case i want to be clear about what players are seeking in this case they are seeking an injunction against the defense to require the defendants to carry out their affirmative obligation under section five five to eight to to publish on a regular basis all of the controlling opinions by the office of legal counsel and in addition to provide an index for the public or those opinions the government's position is very simple it says that plaintiffs cannot get this relief under either the freedom of information act or under the administrative procedure act under which this case brought the government says that the only remedy that we have to make a record by record request for opinions of all l c if they are granted by if they are denied we go to district court and we must do this on a one by one basis and we can never get  injunction we want under either foyer or into the administrator procedure act that is not an adequate alternative remedy under section seven zero four of the a p a and if i were you you seem your brief production so their argument is that the first cause of that section gives the district court full injunctive relief and that seems to be  be clear i don't disagree with that argument as far as it goes which is in situations like pain or others where the government has been giving documents up it has been sued gives up documents  order that new or we'll see opinions on an ongoing basis be published without a future request maybe that's withholding but maybe it's not the second point is the last chance doesn't iron support that really  include an injunction requiring publication in the federal register how in the world if we follow chemical do we order the relief under for you that you're asking for here index of all of the documents that come under a two that is not a withholding that would require them to create an index to the extent that they don't have one already and they can make that public we don't think that publication of the index is consistent with withholding but mason is your daughter we're in a little awkward position we're happy to be told that you can get all the relief you want under for what we're not happy to be told is what the government's position is which you can't ever get the relief under the a b a or a four year regardless of your hours if you have a substantive merits of our claim the government says this is an adequate ready but you can't have it i don't understand that this court's opinions do not support that conclusion indeed bowen says three times that the question is whether this remedy duplicate the remedy we're seeking here under the a b a duplicate something we can get under for it if we can't get it under four a how can that possibly be duplication woods wrong under our case law was that view is being added with well i'm glad you're out to mention the word effect because i think that's a aspect of this and that is under the government's view we have to make a document by document request as this court is well aware the government has a lot of time to respond and we have to litigate every one of these cases that's we know you yes i and i thought your honor had that's quite different from being able to against the two to follow up on my earlier question let's suppose you do have to sue individually you know after due third such suit you painted the other cases in your injunction because you can say look we you know they keep doing this they obviously aren't complying with the legal standards for what they have to make available for public inspection so give us i may take you longer i know you don't want to have to do that but why isn't that adequate well i suppose that that gets to the question of being the board's adequate under under  tax analysts and advocates for the for this court's decision where the technical advice memoranda were not being regulated released or had to do it but i would have to say your honor i know of no case in which they just want his phrase we went to court three times had to sue them every time and which this court has said that that's not adequate the course of difficulty is that we would continue to get these views with the justice department as to whether the three cases that we were representative of all the o l c opinions that they have we recognize that there's a variety of o o c opinions some of which the formal opinions are presidential controlling others which may not be formal may be equally of the case to know whether we can sue or not and we knew what the government's position was very soon after the case got started we actually when we filed the case we thought the government would engage or something merits we'd have the kind of merits based discussion we expected that this one thing i don't understand here is why we do student uncertain what we were suing under the a b a or for where the government meanwhile had come in and said to us not only could we use fire but we had to make a document by document request and since we had made a document request of all we could sue one of the government's position rather than getting tangled in what we hope with good we hope to avoid which was a lot of procedural argument we did with just sullivan said and we played straightforward this is an a p a case because we thought it was better i might say your honor this is not a case where we the a p a we give what we thought the case law suggested we should do and it was a straightforward way of getting the kind of affirmative relief that we think that aid to permit system get and which the government says we can't get under either branch of this case townsell focused on uncertainties about the for the remedy but i want to just focus on what was undisputed about the forty remedy if they if they think that there are documents or categories of documents that they can reasonably describe c has not made available to them but which should be made available to them they can file a request with a we'll see and or with the department of justice and if they're not satisfied with the response they can go to court under for that and claim that the web site and those requests if the process now is he believes most of those are privileged and then you could litigate about that but you know the way that they're describing what they think is a controlling opinion is a little bit uncertain in shifting  so there might be things to be worked out about exactly what they mean but in concept yes you could make such a request of people have and then if you don't like the answer you can litigate about it remedy in a court and what they're saying is well see has some documents that we're entitle to and and there's no question that if they think that they can ask for the documents reasonably describe them and then if o c doesn't produce them they can file a law suit and then they can litigate about it and and if you compare this case to cases like counsel of and for the blind and women's equity actually i mean this case is actually the remedy it's much more clear that the remedy here is adequate because in those cases what happened was the government had an oversight role and was supposed to make sure that other entities to which the government was getting funding were not discriminating and they said the government is falling down on the job and not carrying out that mandate and so they wanted to see the government and say no you have to make sure these federal funds aren't being used in this in permissible manner and the court said well there's an adequate remedy every time some recipient of the funds discriminates you can file a lawsuit against them that's an adequate remedy and and here it's much closer they're saying simply if there are documents you use you're suing the very people you think are doing the wrong thing in this case oh i see as opposed to there where you got the government wasn't monitoring well enough and you had already said all against them and be in order to turn over a document but i guess the point i mean i mean bowing a little injunction they want a big jump they want to be that's right here on earth and that's what they wanted in council on the for the blind and that's what they wanted in women's equity actually remedy and specifically what was at issue in garcia was they said u s d a isn't taking action on complaints and nobody said you could get an injunction that would that would require us to process the complaints better but they said the remedy that make sure that all of the recipients they don't want to go recipient by recipient and every time they see a problem sue somebody they want to get the government out ahead of it and and there's no question they can get that this court said that the government would you would be more than a nominal defendant and it was this court discuss the same kind of caught in the primary means by which congress wanted to make sure that the government was complying with those was by saying that if there were materials that should have been made available under a one or a two then the government now they don't have that set of precedence there is people who are law schools who do research on this stuff they don't have that and to say well you can't use it against them doesn't help them because nobody certainly use it against them they want it so they can stock from applying them in future cases because it had made them public so that they couldn't they just can't apply them against a person well i mean in each case there is a dispute between two people and so they would be likely to be applying to malign his it's it's not enforceable through the courts come up well i mean the other point of course is is that one i think was raised earlier is you know if people if somebody makes a request for the materials and i mean this is obviously a far fetched hypothetical that it that an agency like ou and other quinta pointed out there are consequences for for losing cases like that and what and having lost a case like that if an agency resisted a conclusion by this court that it had an obligation to to publish these these decisions or to make them available we would be an entirely different situation and i don't think that that could be described as an enforceable through the courts the point is simply that you can't come in ahead of time and say and say i haven't made any for your requests i have precedent then you actually do need to publish these things and in fact we suggest that the president on this point electronic frontier foundation cuts in the exact opposite direction and i just want to make wanted to point if i might your honor which is wh maybe one reason that congress would set it up this way is illustrated by this case it's very difficult to understand what sort of injunction they contemplate is going to come about at the end of this the negation or what the category of documents that they want is they say they want all form opinions big you couldn't issue an injunction a district court couldn't issue an injunction saying publish all the formal opinions because that would cover the opinion that was it is you know electronic frontier foundation and and they say they want discovery to figure out which opinions it is that they actually are entitled to know we know our position is simple we don't think they're entitled to any of them but that's not going to be their position and the point the point i'm making here is not to jump ahead to the merits because that's not before the court the point that i'm making is gate that when there are actual concrete documents that you requested that the agency has refused production now again as yours says no because the first part is to enjoy it it doesn't say anything about it withheld it doesn't seem very specific document it does have the words withheld and the second part says says enjoying the agency from with the second part says order of production and so you know i guess what i'm asking is if if what does the first do everything that leaves the first part of the statute surplus doesn't do anything your honor it's it's possible or it's possible that you know obviously there you know this court is held in pain case is not a good one to decide issues about this go before the record because the parties agree and particularly because the district court concluded quite rightly that even the if you just take the part of the aspects of for you that are completely undisputed that limited all right and i guess my point is so we we don't have a dispute about whether there is that what about relief and the question would be which are the appropriate cases in which that really should be exercise and we would submit that that that issue should be decided on a case in which somebody is urging that equitable relief is appropriate under the foyer of the court participate join issue or that question here what's happened is that they've disclaimed any effort to obtain relief under the foyer but district court we issue a very hypothetically if we were to affirm on the grounds it to dysart for the basically the same rationale that the district court did so we don't really have to decide  l the contours of the scope before but it's just that it's an adequate remedy and then you know the case proceeds under four but perhaps the  remedy that's ordered in that's a firm isn't really what we thought it would be we can go back and revisit the civil law for question later can correct your honor but it but i guess i'm not proposing that this court affirmed the district court based on presuming any anything i'm certain about what the foyer remedy would be i'm not saying this court your presume that there must be some injunction you know buried in here at the end of the day because our point is simply that this as was pointed out earlier the injury that that they're alleging that they've suffered is the deprivation of information and there's no there's no question that they can really gauge about whether that what an attempt to address that injury through the part of way that is just regularly applied by court by this court all the time which is just they could make a request and they could try to get the documents and this court would have to presume that they could do anything more than that under the foil for the for it to be an adequate remedy because if you know congress set up the foyer and the requesting system precisely for this purpose to say that if somebody thinks that they have an informational injury they can a they can seek documents and they can litigate about it and so this court there's not going to be a surprise you know along those lines now there are questions that could be posed about whether in addition to that there are injunctions in certain circumstances and what those circumstances would be but i'm not asking this court to presume any answer to that question and so there would be no need to revisit the seven o four analysis you would just say you know there is or there isn't more we fail under did will do you think there's a doctrinal matter then when we look at what sort of in the who are means under the specifically with respect to the issue of what is an adequate different in any context arm and so for example i mean to take medicaid for as an example you know in bowen the supreme court pointed out that there it was applying to test in a circumstance in which congress had not provided  specific alternative remedy to the a p a for that kind of injury that was being asserted there in the foyer conversely there is no dispute that congress has provided a specific alternative remedy and then in  before the court was whether there was an alternative remedy in the federal tort claims act and the court can you know analyze that included no congressman didn't mean for that to be the remedy and that actually would necessarily provide a remedy but here i mean the answer to these questions in this case is quite simple request for a group of documents right including they could say they could say all documents all opinions that the agency has concluded are not significant right now to do that i mean again i  can second question is how does it solve their index problem that doesn't give them an index the statute requires an index or their index when first of all they complete doesn't say anything about the index but just to answer your question directly here that the point is the next is that if there are documents that are covered by five fifty two a two very agency needs to index this why why make this distinction between significant and significant let me just be easier to put out everything that's not privileged well what's the reason for that if you don't know what i understand can see the client is the united states but as a practical matter you're out of the way this is resolved is that they consult all of the affected agencies and in practice if effective agencies objects to the disclosure then it's extremely unlikely that it would be that it would be it would be would be acting consistent with that i'm not sure as a technical matter whether that's correct or not that's a little beyond what what i know here who in any case would no one in there be created and produced to the point  if there were litigation i assume is the premise of value has generally yes i mean obviously there were there could be circumstances you know about the completeness of it but yes one would expect on in there in the doesn't isn't doesn't that nature of the advice sometimes the subject matter is itself privileged and so there might be disputes about the adequacy of them on next two but if the if the question is whether you know plaintiffs could mitigate that they aren't getting enough information either by not getting adequate index minutes i want to begin by quoting what terry said he said we can get any document that oil c has meaning we get documents at the time we make our request our request the index is concerned true we didn't specify in our complaint was made clear to the district court but it is as the government conceded and inevitable consequence a legal consequence if we have all these of millions of estimate so we didn't see it we had to put it in there but it's clearly there and