and we asked them to look at these documents and then summarized their understanding and explanations of those documents they are former floor employees and also a former g e employee a is your strongest witness or piece of evidence that establishes a sign or another was a knowing decision by the management of this company to lie in their financial reports to the public but i think if you look at the hundred twenty five million dollars over six months between march and september that's twenty five million dollars he and four other witnesses that is if that if they didn't meet the completion cycle the first completion cyclical of ninety seven they would be subject to look at data damages penalties of twenty five to thirty million dollars so this is an eleven billion dollar a year company and twenty five million as well so it's a drop in the bucket but it's  nothing let me give you first a nutshell description of it and then come back and give me a specific we moved to in moving this mess they put before the court certainly internal flo submission that's the do not ask for some prog relief right permission to amend they do not contrary to what they're saying here now ask the court for permission to file an amendment that would was but they didn't do that here are what they did here's what they did and they're if you read the house declarations twenty two pages long it goes on and on about how these documents are not reliable these documents are misleading at the evidence and the discussion understand that one can argue you know what that what that means and all of that i'm just going back and reviewing as when i have read this originally the how declaration i had understood what they were saying was look you guys have com forward with these documents we hadn't seen these actual documents before now but now we look at them and we knew they existed but we haven't seen the actual once you've presented and having looked at them we think for our witnesses that they are incomplete and that there's a lot more to be told we think dr styler that we've alleged and not with our current complaint but if you're going to consider these if you know other words if that's what this case is all about with the defendants are putting the position of just startling it's not clear the judge startling necessarily would have read this is saying we just want to come back and make a targeted analysis on just these documents and be doing what their rebuttal would be would necessarily be expanding on their argument as to why they're faced with these huge losses and so are you dealing with a booking and perhaps other things would alleviate whatever concerns she might have if you can back round up the current amount of complaint wasn't adequate so she says ok now she does say that some point having considered all of the submissions including  interpreting as i could equally interpret it as saying much as you're suggesting i don't see this going to be there even if they imagined all of this proffered information doesn't enough to get past the dismissal hurdle released where she should have allowed an opportunity to him and whether or not we go so far as to rule at this stage and actually get past the is our opposition to the motion of the smiths consequently judicial notice of the pendants interpretation of the exhibits or their data is improper that's the nature of our objection and now let's look at the house declaration at page twenty seven of the are the same and it's not an either or embrace or describe it's both the embrace the parts that support our view and we question the parts that are inconsistent and incomplete and that's a perfectly consistent position for the plane hear why didn't you go back to the district court and say whoa well you haven't looked at these now the argument you just made rule sixty motion for reconsideration well first of all we well you don't have to look at the documents why because mr howes presented a very serious explanation of those documents that they were the plaintiffs that there were twenty five million dollars in costs that were not