some of these cases declarations motions under seal findings by the government the government's argument the only thing that the public has been told in this case is that healing was necessar one would relate to cases other than this one which which involved the policy in general and the other would relate to this case yesterday and so your arguments on this case are not moved i take it because the just because the district court change the policies are right that's right and then your other argument on notice as to the other cases cases other than this one is that the constitutional issue as to goes cases needs to be right to act as information is not irreparably harmed by delay by the same objections and the same arguments being made over and over again i ask that you know all these other cases that that you want the court began as it has in these two cases employs essentially a secret practice where i have secret hearings and secret motions and we get to basically argue against quote that they are an inspiration of justice whether th the first member right of access and so i'm not aware of any mechanism or any voluntary action by the court to file any plea agreements that were effected by the five year policy so i think it's going to have to come from this co alternatives including the witness protection program but would what i'm wondering as is it would be any answer for us to just tell the district court to file a mall one when some of them are sensitive enough that that forty nine hundred eighty of those and nobody's ever going to care about routine run of the mill staff that's now dead and buried in the files nobody's ever going to want to see it would would we put the district court all that problem on cases of nobody cares a was in the i mean you've got to admit that this district has been very do the eyeballs in both the criminal cases and lack of judicial resources and this was i take it simply a response to one part of that process procedure generally i'm not certain about that i know that the current reporter on the federal court i believe had been there about a year and the practice was to get the plea agreements from the u i'm certain cases they were starting to get selectively denied and that's when the copley press took up the challenge and became aware that the national formal practice was in place where they weren't being filed and would not be filed and that actually they would trials basically or not filed matters you know and whether it's you know really necessary to go back and you know stop the court from functioning  requirement is that the public be heard after notices given that a culture of sealing hearing is going to take place and that at that point in time if the individual in you know a member of the public and stands up and requests to be heard  which allow the press to be heard of the public to be heard by the simple motion or at least that's the way it looks from the published decisions and still motions are needed and relatively inexpensive i believe they can be amendment requires before it can simply say we're going to file a camp of armor you know forty percent of them decide which ones we think are most important to the public you've got a minute left  record in the hussein matter there was no discussion by the court or by the prosecutor about what was taking place there was a one sentence reference at the disposition hearing by defense counsel that it would be anticipated no further motion would be made below to go back and file five years worth of one final plea agreement and in fact there the record is absent as to any consideration that because the district court never had the opportunity to consider that the fact that this is being requested balance the factors as required by orgone and as required by president apprised to potential caseload implicated by companies current request again which was never made below which was never litigated below would implicate a minimum of twenty thousand prospective cases because the criminal case filings in the southern district were close to four thousand criminal cases per year a large number of those cases included multiple defendants and when you talk about five years worth of a practice that would require going back and not just the court assuming the burden of dealing with the filing of those documents but closure in these two particular cases and that you therefore don't have to consider the broader question you don't have to reach constitutional questions when you can reach them otherwise we're going what we're saying here is that the former policy which is which is mo indicate a concern the record is not true that they were denied blanket accessed by their own words they acknowledged having previously received plea agreements from the government they are now coming here asking for something completely different but it really is much ado about nothing with respect to the record because they have not established a record and to say anything get anything and i mean they have any part of the hussein agreement right correct so why should not t court consider redaction the court did consider a number of alternatives and those were addressed in the court's findings what the government would say about that i that given the nature and it's been a decision of those agreements this is not something that can be dealt with by reaction because by simple reaction what is left out there is something that then basically by the omission indicates what was left up and the court consider that below they consider that in light of practitioners experience they consider that in light of the testimony they took in the district court made f separate point given copies interest in trying to get at the agreements by cooperators the way that it actually works is that in criminal cases defendants who cooperate with the government sorted out on a case by case basis in some subset of the more than twenty thousand cases potentially implicated but again this was never raised below there's never been an opportunity to consider this and it's only being made to hold this court because they got judge gonzales noted below that the newspaper had not established that they had a right to have a think in that file and again they were not being denied wholesale access by the government because by their own words they acknowledged that they did receive leaders from the government in the past but it was only in select instances when they did not and the record refers to slowly six cases where they did not get access to treatment in one of them they litigated it and just merely or the government turned over and it was turned over to our point would only be that as far as we understand it was passed on as we never got an opportunity to respond to it because the court knows the government may only respond in mandamus when orders to do so and so we did not have an opportunity to make our points in that consideration and so to the extent that a prior panel has already considered it it would be argument that under the law of the circuit with respect to the review of closure words meaning this is a vehicle probably had their chance on the going to matter here with respect to the case there would be nothing different that would have taken place in the underlying motivation that would better looking crown than a so i cite from nasa if i did not get a look at the at the prior panel there's been nothing has happened since then because the policy below was never the policy of united states government the government followed the courts practice it was the district court was not here that was not being represented in any way shape or form an active policy so in that respect i can only start with the interests are of the government i have made some attempt to to assert some of the interests of the district court as well as defendants in general from my knowledge as a practitioner in the district but this was not the government's policy this was  policy of the district court and i think quite frankly in reliance on former case law which indicates that courts have substantial leeway to manage their own judicial record seen if you do the mediation or some sort of you could we agree that there is a general right of access to plea agreements we agree that it's the better practice for the sole interest of california to be filing a plea agreement what to do about the former practice was never previously raised and at a minimum the district court should have an