record my name is james peterson representing the appellant judicial watch in this matter once again we are before this court because more remains to be done as we all know after she left office former secretary of state hillary clinton took four years worth of federal records with her short some time thereafter on her robe and her secretary clinton and her attorneys deleted more than thirty thousand of these e mail records since that time extensive efforts have been made to recover these thirty thousand to lead it e mails some estimates some estimates suggest only about five thousand have been recovered that's why we're here today because more remains to be done in this case the district court found it is moot well it is certainly not moot because we have identified specific sources of e mails if yet to be tapped that consistent with this court's prior opinion in this case provided more than imaginable so potential sources are records these are federal records that must be returned is your court review the affidavits from the from the f b i and its conclusion that there was really nothing more it could do that would likely yield any more e mails and they point out that he says look if if this was a result of an f b i investigation national security investigation where they had every incentive to try to find everything they could what what what more could could been recovered we have pointed to specific potential sources we it's not even our burden to do so but we have done so to demonstrate that has and these other sources clearly have not been had not been accessed they don't claim otherwise the the f b i is affidavit which was entirely conclusory nonspecific and self serving there was no reason to believe that they went to these people the government positions seems to confirm that they did not do so the f b i s investigation also was targeted that it's looking for which of course they found numerous e mails containing classified information there's no reason we have no evidence in the record that they've looked for every e mail they've read every e mail they were focused very much as you say are very much the civically the national security concerns we have every reason to believe but they would think i was focused on national security concerns and wouldn't have had a powerful incentive to find every possible way that that's what it was looking for was it was looking to see whether the former secretary had had real released classified information so they had to look at they had to try to find every e mail think that there is no evidence in the record that they went me to see i mean i understand your argument but it's hard to see how given the detailed affidavit we can we can second guess and how would you maybe actions your questions we're looking at the affidavits what's aides we need to know specifically with evidence who they contacted first who they attempted to contact who they actually reached what the person's response was to that person have records to that is the agency duties to go get them because the agency that will let these walked out walk out the door and it is their responsibility in this extraordinary circumstance to do everything they really can do to go get that they have not done so different view than he f b i so we i don't think it's necessarily consistent with the statute to assume what the attorney general may do the attorney general wants once he receives the referral that he's required to under the statute might decide that he wants to spend more time investigating the president's tweets on the other hand the attorney general might find that time is better spent pursuing these many other potential sources of records  that after the f b i went through this extensive multi year national security search it would report to this attorney general what it reports here which is we can't think of any steps that are likely he'll more e mails what would cause the attorney general to say well i want you to go do another investigation why would that happen but pope fully will be presented with what the f b i has done and the other opportunities that remain to be done there's no doubt it had like to hear if the government says otherwise that these other correspondents that we have edified have been please the court i just want to start by clarifying one factual point there was a question about whether there was evidence in the record that they were looking for all e mails as opposed to classified e mail so i would call your attention to page one forty eight of the joint appendix which is from one of the affidavits it says the f b i sought all potentially work related e mails from the former secretaries tenure and then provided relevant e mails for classification reviews to the appropriate government agencies  that i think that should answer that question that the last time this case was before this court the court concluded that the record then before the court did not demonstrate that the case was moot because it didn't demonstrate that the government had already secured the e mails that could be obtained through in an foresman action that would be that the endpoint of this litigation here is not an unfortunate action on remand the government provided extensive evidence of enforcement actions and voluntary compliance that the f b i of taint the court's opinion the last time focused on the blackberry e mails and said well you haven't taken action to recover those and then remained there was evidence of obtaining the equipment that was used to store the blackberry e mails of legal process that was served on the service providers for the blackberry e mails and and so the enforcement action that was at issue the last time this case was before th has been taken and the plaintiff doesn't suggest otherwise so now plaintiff is trying to move has not identified in foresman action and is instead saying that the state department should take more steps to ask some more questions  follow up on what was as as has been discussed an extensive f b i investigation and i would just note that although this is you know this is an unusual case the legal wall that plaintiff is advocating here doesn't have a limiting principle plaintiff is saying if any government employee sends out correspondence and then the government employees copy of the cars when it's goes away then then that there's an obligation under the federal records enforceable in court for to go after the person who received the correspondence and that you know in this case it happens that a lot of this work has already been done but this court emphasized in the last opinion that the remedy here is to get the enforcement resources in so it's targeted a circumstance when there's somebody who has government records and is refusing to turn them over and then the investigative arm of the united states or the unfortunate arm the attorney general can be brought to bear on that and provide it and and go after the person i am and then file an action and say you have government records you have to give them back and that's not what plaintiffs are asking for anymore because all of those steps have been taken and so we would submit that the case is moot on a question shall do it the secretary of the the cabinet member shall refer to if he knows or has reason to believe now suppose the secretary just says well i'm not making a referral because i have no reason to believe that there's anything out there is that is there any are there any cases where a court has has ordered the secretary to make referral notwithstanding their findings i know that i'm not aware of a case like that  how would a court even do that i mean what would we i guess the plaintiff would have to show that the secretary statement that he or she has no reason to believe is not supported by and he had to do something  then the court could order the secretary to make a referral for his that's the theory right i think that's the theory on which a plaintiff would proceed as you as you said we're not aware of a case that's come down that way so you think it's dispositive in a case like this think this court's cases have made clear that sort of second guessing the thoroughness of a general effort is not what the statute is i mean that this is a you know cause of action for agency action unlawfully withheld under the a p a which is much more narrow than  that if if there's a particular thing that wasn't done if for example the f b i look at me putting it you know the last time this case was before the court the court said are we don't have evidence in the record there's a particular thing we think there are particular people out there who might have the e mails and you haven't gone after them at all and they would have an obligation to turn them over to you because these are government records you know these are people who are acting on behalf of the former secretary and thinking of the service providers and so this court at least w and of course the record demonstrated that there had been extensive efforts to go after those people both for voluntary compliance and through legal action and and so that that avenue has been closed and recovered records more remains to be done we do not have any we do not have the specific evidence that every effort has been made all of this is undisputed if we walk away now we allow any agency which is which is dragged its heels at every step of this to say well we think we've done enough we don't want to do anymore that's not the purpose of the federal records act more remains to be done thank you or others thank you