what it is that's been found to date that makes it more likely that there will be documents among these documents that will actually it into a case and provide some reasonably specific explanation of how this really works in terms of the theory of the case you know up to now as far as one can tell i don't mean this in a negative way but it is that their argument for why they eat this and why it's not available or who fully sort of tend to some extent plenty without knowing why they need it it's very hard to explain hearing on the terminations that he put up p b g p d c's decision to terminate would have met the statutory criteria so that's in some way that's what this is all about at this point and there's sort of that generalized fear in the well maybe there was some sort of improper political influence but we don't have anything to demonstrate that the extent of what they're saying is important i think in the in re sealed case too that there is a greater interest in disclosure in the context of a criminal case because of the interests of the come over the criminal justice system so that there  case it doesn't matter here because in this case if anybody can come in here and say i don't want presidential be patient privileges because they might sort of provide something for a lawsuit but maybe they've got something that shows something improper and this is after they've gotten all the documents from the actual the family so it's got to be something that never went anywhere that they've made showing that there is likely to be anything and also to the extent that the court has you know like any concerns i really would welcome you know has the court to walk home have the documents enough and even if the court simply you wants to remain on it's got to be that the district courts in the circuit have got to take the presidential communications privilege more seriously than that because otherwise it's really going to be a could you start with it my question is what did the district court in fact use the wrong standard here by failing to get analyze this as a civil litigation matter not a criminal matter isn't there very much more difficult to get presidential communications privilege pierced in a civil matter right then supposed to criminal and it doesn't seem to me district court took that into account at all in my reading i'm wrong or your honor we think the district court had taken into account it's not wrong to say that the interest in disclosure is less in the civil context in the crib context that's true but as the court has pointed out there's a there's a whole host of balancing factors that come into a minute how the it to me or give me a good paraphrase of the sure so the the district court said look at our look at the briefing that was before it on the motion to compel we had about what he had and what he noted was that the treasury offered three paragraphs in opposition did not contest with his these documents were unavailable from any other source did not let the court of first instance know that that was a subject that was in dispute and and then if you look through this is the record that was before the court in this case was developed over five years and the record was not was it was not lacking in evidence to support such solvents determination here you had evidence before him that had originally been a g m plant these participants that were in this plan were all originally g m employees from pixel rears working for general motors it was undisputed that g m depended on the ability of delphi parts to make its cars explanation whatsoever of the court's legal reasoning here there is explanation of it and it's as far as whether it is insufficient to just simply refer to sort of incorporate the respondents reasons or th opposed to cutting and pasting those reasons and putting it in the opinion that there's a point out that this court just on tuesday issued an invalid companion did the same use the same mechanism that we  process that assertions that were made initially there were something like nine hundred surgeons made the district court found that they were all miserably deficient were his words and that and similarly th the sort of protective order i mean the you have to again ask what is the what is the threat to presidential confidentiality of the lolo in effect subject matter these are age documents which cannot go back and office of the president is central sort of it's not clear who was making that assertion on behalf of chernoff that of the president we have a letter in the record from the department justice but if you look at what bush what do that that is an open question whether the president personally has to sign a letter that says he's a sort of a privilege or whether someone on his behalf and say oh i consult the president and here's what he wants me to do here we have neither of us factors here we if the argument is that there are constitutional strong constitution all imperatives that require these documents not be shown to anyone else outside the executive the court's presiden that the that has been matters because this is a constitutional power that the loss of president that we're not saying that you should overturn that the finding of the president make ations privilege by just saying if you're going to engage in it and you read about it we don't think it should but if you're going to you're going to say well those a little bit different because you need to look at the interest in confidentiality there were a whole host of factors like the age of the documents like the nature of the darkness these are not they should not revealing the plans for dealing with isis or or anything these are and we discontinued that practice because it became clear that that are a firm its would have precedential fact that anybody reading that language would know exactly what part of the district court's opinion we really don't know what reasons those are and who the district court found this for a one hundred matter for all sixty three documents not even for a subset of the documents and note that the only discussion help hold this earth connects up to any prior showing make this seem like anything other than that the presidential communications privilege applies that's not so there's no or no but i bet when we go the easy answer was in response to my question about distinguishing this case from dallas i mean one of the factors i thought