hindsight bias if you will in finding the case below an exceptional case under section two eighty five and it also allows the court to correct the way the award of eight hundred twenty thousand dollars extra in excess of that in in attorney it was on page fifteen but let me find the appendix number what happened was is google submitted only the declaration of the schanberg which had a very high level description of the nature of the work reform and the lawyers who performed the work done on his own at the request of google google said in the original dirtying months elapsed between when the court issued an order requiring production bills for in camera inspection and before he issued an order awarding fees so i'm not certain where you were for thirteen months such that you're telling me you didn't have an opportunity and we were relying on our objection on fifteen fifteen research moreover google suggests that if the court orders production of time records have your own so you're in the footnote yes fourteen yes ok and keep in mind that this was just a suggestion by google that if you don't think what we submitted is enough then allow us to go submit these prior to when the court issued this was prior to when this court issued us wait so before the court issues an order in a footnote varied at a page twenty two of your thing you say by the way we should get to see these things then the court says i'm going to order in camera review the court didn't address this nor let disney in this to be an objection to its order nor did you then make one nor do i i think it would have been futile if you made want t the supporting time records to be in a position to challenge the reasonable you must you say i must see something that doesn't say would be improper if i didn't allow you to see where we were spending my children use the word lust all the time well you know well there you go i can't speak for your children but i can  google did not submit any records with its motion they submitted this very thin schanberg declaration and in a in a footnote of sorts of their own they said well if you don't find that acceptable then let us submit details time records and then there was a hearing to be held on this motion and i think a few days before the hearing the court canceled to hear him and simply said submit your time records and i'll look at them again in camera so we were well again this this this backhanded rick requests by google wasn't even a full was i thought it was oh by the way if you don't think we've done enough they have the obligation in promotion to submit all of the proper evidence that supported it and not to in the event the court were to find the case exceptional and the court would exercise its discretion and awarded termes next on request the court ordered google to produce detail billing records so that it can be given it respond or to any suggestion or argument that this was improper well that's why you know i start with the district court and when he or she does not say anything it leads me to wonder well the district court didn't reference a lot of things that we argued in our in our papers in the court below so i'm not sure i understand you're saying that that would beg the question will do because it give adequate notice and i believe that that paragraph on page twenty two or fifteen fifteen  footnote clearly said we don't think it's proper for the court to look at these things in camera and then the feeling was there yesterday yes have you challenged well rule fifty four five beat two or the northern just to california and we don't want objecting to it did google respond to what it understood to be an objection by you to in cameron and say anything about it's in cameron spectrum but like nobody understood that sentence in your footnote as well the objection that you have i think it's a paragraph does say that if you're going to allow this we need to be given a fair opportunity to review that the court decides but we have to have an opportunity to review it and jacked and complain about whatever they using to base that one hundred three hundred twenty thousand dollars reward and so the court is not the it there it is us and i apologize if it wasn't clear enough we clearly were objecting to this procedure as unconstitutionally depriving us the chance to be heard and complained about any of the billing records of this and eight hundred twenty thousand dollars you just said we clearly were objecting to the constitutionality yes really where do you use the word objection or constitution or due process in any of your papers before a fair opportunity to review the records is the due process right we're seeking to enforce here we didn't say it would violate due process it would not it would deprive us of a fair opportunity which is what the d process clause was guaranteed to protect well that assumes that you said it was very clear is rooms the clarity of the little debate we were having earlier about who's given a fair opportunity who determines  billing records that the other side has no chance to review and critique that is a fundamental violation of the due process rights and the court can issue a local rules at once but that doesn't supercede that constitutional right which we were deprived of but to get back to the to the merits on the on the excessive on the x x exceptional case the court cont'd consistently simply said in rejecting our arguments about the strength of our case although we lost the the issue in standing but on the strength of our case the court simply said i've previously considered that my dismissal order i don't need to hear arguments about this again this doesn't have to be relived a gated but by doing that the court equated the success of our arguments with the strength of our arguments and the record is replete both on our alter ego and our agency arguments in support of standing there was substantial evidence to support that argument and the granting the license to three three nine patent and i might note the court did not dispute that that the a cell was acting as the agent of the donte in granting that sound the right to enforce the european t guiding your suggestion about overcoming the presumption the court goes on to discuss that point i'm like in a lot of details citing a lot of docket numbers here that so he didn't just say you haven't overcome the presumption end of story right but what he ignored the agency issue completely he simply argued about separate entities and that there is evidence in the record of there being separate entities that has nothing to do with the agency argument we made again given that that's a donkey's designated via cell as the agent in bringing things a license to the e p two seven seven patent how could that not be persuasive evidence that it did the same thing regarding three three nine patent the court equated agency and alter ego and simply said i'm not convinced you've given well in the dismissal order said i'm not convinced you shown that it was the alter ego in this work or in the attorney's fees order it's simply said there was evidence of separateness among the parties we lost that issue already i'm not going to read litigate that that what the issues are did we have enough evidence to show that to make our argument about alter ego not objective differences the hallmarks of an abuse of discretion review and large part of that deference arrives from the recognition that when it's here a district court judge presides over a case for a prolonged period of time that inevitably we're most likely in any attorney billing records they will be embedded attorney client communications or work product doctrine and that's why the fifty four b five two indicates that a judge can know the ninth circuit said that due process requires access to time sheets to support the feet order and then they go on to explain that there could be in camera submission of the specific records for exactly the reason that you're articulat is that your motto required you to produce a lot more than what you produced it seems to me to them and i'm not objecting to the idea that the district court can in certain circumstances perform an in camera view of the detail of billing entries but you gave them a very cursory declaration that for example there are several cases out of the ninth circuit and how to say this when your rad included in each of those cases had spar more detailed summaries which is required by your money than what you produced in this case so i'm concerned that there is still a due process problem in this case with in camera view because they didn't have access to any sort anything attorneys working on that and this case here but it seems to me what seems to be the gath if any in this information is allocating their fifteen hundred hours your fourteen hundred dollars to allocating a portion no i don't actually i think it certainly could information have been richer or divided into finer grained granularity that that's certainly possible but i think this fully complies with local local civil rule fifty four b which requires idea what she did no idea no and no idea whether she participated in the one two three or all of these categories that is correct and to the extent that exactly the number of hours the attorney must surely spent in each of these categories but the other side doesn't even know if you're allocating thirteen hundred hours to  little to the other so even how would we at the estimate of the amount of the fourteen hundred hours divided up by the categories how would that push up against require more details but certainly more detail could have been given and i suppose had they not you see i made sure the rules require more details of the rule it's due process they have an overhead just and i think it's really clear they haven't alleged the northern district violated its rule they've alleged that what they did in this case violated due process and that's the hurdle you have to overcome so your answer that i don't think the rules require more is not an answer to the question i don't believe that the  view was appropriate and since circumstances where they had summaries relating to the work and the time spent that have been extracted from the privileged material were accurate right so where do you have the time spent on your particular work in this different categories of tasks performed with respect to the amount of money i should just conclude that oh my gosh you listed a lot of bullet points and therefore it's worth a hundred thousand dollars no but that's precisely why you have in camera review and at the district court can corroborate process requires them to have an opportunity to say whether it's reasonable or not how do they have an opportunity to to meaningfully review this will they could have requested every day acted version which they didn't they could have objected to simply providing in camera view rather than requesti time records did you wonder what did you understand or what did your client understand about what they were arguing on page fifteen fifty one i understand the arguments they would like to see the records they think they were in keitel to records when  never occurred it will they didn't follow up after his ruling is basically what you're saying but did you understand the statement they made at fifteen fifteen to a male to an objection to in camera view in this case yes i think they objected to in camera because you guys did respond you know to this as though you thought it was an objection you know response breath well you know i don't really i didn't read fifteen fifteen as being very clear but you all did respond to it expressly on page sixteen ten your opponent on the other side apparently didn't have that it was ready and i was asking you questions but you did respond to it brief which of sixteen and then which point the court decided to determine the issue on the briefing when we requested an in camera review so you know for the future there is no doubt what you did here is an adequate to me to satisfy the concerns of due process have no doubt the only chance you have a prevailing in this case is if i decide that they waive this argument for purposes of appeal by virtue of not having objected after the court issued its order because i don't think the court understood their early objection to be the kind of objection that might have been necessary in this case namely the declaration is very cursory we have been given enough yes in camera view might be appropriate in some circumstances but not in the us because they didn't give us enough information so that's your only chance of prevailing and i say that to you so that hopefully you and your clients will understand in the future that you can't turn something like this over and and believe that it is appears right below where where max sound argued that it there clearly it should be allowed but max sound must see the supporting time records to be in a of the next page we're where we say that they've got the burden that's on line twenty five where the documentation of hours isn't adequate that someone twenty eight the district court may reduce the word accordingly but you're here you're arguing to the court your evidence they suppose they submitted is not sufficient to have any award yes your this is this i don't understand to be an argument that you are being deprived of an opportunity you it is a matter of due process to be able to challenge the reasonable well we were challenging it in toto if you will that what they submitted from front to back everything there that's