well there are two different explanations they gave the one that's in the record in the district court and then a different explanation they're getting on appeal which is not supported by the record i'm looking at the affidavit record yes the decoration said some portions of the report can be disclosed because there's there were disclosed general information and other ports reports cannot be disclosed because they were disk disclosed detailed information  that he reviewed them to determine them they couldn't be segregated and yet portions of that you said gave forty nine j forty nine and yet none that that's his first declaration i was looking at his fourth  the information and the identity of the database we now know the identity of the database despite mr hardee raising a lot of concerns about water over the dam you've got it correct and we've got it and the revealing of that information shows that his his promise about that was incorrect the other part he warns about is the scope of the information and that information the scope of what's contained in the database is revealed by the manuals so the government takes a totally different approach of appeal and says well it's not really the scope of the information in the database that's what it said issue instead it is the fact that a particular search was used at a particular time during the investigation and yet that information is something that the declarant one of the declarant article in this case specifically said  would pose no harm if it were released and then there are releases of this information portions of accurate reports are disclosed along with the fact that it's accurate and probe sample  e the entirety of them are withheld there are separately from that i guess there were other searches that were done of the accurate system and the results of those or at times summaries of the result were disclosed and the government never explains the difference between why some of those can be disclosed and others cannot or to the extent that some of them what do you tools how he puts it all together is a different question well and that's what the reports which but the issue here is whether we're talking about a a known technique or an unknown tech prosecutors in law you already know right you know a particular report we know how every report is put together that's in the appendix and the only thing the government is arguing here is we don't know which particular report was run in this case but that's their theory on appeal they never make that argument in district court the record doesn't support thought mr hardee never made that judgment that that is something that would cause harm well i'm looking  where mr hurd is concerned on the forty nine and ninety seems to be primarily with the identity of the database because revealing that would reveal what kind of information the f b i can search so we already know  an exemption seventy does not cover known techniques so in order to address that the government's taken a position on appeal that it's not the the scope of the information that is what needs to be protected it is the fact that it's used in a particular case and that is a back to the top  accurate reports we have some of them we know for example from your counsel here's what i'm having trouble understanding and just help me on this we know that a prosecutor interviews witnesses yes all right and then puts together a case because he either has or he doesn't so he files a report saying i'm recommending we take this to the grand jury  f the f b i never invoked exemption five this is a seventy case and under seven what's covered the statute says technique isn't pushers seven yes that's where i am that's where we are one that might be produced by a prosecutor would disclose information about the prosecutor's thinking in the particular case is a correct way to go right and that is and as i understand it what you want is you want you want this you want them to search for serial ninety one is that right i don't know search is the right term i want them to retrieve that doctor that's what i mean right want that that's what you want you you your view is that document in this case with his very long number this case number whatever that is good morning may please the court i maybe let me start with the second issue first because i may be able to get it out of the way here relatively easily serial now that would be good to know what how he would have my question all they want if all they want that's all they want they want nothing more than for the f b i to look at that document and if it's relevant and not exempt to turn over and if that is all that they want the f b i is prepared to do that that is not how the f b i had under so i understand that because that's why i asked them the question because in your brief you talk about this would be a big burden and which certainly would if you had to search beyond that so the reason i ask counsel this question was to see whether that's really because my instinct was all they wanted was this move yes your honor i would i would say that you can find moving right along tonight may i address the substance of your question briefly which is why did why did the take so long why are we here essential thing that would help me that point that month then i don't need to you on the question of the application of exemption seventy the question is not the scope of the database it's the scope of the f b i his use of the database and it looks and how it uses the data is all all the parts that are revealed in the reports and the f b i has has given the court evidence about how what how the act be i actually uses it is not well known to the public and how there is a chance that the revelation of that information would risk circumvention of the law and this is almost on all fours with the court's decision and blackwell t with allow similar reports using a different database but functionally the same thing to withhold those same reports and so we think this case falls squarely with and black while the so you don't think that cases distinguishable on the grounds that he's asking for more that i'm just trying to understand how far blackwell well i think i think blackwell because it covers such a similar database here and the reports generated by it  those are the key facts one distinguishing characteristic there is that there is a fact in blackwell that the the company who ran the database had designed particular i guess software but don't hold me to that a way for the f b i to use it in the objection is as you can see it take a page for forty six there's a deleted page thing there that invokes multiple other exemptions the fully justify withholding the document in full so  beginning yes ok yes so it's i see so you still object to departments to object but but the but the district court hasn't ruled on any of that right is that right district court decision gnostics did not address it expressly it this came up originally in the reply brief to the first round of summary judgment briefing and twenty thirteen i think but then there's another whole big round of summary judgment briefing so help us with the district court's opinion all right because i read that when he granted summary judgment a final order he denied everything yes all right basically saying that where the government had in an exemption the district court was satisfied it was a proper and yes you are so we don't have anything specific about fifty but i thought it was within that umbrella correct so then th yes there are there are there are other there are other documents in this record to pluck it up and going over the record it turns out i'm trying to understand whether this was an error or no associated yes there are hard to track them that's true there are instances where the schwartz numbering plate number that don't appear in each copy in the record it does make it harder so when the district court says there was no problem as to some of these documents because they were duplicate do you know what he was referring to if with enough work you can trace through i think everything but that doesn't affect the issue with the five documents we  well presumably some of the information in that report refers to a person of us privacy interests if that is the case then some of that information may be able to be redacted should district court didn't make a specific decision about page fifty six about a year it is a number a judgment right granted summary judgment to me that's a decision i understand your point he didn't say anything but he had but three other appeal yes i believe that the reason that the judge didn't say anything is that he was under the impression that he didn't need to rule because the page was disclosed because the government said the page was disclosed and maybe to put it a a different way a second bill of the analysis i think is proper when there is a finding that some information can be withheld and others may not hear there wasn't a finding whether any of the it it was through that in response to the district court's direction that the f b i needed to file more justification right right ok so but there are so so presumably is this is the six something that kind of just caught the other exemptions that the f b i had invoked just got lost and the district court because this thing is so confusing didn't rule on those exams and so the back well i think when the judge issued the opinion the judge said my understanding is that these are the pages that were that remain at issue and the judge was factually incorrect  the district court have the documents but said that these particular ones were not of issue on his first opinion stark's are want to eighty nine talks about all these documents and his second opinion so on after he's gotten further information from the government about its search went and then the third one is about seventy so i'm trying to find out why you think that this record over looked these so i'm looking idea how i figure that out i don't know where to shove horn in next here yes all right that's reference and there's still more references to duplicate say one of the documents is part of the six i think i agree the traditional von index listing page by page i think re do you have or know where there is a list of all these documents the sixty eight documents so that we so we know what we're talking about i am not aware of anything the record that lists them in one one guy came in like in one truck there was no such thing that's not how the f b i did the declarations in this case but what i was going on but i'm talking about when the district court is trying to rule yes your honor when states that the district court's failure to identify each particular document on which those exemptions are withheld in its opinion is a basis for any question or error the question is whether the exemptions are properly applied whether the evidence is sufficient that sort of along the lines of what you have rogers is saying if there was a particular thought that there was a factual error or something had been overlooked the appropriate way to preserve that error for purposes of appeal would be to move to reconsider and let the district court in the first instance use it but there's no requirement the the ninety eight exemption was withdrawn and the ninety exemption claim was withdrawn as you are and then said in the bureau has invoked other exemptions right but the district court has ruled on those correct