the merits, however, we first must assure ourselves of our-jurisdiction in light of changed circumstances. Fox v. Bd. of Trs. of State Univ. of N.Y. 42 F.3d 135, 140 (2d Cir. 1994) (“[T]he condition of mootness is not a defense that c[an] be waived ... but rather is a condition that deprives the court of subject matter juris* diction.”). Notably, Petitioners’ submission of the discovery in the Monégasque proceeding arguably mooted the question whether the district court erred in granting-discovery as to that proceeding. That development, together with the indefinite stay of the Singaporean litigation, leaves as a live controversy only that portion of the Section 1782 application as applied-to the French proceeding. See Euromepa, S.A. v. R. Esmerian, Inc., 154 F.3d 24, 29 (2d Cir. 1998) (<HOLDING>). We conclude that the pending French
holding that the defendants discovery requests were untimely because they were not served in time for the responses to be due before the discovery deadline holding that the actual amount of capital employed in the state by a foreign corporation was to be based on the property of the corporation that was within the state and that was used in business transacted within the state holding that the district court was correct in dismissing the section 1782 application as moot because at that time there were no foreign proceedings within the meaning of the statute in which the discovery could be used holding that a statutory amendment characterized by the state as a clarification could not be applied retroactively because the statute as written at the time of the crime was unclear and retroactive application of the statute as amended would result in an increased period of incarceration holding that in order to establish liability under the ada the plaintiff must demonstrate that the defendant was an employer within the meaning of the statute