between a ceiling order an injunction and why morgan that if the ceiling order is intended script of the disclosure and it's a court order then the government has said in the situation with an injunction has no discretion to release the documents our interpretation is that w sealing order they do have discretion to release the documents because the agency records downpour records there's a court order the sealing order is issued by a court and so the government cannot release those documents unless the it has circuit decision is not nice or are you arguing that we shouldn't follow morgan no we're arguing that we should follow morgan but with some distinctions our morning has been interpreted by the lower courts where they take the language  seal and i think i struggle with that proposition because the government doesn't control whether the court will enter that order and the government may ask for it but also as you know at comic con and ten toes  harm that interest in that there's no alternative to closure of the government and in my view i just as a matter of law i don't think it's correct to say the government can control that documents are going to be sealed they can ask but it's up to the courts to make the i'm correct how do you how do you respond to that what you do with your argument where you're suggesting that this is within one party's tool i think that's a fair assessment the that point that we are making without is more so that these documents under seal was made to show it was made at that time twenty years has now passed can the government or must the government make a have a finding that the same compelling interest exists twenty years later that that the compelling interest does not exist into perpetuity agri that's one of the issues with the sealing order and good taste taking into the context of how it was proceedings i think he could potentially do that and the response they gave to him was that that case number did not exist well i understand that but now as a matter of fact you have additional information minister hundreds provide typically and a case number is merged with  mr horner could provide additional information in motion seeking to have that sealed lifted and i'm wondering if you have any anything other than what has what occurred before is a basis to say that there's no way he'd get this necessarily i would just say that he's not necessarily seeking for the seal to be lifted he's just seeking for the agency themselves to give the documents to him in their own and a record separate of them being classified as court to cut so we're under two minutes would you  documents that were ordered field if you've discussed by the federal district of california owners for action improperly seeks to attack the decision of the central of the southern district of california in san diego in the central district of california in los angeles in a boy action which is not allowed to do so would place the government in an untenable position of having to choose which ports order to follow to follow the southern district of california in san diego or a potential conflict in order out of los angeles and that could possibly place the government to records should remain sealed and not be publicly disclosed and so i think the best information that we could have under morgan that would to be extended is an order from the issuing court and i  needed to prohibit the disclosure of the actual order from the court did not explicit this did twenty years later i mean it was very artfully worded  your honor i think the court order and the clarification with thoughts on the supplemental briefing to provide the district court judge with certification that the intention of the sealed order  in a criminal investigation was to keep these records disclose from the public interest what action is by unary either mr toner is entitled to the reference and the and the world can see those documents or no one can and so i think it's important to again go back to the fact that this is a boy action seeking records for the public and you have here a judicial officer who considered a request you know not not  with with the material information and reconsidered it later and renewed that decision so i think we have two orders clarifying the court's intent and that is under morgan sufficient to make it so that the jobs mr homeowner which he references his criminal case importantly that was a state matter brought by the district attorney in vista not the u s attorney's office and so i don't have a lot of background on some of the criminal matters nor do i think it is completely relevant that mr huhne is correct and he cannot well any sort of motion or seek to have to see order lifted so that he can obtain his records from the southern district of california one that does that have th action the four action should be resolved because there has been clarification and there could be conflicting orders but i do believe in looking through rd parties media organizations is typical to file motions to un feel there are alternative ways to go to the southern district of california to seek to obtain this information and have the jurisdiction that issued back order evaluate independent argument that would be more appropriately raised in san diego again and not in los angeles seeking to obtain records that we can't really explain based on the nature of the documents and the order that the court has clarified still live today ahead have a couple more minutes if you have more you'd like to say yes i i just like to say in in some some of these arguments brady potential brady violations or constitutional challenges are raised and again that has nothing to do with the the cause of action in the foyer case is whether the government is improperly withholding agency records and in this case we've argued that orders and it just would place the government in and difficult choice having to choose between two conflicting orders intentionally and void doesn't account for the and there are other ways for the mr holder to obtain the information that problem with the factor test which would require in a clarifying or confirmation of the temple component that i referenced earlier that there be any problem with  a there was a choice here on whether whether or not to comply i think that the seeking and a clarifying order is probably is the most accurate way to go about this requiring further i  think i would defer to my colleagues in the southern district of california and the u s attorney's office that apply for that order but i would say five having a judicial officer independently evaluate an affidavit an application and there are a number of reasons why we would want to keep certain information sealed for the public safety for the benefits of the witnesses there's a number of reasons and if if boy is allowed at the back st respond to the temporal issue that came up eleven avenue for the government to proceed is to seek a permanent injunction rather than to rely on perpetuity of seal if that if these exemptions still apply the the order to basically grow into an injunction then the more going to also why is that an extension of morgan did morgan say exactly what you want and dealt with the ceiling or talked about ways in which that could be treated as an injunction so how are we extending  discretionary under four so we would ask that if morgan does come into the th circuit that that be part of the process after that in page one dollar nineteen cents of morgan there are four factors there's the ceiling order itself there's extrinsic evidence that came with the sealing order like additional papers the want the applications stuff like that the rd factor is sealing orders and different type of similar cases in the same district and the court rules applying to sealing orders after all of that of meeting its version how does that make that she might have to be other factors because that morgan court used the word impossible before the clarifying order came in that after after these other properties other steps were made then then is when the clarifying order came in and so what what we don't want to have happen is a way for the federal agency to bypass those other considerations and go straight to a clarifying order and say ok that's it we got a clarifying order and that's all we need because this is a fully a case and because  is meant to promote government transparency and no matter who is in charge of the executive branch is always going to be an area of the citizenry that we that is motivated to conduct civilian oversight we want to preserve that within  you know we want to understand how our federal agencies are making decisions we want to understand how federal agencies are spending our tax dollars and so so here you see how the clock is going up now yes it is there it's going back up so this major over a minute over at this point