interest it is bound to inject error into the proceedings and that's what happened here the trial court in correctly perceived arizona was attempting to a certain interest that conflicted with the fourteenth amendment remedy but that was not so in fact arizona was objecting only to a part of the unitary status plan that did not remedy the fourteenth amendment violation and that becomes significant and it injects error into the process because if any aspect of unitary status plant which the state objects exceeds the scope of the courts when medial authority then it necessarily impairs arizona's interest in setting its own education policy i think that the state's interest in the courts are both become clear when you consider two well established precepts that the supreme court applies in school desegregation cases the first extent of federal court's authority to act is strictly remedial and under the language in the militant to case anything the court orders has to directly address and relate to and correct the fourteenth amendment violation now in this case arizona was not simply objecting that a culturally relevant course might conflict with arizona law but that culturally relevant course is not a  horse that you serve segregation s with in the case because the district court found that there was intentional segregation both in terms of school populations and hiring practices the case went dormant as you well know for twenty five years and that the tucson unified school district had failed to live up to the terms of the one nine hundred seventy eight agreement and that specifically it was its failure to monitor evaluate and report on the desegregation efforts by the district and the status of those efforts so what one would expect in a remained of that nature is a court order that requires the school district to report regularly to the court and that specifies what information it must supply in those reports and that's not what you have here you have a unitary status plan that requires the school district to develop specific curriculum now the reason that exceeds the court's remedial authority in this case is because there is no nexus between development of kultury relevant curricula and any constitutional violation it doesn't have anything to do with the original we in fact violation which is the student assignment problem and has nothing to do with the failure of the district to monitor evaluate and report on the status of the segregation if there's no nexus between the violation and the remedy then it's not a remedy at all because again it has to directly address and relate to a constitutional violation and as we stand here today the two but school district insists that there is no green factor violation in its district and in fact there's been no finding to that effect for thirty six years and this is not the first time that a district court has attempted to require the school district to develop specific curricula to your sister circuits to face this very problem before the  court concluded that requiring curricula is only appropriate upon its extraordinary showings and again there's no finding here of even a green factor violation and cheese the court was careful to point out that nothing in the constitution requires the school district to create courses tailored to ethnic groups now in this instance given the absence of any nexus if you look to the supreme court authority we're not suggesting that there could never be an instance where a district or could not properly order a district to create this curricula but it only happens and milk into service an example if you have culturally need for educational components that flows directly from constitutional violations by state and local officials and you have nothing resembling that in this case your honor and of course part of the collateral damage  yes i i believe you're referring to the florist case which is actually set for argument in this course court in january and of all the requirements in the arizona statute that was implicated by the proceedings there was only one aspect that the district court found was unconstitutional but the other aspects of it which prevents a school district to teach anything that promotes resentment toward a race or class of people was up held as constitutional and also the prohibition against plan is adopted by federal compulsion of the district court run regardless whether the tucson school district agrees with that because the two sons school district can't waive the state's ability to protect its interests in that prerogative now that the current to some unified school district governing board may agree with the policy preference of the plaintiffs and of the department of justice but the state of arizona does not and as long as th course it hasn't done it that prerogative to the federal government in this case or to the tucson unified school district and then finally the idea that requiring the development of culturally relevant curricula doesn't actually any arizona interest is helpful but wrong because now that you have an order from the district court that actually requires the school district to adopt it there has already been an encroach on the state's education policy progress so the damage is already done and of course it invites repetitive litigation to sum up in the remainder of my time your honor if the court agrees with the state of arizona's position that requiring development of culturally relevant courses exceeds the scope of the district court's authority under these circumstances then the appropriate remedy is to vacate the portion of the order that requires the development of that course if force and there wouldn't be a need for a further three men now if for whatever reason the court were to conclude that culturally relevant courses surely arizona would have to have a place in the proceedings to participate so that it could challenge many of the hotly disputed factual issues in this case that end up in that order so that we know that if there's  affect the court's disposition of this case because the aspect of the plan that the state is objecting to doesn't have to do with the constitutionality of its statute it's kind of a red herring in this case the court treated arizona interest as simply making sure that anything in the church status plan didn't contravene in arizona statute and that would of course if that were correct and it isn't that would lead the court to think that it was simply a matter of whether  arizona's statute was constitutional and whether or not that could overcome the fourteenth amendment imperative which of course it can't but that's not what arizona's complaining about in in this case thank you pains to we characterize what is before the court as a renewed motion to intervene rather than what it is which is a motion for reconsideration of a properly deny and with sufficient time having passed a decision on intervention that had become the law of the case and secondly while the state invokes the tenth amendment it talks about its sovereign right to establish education policy it is decidedly inattentive to two other sovereign decisions by the state of arizona first the decision by the states to delegate through statute by the legislature decisions over curricular development to school districts including in this case the tucson unified school district and secondly the established  state constitutional law as well as specifically under arizona revised statute fifteen dash one twelve to determine the proper statutory construction of that new law potentially restricting ethnic studies courses now these two unusual elements of the appeal have critical relation to the issues before the court first with the specter whether this is a motion for reconsideration or a quote unquote renewed motion to intervene in fact it has to be seen as a motion to reconsider state had need to intervene the decision was against it it failed to appeal it allow the time to appeal to lapse before it came back before the district court and before it made any moves to come before the court of appeals that then convert that decision to law of the case then had to ask for reconsideration by the district court so the question before this court is simply whether the court the district court abused its discretion in applying local rule seven point two g which would allow it to that are only on the showing of manifest error and the district court concluded that there was no net effect in justice or the showing of new facts significant new facts affecting the decision of the court and here that this record also concluded that while there were new circumstances specifically identified the development of the unitary status plan and state in fact it brought before the court its assertion that change of facts of significance was a change in the composition of the tucson unified school district board of education and in fact the district court probably concluded that those would not change its decision on intervention to be clear your honors the interest being asserted below in the district court by the state was not about the fourteenth amendment was not about preventing any violation of the fourteenth amendment by the district court but was in fact soley about that state law arizona revised actually fifteen dash one twelve the very beginning of their initial motion to intervene states that they seek to intervene in this action on anything about protecting against potential violations of the fourteenth amendment in adopting a remedy for a proven violation by the district court with respect to that interest in enforcing section fifteen dash one twelve in fact the state's interest would not be impaired by this matter for two critical reasons that i've mentioned previously first the state has made the decision a decision equally worthy of respect under the tenth amendment to delegate its a curriculum school districts it does that and there was a revised statute fifteen dash three forty one sided by the school district in this appeal it does that and could withdraw that authority but has not taken any steps other than what may have been done through fifteen one twelve to withdraw that authority from any school district much less the tucson unified school district therefore its interest asserted here in enforcing that state law could not be impaired because it could simply decide to remove the discretion that has granted and it's not required constitutionally or otherwise to grant to school districts to develop curriculum second and equally important there is an established process to determine what is the authoritative interpretation  of that statute fifteen dash one twelve specifically it's already been invoked against tucson unified school district prior to the development this unitary status plan there is an opportunity once the superintendent of public instruction informs any school district that he believes that it is a violating that statute through one of its course it's in the case of tucson it was with the next american studies courses to go to an administrative law judge and contest that beyond that if the school district or the state disagree apply to the specific curriculum developed here in tucson or anywhere else that process for authoritatively constructing fifteen dash one twelve is at least as worthy of respect as any interest asserted in a developing interpretation of that statute by the state which appears to be that any ethnic studies course whatsoever violates the law i think that's an over reading of the statute i don't think it would prevail through that state court process but that is the process to determine if the state's currently asserted reading is accurate or not rather than going into federal court and having a federal court in the first instance attempt to interpret whether there is a violation of arizona law and then secondarily the critical question does a federal law the mandate of the fourteenth amendment override that state law but in the first instance the state law should never put that here's the question of the constitutionality of that statute is being adjudicated separately but the question of how broadly it should be interpreted even if constitutional is a separate question not being litigated in that other action that would more appropriately be termed be determined through the state processes that the state of arizona  there and the proper way to get there is to follow the state the plaintiffs would probably seek to file an amended complaint to name them as a defendant if we still wish to have the curricular remedy as part of the broad set of remedies in this case players might well conclude we're no longer going to pursue that part of the remedies no need to bring the state  down the line that is correct if this remained a part of the remedy and there was an authoritative construction of the state law that indicated a clear conflict with what was going on in this case we would have to resolve that conflict by somehow bringing the state i because they are taking a position we believe an extreme position that any and all ethnic studies curriculum violates the state law we don't think that's an appropriate reading of the state law but this is not the appropriate venue to decide that the district court is not your property or venue to decide twenty seven seconds of thank you go ahead as as counsel from disappointed stated district court here did not abuse its discretion in denying the second motion for reconsideration of the motion for intervention which is all that's before this court did not violate state law that interests both remote and it's speculative and therefore does not meet the requirements for intervention their math program to mexican american studies program that arizona repeatedly talks about in its pleading in the was cancelled by two u s d it has not been resurrected this school district has not made any move to resurrect it and indeed the district court has made clear that that program will not be reinstated when nothing exists in the ground but isn't it fair to say counsel that there was  intervene again in the future we have no position at this time about whether that would be appropriate or not the question here is only whether the court accused discretion in denying that second motion for reconsideration and finding that the changed circumstances cited by the state for there is and the curriculum has to been developed at the high school level the unitary status plan called for the curriculum to be rolled out slowly first in high schools in middle schools then element elementary schools so that process still ongoing and arizona still has every opportunity to be involved in that process through its state and mistreated procedures at this point but those procedures could conflicts with what the district court order is true they may or they may not it right but i mean let's let's say that to say take your opinion but station contest is your state court i assume that you would probably intervene and say no you can't do that because there's a federal court order we don't have a position on what we would do until and i must that and i i will be very brief your honor in arizona administrative law judge obviously can't vacate part of the district court's order arizona's actions in the skein case cannot have been premature because the damage is already done if in fact the district exceeds its authority and there was no mention of that in the argument just heard curricula is ultimately the state's responsibility only the state of arizona can command the school district to develop a particular type of curricula curriculum is there's some discretion on how you develop it but it has to meet the state standards that are highly specific for each grade level and in fact if that district fails to do that the state steps in and takes over the district and does everything including curricular development now the nature of the motion below turns on the language of the court's order and disposing of it in the matters addressed there and i just want to point out that when the district court reaffirming its decision to deny intervention of the state of arizona as oppose to whether reconsideration this time we under the circumstances now as for the matters addressed that court certainly had discretion to get to the p that contains the curricular provisions and as far as arizona is raising that point below i just want to point the court to the parts of the record where as on it did indeed argue that unified school district violated any student's constitutional rights the proposed remedy of creating specific courses for african american and latino students is thus not a remedy that is required to vindicate any constitutional guarantees and in case there's any doubt about whether this was litigated substantively below i want to point you to one more document and note that the mendoza plaintiffs responded robustly to this argument about the scope of the district court's authority that sorts of record volume for docket thirteen seventeen beginning at page two that response devotes four pages exclusively to the tenth amendment argument and finally authority by approving in adopting the unitary status plan containing curricular provisions now that is the issue before the court on the issue that the court ruled i do not see how that you can't be properly in front of there are certainly types of culturally relevant courses that would conform to arizona law but if you design one specifically centered on the cultural experiences of african american women and latino students then you are culturally isolating them and you are teaching them only about one culture and that's not merely a violation of arizona law that is directly contrary to what the supreme court was attempting to remedy in the  persistently segregated african american students in that district that they became culturally isolated they were not part of the mainstream of students taught in that district in other schools and it developed in them and i'm taking all of this out the milk into it developed in them attitudes habits of speech etc that were outside of the environment in which they would need to compete in the post secondary world in this case you have a unitary saddest plan that is attempting to achieve exactly the opposite you have students who are presently in the mainstream and you have a culturally relevant curriculum plan that specifically centers on one ethnic or racial group and teaches that group only about that culture that is contrary not only to arizona state law but to united states supreme court precedent think please the court my name is mc we're seeing i'm here today on behalf of the tucson unified school district to u s c before i start i'd like to reserve five minutes of my time for rebuttal there's also a preliminary matter of a blow she is doing everything it possibly can to attain unitary status and in order to achieve that it must be two different things one is to establish a good faith record of compliance with the unitary status plan that's been adopted and number two eliminate the vestiges of prior discrimination to the extent practicable and we are here today to make sure we are in a position to obtain that status but we need this court's help and here's why as part of this process a unitary status plan u s p was negotiated by the parties and the special master and was adopted by the court last year as a roadmap to obtain unit appointing willis hawley as a special master under rule fifty three and one thing that the parties did in these extensive and then special master did in the extensive negotiations leading up to these orders was to agree upon a methodology methodology for objecting to the are in ours from the special master and this is where the board was going to come in handy but i'll refer court to the lower portion of the hand through fifty three provides that the court must give the parties notice and an opportunity to be heard before ruling on the special masters  expanded it so that the parties would have thirty days for objection and then twenty days for responses and i would give the special master of self chance to respond and then twenty one days for a reply and it also permitted public comment during this period the us p going across the chart incorporates the judicial resolution process of disappointment order and that's the only place in the us p where the special master order objections are dealt with now everybody signed off on this very rational approach in the court entered it both in the appointment order and b p the problem is that's not what's been implemented by the district court instead the first three are in ours were dropped by the court the same day they were five same filed as attachments to the district court order adopting and one of these orders actually did away with any right to object to the special masters or in ours and that was done at the behest of the special master so the problem we're now faced with is to us he does not have an opportunity to object as was agreed to as set out in the handout secondly there's no two day novo review being conducted as required because definitional you need an opposition to have dinner over we're view of an opposition thirdly there's no application of the correct standard of review which includes some deference to to us leave the plans  proposes to see if they are compliant with the constitution and u s p because the standard is not whatever the special master thinks it's best practice from an educational policy or opinion standpoint but whether or not the plan initially proposed by two u s c on these various issues is constitutionally compliant and that is not what is occurring here and all of this is it's not how the way the parties agreed to proceed and that's why i did the blowup because what they try and use conflate two tiredly different processes together because the first process and the one that is  addressed in the top of the handout has to do with plans proposed by key u s steet and the appointment order provides that the u s he will develop a timeline for objections to plans developed by the us steet so then in the us p section one b one the party schemed up with a thing where the district would submit a plan on these various issues set out in us p and then people could object and then if there was disagreement the special master could look at it and then submit an r n r but this was an entirely different process triggered the submitting a plan and it was to be exchanges amongst each other now which is entirely different from the our in our being filed with the court and then o in court and having finally is in court because what ultimately happened is the court initially threw up any right at all to object to the special master  where they gave us a quote right to object but in order to for it to be a right to object it has to be a meaningful right to object and that's what not occurred did not occur for a number of reasons because does what the is reconsidered and they allow ten pages in seven days right right and there's two more really significant restrictions that were put on it number one is you cannot release evidence arguments not previously submitted to the special master well the problem with that is the special master routinely and on a regular basis submissive aren't ours they contain issues things never before see well it does but so far in any all of our efforts to you obtain any additional briefing by this court you have been dealt with the same no thank you there you are you are you appealing the no thank you or are you feeling that kind of equivalence really  question is why not well i think it's one of lose but secondly when you combine it with another restriction that's to impose and that is it restricts the parties from filing any evidence of the communications between to u s the special master in the plaintiffs it precludes us from developing any kind of a record and one of the problems and one of the reasons why the unitary status was reversed four three years ago was because we did not have an adequate record of what went on below and specifically an adequate record of good faith compliance with the us p and this is really illustrated these points by the are in our on the university high school admissions plan because in that our in our which we saw for the very first time when it was filed with the court containing many statements m the things but some of the things we put in that would not have it would've been stricken because they contained information of communications between us p and the special master because one thing the special master said pointing to the u conclusion restatement that that did not happen in the objection filed by to us the it was pointed out by affidavit and otherwise that they were in virtually daily contact with the special master for eleven months sometimes it's not in the site to the most important consideration it would not be permitted as a matter of course it's not permitted as a matter of course under the courts rule and in this rolls into the other two problems with it is timing now the under the appointment order we have thirty days to file an objection rule fifty three gives twenty one days and they raise that from ten in the committee notes to that movement from ten to twenty one days was a recognition the special masters are typically appointed in cases involving complex issues where there would need to be complicated and detailed responses and that additional days would be needed and this case and but the point and that's why you should have some additional time can we truncate the time maybe but that's why another thing that didn't occur is both the appointment order and rule fifty three requires the court to give notice an opportunity to be heard if they're going to if you're going to change the appointment order and maybe we could set down a negotiated something to tighten up that those days but we would have ended up with ten days i mean again the university over four hundred pages of documents in support of it had to do that in and it with a tin tin dated deadline is problematic which leads us also to the the seven day deadline that leads us to the ten page limit that's problematic is no restriction on how much the special master can file and we have to deal with all of the u s p requirements in the objection and with her the university high there's like two hundred twelve of them which is even harder to pass when the special master himself did not go through any of those so we have to go with otherwise under but it's statements like the one about cooperation and have to address that but is a really any reason to go from seventeen pages to ten especially in a situation where by doing away with all that briefing they actually did away with a response a reply injection response a reply and to take all that briefing and reduce it to to ten pages i mean it really was just a bone to give us a small bit of due process i'd like to save some of the remaining time but the bottom line is before this court are for orders that do not modify an injunction there is no basis for hearing this appeal in this court i don't want to spend a lot of time on that point what cause counsel did not spend time on it and reach to the merits but i think it's very important to stress that the orders before this court simply do not modify an injunction and they certainly don't meet the other aspects of the test set by the supreme court in carson which do apply to acts and orders modify to supervise the proceedings making the point that there were hundreds of e mails going back and forth and that some additional control should be exercised it was in response to that the district court judge entered his order of december second and one of the really mind boggling things that has us here today is that in the very order in which the district court judge painstakingly set out what should be provided so that he could rule on reporting recommendation the school districts now planes was somehow a loss of its rights and i think that what's important here is that actually to look at the district court of rugby school districts exhibit but from a slightly different perspective and also very mindful of the question that judge reinhart asked counsel for the school district was didn't took part in an effort to substantial does not set forth all of the particular plans and procedures that needs to be put in place by the district in order for it to attain a cherry status what it does in section one to one is say that there shall be a provision for the development of those plants and then recognizing that we need to respond the special master attempts to resolve the issues and then if there are still disputes he presents them to the court now what the that the special masters report will include all of the attachments and this is the submissions back  and then most importantly it says the port may order additional briefing as it deems appropriate therefore to the extent that the school district in its visual tries to separate somehow or other the us peeved descriptions of what is to occur into a quote unquote pre or in our briefing and somewhere else a post our in our briefing that simply wrong section one two one describes what has to occur before you go to court and then it says true court the court may seek additional briefing as it deems appropriate now interesting lee this is completely consistent with a provision of the appointment order that the school district neglects to talk about the appointment  includes it is very important section about what is to be done in circumstances in which the school district changes attendance boundaries open schools closed schools does the kind of things that have the most dramatic potential impact on the ethnic and racial composition of the district schools and what it says is a process that is virtually parallel to the process that the parties adopted for plans and procedures underneath the unitary status plan in the order pointing special master and i believe that  thirty two but it's in the section it's page three of an order going to special master it says that the district will provide notice of a proposed closure  twenty days to respond and then upon receipt of that response the special master shall make a report to the court period end of story except for one sentence which the package is put together by the special master the special master it sets forth all of the information and gives it to the court and the court then decides if additional briefing is require in response to an argument made by the school district after the court entered its december to order that somehow or other the provision on under one thing one which again i heard the district court pointed out that that was wrong because in fact everyone had notice of the process everyone had an opportunity to have input to the special master everyone had an opportunity to have everything go forward to the court with the court and to determine if it was appropriate to have additional briefings at the briefing is different from the creation of a record so what opportunity do they have post a special master report to submit a record or make a record for the district court well i think the contemplation truly was that the process back and forth and the process back and forth has been quite there may have been something missing that has now been remedied by the district court's order of december twentieth reconsideration where he did say that parties would have has never said that in the objection is restricted to what is before the special master in fact what has happened with the submissions to the court is let me well back the district court certainly did say that no court should be subjected to having to review dozens hundreds of e mails going back and forth and this court may well remember that one the district courts concerns because it was cited this court's opinion when it reversed remand it was that when it needed to to make and determine what the record was the last go and what they didn't want to have to do was run around in the record to see what was there and the difficulty with saying we're going to file hundreds of emails is that bad is in fact they disagree with that they don't have an option they now do have an opportunity to contest that because they have the seven days in which to file jackson the legal document cannot exceed ten pages but it can and the record is full of instances in which it has been supplemented with declarations and exhibits so there is the opportunity to make the record i would also hasten to say that the court has shown a willingness to actually engage in do novo review when an objection has been made in this context with respect the university high school the jefferson came up packaged in the report recommendation of the special master that this group created the seven days for objection even in that circumstance the judge knew that there was a dispute between the parties and a questioning of the special master with respect to his recommendation that the district not be permitted to put into place and on friday motivational tool what the district does not adequately state is that what the judge then did was to y university high school specifically says that excerpt of record seventy five that in preparing the admissions process the district shell review shall  do best practices used by other school districts in admitting students to a similar program and then found that this motivational tool not only was not used anywhere but was untried and it what the district said in its canyon at your excerpts of record nine hundred twenty it says the district represents that the general consensus among the experts they surveyed regarding analysis of exam school best practices reflects the general consensus that the use of multiple in varied methods of analyzing students the basis of admissions yields a more complete picture of the students deemed  practice so we're all talking best practices we're all the king of the universe of unitary status plant the court then goes on to say that districts new age s admissions process revision does not arguments weighs them does they do know as you know full review and in that regard i think it's very important to stress that the district court isn't giving the court is adopting reports and recommendations on the day their files is technically true in that the district cour undertook to file the reports and recommendations because the special master does not have access to the electronic filing system that does not mean that parties report recommendation is dated november twenty second and even identified as such in the excerpts of record file of the school district the report and recommendation on discipline plan decide twentieth but filed with the court on december second was actually created and given to the party since september how do we know that from the record you know it from the record because the judge refers to it as having happened in a december second order which we've put into the our supplemental report excerpts of record i believe you repeat refers to it as a november report elsewhere but it's certainly and of them are one report that certainly even by that references three weeks before the report recommendation the process get the december second report whether the district adopts reports and recommendations about process so it's the december second opinion has tended to it were made by the special master on october twenty eighth they were sent to all the parties on the october twenty eighth and we know that apart from everything else because they were appende what i want to stress is that there is a record process going forward i think it's also in accurate for anyone to believe that when we get to the point is what the court cares about it will show that it has implemented those plans and it will show what the results are of those plants that's what the court cares about so when you think this is plan is really at its very end and that's again part of the irony of this because the stipulation that the parties entered into to govern the process while the appeal was going forward is in fact in place any of the implementation of this for there are real disputes between the parties about the vigor of the goals that it is setting for itself there are many fewer disagreements between the parties about the actions that it's undertaking to move forward i think that's the best way that i can answer  one of the things that we're asking for is that let me give you one example the district has a number of racially concentrated schools including a number of racially concentrated magnet schools we are looking for significant improvement in the racial composition and ethnic composition of the schools what the district feels it can do and what we think it should do is an area of disagreement what we don't disagree on very greatly is the process that should be in place to reinvigorate the magnet schools and to hold them accountable the district has goal set for increasing the graduation rate of its latino and african american students we say those goals should be higher we have to base with the district about what particular plan should be in place to achieve that but i think it is fair to say judge reinhart that the district has plans in place see whether their company's goals i wouldn't call it an experimental phase i would say that what has happened because of the rest of the plan is that sub she says of the plan have been respect to the implementing plans unless there is a disagreement of with respect to them that the special master can dissolve and then we get into the process that we've been talking about here this unitary status plan in february twenty third teen and when it next heard from the school district saying that it would like to be clay or unitary or to be relieved of one of the green factors what has happened here is that there has been court involvement because there has been dispute with respect to the sun but i stress some not all of the implementing plans and given the large number of implementing plans that this unitary status plan call for actually very few the three in the record are the discipline plan where the special master basically said that he didn't agree with the plaintiff's objection the unitary the admissions process the university high school which we've talked about and one relating to the director for a culturally responsive pedagogy were ultimately the district school district and the special master resolve the issue and the objections that had been made by thank you very much for your time thank you a couple of points i would like to respond to one of them is the difference between the pre and post objection process in terms of the our in our the pre our in our briefing process involves policy suggestions tweaking plans and things of that nature the post are in our process is designed to be legal arguments and whether or not what is ultimately proposed complies with the us p and the constitution the special master under the system that is in place now is supposed to submit information submitted by the parties with its r n r but there is no legal briefing with that denying you but the problem is we've been turned away and the problem is we need a record and we need a real time record this notion that five years now will submit all the stuff that we weren't allowed to submit and that's going to work is fanciful brought up before then so now we can address something that we didn't address before so it's the circle or do we have to keep going back to the court or should the court have not changed the plan everybody adopted and he signed off on before us together get something the works but don't put together this plan that doesn't and the other issue i'd like to point out on the expert part were were basically in the university high so situation proposed using the test the special master are in is are in are does not say that the test proposed by the us the is not compliant with the us p or the constitution he says i like the idea of short truncated time to respond we have a truncated number of pages to respond and we have restrictions on what that response can obtain and the notion that we can solve all that by having a go is that we want relief from the seven days we want rel from the ten pages we want relief from the strictures on emails back and forth we want restrictions really from restrictions on things we're covered that's unworkable and we're entitled to have something that we can write because the record is so critical and and important because in order for people to negotiate things there has to be some sense of europe from that everyone knows what the rules are and what if the worst thing happens we have to litigate what's the outcome what what file longer breeze from time to time we grant some we deny some it's if you're concerned about making a record you have to make a record we can't solve this by micromanaging the procedure i think the truth and that's a problem years but the non receptiveness of the district court to give us hearings to allow us briefing cuts us off at the knees on our rights to object to their own it stipulates you combine with the other expansive efforts by the thousand students to kind of finish the loop about this starting with me in high school my twin thirteen year old daughter's just took the university high admissions test so i mean it's you know these things are impacting people on a daily well i'm not in a position to answer that question because i'm not involved in the day to day but the u s speed has a bunch of different plans covering everything and the parties stipulate to the parties stipulated there and a lot of those procedures followed and that's what's not being followed and what it has done is what we've seen is the district court remove itself from this litigation and the special master move in and expand and and and use a standard that is not the standard that he's supposed to use he's supposed to talk about compliance with us be the segregation those sorts of thing that's what he's an x where he's not supposed to quibble with us when we have red or green uniforms for a soccer team that's outside of his ba only be free of leave though i think at the end of the day our jurisdictions depends on whether or not the injunction order is modified by it has been modified or nah correct and my