argue that whatever disclosure he makes out of the moment there is no interference with that process at the moment there's no state proceeding for better care to go in and challenge whatever you start doing by disseminating materials out of the federal power beyond because of this just preserving the status quo and limiting the use of the evidence in the proceeding this currently pending why should there be any pre determination why should the state be free to go out and use this material in any way it wants feed it to the district attorney and say put this in your files take all the leads you can from this why is that something that the federal district court can't control if you wind up in a retrial situation and in this materials or ever relevant to you you can either come back to ok but that could be the remedy you got you works the same for you know the judge where said i warned that occur worn out or that this order was subject to being revisited now i revisit it and he vacated the order just within the discretion of the district court at the time when it's relevant and there's been no effort to vacate this order because you need to have some information fed to anybody else or you haven't shown any current disability is like the record is that your particular problem with other words looking at the language of the order is a patriot the fourth line down these documents material may be used only by the representatives from the office of the california a either one in open court federal hevia superseding so that everybody in the world who's in that courtroom can hear there's nothing in this order that prevents that they may think that that might waive the privilege because it's not been disclosed more broadly or whatever they trust as i understand it they want their protective order to be sure that they don't go somewhere else step to proceeding we get met with the argument they have waived the privilege for all purposes that's what the trade secret apply in the event of a retrial or any fortune of the petitions criminal case except except that neither party maintains the right to request modifications and we're dealing with hypotheticals here we're dealing with a hypothetical of what happens in a federal maybe you could respond to that maybe i'm wrong but i understand that they're saying they don't want to get met with an argument that they have waived the privilege why not attempt to constrain it to the proceeding in which it was waived i think all they ever have to do is raise that objection they don't need a protective order that does that and to answer your state you wouldn't argue you would not argue as the state and they waived for all purposes if they try to go back to the state court and say you we only disclose these attorney client communications because we had to try to assert our constitutional right to a fair trial and the state would say we agree they didn't waver by doing that i do agree that they didn't district court because of the lower the status of babies court was to ensure a protective order that it can enter in its discretion in all sorts of other cases i don't think a federal hate this court has the power to enter a protective order that extends beyond the boundaries of the federal  is the point that i'm trying to make is that when you're in a situation dealing with the fine print of the information by the sports on cases off that we shouldn't be  i believe council for respondent specifically says there's nothing in this order that precludes the district attorney from re trial in state court from asking that state court to require these documents state court it's only the conduct of the representatives of the office of the attorney general and she will not the representatives of the office of the attorney general and respondent warden will not be a party to criminal proceeding in state court honor i believe we presented in our brief that there are arguments that what you're trying ultimately leverage bestival i don't that's what i've tried that's the question i'm trying to make first six i understand your argument to be that you're protecting the specific california statutes which require our constitutional rights to reattach a retrial and those are in our brief so i'm i'm not assuming that there is no state law privilege i declaration of trial counsel in support of a very lengthy motion for summary judgment task fast to stipulates that they may turn over some of the protected material to a mental health professional we did so it is true that they asked us to sti proceedings let's assume in the federal court as a part of this proceeding that there's a document produced what's called the with you got a few and it's there is something to this protective order the attorney general's office knows this their course the district and that's the surgeon who to put that much control from the federal court down into the state court once the state court has control of the rules of the case the retrial can you just have the district court back off all of the state court process it you always want the state attorney general until you've litigated the fact of the disclosures of a federal havior result by the state court you always want the state attorney general foreclose from this closing information until you've had that hearing is that correct if there is an order of retrial or the conditional order of the greater the petition at what point is there a state proceeding in which you can judgment ok that assumes that there's a gag perhaps i missed them i'm asking is there a gap in before the state proceed in which the state attorney general can go and seek some relief retrial for our client on a basis asserting something other than ineffective assistance of counsel certainly our client should not be required to give up his tourney client privilege documents in order to