broken sequence of that action to this case your honor i don't know that it has any consequence of this case obviously indicates the supreme court's conclusion at that point in time into the case was moved given this court's two thousand and twelve determination that the video recordings had to remain under seal it was it was moved because the case had not been broadcast in truck court correct well that is certainly one reason that  thousand and eighteen the district court concluded that the common law right of access applied to the trial proceedings that had been placed in camera and it seems to me that the that would be the law of the case that would really have to make our appeal today are relevant if we said that was the law of the case so i did it so it seemed to be pretty important to what happened to that decision and as i read the briefs in the record it found that the interest in judicial integrity identified by the perry three panel remained a compelling reason to maintain the recording seal until  that is there was an appeal to the th circuit of that trial court ruling and a panel of this circuit dismissed that appeal for lack of jurisdiction saying that the order was it final or appealable d as it collateral or so so far law the case remains intact what's happened in favor of us procedure i in two thousand and twelve this court decided it did not have jurisdiction to review now prevents this court from reviewing the very question earlier could not review because there was no final or are so your position is just to be clear that the appeal today is a function of only an appeal of that two thousand and eighteen decision your honor it has to be an had been eliminated your honor that he did not say they had been the way for ten years did not say that there would not be used for the purposes of public broadcast in the immediate future where the forseeable future he said possibility had been limited so i would submit to your  disparate court and ask them to do that and as mr thompson says just a moment after the exchange that you read that would be a good question on judge whether we have maintained we maintained before the district court we maintained in two thousand your position and it seems to me i got a different question and that is i'm looking in the record for any statement by any of the parties to the underlying lawsuit or any of the witnesses the lawsuit that they care and i'm trying to figure out who cares and the reason i'm trying to do that i'm trying to figure out if we even have a case or controversy i understand that you care well there you care you have a lawyer to represent people so is there has represented has litigated the case in the interests of those lines with the consent of those lines and from the actions that we've taken on behalf of our clients it is apparent that obviously we continue our clients continue to stand upon from mr basulto clients to that effect and there's a variety of decorations from legal scholars in public interest organizations and so forth but i'm not aware of any i have a quick question just to interject if we were looking at our culture x decision for abuse of discretion to look at the reasoning that he apply and he focuses specifically and put great importance on the complete lack of evidence that the proponents have put forward that this matter to anyone and then on their side it's certainly matters to focus on our side we submitted fifteen decoration but as a paragraph and also just read it from benefit of the court significantly the proponents again failed to submit any evidence identical range and that any proponent or witness who testified on behalf of the proponents wants the trial to remain under seal there is no evidence that any proponent or trial witness fears retaliation or harassment if the recordings are released nor is there any evidence that any proponent or trial witness on behalf of proponents and leave out the time or believes not the judge walker's commitment to personal use of the recordings meant that the trial recordings would remain under seal for ever this is an abus discretion review and the court looked at the record instead the proponents had years to put together a good showing about why there was some compelling interest and they came in with no evidence whatsoever because the hearing itself was it an open court you know everything that occurred in that courtroom was open to the public the only thing that this dispute was about is whether a camera version a video version of the very same thing that was published at the time can now be released in my wrong about the you're not wrong about that your honor i would say this may well be the of all the parties reflects an understanding that the video recording has a value that goes beyond reading the printed word but it is striking that everything on this tape is public already playing the value of the statements which referred in the forseeable future and then immediately signed to the ten year rule of the local and it's for this reason when the court made that statement at that the reporting would not be broadcast to the public at least in the st be able future see footnote five everything becomes unsealed absent some other showing after ten years now it is true that a court in two which according to the court the proponents reasonably rely it's also important to note that in two different places in the decision in two thousand and twelve this court made clear that the timing did m page eighty one when discussing what the question is on appeal it says that in the unique circumstances where the court prepares a billiard table and then place it in the record and  was when he issued his ruling on the merits in august with that decision so the true representation one is at the beginning of trial so it wasn't quite in the record at that point that's when he said i'm going to the time now i think that lawyers if a judge says i'm going to consider this as part of a record are what i look at when i make my decision it certainly makes sense that it could become part of the record but i really didn't say that at that time but everything that he did was consistent with that initial representation and there's really no dispute that he made the recording for that purpose and used it for them or can i ask one more question you were referencing  so in my view your honor good cause would be that the circumstances that justify a st instance or some comparably strong standard continues to exist and here because the compelling interest on once this  t and you're right so why isn't the judicial integrity interest a compelling interest today now that the ten years has roe as judge or found it was a compelling interest within the ten years because the court put these materials under seal indicated that the court would keep them so you and this court had found two years into the ceiling that it would violate those assurances to reveal that once the ten years has run what the just record found and i think it's absolutely correct is that it is not reasonable to rely on the congo below to assume that those documents  it's interesting because he said he has a reference when talking about the fact the plaintiffs still didn't bring most of their witnesses even when the live broadcast was thong he does have the statement about the broadcast being  if i can make just one more point i realize i'm almost out of time but concession at the st argument in two thousand and twelve again i think that's an area that proponents improperly downplay and it's for this reason the and ultimately the us are going to affirm had not yet occurred so and even if if the record the record shows it three hundred and fifty five the proponents were at that time arguing it was  those conditions in two thousand and twelve when the court was asked unseal the trial video initially still exist and i would submit that the the meaning of judicial integrity must be informed by the particular settings and  context of the promise has to be evaluated closely and i and i think if in this instance the proponents have witnesses or people who are still concerned they will never say judicial integrity is not important it would like be condemning motherhood and apple pie you know you're not going to be against it but on the other hand what's what's being asked here is what did the  legal scholars to better understand the dynamics of how the testimony went in and this historic change in american law but ngs themselves will provide a much richer understanding of the evidence judge walker had access as one point to him for size he had access to both the transcripts and the video and he chose to use the recordings to help preparers opinions because they brought the court back presumably  the testimony of the that he had seen in the emotion of it and i think in the record the plane disappeared in all of on two different occasions declarations from their clients about what an emotional moment this was and you know in fact also in the record in this is an e r for twenty one the proponents put this in there was an argument for mr mr olson one of the lawyers for the plaintiffs who told at that time judge walker i could not present a more compelling closing argument than simply replaying the testimony in its entirety from the four plaintiffs and helen zia and to go back to go back to the point the judge fletcher raised  the as i understand the proceedings the question was not public broadcast but was in truck court broadcast which is much more limited and the court dismissed that case as moot because the proceedings had already happened the that the public had already been libyan and old everything was to be seen except for the video footage and t trial court made it very clear that he being is very careful of course because the supreme court imposed a preliminary injunction and he wasn't going to walk the middle of that judge walker wasn't  purposes of a public broadcasting or televised and yet you know in a way you're asking the asking us to go ahead and rewind history back to the procedural point that the supreme court would not have dismissed it as moot if in fact the the live issue of whether this could be made public for televising and broadcasting was in fact going to be the case and that troubles me i did i realize it doesn't trouble council at all but would you address that please yes and i think that the emphasis on the word live all of the concerns i think that have been expressed about broadcast have to do with a live broadcast only the prospect of out it is now completely gone in this case that this is a case that's already been tried already been affirmed in the th circuit and the law of the land from the u s supreme court so that the issues that can come up with a live broadcast have been addressed and and look for that evidence and they don't provide it and so in that sense no this is in our view a shining moment for the federal judiciary it's nothing to be hidden away it's already been public and there will be benefits that flow from having the recordings made public both for academics or those who could never attend the proceedings and for those who can learn from this this incredible trial that one of its kind one quick question i themselves and others who who follow the trial the record is in fact on  i do want to begin with the question of proof and what proof there is other there remains a compelling interest preventing the public disclosure and broadcast of these of these video recordings and the answer is very simple it's exactly the same proof that w before this court in two thousand and twelve and that is it's a judicial integrity interest in keeping judge walker's promised i understand there's an argument that at this point the content of the videotapes is an academic matter or is a purely historical matter  you say if your claims call i'm still not entirely convinced that your clients are making the call because everything i've got in there in the record should we have got this from the district court is your client's identifying no reason why not that the court does not need to look any further behind the promise to determine whether we have good reasons for wanting the court to honor the promise that he made to us to very plainly i'm not at all convinced your clients have even directed you to do over stretch on your own your argument to suggest the judge walker promised you that he would not make this public or broadcast that that is not the context of the statement i think it re pretty literally and it's within the four corners or the of the documented he made the comment that he wasn't doing it for that purpose but that doesn't that does that does not equate to a promise  saul refers to another portion of that august th opinion where he uses the word contemporaneously but in this portion he didn't use the word temporary in the reason is obvious and that is look at the argument he was responding to when he made that statement question in terms of the action given to judge hawkins question it occurs to me to wonder as to whether or not judicial stoppel would apply you know are you familiar with the concept of judicial stumble that is just around the asian at one point during the case narrow claim which is you know we did not expect it to be sealed indefinitely we understood that it might be him soon after ten years that was just that was the strategic answer unless you know of a different answer why are the six words quoted by my friends on the other side and that's what no five is not does not put the muster your honor number two you have to show that there would be some supply and of prejudice to the other side by allowing the party to change position  that the judicial integrity interest is a compelling reason and that is not an interest i mean one final point with the courts in the ins has not interest is limited to ten years and we also know that by looking at the objective reliance the consequences of my clients who lives in two thousand and one those promises and the consequence was we have obtained from the supreme court and extraordinary emergency order blocking broadcast of the trial as this court said in two thousand there's every reason to believe that if we had that's water we would have going to mediately back to the supreme court and we would have prevented these recordings from being created at all there would be no question about ten years twenty years fifty years they wouldn't exist