we've we've agreed with the plaintiffs to share their time in that way it's my understanding also from the order that i have three minutes f ok you're honest this is a manufactured case filed against new jersey winery was as an attempt to overrule the voice of the new jersey legislature through litigation clearly it is what is that my colleague who's going to focus on standing but if you look at even just the standing aspect of the case the fact that these plaintiffs really had very limited claims and the  right i mean states contribute the sale of all wine pursuant to the rules of their responsibilities on the twenty first amendment and we're talking about discrimination right that's the issue and what about the twenty five dollars fee isn't that of the personal accompan fee isn't that discriminatory when we you use the pipe test to take a look at those and you see the state's interest in preventing a legal activity and what we mean is somebody bringing in a large amount of wine from out of state  t the state would like to make sure is if they're not somehow illegally selling it that it's actually for personal use and hence the personal complement definition and based on those on perhaps there's not enough market for new jersey wines so you know she has that be a problem how can you tie a licensing requirement to someone using your own griefs was twenty five percent of his have to be jersey creates from the farm well yes i think fifty one percent have to be new so there are parallel licenses so that there's not only requirement that you use new jersey grapes to receive one of these licenses but the farm licenses i read it allows you to ship directly on the evidence provided that in not only in director fisher's testimony but if you look at the actual language of the two thousand and four amendment you'll see that what it does is it takes away the delivery rights of the both new jersey licenses and also in two thousand and five when the adopt read option of the new jersey alcoholic beverage control regulations occurred that  that was also changed in the regulations so there's absolutely no right for any winery either form or plenary to ship or deliver to consumers this may be only to lip excuse me the only delivery allowed is from difference between the privileges that you get under a plenary or farm winery license and the moves that you get if you're not qualified namely o it could be the opposite end of the story in the whole point isn't to put six store rooms on the curtilage of the winery it's to spread the six store rooms in the locations presumably where the highest population of wine drinkers exist right well i guess that the purpose is to allow the wineries to have face to face sales in a bigger area than they would if they had a winery and it was only on the winery think myself the consumers there they can sell it face to face  allow the state to have local control over face to face and keep the twenty first it's not just there to keep twenty and twenty two who go out in it but this is also this thing called the dormant commerce clause which says that whatever you do want to be twenty first amendment you have to be even handed you can't winery might be more proximate to a store room in north jersey than a south jersey winery you could have a new york winery that's ten miles away from one of these premises you're call it you could be calling on premise jersey store room that's one hundred miles from the new jersey venue that's only ten miles from a new york vineyard in the new york vineyard can't sell in that on premises stormy can't even create the on privacy storm it has to go through the additional in geographical fifty differences in new jersey resident who lives rate on the border of new york would be closer to a new york winery i and that new york what but then they could take advantage of the face to face sales that are and they really even they're not even constrained by the problem or practical effect that the plaintiffs are talking about in that is the fact that you can't travel to go to california for a face to face sale but if they go to move to new york if it's only ten miles away just and it's just exactly the same as if you travel to a new jersey winery only face to face sales no shipping no delivery when the new jersey resident travels to new york vineyard they have to get the for twenty five dollars per meal only if they're bringing in as you know a larger amount of wine and for the reasons that we just talked about for you know while going the personal comp fee for bringing in the wind from elsewhere was a necessary device or the only device for ensuring whatever new jersey's interests were no to this report spoke about protecting jersey regulating what they do in your state which you can do because they are there you can inspect this and make sure whatever is so well is consistent with whatever licensing requirements yeah you don't care what they do in california you can regulate them in new jersey as the problem is is allowing in state wineries to have six on premises showrooms doesn't seem to be offering the three tier system well your honor i know we all seem to be stuck on the fact that you can move these around is that on this record really don't know if anyone wants to to come into the state of new jersey as you can see from judge from director fisher's affidavit not one out of state weiner has ever asked for these outlets ever  but but there this is a most unusual case and the unusual nature of it doesn't goes right into the standing issue which is your honor noted earlier is a threshold issue for one we have hansel which is your honor mention wanted to get out of the  but he doesn't even to set up a sales room he testified specifically on the record he had no interest in setting up a sales some other winery who wasn't before the court might he did and then we have to go to the freemans and the freed and there is no question in the world that they don't have standing on the non directional in the shoes including the sales or the freedman's don't want to travel other than through the local shop right there not interested in go visiting a sales room and the freedman's are interested in allocated hard to find rare wines where is the proof in this record where is the hint in this record that those sorts of wineries want to set up an establishment in new jersey where they can make face to face retail sales to consumers there is none and in fact the fried freemans testified through their certifications that most of these one research don't even sell on their own premises on the west coast if they don't want to set up a sales room on their own winery promise why are we to assume how is a district court to find that they have standing that the friedmans freemans have standing to challenge the sales room provision here what about the personal accompanying provision  which is actually shipping because of the post nine eleven rules which allow you to hire a carrier to send right but it's treated as personal company and because you have to be in face to face at the vineyard order when you have to be the  ok but why why doesn't that twenty five dollars fee cause them trouble when they when they're going on a one week tour of the napa valley they can't be sure based on their tastings which which cases they want to order etc how can they even feasibly apply for the twenty five dollars fee before they go on premises out on the west coast there's no testimony of the kind you just said you're on there's no test or they've any problems in fact the testimony which is founded j one thirteen says they've never had any problem bringing one back into new jersey so they're this challenge to this personal company an impediment has been no impediment from this come this couple so you can see that in theory it could be a problem but but here a applied they haven't marshaled anything to indicate it's been problematic for them given the record i don't there certainly isn't any testimony that anybody would have a reasonable fear of that personal company would be being a barrier to them bringing one back and it's and so we really come down to do the consumer plaintiffs have an interest in bringing the direction ping portion of this lawsuit and they do say that they want to sit and click on the internet and order ones remotely from west coast than yours and have them shipped via u p s fed ex whatever into their homes which states injury in fact but that's not enough you have to get to the second and third prongs of standing analysis which is that that injury must be fairly traceable to that chant conduct a challenge and it must be regressive and it doesn't meet either of those requirements in this case conflating standing with the merits is it not well you you cannot go into the merits on standing but the standing analysis as worth yourself and says has to look at the nature and source of the right  and compare that to the injury asserted and see if the injury asserted turns on the challenge conduct and it's very hard to do that here when you look at the plaintiffs claim and it's a preference for a local market and there is no preference you can identify and there is no local market you can i look at the friedmans they want kosher winds there are no new jersey kosher why is there not only are no good in new jersey there's no there there seeking these hard to find allocated wines that's not there's no huge remark new jersey market competitor in that realm so how do you do an analysis which is essential the supr us of the traceability concept when you want to compare their injury to their theory and there is no preference and there is no market and it does sound a little bit like you're getting towards the merits but that's not understanding analysis to start just not reach the merits but to do an analysis that sort of echoes in the redress ability issue is the same here we this isn't a case like granholm where the court could remedy the situation by either nullifying the local preference that was granted to the in state one producer or extending the challenge to rights to an  here there is no there's no wall at the new jersey border as far as direction there is just no right and so what the plaintiffs are asking this court to do is to build a bridge because the west coast wineries can't really get a sense of the structure of your client's interest in this litigation and we are one of the all three wholesalers the three largest wholesalers in the state moved to intervene and were granted intervention rights because what this posits is you can zip right past the wholesaler you can zip right past you can have all these out of state wineries small big doesn't matter gallo could under the plaintiffs terry so directly to new jersey consumers that avoiding the three terms that would be bad for business well that's the economic interest and we think it's you know we're we're big supporter like the state of the who lies the playing field it wouldn't equalize the between whom your honor between in state and out of state interests here we have a marketplace where ninety nine percent of the winds from new jersey sold in new jersey come from out of state it might equalize the playing field between people from out of state who are succeeding under the three tiered system and those people from out of state who are failing to succeed under the three tiered system but it does not equal the playing field between local new jersey wineries and out of state one race so i mean i don't know if that answers your question i may have gone far afield i apologize but the myth of this case is that it's really a new jersey preference case because this isn't a new jersey preference case because the wind sold in the state aren't from new jersey but the case tries to pick a couple new jersey preferences most of which no one no plaintiff has any care about and say aha we these have these small wineries these exclusive  can't get their product on the shelves and so they need another way to get into new jersey so you have to give direct shipping but it's not because of a local preference it's because that's the way the new jersey system set up and it accommodates some out of state competitors better than others does the record if you know how many sales your client has my client would never well first of all the sales rooms my client would be permitted to have would be one and it would be a sales room where they could introduce product to retailers they would not be allowed under the statute ever to make a sale to what and they answered so your question is i don't actually know if they have that sales i do know it would be at their wholesaler location so when a retailer comes and says you know i'm trying to get you to buy one hundred cases of this great wine from napa valley prices before i buy one hundred cases of the one i want to taste it and room open the wine and there was a mistake that is to get made apparent in the nature of what the sure right and you know there was there was never all argument before the district court so it was never a chance to explain any confusion that she might have him on that issue he was going to thank me thank you very much but same interest here and all three were intervenor defendants do you want to just the merits yes or ok unless you have questions that you want me to address but having said that let me just if i may follow up on a couple of things that your honour's inquired of my colleagues earlier and one of their inquiries was can a california winery set up a sales room the answer is no then the follow up was well what's the alternative the alternative your honor is to get a retail license remember the three tier system is set up so that manufacturer wholesaler retailer under new jersey law hansa winery if so chose it wholesaler if they have if they set up here your honor so that that they have their product coming in from california that is correct well that that advantage is the jersey want to reason with their six on slash off premises locations because they don't have to go through wholesale or direct that is correct your honor however that is only with respect to their own wine if mr hansel were to get a full retail license he could sell anything he could sell spirits he could s to go to my question i think it goes to the brain is concerned if you're a california winery and you want to get your wine into the consumers hands in new jersey you have to go  of the tears and obviate the three tier system altogether which keep in mind that this is not supposedly a challenge to three tier system then your honor is correct that is not possible but that is not possible for a new jersey winery comes from out of state so you can't talk about this in a vacuum in other words there has to be a discrimination and you have to have a discrimination as between two things correct so thing one is out of state wineries what are they complaining about wholesaler bottleneck nobody pays attention to me i don't want to have to do the increased advertising i don't want to have to pay the markup blah blah blah three dear system itself and the first circuit involved that she was the most recent court to note that the that's why i asked my question that you're quite right they can't complain about the increase middlemen cost of the three tier system but that's a different question though of a system that allows in state wineries to bypass the middle step and what if there's a small winery in oregon somewhere that that has really expensive wine and they can't move a lot of product presumably your wholesaler client and mr loons in the third are going to ruby really interested in investing a lot of time with this winery that it might be moving small amounts of product but that winery might have a vested interest in establishing one storefront on premises let's call it right in the heart of of the highest net income area in new jersey but they can't do that but that new jersey winery can set up its on premises store bypassing the middleman right in the heart of that same town that's correct your honor however remember and i don't want to sell like a broken record but we're missing that and are going to blah blah blah  this is the reason why and with respect to that small oregon winery who apparently has you know wine to die for they are not they are not selling to my client they're not selling to  so the freemans they want to sell directly to the friedmans that's correct in that their preferred business model in other words to skip the three tier system may in fact be the preferred way although i know they can't do that though the game is up and they know they can't since you've made the amendment they can't ship directly but the next best alternative is the is to buy is to rent you know fifteen hundred square feet in a little strip center in the in the wealthiest town in new jersey winery plaintiff so therefore the only plaintiff who can complain about this particular aspect correct has has indicated no interest to do so in fact he doesn't have an interest to do so in his home state though that's just so so we don't have a i'm asked my question is more of a general question that but forget about hands off yes your honor and let's let's assume for the moment that your honor is absolutely correct that on its face poor choice of words because well on this one let's assume for the moment that is official discrimination what is the effect of that however because remember the plaintiff has to show disparate impact to use a different phrase that that folks may be from or more familiar with more recently the bell that you court said there has to be substantial evidence of discrimination as a result of the statute in question what what effects do we there are so few wine these in new jersey in the competing against all wine using california and oregon in new york therefore a lot more are going to force this i'm not sure that really well then let's let's look at it another way another possible be to show that there has been a substitution in other words i can't get that organ wind that i really want and therefore i am going to get a wife from cape may there is absolutely no proof on this record that that has happened once the friedmans or the closest and they say it's a clear you know you know we're on rough times and we're buying this stuff just to be polite when we go to visit that's what their testimony said so under the x and under hont which use this notion of is there a substitution nonexistent in fact to the contrary nobody is looks at new jersey wine as a valid substitute for the oregon pino juarez or the california cap it is what it is but we we have to get away from sort of the sexy sound bites of these cases and cocktail party conversation where i am not a popular person case law so that it's not lucy goosey all over the place everybody starts on the same page here and that brown foreman seems to be the case that sets the two tiered approach that people agree applies people meaning the  here and you have two choices of your honor's no there's either strict scrutiny if the statute just directly discriminates or if there is in effect discrimination if you're in pike ballot keep in mind here your honors that the plaintiffs have put all their eggs in the strict scrutiny basket they said and it's in the joint pretrial order that they are not offering proof on pike so if they don't make the grade under strict scrutiny then it's game set match to use in the prior oral argument here so let's get our arms around well how do we know whether strict scrutiny applies because the plaintiffs are correct that that is a very important decision that the court needs to make looking at brown foreman the court there said the critical consideration is the overall effect of the statute on both local and interstate activity if you're going where i think you're surprised are you saying that have other cases looked at this in what evidence has made the grade and what evidence has not for example here i've indicated that for example in the hunt case and in exxon they focused on this notion of substitution in other words may and i don't mean to be pejorative here but that those are the options ok there is no evidence there and folks are laughing but you know that's the kind of evidence that would have to be submitted here in order let's look at what what the the service third circuit has done and in american trucking for example the level of scrutiny to be applied to statute that affect interstate commerce is contingent upon whether the court finds that statute discriminatory there is standing for both the winery plaintiff and the consumer plaintiffs of just go that far let's assume they're here there's an actual controversy and there's there is theoretically harm they can get the wind that they want however the on the merits which i realize bleeds in from redress ability you have to establish that on the merits the statute is in fact discriminatory were passed standing now they have to they have to tell the line here and put up their proof because remember i'm sorry your honor or it's the plaintiffs clearly that has that initial burden to show discrimination and if they don't then it doesn't get kicked over to less now what's standing the discussion this morning really is the ability to direct ship that's really you know the holy grail here that's what they want but you know what i'm sure that the new jersey wineries would love that as well but nobody want well ok but i'm not on that you're on or at least with respect to that claim there are clearly not only is there no evidence of a discriminatory effect i suppose the reason for that is the because there is no discriminatory element in the statute because there is an across the board ban so the difficulty here is as my colleague mr lewin referred  to let's assume for the moment that they somehow were able to get what they wanted this court does not have the ability to do that because you're creating a right from whole cloth that doesn't exist you're not leveling the playing field when it comes to direction and nobody can do it so the court cannot take over a legislative function and judge mchugh that's gets to your very opening remark that they can only go so far if there are disparity yes if there were a disparity that was directly related to the across the board direction being banned fine but by definition it's across the board so there's nobody here wants to do that and i think that's right but that's because of the plaintiffs in their standing problems not because of the lack of the discriminatory impact of the of the statute insofar as the showroom provision of a goes  you're honor is correct in terms of with respect to that particular license that hanssen would not be able to avail himself of that i guess my two comments to that would be there are other licenses available to him one would be the you like me to address the licensing fees apparently i mean we discussed that the direction ping was the weak link show i discuss what i perceive to be equally weak links that hasn't been discussed yet your honor and i don't mean to disregard the other claims which i assume are troubling your honor in terms of how we would address those in the sufficiency with respect to the licensing fee component first of all there's a problem in so far as to changing misunderstood what those licensing fees were number one and number two in she struck some licensing fees quite frankly the have absolutely nothing to do with the case at hand and  i'm sure the plaintiff sort agree with that but with respect to the first prong the issue of the validity of the amount of the licensing fee really gets us back to well it's apples and oranges because they give very very different benefits and privileges associated which with each of those and from new jersey's perspective and rightly so the one that gives you the big basket of rights and privileges costs more and this is no different than for example the case that we cited supreme court case the ball case which had to do with how are we going to set up who gets the benefits and the burdens associated with voting for water districts and the supreme court said it makes perfect sense and it's perfectly rational for the state to determine that those landowners with the most at risk and converse that bear the burdens but have the most privileges should be have the greatest amount at stake and therefore have if you will hire voting rights it's the same thing here your honor there's no discrimination because it's not again you don't have equal entities on each side of the balancing so you're comparing apples and oranges so in terms of judge hayden i think the bottom line is she missed understood what those licenses did and what they granted in terms of the basket of privileges and it got her off on the wrong path in terms of why she didn't understand the difference in the dollar value of  we get it ok try to hear what the plaintiffs have to say thank you your honor i appreciate the time thank you i'm james hanford and i represent the app and the part of the apple is who are plaintiffs below and the ones who are challenging the constitutionality of the new jersey wine laws that have both the purpose we really are talking about the direct sales graham it seems to me but in the it in let's say we start in standing starting premise and standing is this court's previous decision in oxford associates in which this circuit sa that potential buyers and sellers who wish to do interstate commerce and are prevented from doing so by state law have standing both meeting the loo gentilesse to you there is then a for me what the plan is cannot do thousand united states wineries producing more than twenty five thousand different wine labels a wine bottle is three inches wide which would mean a retailer would need more than one mile of shelf space to display all the wines produced in the united states the only market for a couple thousand of wineries in the united states including the new jersey wineries is by direct sales right but nobody has that jersey residents don't get it w were is the word the disputed land back under the norman commerce clause of everyone is being treated the same even though they may be treated unfairly if the state of new jersey designs were going to st everybody terrible we're going to make sure that nobody gets one cent of the house and we don't care who jersey folks or anybody else you can't get wind sent to you was that was is from the nation well because they're the new jersey you can have a huge amount of discrimination you going to have some discrimination but less discrimination and this falls into that category the new jersey wineries are allowed of course to sell directly to consumers and the consumers can get the wine home combination of the absence of they should direct shipping and the personal transportation ban in conjunction means that if the example was of a new york winery they cannot they can go to that new york winery ten miles across the border by the wine and cannot legally bring it back if it's over five bottles and but frankly if you're going to go to the expense and trouble of visiting a on how does anyone know you're going to buy more than five  force of that right that we well we are we are told that but we are told that by a kind of contrived statement that it arises for the first time during litigation there is no there was no previous official statement up i don't know rock don't we have to defer to that necklace ration of the boss in the executive in fact there what's happened over there since granholm we confirm what we've put on the record that it is not going to enforce the laws that are out there you other two things first of all of course the as the state is made clear the attorney general of new jersey does not appear in this case this is only the alcoholic beverage commission new jersey law itself prohibits the new jersey alcoholic beverage commission or any agency from interpretating a statute passed by the legislature in ways that nullify the statute saw that was not the point i wanted to make i'm not even that there is precedent and i don't know if there is here that the opinion of the attorney general carries some weight as to the inter proper interpretation of state laws the attorney general in this case has not is not a party asked to be's dismissed from the party and has not made any kind of official interpretation of this statute that is  that that that is something that isn't out of the deference it's because it's not official in any way it doesn't bind them in other words there are various ways that an agency can  t and binding assurance it would be no worse would would satisfy your yeah i think the easiest way to do that would be in a consent decree in the district court they have plenty of opportunities and didn't i'm not understand what their argument is they want to leave an unconstitutional statute on the books because they're not going to enforce that we want that there's nothing official anywhere in the record in the they themselves in the record i forgotten where it is introduced a kind of official letter from the a b c about a previous statute that the a b c was announcing based on the supreme court decision that it felt it could no longer in force there is no such letter no such statement on the website nothing that the agency has done other than speak through an attorney in the course of litigation that says oh by the way we don't reciprocity issue but again it does not it was not done in any kind of official context through the port whatever procedures the agency follows and the administrative procedure that i guess i for the stage as a rebuttal if there is some official statement that i do not know about then still i don't know if that if if they are officially conceding that this is not enforceable i don't understand why it would be left on the record i think it would if it's better to take it off the book i think it better to take off the books because the next you know the next director of the a b c and the director after him may have a different view and may change their mind unless there's something official that i want to take you back to standing for a minute if i could mr tan for the district court as i read the opinion said well some of these plaintiffs have standing to raise some claims and i don't need to get into who has what  and to do so in a very personal case persecutions fashion claim by claim party by party isn't that the task yes but once it finds it is my understanding of the law that once it finds that one party has standing to raise an issue it need not also analyze whether other parties have standing to raise that same issue because it wouldn't matter the issue there is the nikkei article three case and controversy a step well wait a minute i mean you three point us in this case if if hansel winery has standing to challenge the direction ping ban but the other two parties don't have standing to challenge anything then the district court should have dismissed the other two parties yes they they could have it all right so i want to just try to nail down exactly what we're dealing with here because there were a lot of claims and i know there was an intervening supreme court case there was an intervening amendment to the statute  assume for a minute that hansel has standing to challenge the direction ping band because hansel says i want to ship directly to new jersey consumes yes and let's assume that the freemans have standing to challenge the direction thing then because the freemans testified we want the opportunity to buy directly over the phone or the internet right right the friedmans how do the friedmans have any standing to raise any claim friedman's for the freedmen say that they have been denied that they would like do to make two kinds of of of purchases that would involve direction one is to be able to purchase kosher wines that they cannot find at their local retail stores and the second one is that they would like to be able to send wine as gifts to other people which that seems their wine gift basket things available all over so they also have alleged that they have attempted to and been on able to engage in an act of interstate commerce ok now what else other than direct shipping what stanley do any of the three parties have start start with handle with well the the legion standing requires of course injury causation addressability i assume we're talking mostly about injury here hansell says that nineteen percent of his business is by direct sales and shipping to consumers he says that he has new jersey customers but cannot we've stipulated that other than other than direction of thing what this hands will have standing to challenge he has standing to challenge the license gives him several different privileges not just the privileges not in the abstract where in the record that handle say he wants or has he ever tried to apply or wishes to apply for farm one relies it we certainly says he has not applied because it says it's wine into new jersey so he worked it out so that two different entities in the jersey wanted some of the wine divided things territorially but he has no desire to do anything other in terms of getting wine in new jersey and what he's doing now i'm wrong about that well those first of all the little the the portion that the defendants focused on were statements he made in the course of a deposition after four years of litigation in which he had frankly gotten sort of frustrated with the whole process he had previously submitted other evidence including an affidavit we moved to withdraw i wanted out of the case he did move to withdraw and and the reason he moved to withdraw was because of expense and his whole point part of the point on the on the discriminatory fact of the direction ban is all of these various things that new jersey says are alternatives to getting your wine to market are more expensive and they're too expensive for a small winery and the reason that hansel bailed out now is that your interpretation of what he's done it was is what he is no he has said at three seventy six in the joint appendix for example i cannot afford it so he has talked about and hansel you don't have any objection to us this missing hands he obviously since then he has cheney's change his mind well now you want back in may he isn't he was never let out what i'm saying his his view now is i want to stay and i  ecant my prior requests to escape this and a geisha he has not had there been there is no factual record of that because there were no subsequent depositions but as an attorney i could not be here ethically argue on his behalf if he being here absolutely but why i don't know if you point to the record where my understanding is the handle does not want to open a store front that handle doesn't want a plenary license or a farm license where in the record can you show me that handles that he wants any of those three things he is specifically as you phrased it no he has the one thing right now he uses a holes not asked well what do you use or doesn't use or what he might take advantage of where in the record do we have any record evidence to show that hanzal has suffered an injury in fact beyond the direction issue he says he has weiner he says he has he that he has customers in new jersey and could sell to them saving the cost of a wholesaler if he got a farm winery license canned like new jersey wines at a minimum bypass the wholesaler and sell directly to retailers he could distribute his own wine to retailers and make it available this was this in the in the bow dacha case cited by them one of the reasons that the first circuit held that its ban on direct shipping was lawful was because out of state wineries had the right to bypass the wholesaler and negotiate directly with a couple of ordinary retailers to sell their product that doesn't cost them anything to open their own separate facility wholesaling business or retail sales and that costs the money hansen's point is he wants to be able to do this without it costing me a lot of money because he doesn't have very many new jersey customers that would justify expense in what w do to get the farm winery license this court would simply have to strike the word new jersey i mean under new jersey law what would he have he'd unders only he would have to apply and then the fee for the license would depend on his production boy it goes up from sixty three dollars to ninety hundred or something depending on the size of that right now he can't get one because they that's right he can't get one unless this court were to strike down the rez the only reason he had paid the only reason he can't get one is because of the residency requirement and so he has said he cannot do business in any way without that license people can even though he can do business the way the other ninety nine percent do which is through the three  system but he wants to do business directly jersey wineries get to that's the discrimination they get to bypass the wholesaler and he does not well he wants more than that he wants to deal directly in new jersey wineries can't that he wants to ship directly ship you can ask this is this is litigation you can sometimes ask for or the ideal remedy that doesn't mean you wouldn't settle for half a loaf and we do think though that that if it comes down to the question to two to really treat people the same and in the same effect is that they they have each winery has to have some way of getting the wine to the dinner table of its customers and the problem is that several that the out of state wineries with small volume those that are similarly situated to new jersey wineries they're not producing the best wine in the world they don't have lots of customers they don't have big wholesale contracts they want to only realistic way that they can get their wine directly to a customer in new jersey is by the direction this market exists thousands of wineries use it use it thirty two states differently than the insiders they are treating outsiders differently than the insiders by not letting them have the rights associated with one of these winery licenses and primarily that is the right to sell directly to consumers without paying the wholesalers market secondly it is the right to distribute one's own wine directly to retailers again without paying the wholesalers and you have a great argument on the six on premise so that means you have a client