · October Term 2010 · argued January 11, 2011 · the petitioner won

Decision: votes, opinion and citations · Official transcript (PDF) · Argument audio at the Supreme Court

Advocates

• Arthur F. Fergenson, Ellicott City, Maryland, for the petitioner
• Alexander W. Ross Jr., Marlton, New Jersey, for the respondent

Transcript

From the Court's official transcript; speaker labels as in the transcript, with advocates' full names from its list of appearances.

Chief Justice Roberts: We'll hear argument first this morning in Case 09-1343, J. McIntyre Machinery, Ltd. v. Nicastro. Mr. Fergenson. ORAL ARGUMENT OF ARTHUR F. FERGENSON ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER

Arthur F. Fergenson: Mr. Chief Justice, and may it please the Court: Because J. McIntyre did not direct any activity at residents of New Jersey either itself or by directing its distributor MMA to do so and had no awareness or knowledge that the distributor took the action that it did toward New Jersey, New Jersey lacked adjudicative jurisdiction.

Justice Scalia: When you say "its distributor," was this distributor at all controlled by the defendant?

Arthur F. Fergenson: No, Your Honor. It was not. And both under Ohio law, Wells v. Komatsu America, and under the Restatement (Second) Agency, section 1(1), the right to control is essential to ascribe actions to create an agency, and it's on a per-purpose basis.

Justice Scalia: It might be better to refer Alderson Reporting Company 1 to it as the company that distributed its product, rather than calling it "its distributor."

Arthur F. Fergenson: Very good, Your Honor.

Justice Scalia: It's loaded, it seems to me.

Arthur F. Fergenson: Very good, Your Honor.

Justice Kagan: Mr. Fergenson, in your question presented to this Court, you ask whether there's personal jurisdiction -- and I'm quoting here -­ "solely because the manufacturer targets the United States market for the sale of its product." So I'm taking from that, that you acknowledge that this manufacturer, McIntyre, a British manufacturer, targeted the United States market for the sale of its product. That's correct, yes?

Arthur F. Fergenson: Your Honor, that's what the New Jersey Supreme Court held, and that's how we fashioned the -­

Justice Kagan: That's your question presented.

Arthur F. Fergenson: -- the test.

Justice Kagan: Did this -- well, I'll just ask you, then: Did this manufacturer target the United States market? Did it want to sell its products in the United States? Alderson Reporting Company

Arthur F. Fergenson: Yes, Your Honor.

Justice Kagan: Okay. So what does that mean, exactly, Mr. Fergenson? Because the United States is the United States. It's made up of 50 States. So I assume that what that means is the manufacturer wanted to sell its products in each of the 50 States. Is that right?

Arthur F. Fergenson: No, Your Honor.

Justice Kagan: It only wanted to sell its product in a few States?

Arthur F. Fergenson: No, Your Honor. It wanted to sell its product anywhere that the distributor could find. The distributor was the market manager.

Justice Kagan: Right. Anywhere. So if the distributor came up with California, that was great. If the distributor came up with a customer in New Jersey, that was great. As many as possible, more the better, all over the United States. Is that right?

Arthur F. Fergenson: As many as possible, wherever the -- the distributor could find a customer, yes, Your Honor.

Justice Kagan: Exactly. So you targeted New Jersey no less than you targeted California or New York or Illinois or Massachusetts or anything else.

Arthur F. Fergenson: Well -- Alderson Reporting Company

Justice Kagan: You targeted the entire United States. Why shouldn't there be jurisdiction in each of the States you targeted?

Arthur F. Fergenson: Well, Your Honor, because, first, this Court's jurisprudence looks to a direct act, from World-Wide Volkswagen and even before, as it brought forward Hanson. As this Court has applied World-Wide Volkswagen, Burger King and Justice O'Connor's concurrence in Asahi and the other occurrence -- concurrence, Justice Brennan's concurrence in Asahi, look toward a specific State -­

Justice Scalia: Mr. Fergenson, I suppose you could say the same thing about any United States manufacturer -­

Arthur F. Fergenson: Yes.

Justice Scalia: -- who would desire to sell his product in any of the States that would buy it.

Arthur F. Fergenson: Yes, Your Honor.

Justice Scalia: And to say that this foreign manufacturer is therefore suable in any State would mean that any American manufacturer is suable in any State, which -­

Arthur F. Fergenson: Yes, Your Honor.

Justice Scalia: -- none of our cases hold.

Justice Kagan: Well, suable in any State Alderson Reporting Company 1 where the incident arises. This is not general jurisdiction. This is specific jurisdiction. So the question is, when you target the entire United States and each of the 50 States within that and an accident occurs within one of those States, are you subject to jurisdiction in that State for that accident, for a claim based on that accident? Not generally, but just for a claim based on that accident. Didn't even Justice O'Connor -- you referenced the Asahi opinions, but Justice O'Connor said as long as there's purposeful availment, there is specific jurisdiction, and there is purposeful availment when there's an active effort to target a market.

Arthur F. Fergenson: Well, Your Honor, in Burger King, in Hanson, in World-Wide Volkswagen, the purposeful availment is defined as conducting activities within the forum State. The -- this Court, through those opinions, foreseeability, clear notice, reasonably anticipate -- all converge.

Justice Ginsburg: In all of those cases, there was a forum in the United States where someone injured in the United States could sue. Your proposition is that a company can deliberately send its products, wants to exploit a U.S. market. But I take it that there is no place in the United States, because New Alderson Reporting Company 1 Jersey is no different than California or any other place -- is it your position that there is no forum in which McIntyre can be sued, even though it set up this distribution arrangement for the very purpose of having its machines in as many locations in the United States as it could? Is there a forum in the United States where it could be sued?

Arthur F. Fergenson: Yes, Your Honor.

Justice Ginsburg: Which one?

Arthur F. Fergenson: Ohio. It could have been proceeded against in Ohio.

Justice Ginsburg: It could be reached in Ohio. Now, does that make a whole lot of sense? Is it any more convenient for McIntyre to come to Ohio than New Jersey? It's a lot less convenient for Mr. Nicastro, who had his fingers removed by this machine. But you -- you are conceding that there is a forum where this British company can be sued on a tort that occurred in New Jersey. Explain to me why, since there is a forum in the United States, the logical one isn't New Jersey rather than Ohio.

Arthur F. Fergenson: Well, Your Honor, first, the issue of convenience, choice of law, conflict of law, as a determinative factor was rejected by this Court -- Alderson Reporting Company

Justice Ginsburg: I'm asking you -­

Arthur F. Fergenson: What?

Justice Ginsburg: -- the question: Where can it be sued? Well, something happened in New Jersey. The machine, allegedly defective machine, caused a harm there. What happened in Ohio? What basis for specific jurisdiction is there in Ohio? There was no tort in Ohio.

Arthur F. Fergenson: Well, Your Honor, under Ohio law, the -- there can be an assignment. There was no written contract between MMA and J. McIntyre. There can be an assignment in return for a release of a common law indemnification right.

Justice Ginsburg: I don't understand.

Justice Kagan: Yes, but, Mr. Fergenson, just picking up where Justice Ginsburg left off, Ohio is a perfectly good place for jurisdiction over a claim between the British manufacturer and its distributor in Ohio. Any kind of contract claim, a claim based on the agreement between the two -- Ohio is the appropriate place for jurisdiction. But Ohio does not seem the appropriate place for jurisdiction -- and again, we're talking about specific jurisdiction, not general -- as to a claim based on an accident that occurred in New Jersey. Alderson Reporting Company 1 The entire idea of specific jurisdiction is that you need a relationship between the defendant and the forum and the claim. And here the claim arose in New Jersey and was in fact not related to Ohio.

Arthur F. Fergenson: Well, Your Honor, Ohio explicitly provides, and they -- it's arisen in statute of limitation cases, and it goes back to Travelers Indemnity v. Trowbridge, that an action under both express and common law indemnity arises under contract. So, upon the assignment -- and there need not be a judgment under Ohio law; that's Fort Defiance Construction v. Village of Grover Hill -- there can be an assignment of a common law indemnity under strict product liability.

Justice Ginsburg: What kind of common law indemnity are we dealing with here? Where does Mr. Nicastro sue? He hasn't got any assignment, any indemnity. Mr. Nicastro is injured in the United States by a machine manufactured in England, and he wants to sue, understandably, in the United States. Why are we talking about assignments, indemnity? That has nothing to do with Mr. Nicastro.

Arthur F. Fergenson: Yes, Your Honor, it does. Mr. Nicastro had an action under strict product liability. I want to come back to more fully answer the Alderson Reporting Company 1 why question that you asked: Why is it just and right that he go -- that he to Ohio?

Justice Ginsburg: No, I would just like to know first -- you said there is jurisdiction in Ohio and not in New Jersey. In New Jersey, it's the place where the accident occurred; and in Ohio, there's nothing but the relationship between the distributor -- there's a contract between the distributor and McIntyre. So why does Ohio have jurisdiction over this New Jersey tort?

Arthur F. Fergenson: Ohio has New Jersey -­ jurisdiction. There -- as Your Honor noticed, there are three places that Mr. Nicastro, in looking over this, could have chosen: United Kingdom, which he is now in, in filing a claim in the liquidation proceedings; Ohio; and New Jersey. The accident occurred in New Jersey. That's a forum non conveniens issue that's -- ­

Justice Ginsburg: It's a forum what?

Arthur F. Fergenson: That's a convenience issue, a forum non conveniens issue. And Justice Brennan was clear before Burger King that that's what he wanted to see the law go in the direction of. He was clear about that. Ohio, however, in looking at International Shoe, going back to International Shoe, which talks about the relationship between the defendant and the Alderson Reporting Company 1 forum State -­

Justice Ginsburg: And the claim in suit. That's very important.

Arthur F. Fergenson: And -- and the cause of action, yes. There -- the one place where both the distributor, who would upon suit and then a claim over under product, strict product liability, would disappear -- that's why you could get an assignment -- the distributor is in Ohio, and so too is the contract relationship.

Justice Ginsburg: I still don't -- I don't follow how Mr. Nicastro gets involved with assignment, indemnity. Mr. Nicastro has a claim against -- well, he sued them both, but the distributor is now bankrupt. And he says, well, this is specific jurisdiction; specific jurisdiction, as International Shoe teaches, is where the claim arose. International Shoe, it arose in the State of Washington because that's where the shoe -­ the people who were promoting sale of International Shoe's -- International Shoe's shoes worked every day. So it was a claim relating to a tax owed by International Shoe based on the events that occurred in California. It was not all-purpose jurisdiction. And your suggestion that Ohio somehow is a proper forum for Mr. Nicastro's tort claim, I really Alderson Reporting Company 1 don't follow that.

Arthur F. Fergenson: It -- Your Honor, it is. Mr. Nicastro could have contacted MMA, and stated I have a strict product liability action, or the trustee in bankruptcy. The statute of limitations was 2 years in both cases. Ohio would have applied New Jersey strict liability law.

Justice Kennedy: Your answer to Justice Ginsburg -- I don't want to make your argument for you, but it seems to me rather strange. All of a sudden you're talking about how Ohio law will help you out. I thought the question was, from the standpoint of the defendant at least, whether the defendant purposefully availed itself of the forum. And you would say the defendant here purposefully availed itself of Ohio by choosing an Ohio distributor. But you don't make that argument. You're talking about a contract, an indemnity, which seems to me another step. That's choice of law and applicable law.

Arthur F. Fergenson: I agree, Your Honor; it is choice of law. And -­

Justice Scalia: Also, I don't think it's worth your time, because frankly it doesn't make a whole lot of difference to me whether they can sue in Ohio or not. You really think that that's -- Alderson Reporting Company

Arthur F. Fergenson: And, Your Honor -­

Justice Scalia: What about in the United States? Would the United States have jurisdiction?

Arthur F. Fergenson: No, because -­

Justice Scalia: The United States would not? They surely targeted the United States.

Arthur F. Fergenson: Well, Your Honor, in the -­ in Justice O'Connor's footnote on national contacts in Asahi, which was not disputed and I think essentially accepted by Justice Brennan -- in that footnote, it states that national contacts is for the national sovereign to decide.

Justice Scalia: That's right. But if the national sovereign, the United States, provided by statute that Federal district courts would have jurisdiction over any -- any tort suit by a person injured by a foreign manufacturer that targeted the United States, would that be proper?

Arthur F. Fergenson: This Court has not evaluated under the Fifth Amendment what circumstances it may be, and this is speculation, how Congress would establish it. It may be that Congress -­

Justice Scalia: Of course. It's a hypothetical.

Arthur F. Fergenson: Yes, sir. Yes, sir. Alderson Reporting Company

Justice Scalia: Hypotheticals are always speculation.

Arthur F. Fergenson: I think that -­

Justice Scalia: How do you speculate about that?

Arthur F. Fergenson: Yes. Your Honor, I think that, without Klaxon and with a reasonable choice of venue, Congress could establish a uniform system to bring -- to bring foreign defendants into this country.

Justice Kennedy: Would you say the same thing if, hypothetically, since we're engaging in a hypothetical, the distributor were in France -- machine manufactured in England, distributor is in France, and the distributor then selects the United States and then the same facts, New Jersey? United States would be an appropriate jurisdiction under the Due Process Clause, but not New Jersey?

Arthur F. Fergenson: I think that, with that one step -­

Justice Kennedy: Assuming the statute that Justice Scalia hypothesizes.

Arthur F. Fergenson: Yes, Your Honor. I think that, with that one step beyond -­

Justice Kennedy: It's a little odd that the States, which have residual sovereignty, which are not Alderson Reporting Company 1 limited sovereigns, would not have jurisdiction, but the United States, which is a limited sovereignty other than in the foreign affairs area, which may be relevant here, does have jurisdiction. That seems backwards.

Arthur F. Fergenson: Well, Your Honor, I think that if one looks at this as part of the Congress's power to control, let's say, imports, then as a condition -- and this is what the proposed Foreign Manufacturers Legal Accountability Act looks for.

Justice Scalia: Well, Congress has power to control the jurisdiction of Federal courts, and Congress says Federal courts have jurisdiction over this matter.

Arthur F. Fergenson: Yes, Your Honor.

Justice Kagan: Mr. Fergenson, could I try another hypothetical?

Justice Kennedy: But the question is why the State can't make the same choice that the Congress does. The State lacks foreign affairs power, to be sure. Is that the only distinction? That doesn't sound to me like due process. What we're talking about is a source of authority, not fairness to the defendant.

Arthur F. Fergenson: Well, Your Honor, I think -­ and I go to two words in particular in Burger King, one taken from Hanson, which is "essential": It is essential in each case that there be a purposeful Alderson Reporting Company 1 availment of the privilege of conducting activities within the forum. And then the other -­

Justice Kagan: But, Mr. Fergenson, the question is whether seeking to serve a market -- and here you're seeking to serve a market in each of the 50 States -- is purposeful availment. So let me -- let me just try a different hypothetical. Suppose you had the same arrangement with your distributor in Ohio, but the arrangement was not to serve the entire United States market. Instead, the arrangement was to serve only five States in the Midwest. That's what you wanted, your client wanted, the market to be. So it was going to be Ohio and Indiana and Illinois and Michigan and Iowa, all right? So now a machine blows up in Illinois. Is there jurisdiction in Illinois?

Arthur F. Fergenson: Yes, Your Honor.

Justice Kagan: There is jurisdiction in Illinois, even though your relationship with your distributor was in Ohio. But there's jurisdiction in Illinois because the machine blew up there and you were seeking to serve the market; that's right?

Arthur F. Fergenson: Because there was a direction of the distributor to go into the State where the accident occurred. Alderson Reporting Company

Justice Kagan: Okay. Now we have -- now we say this is working very well. Let's get another nine distributors on board. We'll give each of them five States, all right? Now, if I understand you correctly, now you're liable all over the United States because you've had this relationship with 10 different distributors, each of whom are going to serve 5 States. So there's personal jurisdiction in any State where a machine blows up.

Arthur F. Fergenson: If the -- yes, Your Honor, if the States are assigned by name.

Justice Kagan: And now I say: Let's forget these 10 distributors. Who needs 10 distributors? I'll just have one distributor. Why is there any difference?

Arthur F. Fergenson: Because that distributor -­ unless that distributor is told you must go -- like a traveling salesperson, you must go into each State, you must personally go into each State -- that's purposeful availment.

Justice Kagan: Mr. Fergenson, with respect, this distributor was told to sell as many products as it could in as many States as it could.

Arthur F. Fergenson: No, it was not, Your Honor. It was not told to do anything more than to sell Alderson Reporting Company 1 products, not in as many -­

Justice Sotomayor: Excuse me, counselor -­ counselor, going back to -­

Arthur F. Fergenson: Yes, Your Honor.

Justice Sotomayor: -- the relationship, Justice Scalia asked you whether there was legal control, and you said no. But there was coordination, wasn't there? Isn't -- doesn't the record show that the English company traveled to the trade shows with the American company? Wasn't your president, your English president, present at the Las Vegas show in which this New Jersey company first saw the machine? Is that correct?

Arthur F. Fergenson: Yes.

Justice Sotomayor: I know there's a -­

Arthur F. Fergenson: Yes, Your Honor.

Justice Sotomayor: All right. And you approved all marketing efforts. You had to approve -­ according to the findings of the court below, you approved all the marketing materials that the American company -­

Arthur F. Fergenson: No, Your Honor. There is a letter that's undated that speaks about we have advertised under your direction and per your suggestions. Alderson Reporting Company 1 That letter also states that we've spent $350,000 and we performed the -- we performed repairs and warranty service without seeking reimbursement from you, and that's consistent with the distant relationship here. Your Honor, we asked for the names of the customers. We didn't get it. We didn't get -- we didn't drop-ship. And that would obviously have been a lot less expensive in cost rather than shipping it to Ohio. They were the market maker. They controlled the relationships with the individual customers.

Justice Sotomayor: Then why was your number and name both printed on the machine and in the warranty book? The American -- obviously, some customers had to be reaching out you to because all the materials they received directed them to the English company, not to the American company.

Arthur F. Fergenson: And, Your Honor, the record shows that we were sued in Kentucky, we were sued in Massachusetts. The Kentucky dispute was settled -- was resolved by dismissal under the statute of limitations, but -­

Justice Sotomayor: I think you've begged my question.

Arthur F. Fergenson: I'm sorry, Your Honor. Alderson Reporting Company

Justice Sotomayor: You did travel to certain of the trade shows -­

Arthur F. Fergenson: Yes, Your Honor.

Justice Sotomayor: -- with the America company?

Arthur F. Fergenson: Yes, Your Honor.

Justice Sotomayor: You did make suggestions with respect to advertising? At least with -- at least the once, but they did?

Arthur F. Fergenson: The -- the company that distributed the products stated in a letter that we conformed our advertising to what you suggested.

Justice Sotomayor: Okay. And you don't believe that coordinating your actions with the distributor and appointing that distributor to distribute products wherever it can is not enough for you to reasonably believe -- know that you're going to be dragged into a State where that product has been sold -­

Arthur F. Fergenson: That's correct, Your Honor.

Justice Sotomayor: -- and has caused injury?

Arthur F. Fergenson: That's correct, Your Honor. And I would ask Your Honor to look at Professor Kurland's University of Chicago Law Review Alderson Reporting Company 1 article in 1958, very influential, and to look at footnote 99, in which Professor Kurland quotes, all quotes, from this Court's transcript of record in International Shoe. And in international Shoe, the salespeople were controlled by International Shoe.

Justice Breyer: Right. Can I ask you -­

Arthur F. Fergenson: Yes, Your Honor.

Justice Breyer: Now, first, the word "distributor" hurts you, so I'm going to take that out, and I imagine a hypothetical -- I know your case differs from that, but I'm going to ask them how it differs, not you, okay? Now, a person walks into a shop in either West Virginia or the country of India where they make pots. They're very nice pots made, actually, in West Virginia. And the potter makes several thousand a year, and this individual says: Mr. Potter, I want to sell your pots; send me a thousand each year. Where are you going to sell them? Everywhere. Great. Okay? That's it. Now, suppose that the law were, as it could be perhaps, that it is sufficient for jurisdiction throughout the United States that the distributor or independent buyer said good, I'm selling them everywhere I can. And two or three end up in New Mexico, but it doesn't matter where they end up. Alderson Reporting Company 1 Suppose that was sufficient to find jurisdiction. You've prepared for this case. I want to know in your opinion, if that were the rule -- that's all that's necessary -- what cases in this Court in your opinion would that conflict with? I mean, I'm thinking of the facts. I'm not thinking of statements of law or whatever, but you can bring those in, too. I want to write those down because I want to read those cases, and you know them better than me.

Arthur F. Fergenson: Your Honor, I believe that the -- that the principles of law as stated, because they're law and they're applied in each case, it could -- which you apply to the facts, I believe that the rejection of the convenience test by this Court in World-Wide Volkswagen, Savchuk, and in Shaffer, where Justice Brennan posited that there be a convenience test, that those -­

Justice Breyer: I don't know what a convenience test is. Assume I'm very ignorant, which isn't too far from the truth. I would like you to tell me, are there any cases which we would actually be conflicting with were we to say all that's necessary to assert jurisdiction in every State is that a buyer walks into a shop where the manufacturer of pots makes pots and tells the potter I'm going to sell everywhere I can, Alderson Reporting Company 1 and the potter says good, okay. Now -- and he buys the pots. Now, if that were the rule, can you find a case that that actually conflicts with?

Arthur F. Fergenson: I believe that that conflicts, Your Honor, with Asahi.

Justice Breyer: Asahi, okay.

Justice Ginsburg: Asahi -- Asahi, Mr. Fergenson, was a litigation between a Japanese component part manufacturer and a Taiwanese finished product manufacturer. What -- how in the world could you compare that case, which really has nothing at all to do with the United States? It's -- it's a Japanese valve manufacturer sells the valve to a tire maker in Taiwan, and there should be -- that suit should go forward in the United States? I can see it going forward in -- in Japan, but it has no connection with the United States. And how can you possibly compare that with this case where somebody was injured by a machine that malfunctions, allegedly? There was something very interesting you said in your brief. And you said the U.K., which you -­ you say -- now you've added Ohio, but you said U.K. would be the place for Mr. Nicastro to go. It provides Alderson Reporting Company 1 a trusted legal system. What would be your answer if the manufacturer, same arrangement with a distributor, sell anyplace in the United States you can, is from China? Would you give the same answer?

Arthur F. Fergenson: Your Honor, I would have to look at -- and -- and the answer would not be, off the cuff, the same. It would not be flatly the same. There's been a recent decision by Judge Chasanow on melamine in which Chasanow applied the availability law that this Court has set forth in Piper and Gulf Oil and -- and the other cases that follow, and determined that China was an available forum for the plaintiffs suing for the harm to their children from tainted milk.

Justice Ginsburg: You -- you made a point about the trusted legal system. Well, let's say it was Russia, Mexico -- you may pick any one. The machine is manufactured in one of those countries where it's not so certain that there's a trusted legal system.

Arthur F. Fergenson: That's correct, Your Honor. And so under Piper, Gulf Oil -- and I can't remember the name of the other case that Judge Chasanow relied upon -- they are difficult cases, and the ability of the court to determine whether the other forum is available is quite cabined. And they are difficult, Your Honor. Alderson Reporting Company

Justice Ginsburg: Those that -- the -­

Chief Justice Roberts: Perhaps you'd like to reserve some of your time for rebuttal, counsel.

Arthur F. Fergenson: Yes, Your Honor. Thank you.

Chief Justice Roberts: Thank you. Mr. Ross. ORAL ARGUMENT OF ALEXANDER W. ROSS, JR., ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENTS

Alexander W. Ross Jr.: Mr. Chief Justice, and may it please the Court: "All we wish to do is sell our products in the States and get paid." That's what the British manufacturer said.

Chief Justice Roberts: What if he said we want to do that, but we don't like New Jersey, so don't sell our products in New Jersey, and the Ohio company nonetheless does so? Can you get them -- can you hale them into court in New Jersey?

Alexander W. Ross Jr.: I would say under those circumstances, yes, because the purpose that -- this particular manufacturer purposefully availed themselves of the entire U.S. market.

Chief Justice Roberts: But he said: But I have no intention of selling in New Jersey; I'm afraid I might get sued there, and I don't want to get sued Alderson Reporting Company 1 there. He is not entering the stream of commerce in the United States. He's entering a stream of commerce that detours around New Jersey.

Alexander W. Ross Jr.: So every State with the exception of New Jersey -- is that the hypothetical, Your Honor?

Chief Justice Roberts: Yes.

Alexander W. Ross Jr.: Then I would say under those circumstances, yes, New Jersey would be excluded.

Chief Justice Roberts: Oh, it would be excluded?

Alexander W. Ross Jr.: Yes. If the manufacturer -­

Chief Justice Roberts: So it depends on the intent of the manufacturer?

Alexander W. Ross Jr.: I think it's the intent and the additional conduct of the manufacturer, Your Honor. I think, as Justice O'Connor said in the Asahi case -- she gave several examples. I think we'd meet all those examples under the circumstances of this case.

Justice Scalia: What if a manufacturer tells a distributor: You have international distribution authority; you can sell my machine anywhere in the world, sell as many as you can anywhere in the world -- that would include the United States, right?

Alexander W. Ross Jr.: That is correct, Your Honor.

Justice Scalia: And, therefore, it would Alderson Reporting Company 1 include New Jersey?

Alexander W. Ross Jr.: Under those circumstances, of course, which are different from our case, it would seem to me -­

Justice Scalia: I know; it's a hypothetical.

Alexander W. Ross Jr.: Of course, of course. But the fact of the matter is if the manufacturer purposefully availed itself of -- of the market which would include the world and had a distributor for the entire world and did -­

Justice Scalia: It would include New Jersey.

Alexander W. Ross Jr.: Yes, it would.

Justice Scalia: Purposeful availment of the government of New Jersey?

Alexander W. Ross Jr.: I would say the manufacturer has to take some additional conduct.

Justice Scalia: I mean, availment doesn't mean much if that's all it means.

Alexander W. Ross Jr.: Well, if -­

Justice Scalia: You tell somebody distribute in the world and you are availing yourself of the government of New Jersey?

Alexander W. Ross Jr.: If there is purposeful availment Alderson Reporting Company 1 and additional conduct, Your Honor. In this case, that's what we have here.

Justice Breyer: Additional conduct?

Alexander W. Ross Jr.: Correct.

Justice Breyer: What I have written down in my notes, which you can add to -­

Alexander W. Ross Jr.: Sure.

Justice Breyer: -- is that there are three things that happened. One -- it's the equivalent of the potter. One thing that happened, we have to take it as, I think, an independent company, whether you want to call them a distributor or not. I didn't see a difference there. An independent company goes to a firm somewhere in the world and says: I will buy your product and sell it in the United States. And the guy says good. And that's true whether it's a woman's cooperative in southern India or whether it's the biggest company in the world, okay? That's the first thing. The second thing is that an executive of that company went to seven trade shows in the United States. And the third thing is that two, three, or four machines ended up in New Jersey. Now, is there anything other than that? And Alderson Reporting Company 1 there's a lot of rhetoric, and there are all kinds of characterizations, but when I looked for facts, I found those three, and I want to be sure I have them all.

Alexander W. Ross Jr.: You do, Your Honor.

Justice Breyer: I do. Now, then my question following from that, if I have those are the three facts, what worries me is the exact opposite of what the New -- the New Jersey Supreme Court said. It said in worldwide markets this is a good thing. I think I worry about it, because I'm worried about the woman's cooperative in India, I'm worried about the Chinese development, I'm worried about development everywhere. We have a lot of small businesses. And I'd worry -­ now, maybe the worry is legally irrelevant -- but I'd worry about a rule of law that subjects every small business in every developing company -- in every developing country to have to be aware of the law in 50 States simply because they agreed to sell to an independent company who is going to sell to America, plus your two factors. And really the third is none, because if it hadn't ended up somewhere, there'd have been no accident.

Alexander W. Ross Jr.: I would say -­

Justice Breyer: Now, that's my basic Alderson Reporting Company 1 concern here.

Alexander W. Ross Jr.: I would say in -- in response to your hypothetical question, that because there was purposeful availment where they came to the United States, attended trade shows in an effort to sell their product to anyone who would come to that trade show throughout the United States, and those sales were in fact consummated, then in that case I think that the manufacturer has done more than just intend to sell. They have taken certain positive steps.

Justice Breyer: Yes. Okay, but you see what my -- my problem is a sort of policy problem that may be irrelevant, but I -- I don't see how the world's going to work or develop if in fact every small business everywhere in the world has to know, you know, the law of every 50 States and hire lawyers and come here, rather than making the accident victim go there. Now, it's tough on the accident victim, but the other is also tough. So -- so that's -- that's sort of the -- I'm sketching out my concerns here. You -­

Alexander W. Ross Jr.: I understand.

Justice Breyer: All right.

Justice Sotomayor: What is -­

Justice Breyer: What would you say?

Chief Justice Roberts: Maybe you could Alderson Reporting Company 1 respond to Justice Breyer's -­

Justice Breyer: Yes.

Alexander W. Ross Jr.: In -- in my judgment, it's not enough to just have intent; it's not enough just to send the product out on -- adrift on the stream of commerce. There has to be some additional conduct, some concrete steps taken. And I believe -­

Justice Breyer: Trade shows.

Alexander W. Ross Jr.: -- in your hypothetical, attending the trade shows, perhaps hiring a distributor, selling the products -­

Justice Breyer: Well, that's the same as the first; that's a sale to the entity.

Alexander W. Ross Jr.: That's right. So I think those are the additional concrete steps that were taken in your hypothetical.

Justice Ginsburg: Mr. Ross -­

Justice Kagan: Mr. Ross, do you think if there's a small business in the United States that sells a product and that actively seeks to serve a foreign market -- maybe it's Great Britain, maybe it's China -­ and that product blows up in that foreign country -- Great Britain, China -- do you think that the manufacturer, the American manufacturer, is subject to jurisdiction there? Alderson Reporting Company

Alexander W. Ross Jr.: Yes. If they actively seek the market there, they have purposefully availed themselves, they have taken -­

Justice Kagan: All -- all over the world this is true; is that right?

Alexander W. Ross Jr.: Yes. Yes, Your Honor.

Justice Ginsburg: And it is a jurisdictional rule that civil law systems have always had.

Alexander W. Ross Jr.: That's correct, Your Honor. I believe -­

Justice Scalia: But -- and I assume that if we do this to a company in England, any country in the world, and we say that this satisfies due process, we would have to honor a judgment from Bangladesh based upon -- against an American company, based upon a similarly modest degree of -- of availment, right?

Alexander W. Ross Jr.: Well, Your Honor, it depends on the extent of the availment, I would say, under those circumstances.

Justice Scalia: Just as -- just as modest as what you propose here, or as extensive. I don't mean to demean the degree of it here.

Alexander W. Ross Jr.: It seems to me -- if there's -­

Justice Scalia: But the same kind of Alderson Reporting Company 1 contact in India, which has different -- different States in India. And -- strike Bangladesh. Make it Madras, okay?

Alexander W. Ross Jr.: All right.

Justice Scalia: And we would have to honor a judgment by a court of Madras against an American manufacturer who had as little contact with Madras as exists here.

Alexander W. Ross Jr.: I would say under -- yes.

Justice Scalia: We would have to?

Alexander W. Ross Jr.: Yes, I would say.

Justice Kagan: Mr. Ross, we do that now; isn't that right?

Alexander W. Ross Jr.: That's correct, Your Honor.

Justice Breyer: We do? We do? So if someone goes into a shop in West Virginia and buys a thousand pots and says I'm going to sell them in Madras, or I might sell them anywhere in the world -­

Alexander W. Ross Jr.: That's a slightly -­

Justice Breyer: -- and then that manufacturer, that potter in West Virginia, now has to go to wherever he ends up -- wherever that pot ends up?

Alexander W. Ross Jr.: That's a slightly different scenario in my judgment, Your Honor -­

Justice Breyer: Ah. Ah. Alderson Reporting Company

Alexander W. Ross Jr.: -- because the distributor came to the manufacturer. In this case, the manufacturer from Britain hired -­

Justice Breyer: We turn it on that? We turn it on whether the independent buyer -- the independent buyer walked into the shop or whether the seller found that there was an independent buyer? Is that what this case should turn on? I mean, I'm nervous. I see a lot of rather deep issues here, and I -- that's what are making me nervous.

Alexander W. Ross Jr.: I understand, Your Honor.

Justice Breyer: I want to -­

Alexander W. Ross Jr.: I understand that.

Justice Breyer: You've thought about it more than I. So -­

Justice Ginsburg: Can we go back to Justice Scalia's question? I mean, the United States has been telling the rest of the world: We do recognize and enforce your judgments -­

Alexander W. Ross Jr.: I think -­

Justice Ginsburg: -- if there is a -- a proper jurisdictional basis.

Alexander W. Ross Jr.: That's correct, Your Honor.

Justice Ginsburg: We do, and we would like Alderson Reporting Company 1 you to recognize ours. And we don't get that reciprocity, but we still are trying to get it.

Alexander W. Ross Jr.: That's correct.

Justice Ginsburg: But the United States has taken a very neighborly view about recognizing and enforcing foreign judgments.

Alexander W. Ross Jr.: Yes, Your Honor. I -­

Justice Scalia: That's true when there's a proper jurisdictional basis, which is what we're talking about here: What does the United States mean when it says there is a proper jurisdictional basis? Is all that the court in Madras needs what existed here in order to hold an -- an American manufacturer liable? That's -- that's a little scary.

Alexander W. Ross Jr.: Well, Your Honor, if the corporation, the manufacturer, is purposefully availing itself of the Madras market and hires a distributor to go to Madras and to sell its products, then indeed I don't see why a court in Madras would not have -- and the product explodes or causes some horrific -­

Justice Sotomayor: So it really, to you -­ are you saying that Justice Breyer's hypothetical creates jurisdiction, that the mere sale to a distributor anywhere creates jurisdiction, wherever that distributor is marketing the manufacturer's product? Alderson Reporting Company 1 I thought because, in the hypothetical he created, it was they were availing themselves of the U.S. market because they were marketing. They went to seven trade shows. They did merely -- they did something more than the sale. So where's your -- what's your position?

Alexander W. Ross Jr.: My position is exactly what Your Honor has just stated. They have to do something more than just sell. There has to be purposeful availment. There has to be some concrete action, attending trade shows, designing the product for the market.

Justice Alito: What -- what difference does attending some trade shows in the United States mean -­ make? Suppose they're -- they didn't attend any trade shows. They just have a Web site that provides a description of the product.

Alexander W. Ross Jr.: I think -­

Justice Alito: Would there be no jurisdiction then?

Alexander W. Ross Jr.: Well, it depends on the Web site. But in my judgment, attending trade shows is a large factor that is unique in this case. As I pointed out in our briefs, they were -- they didn't just attend a trade show; they attended trade shows throughout the United States to sell this product. Alderson Reporting Company

Justice Alito: But not in New Jersey.

Alexander W. Ross Jr.: Not in the State of New Jersey, but a lot of other places.

Justice Ginsburg: Where did the New Jersey company that bought this machine find out about it?

Alexander W. Ross Jr.: Well, Mr. Curcio, who was Mr. Nicastro's employer, went to one of these conventions, trade shows, in Las Vegas, where he saw the machine. And at that trade show the British manufacturer shared a booth with the -- its American distributor. And that's where Mr. Curcio, Mr. Nicastro's employer, saw the machine, and that's why he decided to buy it there.

Chief Justice Roberts: What difference does it make that they go to a trade show somewhere other than New Jersey? We have the notion that they're availing themselves of the -- the entire United States market. That's -- I'll accept that.

Alexander W. Ross Jr.: Right.

Chief Justice Roberts: What does the trade show in Nevada add to the jurisdictional ties to New Jersey?

Alexander W. Ross Jr.: The difference for this case, precisely this case, is that we feel that under those circumstances there may have been minimum contacts, even Alderson Reporting Company 1 under a traditional sense here.

Chief Justice Roberts: With Nevada?

Alexander W. Ross Jr.: With -- no, with New Jersey, because the British manufacturer was there. He was in a booth. A New Jersey person came to the booth and said that's a great machine. There was some kind of interaction. The record is unclear as to what it was, but the result was the British manufacturer wound up selling its product -­

Justice Kagan: Mr. Ross -­

Justice Scalia: If you interact with somebody from New Jersey, you have -­

Alexander W. Ross Jr.: It's more -­

Justice Scalia: -- committed availment of the government of New Jersey?

Alexander W. Ross Jr.: It's more than that. It's much more.

Justice Scalia: There are a lot of people from New Jersey. (Laughter.)

Alexander W. Ross Jr.: It's more than -- it's more than that, Your Honor. It's more than that. It's the distributor acting under the direction, guidance, and control of the British manufacturer, and there are records in the -- in the record, there's plenty of Alderson Reporting Company 1 reference to that.

Justice Scalia: He didn't tell them -­

Justice Kagan: And, Mr. Ross, isn't -­

Justice Scalia: -- to just seek out a person from New Jersey.

Alexander W. Ross Jr.: He was -­

Justice Scalia: He told them to talk to people.

Alexander W. Ross Jr.: He was prepared to sell to anyone. Whether it was from New Jersey or Massachusetts or Connecticut, it didn't matter as long as the sale was into the United States and the manufacturer got the economic benefit of it.

Justice Kagan: And, Mr. Ross, isn't the point that he was selling by using large convention sites in the United States, expecting that people from other States would show up to those large convention sites? I know that Justice Alito doesn't want to hear this, but New Jersey doesn't have all that many large convention sites like Las Vegas does. Newark -­ (Laughter.)

Justice Kagan: Newark is not such a hot place, but they're expecting people from Newark to go and look at these machines and buy these machines. Alderson Reporting Company 1 That's the marketing system that's used for these massive machines that they're trying to sell nationwide.

Alexander W. Ross Jr.: That's exactly correct, Your Honor. The -­

Justice Breyer: What if -­

Chief Justice Roberts: What if there is no scrap metal plant in Montana? Can Montana be a jurisdiction in a case like this? You know, a Montana worker is over in New Jersey and comes back to his home in Montana, and he's been injured. Do they avail themselves of the market in Montana when there's no market for their products there?

Alexander W. Ross Jr.: Well, if someone from Montana attends one of these trade shows and decides to purchase one of these machines, that -­

Chief Justice Roberts: No, no. He's just injured by one of the machines somewhere else, but he's from Montana. Can he sue in Montana?

Alexander W. Ross Jr.: Under those circumstances, I would say not.

Justice Ginsburg: The -- the basis would only be the plaintiff's residence?

Alexander W. Ross Jr.: That's correct.

Justice Ginsburg: But we don't accept that as a sufficient basis. Alderson Reporting Company

Alexander W. Ross Jr.: That's correct. That would not be enough.

Chief Justice Roberts: Well, I thought -- I thought this was what the case was all about: whether this is -- the stream of commerce is sufficient to add a basis on top of the plaintiff's residence.

Alexander W. Ross Jr.: Right.

Chief Justice Roberts: And I would have thought -- to me, that's a significant limitation on your theory to say that in areas where you don't expect to be haled into court because your machine is not going to be used, you can't be.

Alexander W. Ross Jr.: Well, it seems to me that if the -- if the manufacturer has purposefully availed itself of the entire United States market, which is inclusive of Montana -­

Chief Justice Roberts: Yes.

Alexander W. Ross Jr.: -- and the machine somehow winds up in Montana -­

Chief Justice Roberts: No, no. Not the machine.

Alexander W. Ross Jr.: The individual.

Chief Justice Roberts: Yes.

Alexander W. Ross Jr.: So the individual is in Montana; the accident happened somewhere else? Alderson Reporting Company

Chief Justice Roberts: Yes.

Alexander W. Ross Jr.: Under those circumstances, I would say that wherever that machine was sold into, whether it was in an adjoining State, and the fellow from Montana lived across the border, say -­

Chief Justice Roberts: Yes, exactly.

Alexander W. Ross Jr.: -- I would say that the jurisdiction would better be put where the accident occurred.

Justice Breyer: Yes, well -­

Chief Justice Roberts: Could it be put elsewhere? Could it be put in the other State?

Alexander W. Ross Jr.: I would say that if the -- if the manufacturer has not purposefully availed itself of the State of Montana -­

Chief Justice Roberts: Right.

Alexander W. Ross Jr.: -- and has taken no steps -­

Chief Justice Roberts: Right.

Alexander W. Ross Jr.: -- to push into Montana, even though it is seeking to sell to the entire United States -­

Chief Justice Roberts: Yes.

Alexander W. Ross Jr.: -- I think the better location for that lawsuit -­

Chief Justice Roberts: Well, better -- I Alderson Reporting Company 1 know -- I know you think it's better, but can he be sued in Montana? What I'm trying to get at, obviously, is we're talking about the stream of commerce in the United States, but the stream doesn't wash over the United States evenly. The manufacturer, as I asked earlier, may decide I don't want to sell New Jersey.

Alexander W. Ross Jr.: Right.

Chief Justice Roberts: The manufacturer may reasonably assume his machines aren't going to be in Montana because there's no scrap metal business in Montana. So I'm just trying to see if there are limitations to your theory about the stream of commerce covers everything.

Alexander W. Ross Jr.: Yes, Your Honor. The answer is yes, there are limitations. There are those limitations, and I think the best way of -- of stating it would be if there is purposeful availment of entering a market and you sell the product into that market, you take these additional steps plus the intent, plus the additional -­

Chief Justice Roberts: Right, but the market cannot be simply the United States, because you carve out New Jersey if the manufacturer does, you carve out Montana if -- Alderson Reporting Company

Alexander W. Ross Jr.: That is correct.

Chief Justice Roberts: Okay.

Alexander W. Ross Jr.: That is correct, Your Honor.

Justice Breyer: But what I'm thinking is this -- this area of law has treated States as if they're foreign countries, in a certain way analogous to. If that -- and I'm trying to -- let me ask: What you said at one point, that if an independent company comes to a business, however small, in the United States and says give us some of your product, we're going to sell it everywhere in the world we can, fine. And they do. A couple go -- get into some very -- Burma or whatever, Myanmar. And right now, it's the law that consumers in all those countries sue in that country if they're hurt. Is that really the law? Is there something you can cite me to on that?

Alexander W. Ross Jr.: Well, there are conventions. There's a Brussels convention and a Uganda convention.

Justice Breyer: And what does it -- what does it say?

Alexander W. Ross Jr.: They basically state, according to my understanding, that where the -- where the tort occurred to the signatories of that convention, which includes the -- Alderson Reporting Company

Justice Breyer: Yes, and we're one?

Alexander W. Ross Jr.: The United Kingdom. Which includes the United Kingdom.

Justice Breyer: And are we one?

Alexander W. Ross Jr.: That -- then in those cases, where the tort occurred there would be jurisdiction over the foreign manufacturer. For example, if there's an injury in Belgium and the machine is manufactured in Britain, someone is hurt in Belgium, according to those conventions, then the person in Belgium could sue the British company in Belgium.

Justice Breyer: Did you refer to that? Do you have a citation to that in -­

Alexander W. Ross Jr.: They're in our brief. Yes.

Justice Breyer: -- in your brief?

Alexander W. Ross Jr.: Yes, Your Honor.

Justice Ginsburg: It's the EEOC Convention on Jurisdiction and Judgments? Because that operates only within the Community.

Alexander W. Ross Jr.: That's correct. The United States is not a signatory to that convention. But the hypothetical was -- and I tried to answer the hypothetical.

Justice Kennedy: Does your argument depend on whether the manufacturer is the manufacturer of the Alderson Reporting Company 1 whole machine as opposed to a component part, like Asahi? Suppose there was a little battery or lever that was manufactured, I don't know, in France, and it was sent over to this English manufacturer, and they were -­ this part is incorporated in many different kinds of machines, but the part then -- and then the facts are the same: It goes to the Ohio distributor and New Jersey, but the part is what causes the injury. What results?

Alexander W. Ross Jr.: I would say no jurisdiction for a component manufacturer under those circumstances, unless the component manufacturer was deliberately manufacturing a product for sale into a State in the United States -­

Justice Kennedy: Well, it's like Justice Breyer's hypothetical. He wants to sell to the entire universe if he can.

Alexander W. Ross Jr.: That's correct, but the manufacturer in your hypothetical did not purposefully avail itself of the United States market. He simply sold a component part. And this is, of course, not a component part case we have here before us. So he may have known -­ there might have been foreseeability that it was possible that.... That's not enough. Alderson Reporting Company

Chief Justice Roberts: Well, what if -­

Alexander W. Ross Jr.: We're not saying that's enough.

Chief Justice Roberts: Let's say he does know, it's a component part for something that is sold, widely sold, in the United States. Or it's a component part of this machine.

Alexander W. Ross Jr.: Our position is that under those circumstances, if the manufacturer did not purposefully avail itself of the United States market by hiring a distributor -­

Chief Justice Roberts: But why would it be -­

Alexander W. Ross Jr.: -- it wouldn't be targeting that market.

Chief Justice Roberts: So you have an entirely different test.

Alexander W. Ross Jr.: As to components. I'm sorry.

Chief Justice Roberts: You have -- you have an entirely different test for a component manufacturer than you do for the finished product manufacturer. The component manufacturer may well know to a certainty that his component is going to be used in a product that's sold in the United States. Let's say he makes a component for this machine. Alderson Reporting Company

Alexander W. Ross Jr.: Right.

Chief Justice Roberts: Why is that different? Shouldn't it be the same test?

Alexander W. Ross Jr.: I think it's different. And that's where the limitation of the Due Process Clause, I think, comes into play because that manufacturer, making a small component, a spring, a small part for a large machine like in the Asahi case, he may not -- he may have known. It's foreseeable that this product will go there, but -­

Chief Justice Roberts: He makes -- let's say he makes the 25-inch blade that only goes into this machine. That's the only market for it. Does -- no difference?

Alexander W. Ross Jr.: I would say there is a difference, because that component -­

Chief Justice Roberts: I'm sorry. That was poorly phrased. Is it the same test for the machine, or is it a different test? Is it your component test?

Alexander W. Ross Jr.: I think it's -- I think it's the same test, but it would come out differently for the component manufacturer. That's the way I'd like to -­

Justice Kagan: And, Mr. Fergenson, isn't that what Justice O'Connor said in Asahi, that the component manufacturer may have all the knowledge in the Alderson Reporting Company 1 world -- for Justice Brennan, that was enough; for Justice O'Connor, it was not enough, that knowledge was insufficient, that there had to be purposeful availment, that there had to be an active decision, a choice to seek the market. And -- and I understand that, on your view, McIntyre made that choice.

Alexander W. Ross Jr.: Exactly.

Chief Justice Roberts: How can there not -­ how can there possibly not be purposeful availment if the manufacturer of the 25-inch blade knows it's only going to be used in McIntyre's machine and it knows that McIntyre is trying to sell its machine in the United States?

Alexander W. Ross Jr.: Because the manufacturer of that blade did not specifically target the United States market. He -­

Chief Justice Roberts: He put it in a product that is only going to be -- that he knows is going to be sold in the United States.

Alexander W. Ross Jr.: But it's not specifically designed for them. And that -- that machine is not specifically designed for the U.S. market. That machine -­

Chief Justice Roberts: You have a partnership. One of the partners makes the shell of the Alderson Reporting Company 1 machine; the other partner makes the insides of the machine. Are they, as individual companies -- are they availing themselves of the United States market?

Alexander W. Ross Jr.: Now, under those circumstances, I would think there would be a difference. I think there would be a difference because they are combined in joining to market into the United States. But if this is a -- a manufacturer of blades in Birmingham, England, and the manufacturer of blades in Birmingham, England, sends it to Nottingham, England, and then something happens in New Jersey, and all the facts are the same, I would say Birmingham is off the hook.

Justice Scalia: Suppose the company in Nottingham only sells to the United States. It's the only place its machines are -- are marketed.

Alexander W. Ross Jr.: That would be different then. Then there -- there is more than that. There -­

Justice Scalia: Then the component manufacturer would be liable in New Jersey?

Alexander W. Ross Jr.: Because he is basically piggybacking on the actions of the manufacturer.

Justice Breyer: All right. What about today, is there any difference between the trade show -­ and he did show up at seven trade shows. I -- I mean, the manufacturer here had a representative at several Alderson Reporting Company 1 trade shows, you're right.

Alexander W. Ross Jr.: Twenty-six.

Justice Breyer: That's right. Twenty -­ no, well, the record said seven.

Alexander W. Ross Jr.: There were 26 trade shows.

Justice Breyer: Is that in the record?

Alexander W. Ross Jr.: Yes, it is. Joint Appendix 114 to 117a.

Justice Breyer: Okay. All right. Is there a difference between that, do you think, and -- I just read in the paper the other day there's some Ethiopian or some foreign country -- it's a very poor country -­ and they're selling goats, and they're sending some to the United States for some kind of festival purpose or something. Now, he said I have a site on the Internet. All right. Now, all of these people, however small, I mean, many, many will have Internet sites, and some of them might have an Internet site that's accessed by American buyers, as this man did.

Alexander W. Ross Jr.: Right.

Justice Breyer: All right. Is there any difference between that and your trade shows?

Alexander W. Ross Jr.: And if the goat poisons someone in the United States and the -- and the person who Alderson Reporting Company 1 raised the goat -­

Justice Breyer: Yes.

Alexander W. Ross Jr.: -- purposefully availed itself -­

Justice Breyer: No, no, don't use the characterization. I mean, I'm -- see, I'm trying to figure out does this count as purposefully availed?

Alexander W. Ross Jr.: If -- if they take steps, concrete steps, additional conduct, then yes. The answer is yes.

Justice Breyer: Okay. So the answer is going to be, in this case, if we say you win -­

Alexander W. Ross Jr.: Sadly, even if -­

Justice Breyer: -- then everyone with a -­ with a -- everyone with an Internet site who also sells to a buyer who says anywhere in the world, perhaps -- I don't know how far that reaches -- seems pretty filled with implications.

Alexander W. Ross Jr.: Yes, it does. The Internet -- we deliberately did not raise the Internet or any Web sites in our briefs.

Justice Breyer: But it's the same, you think? It's the same -- I thought it might -­

Alexander W. Ross Jr.: I think if there's purposeful availment and if the Internet is being used to market specifically into the United States and the product Alderson Reporting Company 1 causes harm to someone in the United States -­

Justice Ginsburg: Are there -- there are some cases just beginning -- at the beginning stages, aren't there, involving sales through the Internet?

Alexander W. Ross Jr.: Yes. Yes, Your Honor. I believe that those cases say if there's an interactive Web site; in other words, if the person sitting in the United States can press several buttons on its computer and interact and make -- consummate the transaction, if you will, with the foreign manufacturer, then under those circumstances, I believe, the trend of the cases seems to be that there would be jurisdiction.

Justice Kennedy: But -- but you were cut off before you finished your answer. I want to make sure I understood it. I -- I make the inference that you -- you would say that if there is an advertisement, not a sale, just an advertisement on the Internet, replacing the trade show, that that is a significant availment -- a purposeful availment, and there can be jurisdiction in New Jersey. Same factors here -­ somebody who doesn't go to the U.S. trade shows, but he does put it on the Internet, the same result?

Alexander W. Ross Jr.: That was one of the four examples that Justice O'Connor gave us in Asahi, advertising for -- Alderson Reporting Company

Justice Kennedy: I want to know what your position is.

Alexander W. Ross Jr.: Yes. My position is yes, because they are -- they are attempting to sell into the United States with advertising. But the trend of the decisions has been that it has to be an interactive Web site.

Chief Justice Roberts: Can -- maybe everybody knows this except me. Do you -- are Web sites targeted to the United States? Don't you -- you can -­ let's say they put it on their Web site in England. Can't you -- can't -- can't I access that from here?

Alexander W. Ross Jr.: Yes, you can.

Chief Justice Roberts: So they don't even have to send the Web site to the United States? They just have to have a Web site?

Alexander W. Ross Jr.: If it's an interactive Web site where you can sit in New Jersey, order a product, the product is then delivered by the foreign manufacturer into New Jersey, and the product then chops off four fingers of someone's hand -­

Chief Justice Roberts: So it has to be interactive?

Alexander W. Ross Jr.: Yes, Your Honor.

Chief Justice Roberts: If it's just -- what if it says, here, we're McIntyre -- on a Web site -- we Alderson Reporting Company 1 make these machines; give us a call at this number if you want to buy one?

Alexander W. Ross Jr.: Not enough.

Chief Justice Roberts: Not enough?

Alexander W. Ross Jr.: That's like a billboard. That's not enough. That's just a pure advertising; not enough. But if the additional steps that I just mentioned are taken and a sale occurs -­

Chief Justice Roberts: And this distinction is somewhere in the Due Process Clause?

Alexander W. Ross Jr.: I believe that the Due Process Clause requires the additional conduct. The purposeful availment, which is what we have in your hypothetical, and the actual transaction, the sale, then we have jurisdiction.

Justice Kennedy: But was the sale here negotiated in -- or part of the sale negotiated in Nevada or the person just -- the New Jersey manufacturer just was interested in the machine and then later contacted the Ohio distributor?

Alexander W. Ross Jr.: In this case, the manufacturer said that they own the machines until they're paid for in full. The machine was not paid for in full.

Justice Kennedy: No, I'm -- I'm trying to relate what happened here to the Internet hypothetical. Alderson Reporting Company 1 I have the -­

Alexander W. Ross Jr.: Right.

Justice Kennedy: -- Internet hypothetical where there's just an advertisement.

Alexander W. Ross Jr.: Right.

Justice Kennedy: And, at first, I thought you were saying that's sufficient. Now you say no, because they have to be part of the contract. I'm trying to make the Internet equivalent to the trade show.

Alexander W. Ross Jr.: If the Internet Web site is interactive, so you can sit in New Jersey, order the product, complete the transaction, send money, and in response to the money coming, you get a product -­

Justice Kennedy: Okay. But not just an advertisement?

Alexander W. Ross Jr.: Not just an advertisement.

Justice Kennedy: Even though that's the cause for the buyer's interest in it and he pursues -­ pursues his -- his transaction after finding out all the information on the Internet, but he phones the Ohio distributor?

Alexander W. Ross Jr.: It's not enough, in my judgment, if -- under the Internet example that you just gave. If there's an interactive Web site where the person in New Alderson Reporting Company 1 Jersey can press buttons on his computer and complete the transaction with the result that the product comes to New Jersey, under those circumstances, I would say there is jurisdiction.

Chief Justice Roberts: Complete? He's got to complete the transaction?

Alexander W. Ross Jr.: That's correct.

Chief Justice Roberts: What if it's -­

Alexander W. Ross Jr.: I don't -­

Chief Justice Roberts: -- you know, punch these numbers, and we will send you an application for a machine? Is that not enough, because he's got to complete the transaction?

Alexander W. Ross Jr.: I would say, under those circumstances, that that's part of what the manufacturer requires, but the end result is that the machine winds up in New Jersey through this contact between the person and the manufacturer. Then I would say that would be enough for jurisdiction.

Chief Justice Roberts: So that if they say fill this out, and contact this person, McIntyre, whatever, in Ohio, that's where you can get one of our machines -- that's enough?

Alexander W. Ross Jr.: I would say, in that case, they have deliberately targeted the entire United States Alderson Reporting Company 1 market, but they want you to go through their distributor, which they have hired -­

Chief Justice Roberts: Would their -­

Alexander W. Ross Jr.: -- in Ohio, and he sends it. It's the same situation. Well, if there's no further questions, I would simply like to ask this Court to affirm the judgement of the Supreme Court of New Jersey in this case.

Chief Justice Roberts: Thank you, Mr. Ross.

Alexander W. Ross Jr.: Thank you.

Chief Justice Roberts: Mr. Fergenson, you have 2 minutes remaining. REBUTTAL ARGUMENT OF ARTHUR F. FERGENSON ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER

Arthur F. Fergenson: Thank you, Your Honor. Justice Breyer, I would -- in response to your concern, I would ask you to look at page 29 of the States' amicus brief: "Ignorance of the fact that New Jersey is a State within our union, or of the specifics of New Jersey products liability law, should not allow Petitioner to avoid jurisdiction. Its own lack of research prior to embarking on a nationwide marketing campaign is no defense." I think that -­

Justice Kagan: Mr. Fergenson -- Alderson Reporting Company

Justice Sotomayor: Could you answer -­

Justice Kagan: -- could I ask you a question?

Justice Sotomayor: I'm sorry. Could you -­ just one quick point of clarification.

Arthur F. Fergenson: Yes, Your Honor.

Justice Sotomayor: It's a point that your adversary raised in passing. I'm not quite sure, do you sell outright to the American company? Do you ship a product and they pay you, or they only pay you when they receive the money from their customer? There appears to be some suggestion of the latter.

Arthur F. Fergenson: And the New Jersey Supreme Court said that there was a suggestion that some trades could have been by consignment. I believe that that is outside of this -- taken out of this case by an admission in the brief -- at least for this sale -- in the brief in opposition to defendant's motion to dismiss, at 19-20, filed October 11th, 2006, where they state -- where Respondent states it was sold by us to MMA, and it was sold by MMA to Curcio Scrap Metal. So, there is no consignment. There's no consignment under 9-102, which Ohio has adopted.

Justice Sotomayor: But that's a different question than I asked. There was no consignment on this Alderson Reporting Company 1 machine?

Arthur F. Fergenson: Yes.

Justice Sotomayor: But you're not claiming that there might not be on others?

Arthur F. Fergenson: The evidence in the record under 9-102, which Ohio has adopted, I think can only be reasonably viewed -- and this Court obviously treats it as de novo, on a jurisdictional review -- can only be viewed as not a consignment because MMA was in the business of selling the products to others. Let me say that for the -- there was no interaction in the record with anyone from New Jersey by MMA or by J. McIntyre. It was the booth, and then there was an order. And if you look at the invoice, it says verbal order. There was an order by the son of the owner of Curcio Metal Works, and that's it. The order was fulfilled.

Justice Kagan: Mr. Fergenson, Toyota, Honda, Volkswagen -- pick your car company -- sells many millions of cars to the United States. They start blowing up here. They operate through independent distributors only. Can they be subject to jurisdiction in any of the States?

Arthur F. Fergenson: I think that most sophisticated distribution networks -- and this one was Alderson Reporting Company 1 not -- I -- the defense takes it as a -- takes on the issue of this as a scheme. Most sophisticated distribution networks, such as the manufacturers you're talking about, there is -- there is recourse to remedies throughout the United States, whether against the distributor or against the manufacturer.

Chief Justice Roberts: Thank you, counsel.

Arthur F. Fergenson: Thank you.

Chief Justice Roberts: The case is submitted. (Whereupon, at 11:13 a.m., the case in the above-entitled matter was submitted.) 14 16 18 20 22 24 Alderson Reporting Company OOffffiicciiaall -- SSuubbjjeecctt ttoo FFiinnaall RReevviieeww A adrift 32:5 APPEARANC... 10:21 backwards 16:4 ability 25:23 adversary 60:8 1:14 assume 5:5 Bangladesh above-entitled advertised19:24 appears 60:11 23:19 33:12 33:15 34:2 1:11 62:12 advertisement Appendix 52:7 44:10 bankrupt 12:14 accept 38:18 54:16,17 57:4 applicable 13:19 Assuming 15:20 bankruptcy 13:5 41:24 57:16,17 application 58:11 attempting 55:4 based7:7,8 9:19 accepted14:10 advertising 21:8 applied6:7 13:6 attend 37:14,23 9:24 12:22 access 55:11 21:12 54:24 23:12 25:10 attended31:5 33:15,16 accessed52:19 55:5 56:6 apply 23:13 37:24 basic 30:25 accident 7:4,6,7 affairs 16:3,18 appointing 21:15 attending 32:10 basically 45:22 7:8 9:24 11:6 affirm 59:7 appropriate 9:20 37:10,13,21 51:20 11:15 17:25 afraid 26:24 9:22 15:16 attends 41:14 basis 3:24 9:6 30:23 31:17,18 agency 3:22,24 approve 19:18 authority 16:21 35:23 36:9,11 42:25 43:8 agree 13:20 approved19:18 27:21 41:21,25 42:6 Accountability agreed30:18 19:20 avail 41:10 47:20 battery 47:2 16:9 agreement 9:20 area 16:3 45:5 48:9 begged20:23 acknowledge Ah 34:25,25 areas 42:10 availability beginning 54:3,3 4:13 ALEXANDER argument 1:12 25:10 behalf 1:16,18 act 6:5 16:9 1:17 2:6 26:7 2:2,5,8 3:3,7 available 25:13 2:4,7,10 3:8 acting 39:23 Alito 37:12,18 13:9,17 26:7 25:24 26:8 59:15 action 3:15 10:8 38:1 40:19 46:24 59:14 availed13:14,15 Belgium 46:8,9 10:24 12:5 13:4 allegedly 9:5 arisen10:6 26:21 28:9 33:2 46:10,11 37:10 24:21 arises 7:1 10:9 42:14 43:14 believe 21:14,17 actions 3:23 allow59:21 arose 10:3 12:17 53:3,6 23:10,13 24:5 21:14 51:21 all-purpose 12:17 availing 28:23 32:7 33:11 54:5 active 7:13 50:4 12:23 arrangement 8:4 36:16 37:2 54:11 56:11 actively 32:20 Amendment 17:8,9,11 25:3 38:17 51:3 60:15 33:1 14:20 ARTHUR 1:15 availment 7:11 benefit 40:13 activities 7:16 America 3:21 2:3,9 3:7 59:14 7:12,16 17:1,6 best 44:17 17:1 21:4 30:19 article 22:1 18:20 28:15,19 better3:25 5:17 activity 3:12 American6:21 Asahi 6:9,11 28:25 31:4 23:9 43:8,23,25 actual 56:14 19:10,20 20:14 7:10 14:9 24:6 33:17,19 37:9 44:1 add 29:6 38:21 20:17 32:24 24:7,8,8 27:16 39:14 44:18 beyond 15:23 42:5 33:16 34:6 47:2 49:8,24 50:3,9 53:24 biggest 29:18 added24:24 36:13 38:10 54:24 54:19,19 56:13 billboard 56:5 additional 27:15 52:20 60:9 ascribe 3:23 avoid 59:22 Birmingham 28:18 29:1,3 amicus 59:19 asked11:1 19:6 aware 30:17 51:8,9,12 32:6,15 44:20 analogous 45:6 20:6 44:6 60:25 awareness 3:14 blade 49:12 44:21 53:8 56:7 answer10:25 asking 9:1 a.m 1:13 3:2 50:10,15 56:12 13:8 25:2,5,7 assert 23:23 62:11 blades 51:8,9 adjoining 43:4 44:15 46:22 assigned18:11 blew17:21 B adjudicative 3:16 53:9,10 54:14 assignment 9:10 blowing 61:21 back 10:7,25 admission 60:17 60:1 9:12 10:10,13 blows 17:15 18:9 11:24 19:3 adopted60:23 anticipate 7:19 10:17 12:8,12 32:22 35:17 41:9 61:6 anyplace 25:4 assignments board 18:3 AAllddeerrssoonn RReeppoorrttiinngg CCoommppaannyy book 20:14 buy 6:17 29:14 characterization claim7:7,8 9:17 49:7,16,19,22 booth 38:10 39:5 38:13 40:25 53:5 9:19,19,24 10:3 49:25 51:18 39:5 61:13 56:2 characterizatio... 10:3 11:14 12:2 components border43:5 buyer22:23 30:2 12:6,13,17,21 48:17 bought 38:5 23:23 35:5,6,7 Chasanow25:9 12:25 computer54:8 Brennan 11:19 53:15 25:10,22 claiming 61:3 58:1 14:10 23:16 buyers 52:20 Chicago 21:25 clarification60:5 conceding 8:18 50:1 buyer's 57:19 Chief 3:3,9 26:2 Clause 15:16 concern 31:1 Brennan's 6:10 buys 24:1 34:16 26:5,9,14,23 49:5 56:10,12 59:18 Breyer22:6,8 27:6,9,12 31:25 clear 7:18 11:20 concerns 31:20 C 23:18 24:7 29:3 38:14,20 39:2 11:21 concrete 32:6,15 29:5,8 30:5,25 C 2:1 3:1 41:6,16 42:3,8 client 17:12 37:10 53:8 31:11,22,24 cabined25:25 42:17,20,23 combined51:6 concurrence 6:9 32:2,8,12 34:15 California 5:15 43:1,6,11,16 come 8:14 10:25 6:10,10 34:20,25 35:4 5:23 8:1 12:23 43:18,22,25 31:6,16 49:21 condition16:8 35:13,15 41:5 call 29:12 56:1 44:9,22 45:2 comes 41:9 45:9 conduct 27:15 43:10 45:4,20 calling 4:2 48:1,3,11,15 49:6 58:2 28:18 29:1,3 46:1,4,12,15 campaign 59:24 48:18 49:2,11 coming 57:14 32:6 53:8 56:12 51:22 52:3,6,9 car 61:19 49:17 50:8,17 commerce 27:1,2 conducting 7:16 52:22 53:2,4,10 cars 61:20 50:24 55:7,13 32:5 42:5 44:4 17:1 53:13,21 59:17 carve 44:24,24 55:21,24 56:4,9 44:13 conflict 8:24 23:5 Breyer's 32:1 case 3:4 16:25 58:5,8,10,20 committed39:14 conflicting 23:22 36:22 47:16 22:10 23:2,12 59:3,10,12 62:7 common9:12 conflicts 24:4,6 brief 24:23 46:14 24:4,12,19 62:9 10:9,13,15 conformed21:12 46:15 59:19 25:22 27:16,18 children25:14 Community Congress 14:21 60:17,18 28:3 29:1 31:8 China 25:4,13 46:19 14:22 15:8 briefs 37:23 35:2,8 37:22 32:21,23 companies 51:2 16:10,11,17 53:20 38:23,24 41:8 Chinese 30:11 company 4:1 Congress's 16:6 bring 15:9,9 23:7 42:4 47:23 49:8 choice 8:24 7:23 8:19 19:9 Connecticut Britain 32:21,23 53:11 56:21 13:19,21 15:7 19:10,12,21 40:11 35:3 46:9 58:24 59:9 16:17 50:4,6 20:16,17 21:5 connection 24:18 British4:13 8:19 60:16 62:9,11 choosing 13:16 21:10 26:16 consignment 9:18 26:12 38:9 cases 6:24 7:20 chops 55:19 29:11,13,18,21 60:15,22,23,25 39:4,8,24 46:11 10:7 13:6 23:4 chosen11:13 30:16,19 33:13 61:9 brought 6:7 23:8,21 25:12 circumstances 33:16 38:5 45:8 consistent 20:4 Brussels 45:19 25:23 46:5 54:3 14:20 26:20 46:11 51:13 Construction Burger6:8 7:14 54:6,11 27:8,18 28:2 60:9 61:19 10:12 11:20 16:23 cause 12:4 57:19 33:20 38:25 compare 24:12 consumers 45:15 Burma 45:13 caused9:5 21:21 41:19 43:2 24:19 consummate business 30:16 causes 36:20 47:11 48:8 51:4 complete 57:13 54:9 31:14 32:19 47:8 54:1 54:11 58:3,15 58:1,5,6,13 consummated 44:11 45:9 certain 21:2 citation 46:13 component 24:10 31:8 61:10 25:19 31:10 cite 45:17 47:1,11,12,21 contact 34:1,7 businesses 30:13 45:6 City 1:15 47:22 48:4,5,19 58:17,21 buttons 54:8 58:1 certainty 48:21 civil 33:8 48:21,22,24 contacted13:3 Alderson Reporting Company 56:20 62:7 decides 41:14 37:12 38:14,23 32:10 35:1 contacts 14:8,11 counselor 19:2,3 decision 25:9 49:14,16 51:5,6 36:17,24,25 38:25 count 53:6 50:4 51:23 52:10,23 38:11 39:23 contract 9:11,19 countries 25:18 decisions 55:5 different 8:1 17:7 47:7 48:10 10:9 11:8 12:9 45:6,15 deep35:10 18:6 28:3 34:1 56:20 57:22 13:17 57:8 country 15:9 defective 9:5 34:1,23 47:5 59:2 62:6 control 3:23 16:7 22:14 30:17 defendant 3:19 48:16,19 49:3,4 distributors 18:3 16:11 19:7 32:22 33:13 10:2 11:25 49:19 51:16 18:7,13,13 39:24 45:15 52:12,12 13:13,13,15 60:24 61:22 controlled3:18 couple 45:13 16:21 differently 49:21 district 14:15 20:10 22:5 course 14:23 defendants 15:9 differs 22:10,11 dragged21:18 convenience 28:3,7,7 47:22 defendant's difficult 25:23,25 drop-ship 20:8 8:24 11:18 court 1:1,12 3:10 60:18 direct 3:11 6:5 due 15:16 16:20 23:14,16,19 4:8,17 6:7 7:17 defense 59:24 directed20:16 33:14 49:5 conveniens 8:25 14:19 62:1 directing 3:13 56:10,11 11:16,19 19:19 23:4,14 Defiance 10:11 direction11:21 D.C 1:8 convenient 8:14 25:11,24 26:10 defined7:16 17:24 19:24 E 8:15 26:18 30:8 34:6 degree 33:17,23 39:23 convention 40:15 36:12,19 42:11 deliberately 7:23 disappear 12:7 E 2:1 3:1,1 40:17,21 45:19 59:7,8 60:14 47:12 53:19 dismiss 60:19 earlier44:6 45:19,24 46:17 61:7 58:25 dismissal 20:21 economic 40:13 46:21 courts 14:15 delivered55:18 dispute 20:20 EEOC 46:17 conventions 38:8 16:11,12 demean 33:23 disputed14:9 effort 7:13 31:5 45:18 46:10 Court's 6:5 22:3 depend 46:24 distant 20:4 efforts 19:18 converge 7:19 covers 44:14 depends 27:12 distinction 16:19 either3:12 22:13 cooperative create 3:24 33:18 37:20 56:9 Ellicott 1:15 29:17 30:11 created37:2 description distribute 21:16 embarking 59:23 coordinating creates 36:23,24 37:16 28:23 employer38:7 21:14 cuff 25:8 designed50:21 distributed4:1 38:12 coordination Curcio 38:6,11 50:22 21:11 ended29:24 19:7 60:21 61:16 designing 37:11 distribution8:4 30:22 corporation customer5:16 desire 6:16 27:21 61:25 ends 34:22,22 36:16 5:20 60:11 determinative 62:3 enforce 35:20 correct 4:15 customers 20:7 8:25 distributor3:13 enforcing 36:6 19:13 21:20,23 20:11,14 determine 25:24 3:14,18,18 4:2 engaging 15:11 25:20 27:24 cut 54:13 determined 5:12,13,15,16 England 10:19 29:4 33:10 25:12 5:20 9:18 11:7 15:13 33:13 34:14 35:24 D detours 27:3 11:8 12:6,9,14 51:8,9,10 55:10 36:3 41:3,23 D 3:1 develop 31:14 13:16 15:12,13 English19:9,10 42:1 45:1,3 day 12:20 52:11 developing 30:16 15:14 17:9,20 20:16 47:4 46:20 47:18 de 61:8 30:17 17:24 18:14,16 entering 27:1,2 58:7 dealing 10:16 development 18:17,22 21:15 44:18 correctly 18:4 decide 14:12 30:12,12 21:15 22:9,23 entire 6:1 7:3 cost 20:9 44:7 difference 13:24 25:3 27:20 10:1 17:10 counsel 26:3 decided38:13 18:15 29:13 28:10 29:12 26:22 28:10 Alderson Reporting Company 38:17 42:15 extent 33:19 Fifth 14:20 forward 6:7 22:19 23:25 43:20 47:16 figure 53:6 24:16,17 24:17 30:19 F 58:25 filed60:19 found 30:2 35:7 31:14 34:17 entirely 48:16,19 F 1:15 2:3,9 3:7 filing 11:14 four 29:24 54:23 42:11 44:10 entity 32:13 59:14 fill 58:21 55:19 45:10 48:22 equivalent 29:9 fact 10:4 28:8 filled53:16 France 15:12,13 50:11,18,19 57:9 31:8,14 59:19 find 5:13,20 23:1 47:3 53:11 ESQ 1:15,17 2:3 factor 8:25 37:22 24:3 38:5 frankly 13:23 good 4:3,6 9:17 2:6,9 factors 30:20 finding 57:20 fulfilled61:17 22:23 24:1 essential 3:23 54:20 findings 19:19 full 56:23,23 29:16 30:9 16:24,25 facts 15:15 23:6 fine 45:11 fully 10:25 government essentially 14:9 23:13 30:2,7 fingers 8:16 further59:6 28:16,24 39:15 establish14:21 47:6 51:11 55:20 great 5:15,17 15:8 fairness 16:21 finished24:10 G 22:19 32:21,23 ET 1:6 far 23:20 53:16 48:20 54:14 G 3:1 39:6 Ethiopian52:11 fashioned4:18 firm 29:13 general 7:1 9:23 Grover10:12 evaluated14:19 Federal 14:15 first 3:4 6:5 8:23 generally 7:7 guidance 39:23 evenly 44:6 16:11,12 11:4 19:12 22:8 Ginsburg 7:20 Gulf 25:11,21 events 12:22 feel 38:24 29:18 32:13 8:9,12 9:1,3,14 guy 29:15 everybody 55:8 fellow43:4 57:6 9:16 10:15 11:3 evidence 61:5 Fergenson 1:15 five 17:11 18:3 11:17 12:2,11 H exact 30:7 2:3,9 3:6,7,9,20 flatly 25:8 13:9 24:8 25:15 hale 26:17 exactly 5:3,22 4:3,6,7,16,21 follow12:12 13:1 26:1 32:17 33:7 haled42:11 37:7 41:3 43:6 5:1,3,8,11,19 25:12 35:17,22,25 hand 55:20 50:7 5:25 6:4,12,15 following 30:6 36:4 38:4 41:21 Hanson 6:7 7:15 example 46:7 6:18,23 7:14 footnote 14:8,10 41:24 46:17 16:24 57:24 8:8,10,23 9:2,9 22:2 54:2 happened9:4,6 examples 27:17 9:15 10:5,23 foreign 6:20 give 18:3 25:5 29:9,10 42:25 27:18 54:23 11:10,18 12:4 14:17 15:9 16:3 45:10 56:1 56:25 exception 27:4 13:2,20 14:1,4 16:8,18 32:20 go 11:2,21 16:23 happens 51:11 excluded27:8,10 14:7,19,25 15:3 32:22 36:6 45:6 17:24 18:17,18 harm 9:5 25:14 Excuse 19:2 15:6,18,22 16:5 46:7 52:12 18:19 24:15,25 54:1 executive 29:20 16:13,14,22 54:10 55:18 31:17 34:22 hear 3:3 40:20 existed36:12 17:3,17,23 foreseeability 35:17 36:18 held 4:17 exists 34:8 18:10,16,21,24 7:18 47:24 38:15 40:24 help 13:11 expect 42:10 19:4,14,16,22 foreseeable 49:9 45:13 49:9 Hill 10:12 expecting 40:16 20:18,25 21:3,6 forget 18:12 54:21 59:1 hire 31:16 40:24 21:10,20,23 Fort 10:11 goat 52:24 53:1 hired35:3 59:2 expensive 20:9 22:7 23:10 24:5 forth 25:11 goats 52:13 hires 36:17 Explain 8:20 24:9 25:6,20 forum 7:17,21 goes 10:7 29:13 hiring 32:10 48:9 explicitly 10:6 26:4 49:23 8:2,6,19,21 34:16 47:7 hold 6:24 36:13 explodes 36:20 59:12,14,16,25 10:3 11:16,17 49:12 home 41:9 exploit 7:24 60:6,13 61:2,5 11:19 12:1,25 going 11:24 Honda 61:19 express 10:9 61:18,24 62:8 13:14 17:2 17:13 18:7 19:3 honor 3:20 4:3,6 extensive 33:22 festival 52:14 25:13,24 21:17 22:9,11 4:16 5:1,8,11 Alderson Reporting Company 5:21 6:4,18,23 Ignorance 59:19 intend 31:9 10:4 11:5,5,9 jurisdictional 7:14 8:8,23 9:9 ignorant 23:19 intent 27:13,14 11:10,15,15 33:8 35:23 36:9 10:5,23 11:11 Illinois 5:24 32:4 44:20 13:6 15:15,17 36:11 38:21 13:2,20 14:1,7 17:14,15,16,19 intention26:24 19:12 26:15,16 61:8 15:6,22 16:5,13 17:21 interact 39:11 26:18,24 27:3,5 jurisprudence 16:22 17:17 imagine 22:10 54:9 27:8 28:1,13,16 6:5 18:10,24 19:4 implications interaction 39:7 28:24 29:24 Justice 3:3,9,17 19:16,22 20:6 53:17 61:12 30:8 38:1,2,4 3:25 4:4,7,19 20:18,25 21:3,6 important 12:3 interactive 54:6 38:16,22 39:3,5 4:22 5:2,9,14 21:20,23,24 imports 16:7 55:6,16,22 39:12,15,19 5:22 6:1,8,10 22:7 23:10 24:6 incident 7:1 57:12,25 40:5,10,20 41:9 6:12,16,19,24 25:6,20,25 26:4 include 27:23 interest 57:19 44:7,24 47:8 6:25 7:9,10,20 27:5,15,24 29:1 28:1,9,12 interested56:19 51:11,19 54:20 8:9,12 9:1,3,14 30:4 33:6,10,15 includes 45:25 interesting 24:22 55:17,19 56:18 9:15,16 10:15 33:18 34:5,14 46:3 international 57:12 58:1,3,17 11:3,17,19 12:2 34:24 35:12,24 inclusive 42:16 11:23,24 12:16 59:8,20,21 12:11 13:8,8,22 36:7,15 37:8 incorporated 12:17,19,20,22 60:13 61:12 14:2,5,8,10,13 39:22 41:4 47:5 22:4,4,5 27:20 joining 51:7 14:23 15:1,4,10 44:15 45:3 indemnification Internet 52:15 Joint 52:7 15:20,21,24 46:16 54:5 9:13 52:18,19 53:14 JR 1:17 2:6 26:7 16:10,14,16 55:23 59:16 indemnity 10:8,9 53:18,19,24 Judge 25:9,22 17:3,18 18:1,12 60:6 10:13,16,18,21 54:4,17,22 judgement 59:8 18:21 19:2,5,6 hook 51:12 12:13 13:18 56:25 57:3,9,11 judgment 10:11 19:15,17 20:12 horrific 36:20 independent 57:21,24 32:3 33:15 34:6 20:23 21:1,4,7 hot 40:23 22:23 29:11,13 invoice 61:14 34:24 37:21 21:13,21 22:6,8 hurt 45:16 46:9 30:19 35:5,6,7 involved12:12 57:23 23:16,18 24:7,8 hurts 22:9 45:8 61:21 involving 54:4 judgments 35:20 25:15 26:1,2,5 hypothesizes India 22:14 Iowa 17:14 36:6 46:18 26:9,14,23 27:6 15:21 29:17 30:11 irrelevant 30:14 jurisdiction3:16 27:9,12,16,19 hypothetical 34:1,2 31:13 4:9 6:2 7:2,2,6 27:25 28:5,12 14:24 15:12 Indiana 17:14 issue 8:24 11:16 7:12 9:7,17,21 28:15,19,22 16:15 17:7 individual 20:11 11:18,19 62:2 9:22,23 10:1 29:3,5,8 30:5 22:10 27:5 28:6 22:17 42:22,24 issues 35:10 11:4,9,11 12:15 30:25 31:11,22 31:3 32:9,16 51:2 12:16,23 14:3 31:23,24,25 J 36:22 37:1 inference 54:15 14:16 15:16 32:1,2,8,12,17 46:22,23 47:16 influential 22:1 J 1:3 3:4,11 9:11 16:1,4,11,12 32:18 33:4,7,12 47:19 56:13,25 information 61:13 17:16,18,20 33:21,25 34:5 57:3 57:21 January 1:9 18:8 22:22 23:1 34:10,12,15,20 hypothetically injured7:22 Japan 24:17 23:23 32:25 34:25 35:4,13 15:11 10:18 14:17 Japanese 24:9 36:23,24 37:19 35:15,17,17,22 Hypotheticals 24:20 41:10,17 24:13 41:8 43:8 46:6 35:25 36:4,8,21 15:1 injury 21:22 46:8 Jersey 1:17 3:12 46:18 47:10 36:22 37:12,18 47:8 3:15,15 4:17 54:12,20 56:15 38:1,4,14,20 I insides 51:1 5:16,23 8:1,15 58:4,19 59:22 39:2,10,11,14 idea 10:1 insufficient 50:3 8:20,22 9:4,25 61:22 39:18 40:2,3,4 Alderson Reporting Company 40:7,14,19,23 20:20 23:12 25:10 35:9 38:3 39:18 27:13,15,19 41:5,6,16,21 kind 9:19 10:15 30:15,17 31:15 28:8,17 31:9 M 41:24 42:3,8,17 33:25 39:6 33:8 45:5,14,16 32:24,24 34:7 42:20,23 43:1,6 52:14 59:21 machine 8:17 9:5 34:21 35:2,2 43:10,11,16,18 kinds 30:1 47:5 lawsuit 43:24 9:5 10:19 15:12 36:13,16 38:10 43:22,25 44:9 King 6:8 7:15 lawyers 31:16 17:15,21 18:9 39:4,8,24 40:12 44:22 45:2,4,20 11:20 16:23 left 9:16 19:12 20:13 42:14 43:14 46:1,4,12,15 Kingdom11:13 legal 16:9 19:6 24:20 25:17 44:6,9,24 46:7 46:17,24 47:15 46:2,3 25:1,16,19 27:21 38:5,9,12 46:25,25 47:4 47:15 48:1,3,11 Klaxon 15:7 legally 30:14 39:6 42:11,18 47:11,12,19 48:15,18 49:2 know11:4 19:15 letter19:23 20:1 42:21 43:3 46:8 48:8,19,20,21 49:11,17,23,24 21:17 22:10 21:11 47:1 48:6,25 49:6,22,25 50:1,2,8,17,24 23:3,9,18 28:5 let's 16:7 18:2,12 49:8,13,18 50:10,14 51:8,9 51:13,18,22 31:15,15 40:19 25:16 48:3,24 50:11,12,21,23 51:19,21,25 52:3,6,9,22 41:8 44:1,1 49:11 55:10 51:1,2 56:19,23 54:10 55:18 53:2,4,10,13 47:3 48:4,21 lever47:2 58:12,16 61:1 56:18,21 58:15 53:21 54:2,13 53:16 55:1 liability 10:14,25 Machinery 1:3 58:18 62:6 54:24 55:1,7,13 58:10 12:7 13:4,7 3:5 manufacturers 55:21,24 56:4,9 knowledge 3:14 59:21 machines 8:5 16:9 62:3 56:16,24 57:3,6 49:25 50:2 liable 18:5 36:13 29:24 40:25,25 manufacturer's 57:15,18 58:5,8 known 47:23 51:19 41:2,15,17 36:25 58:10,20 59:3 49:9 limitation10:7 44:10 47:6 manufacturing 59:10,12,17,25 knows 50:10,11 42:9 49:5 51:15 56:1,22 47:13 60:1,2,4,7,24 50:18 55:8 limitations 13:5 58:23 market 4:11,14 61:3,18 62:7,9 Komatsu3:21 20:21 44:13,16 Madras 34:3,6,7 4:24 5:13 7:13 Kurland 22:2 44:17 34:17 36:12,17 7:24 17:4,5,10 K Kurland's 21:25 limited16:1,2 36:18,19 17:13,22 20:10 KAGAN 4:7,19 liquidation11:14 maker20:10 26:22 28:9 4:22 5:2,9,14 L litigation 24:9 24:14 32:21 33:2 5:22 6:1,25 lack 59:22 little 15:24 34:7 making 31:17 36:17 37:3,11 9:15 16:14 17:3 lacked3:15 36:14 47:2 35:10 49:6 38:18 41:11,12 17:18 18:1,12 lacks 16:18 lived43:5 malfunctions 42:15 44:19,19 18:21 32:18 large 37:21 loaded4:4 24:20 44:23 47:20 33:4 34:12 40:15,17,21 location 43:23 man52:20 48:9,14 49:13 39:10 40:3,14 49:7 locations 8:5 manager5:13 50:5,16,22 51:3 40:23 49:23 Las 19:11 38:8 logical 8:21 manufactured 51:7 53:24 59:1 59:25 60:2 40:21 long 7:11 40:11 10:19 15:13 marketed51:15 61:18 Laughter39:20 look 6:11 21:24 25:18 46:8 47:3 marketing 19:18 KENNEDY13:8 40:22 22:1 25:7 40:25 manufacturer 19:20 36:25 15:10,20,24 law3:21 8:24,24 59:18 61:14 4:10,13,14,23 37:3 41:1 59:23 16:16 46:24 9:10,12 10:9,11 looked30:2 5:5 6:14,20,21 markets 30:9 47:15 54:13 10:13,15 11:21 looking 11:12,23 9:18 14:17 Marlton 1:17 55:1 56:16,24 13:7,11,19,19 looks 6:5 16:6,9 23:24 24:10,11 Maryland 1:15 57:3,6,15,18 13:21 21:25 lot 8:13,15 13:24 24:14 25:3 Massachusetts Kentucky 20:19 22:20 23:6,11 20:9 30:1,13 26:13,21 27:11 5:24 20:20 Alderson Reporting Company 40:10 41:18,18 42:16 40:5,10,20 41:9 8:11,13,14,22 page 2:2 59:18 massive 41:2 42:19,24 43:5 44:7,24 47:7 9:6,7,8,9,16,19 paid 26:12 56:22 materials 19:20 43:15,19 44:2 51:11,19 54:20 9:20,21 10:4,5 56:23 20:15 44:11,12,25 55:17,19 56:18 10:11 11:2,4,6 paper52:11 matter1:11 morning 3:4 57:12,25 58:3 11:9,10,14,23 part 16:6 24:10 16:12 22:25 motion60:18 58:17 59:8,19 12:9,24 13:6,11 47:1,5,6,8,21 28:8 40:11 Myanmar 45:14 59:21 60:13 13:15,16,24 47:22 48:4,6 62:12 61:12 17:9,13,20 49:7 56:17 57:8 N McIntyre 1:3 3:4 Newark 40:21 20:10 24:24 58:15 3:11 4:13 8:3 N 2:1,1 3:1 40:23,24 26:16 47:7 particular16:23 8:14 9:11 11:8 name 18:11 Nicastro 1:6 3:5 56:20 57:21 26:21 50:6,12 55:25 20:13 25:22 8:16 10:17,18 58:22 59:4 partner51:1 58:21 61:13 names 20:6 10:22,24 11:12 60:23 61:6 partners 50:25 McIntyre's national 14:8,11 12:12,13 13:3 Oil 25:11,21 partnership 50:11 14:11,14 24:25 okay 5:2 18:1 50:25 mean 5:3 6:21 nationwide 41:2 Nicastro's 12:25 21:13 22:12,20 passing 60:8 23:5 28:19,20 59:23 38:7,12 24:1,7 29:18 pay 60:10,10 33:22 35:9,18 necessary 23:4 nice 22:15 31:11 34:3 45:2 people 12:19 36:10 37:13 23:22 nine 18:2 52:9 53:10 39:18 40:8,16 51:24 52:18 need10:2,10 non 11:16,19 57:15 40:24 52:17 53:5 needs 18:13 notes 29:6 once 21:9 perfectly 9:17 means 5:5 28:20 36:12 notice 7:18 operate 61:21 performed20:2 meet 27:17 negotiated56:17 noticed11:11 operates 46:18 20:2 melamine 25:10 56:17 notion38:16 opinion 23:3,5 person 14:16 mentioned56:7 neighborly 36:5 Nottingham opinions 7:10,18 22:13 39:5 40:5 mere 36:23 nervous 35:9,11 51:10,14 opposed47:1 46:10 52:25 merely 37:4 networks 61:25 novo 61:8 opposite 30:7 54:7 56:18 metal 41:7 44:11 62:3 number20:12 opposition 60:18 57:25 58:17,21 60:21 61:16 Nevada 38:21 56:1 oral 1:11 2:2,5 personal 4:9 18:8 Mexico 22:25 39:2 56:18 numbers 58:11 3:7 26:7 personally 18:19 25:17 New1:17 3:12 order36:13 per-purpose 3:24 Michigan 17:14 3:15,15 4:17 O 55:17 57:12 Petitioner1:4,16 Midwest 17:12 5:16,23,23 7:25 O 2:1 3:1 61:14,15,15,16 2:4,10 3:8 milk 25:14 8:15,20,22 9:4 obviously 20:8 outright 60:9 59:15,22 millions 61:20 9:24 10:4 11:5 20:14 44:3 61:7 outside 60:16 phones 57:21 minimum 38:25 11:5,9,10,15 occurred8:20 owed12:21 phrased49:18 minutes 59:13 11:15 13:6 9:24 11:6,15 owner61:16 pick 25:17 61:19 MMA 3:13 9:11 15:15,17 19:12 12:22 17:25 O'Connor7:9,10 picking 9:16 13:3 60:21,21 22:24 26:15,16 43:9 45:24 46:6 27:16 49:24 piggybacking 61:9,13 26:18,24 27:3,5 occurrence 6:10 50:2 54:24 51:21 modest 33:17,21 27:8 28:1,12,16 occurs 7:5 56:8 O'Connor's 6:9 Piper25:11,21 money 57:13,14 28:24 29:24 October60:19 14:8 place 7:25 8:2 60:11 30:8,8 38:1,2,4 odd 15:24 9:17,21,22 11:5 Montana 41:7,7 38:16,21 39:3,5 Oh 27:9 P 12:5 24:25 41:8,10,11,13 39:12,15,19 Ohio 3:21 8:10 P 3:1 40:24 51:15 Alderson Reporting Company places 11:12 principles 23:11 punch58:10 really 12:25 repairs 20:2 38:3 printed20:13 purchase 41:14 13:25 24:12 replacing 54:18 plaintiffs 25:13 prior59:23 pure 56:6 30:21 36:21 representative plaintiff's 41:22 privilege 17:1 purpose 8:4 45:16 51:25 42:6 problem31:12 26:20 52:14 reasonable 15:7 requires 56:12 plant 41:7 31:12 purposeful 7:11 reasonably 7:18 58:16 play 49:6 proceeded8:11 7:12,16 16:25 21:17 44:10 research 59:23 please 3:10 proceedings 17:6 18:19 61:7 reserve 26:3 26:10 11:14 28:15,25 31:4 rebuttal 2:8 26:3 residence 41:22 plenty 39:25 process 15:16 37:9 44:18 50:3 59:14 42:6 plus 30:20 44:20 16:20 33:14 50:9 53:23 receive 60:11 residents 3:12 44:20 49:5 56:10,11 54:19 56:12 received20:16 residual 15:25 point 25:15 40:15 product 4:1,11 purposefully reciprocity 36:2 resolved20:21 45:8 60:5,7 4:15 5:10,12 13:13,15 26:21 recognize 35:19 respect 18:21 pointed37:22 6:17 10:14,24 28:8 33:2 36:16 36:1 21:8 poisons 52:24 12:7,7 13:4 42:14 43:14 recognizing 36:5 respond 32:1 policy 31:12 21:18 24:11 47:19 48:8 53:3 record 19:8 Respondent poor 52:12 29:15 31:6 32:5 53:6 20:18 22:3 39:7 60:20 poorly 49:18 32:20,22 36:20 pursues 57:19,20 39:25 52:4,6 Respondents posited23:16 36:25 37:11,16 push43:19 61:5,12 1:18 2:7 26:8 position 8:2 37:6 37:25 39:9 put 43:8,11,12 records 39:25 response 31:2 37:7 48:7 55:2 44:19 45:10 50:17 54:22 recourse 62:4 57:14 59:17 55:3 47:13 48:20,22 55:10 refer3:25 46:12 rest 35:19 positive 31:10 49:9 50:18 reference 40:1 Restatement Q possible 5:17,19 53:25 55:17,18 referenced7:10 3:22 47:25 55:19 57:13,14 question 4:8,19 reimbursement result 39:8 54:22 possibly 24:19 58:2 60:10 7:3 9:3 11:1 20:3 58:2,16 50:9 products 4:24 5:6 13:12 16:16 rejected8:25 results 47:9 pot 34:22 7:24 18:22 19:1 17:4 20:24 30:6 rejection 23:14 return 9:12 pots 22:15,15,18 21:11,16 26:11 31:3 35:18 60:3 relate 56:25 review21:25 23:24,24 24:2 26:16 32:11 60:25 related10:4 61:8 34:17 36:18 41:12 questions 59:6 relating 12:21 rhetoric 30:1 potter22:16,17 59:21 61:10 quick 60:5 relationship 10:2 right 3:23 5:7,14 23:25 24:1 Professor 21:25 quite 25:25 60:8 11:7,25 12:10 5:18 9:13 11:1 29:10 34:21 22:2 quotes 22:2,3 17:19 18:6 19:5 14:13 17:14,22 power16:7,10,18 promoting 12:19 quoting 4:9 20:4 18:4 19:17 22:6 precisely 38:24 proper12:25 relationships 27:23 31:22 R prepared23:2 14:18 35:23 20:11 32:14 33:5,17 R 3:1 40:9 36:9,11 release 9:12 34:4,13 38:19 raise 53:19 present 19:11 propose 33:22 relevant 16:3 42:7 43:16,18 raised53:1 60:8 presented4:8,20 proposed16:8 relied25:22 44:8,22 45:14 reached8:12 president 19:10 proposition 7:23 remaining 59:13 49:1 51:22 52:1 reaches 53:16 19:11 provided14:14 remedies 62:4 52:3,9,16,21 reaching 20:15 press 54:8 58:1 provides 10:6 remember25:21 52:22 57:2,5 read 23:8 52:11 pretty 53:16 24:25 37:15 removed8:16 ROBERT 1:6 Alderson Reporting Company ROBERTS 3:3 51:16,20 52:2,5 28:22 33:12,21 send 7:23 22:18 simply 30:18 26:2,5,14,23 52:7,21,24 53:3 33:25 34:5,10 32:4 55:14 44:23 47:20 27:6,9,12 31:25 53:7,12,18,23 36:8 39:11,14 57:13 58:11 59:7 38:14,20 39:2 54:5,23 55:3,12 39:18 40:2,4,7 sending 52:13 sir 14:25,25 41:6,16 42:3,8 55:16,23 56:3,5 51:13,18 sends 51:10 59:4 sit 55:17 57:12 42:17,20,23 56:11,21 57:2,5 Scalia's 35:18 sense 8:13 39:1 site 37:15,20 43:1,6,11,16 57:11,17,23 scary 36:14 sent 47:4 52:15,19 53:14 43:18,22,25 58:7,9,14,24 scenario 34:24 serve 17:4,5,10 54:6 55:6,10,14 44:9,22 45:2 59:4,10,11 scheme 62:2 17:11,22 18:7 55:15,16,25 48:1,3,11,15 rule 23:3 24:3 scrap 41:7 44:11 32:20 57:11,25 48:18 49:2,11 30:15 33:8 60:21 service 20:3 sites 40:16,18,21 49:17 50:8,17 Russia 25:17 second 3:22 set 8:3 25:11 52:18 53:19 50:24 55:7,13 29:20 settled20:20 55:8 S 55:21,24 56:4,9 section 3:22 seven29:21 37:4 sitting 54:7 58:5,8,10,20 S 2:1 3:1 see 11:21 24:17 51:24 52:4 situation 59:5 59:3,10,12 62:7 Sadly 53:12 29:12 31:11,13 Shaffer23:15 sketching 31:20 62:9 sale 4:11,15 35:9 36:19 shared38:10 slightly 34:19,23 Ross 1:17 2:6 12:19 32:13 44:12 53:5 shell 50:25 small 30:13,15 26:6,7,9,19 36:23 37:5 seek 33:1 40:4 ship 60:9 31:14 32:19 27:4,7,11,14 40:11 47:13 50:5 shipping 20:9 45:9 49:7,7 27:24 28:2,7,14 54:17 56:8,14 seeking 17:4,5 shoe 11:24,24 52:17 28:17,21,25 56:16,17 60:17 17:22 20:3 12:16,17,18,22 sold 21:19 43:3 29:4,7 30:4,24 sales 31:7 54:4 43:20 22:4,4,5 47:21 48:4,5,23 31:2,21 32:3,9 salespeople 22:5 seeks 32:20 shoes 12:20 50:19 60:20,21 32:14,17,18 salesperson selects 15:14 Shoe's 12:20,20 solely 4:10 33:1,6,10,18 18:18 sell 4:24 5:6,9,12 shop 22:13 23:24 somebody 24:20 33:24 34:4,9,11 satisfies 33:14 6:16 18:22,25 34:16 35:6 28:22 39:12 34:12,14,19,23 Savchuk 23:15 22:17,19 23:25 show19:8,11 54:21 35:1,12,14,21 saw19:12 38:8 25:3 26:11,16 31:6 37:24 38:9 someone's 55:20 35:24 36:3,7,15 38:12 27:21,22 29:15 38:15,21 40:17 son 61:15 37:7,17,20 38:2 saying 36:22 30:18,19 31:5,9 51:23,24 54:18 sophisticated 38:6,19,23 39:3 48:2 57:7 34:17,18 36:18 57:10 61:25 62:2 39:10,13,16,21 says 12:15 16:12 37:9,25 40:9 shows 19:9 20:19 sorry 20:25 40:3,6,9,14 22:17 24:1 41:2 43:20 44:7 21:2 29:21 31:5 48:17 49:17 41:3,13,19,23 29:14,16 34:17 44:19 45:11 32:8,10 37:4,11 60:4 42:1,7,13,18 36:11 45:10 47:16 50:12 37:13,15,21,24 sort 31:12,19 42:22,24 43:2,7 53:15 55:25 55:4 60:9 38:8 41:14 SOTOMAYOR 43:13,17,19,23 61:14 seller35:7 51:24 52:1,5,23 19:2,5,15,17 44:8,15 45:1,3 Scalia 3:17,25 selling 22:23 54:21 20:12,23 21:1,4 45:18,22 46:2,5 4:4 6:12,16,19 26:24 32:11 signatories 21:7,13,21 46:14,16,20 6:24 13:22 14:2 39:9 40:15 45:24 31:23 36:21 47:10,18 48:2,7 14:5,13,23 15:1 52:13 61:10 signatory 46:21 60:1,4,7,24 48:13,17 49:1,4 15:4,21 16:10 sells 24:14 32:19 significant 42:9 61:3 49:15,20 50:7 19:6 27:19,25 51:14 53:14 54:18 sound 16:19 50:14,20 51:4 28:5,12,15,19 61:19 similarly 33:17 source 16:21 Alderson Reporting Company southern 29:17 18:4,5,7,11,23 sudden13:10 takes 62:1,1 59:24 61:6,24 sovereign 14:12 20:1 22:22 sue 7:22 10:17 talk 40:7 thinking 23:5,6 14:14 24:13,16,18 10:20 13:24 talking 9:23 45:4 sovereigns 16:1 25:4 26:12 27:2 41:18 45:15 10:21 13:11,17 third 29:23 30:21 sovereignty 27:23 29:15,22 46:10 16:20 36:9 44:4 thought 13:12 15:25 16:2 30:18 31:5,7,16 sued8:3,7,19 9:4 62:4 35:15 37:1 42:3 speaks 19:23 32:19 34:2 12:14 20:19,19 talks 11:24 42:4,9 53:22 specific 6:11 7:2 35:18 36:4,10 26:25,25 44:1 target 4:23 7:3 57:6 7:12 9:6,23 37:13,25 38:17 sufficient 22:21 7:13 50:15 thousand 22:16 10:1 12:15,16 40:12,16,17 23:1 41:25 42:5 targeted4:14 22:18 34:17 specifically 42:15 43:21 57:7 5:22,23 6:1,3 three 11:12 50:15,20,22 44:5,6,23 45:5 suggested21:12 14:6,17 55:9 22:24 29:8,23 53:25 45:9 46:21 suggestion 12:24 58:25 30:3,7 specifics 59:20 47:14,20 48:5,9 60:12,14 targeting 48:13 ties 38:21 speculate 15:4 48:23 50:13,15 suggestions targets 4:10 time 13:23 26:3 speculation 50:19 51:3,7,14 19:25 21:7 tax 12:21 tire 24:14 14:21 15:2 52:14,25 53:25 suing 25:14 teaches 12:16 today 51:23 spent 20:1 54:1,8 55:5,9 suit 12:2,6 14:16 tell 23:20 28:22 told 18:17,22,25 spring 49:7 55:14 58:25 24:15 40:2 40:7 stages 54:3 59:19 60:20 suppose 6:12 telling 35:19 top 42:6 standpoint 13:12 61:20,23 62:5 17:8 22:20 23:1 tells 23:25 27:20 tort 8:19 9:7 11:9 start 61:20 stating 44:17 37:14 47:2 test 4:21 23:14 12:25 14:16 state 6:11,20,22 statute 10:6 13:5 51:13 23:17,19 48:16 45:23 46:6 6:25 7:6,17 14:15 15:20 Supreme 1:1,12 48:19 49:3,18 tough 31:18,19 12:1,18 16:17 20:21 4:17 30:8 59:8 49:19,19,21 Toyota 61:18 16:18 17:24 step13:18 15:19 60:13 Thank 26:4,5 trade 19:9 21:2 18:8,18,19 15:23 sure 16:19 29:7 59:10,11,16 29:21 31:5,6 21:18 23:23 steps 31:10 32:7 30:3 54:15 60:8 62:7,8 32:8,10 37:4,10 27:4 38:2 43:4 32:15 43:17 surely 14:6 theory 42:10 37:13,14,21,23 43:12,15 45:22 44:20 53:7,8 system15:8 25:1 44:13 37:24 38:8,9,15 47:13 59:20 56:7 25:16,19 41:1 thing 6:13 15:11 38:20 41:14 60:20 strange 13:10 systems 33:8 29:10,19,20,23 51:23,24 52:1,5 stated13:3 21:11 stream 27:1,2 30:9 52:23 54:18,21 T 23:11 37:8 32:5 42:5 44:4 things 29:9 57:9 statements 23:6 44:5,13 T 2:1,1 think 13:22,25 trades 60:14 states 1:1,12 strict 10:13,24 tainted25:14 14:9 15:3,6,18 traditional 39:1 4:11,14,24,25 12:7 13:4,6 Taiwan24:15 15:22 16:5,22 transaction 54:9 5:3,4,4,6,10,18 strike 34:2 Taiwanese 24:10 20:23 27:14,16 56:14 57:13,20 6:2,3,13,17 7:3 suable 6:20,21 take 7:24 22:9 27:17 29:11 58:2,6,13 7:4,5,21,22,25 6:25 28:18 29:10 30:9 31:8 32:14 transcript 22:3 8:5,6,21 10:18 subject 7:5 32:24 44:20 53:7 32:18,23 35:21 travel 21:1 10:20 14:3,3,5 61:22 taken16:24 37:17 43:23 traveled19:9 14:6,11,14,18 subjects 30:15 31:10 32:7,15 44:1,17 49:4,6 Travelers 10:7 15:14,15,25 submitted62:10 33:3 36:5 43:17 49:20,20 51:5,5 traveling 18:18 16:2 17:6,10,11 62:12 56:8 60:16 52:10 53:22,23 treated45:5 Alderson Reporting Company treats 61:7 14:2,3,5,6,14 W 30:10 10 18:6,13,13 trend 54:11 55:5 14:18 15:14,15 W 1:17 2:6 26:7 word 22:8 10:13 1:13 3:2 tried46:22 16:2 17:10 18:5 walked35:6 words 16:23 54:7 11 1:9 Trowbridge 10:8 22:22 24:13,16 walks 22:13 work 31:14 11th 60:19 true 29:16 33:5 24:18 25:4 27:2 23:23 worked12:20 11:13 62:11 36:8 27:23 29:15,21 want 4:24 10:25 worker41:9 114 52:7 trusted25:1,16 31:4,7 32:19 13:9 22:17 23:2 working 18:2 117a 52:8 25:19 35:18 36:4,10 23:7,8 26:15,25 Works 61:16 19-20 60:19 trustee 13:4 37:13,24 38:17 29:11 30:3 world 24:11 1958 22:1 truth23:20 40:12,16 42:15 35:13 40:19 27:22,23 28:10 try 16:14 17:7 43:20 44:4,5,23 44:7 54:14 55:1 28:10,23 29:14 13:5 59:13 trying 36:2 41:2 45:9 46:2,3,20 56:2 59:1 29:18 31:15 2006 60:19 44:3,12 45:7 47:14,20 48:5,9 wanted5:5,9,11 33:4,14 34:18 2011 1:9 50:12 53:5 48:23 50:12,15 11:20 17:12,12 35:19 45:11 25-inch 49:12 56:24 57:9 50:19 51:3,7,14 wants 7:24 10:19 50:1 53:15 50:10 Tuesday 1:9 52:14,25 53:25 47:16 worldwide 30:9 2:7 52:5 turn 35:4,5,8 54:1,7 55:4,9 warranty 20:3,13 world's 31:13 59:18 Twenty 52:3 55:14 58:25 wash44:5 World-Wide 6:6 Twenty-six 52:2 61:20 62:5 Washington 1:8 6:8 7:15 23:15 two 9:20 16:23 universe 47:17 12:18 worried30:10,11 2:4 22:24 29:23 University 21:25 wasn't 19:8,10 30:12 30:20 use 53:4 way 44:17 45:6 worries 30:7 5 UX 1:6 49:22 worry 30:10,13 5 18:7 U U.K 24:23,24 Web37:15,20 30:14,15 50 5:4,6 7:4 17:5 Uganda 45:19 U.S 7:24 26:22 53:19 54:6 55:6 worth13:23 30:17 31:16 unclear 39:7 37:3 50:22 55:8,10,14,15 wouldn't 48:13 59 2:10 undated19:23 54:21 55:16,25 57:11 wound 39:8 understand 9:14 57:25 write 23:8 9 18:4 31:21 V Wells 3:21 written9:11 29:5 9-102 60:23 61:6 35:12,14 50:5 v 1:5 3:5,21 10:8 went 29:21 37:3 99 22:2 understandably 10:12 X 38:7 10:20 valve 24:14,14 x 1:2,7 West 22:14,15 understanding Vegas 19:11 34:16,21 Y 45:23 38:8 40:21 We'll 3:3 18:3 year 22:16,18 understood venue 15:8 we're 9:22 15:11 years 13:5 54:15 verbal 61:15 16:20 36:9 44:4 York 5:24 uniform 15:8 victim31:17,18 45:10 46:1 48:2 union59:20 view36:5 50:6 55:25 $ unique 37:22 viewed61:7,9 we've 20:1 $350,000 20:2 United1:1,12 Village 10:12 widely 48:5 4:10,14,23,25 Virginia 22:14 win 53:11 0 5:3,4,18 6:2,13 22:16 34:16,21 winds 42:18 09-1343 1:4 3:4 7:3,21,22,25 Volkswagen6:6 58:16 8:5,6,21 10:18 6:8 7:15 23:15 1 wish26:11 10:20 11:13 61:19 1(1) 3:22 woman's 29:16 Alderson Reporting Company