pretrial inmates in the san francisco county jail plaintiffs like every other inmate in the san francisco county jail eighty five percent of whom are pretrial detainees never get to be outside never get to be in sunlight that the cd could provide exercise indoors but they have to provide outdoor access so that there does not have to be enough space where they can exercise like a ball field but they have to have access to the outdoors and access to direct sunlight specifically stated that even though the inmates were provided two hours of indoor exercise just because you had indoor exercise does not mean you have to and you don't have to let them exercise outdoors and it cited the long i completely disagree i don't feel that she's facing restating that the adjective outdoor x next exercise is meaningless and i think that if you're looking at these cases there are specific cases which provide another case that i wanted to refer to that i was going to use for to later on down the line which specified the amount of time that that needs to be provided and that two hours every other day or at least three times a week and this was a nine hundred and eighty three case i want the court to know that that standard that two sought her solution specified has been adopted by the state of california and its state regulations apply to the most serious violent criminals people in and mistreat the segregation or the few where the requirement is that they are to be provided a minimum of three times a week for use of the yard so i think that these are standard over the forty years since spain versus her cooney which has been standardized by the courts and now adopted by regulations in hypotheticals in ideal situations what the expert has very clearly stated is that even though these are hypotheticals none of those have been implemented in any extent anywhere in the world it's not been implemented in the arctic except as a temporary basis or in antarctica or miners in in in caves what he did say is that there are very strong specifications for what is required for outdoor exercise for the mt the light that it's technical the problem we've had in this case is we have not been allowed to go in on discovery to do the medical review that is necessary to find out and just you know medical problems and he was just a pining based upon the state of research the general research rather than specifically on the physical condition of the actual plaintiffs in this case i think that what what you're going to have to look at then is the whole thing in spain is meaningless our at question well i think that they have in the cases following spain which has held that it is a per se violation in terms of the denial outdoor recreation i mean outdoor the denial of recreation and particularly outdoor recreation was an ordinary condition of confinement that was a distinction that deny all outdoor recreation is acceptable as an emergency measure based upon some e think that these are the cases that if you're going to be talking about pretrial detainees who should not be punished there is a holding that long term deprivation of the acts of the outdoors is a constitutional violation and i think that that want to expend the funds to do a physical plant change so in that sense the practical aspect of making this order would be that if they were to make a change it would be not lacking common sense to say let's carve out a small exception for nine people when it is a practice and policy of the city to do this and i think that that's what i understand that you know you're practical but of course that th should i'm going to need to look at that if you would give me just a minute and perhaps i can just finish my other arguments with the possible that's fine all right i think that what i want to also argue i'm saying that an excuse and i think there's a case where i think it was in grizzle or in which hell that they were saying they could not provide the outdoor education because of stabbing or scheduling and of course simply  that's not an acceptable answer that unless it is a security related reason you cannot deny people complete outdoor exercise but that is not a justification for and neither is i would also like to just briefly address in the time that i have left are you going to come back to my question i will read it when you do it now i don't know that time will actually change the answer one way or the other but what's the answer to th are already going to just pull it up in a nd and while i do that i just want to also say that in terms of our cross appeal that what we are asking for is a standard that the state of california has implemented which is that every individual should be allowed no less than three opportunities per week of outdoor recreation that's now been adopted in the regulations and that's been adopted in the more recent i would say that the state has adopted that after the court rulings and the court ruling was in tucson versus lucian's which adopted that amount of time in the state regs were adopted twenty two years later with those standards so