first starting off the first issue is whether or not the district court erred under by applying the litigation privilege under strategic lawsuits against public but soon there had been no prior settlement in this case yes your honor and the exactly the same thing happened correct somebody sent you a letter and said i think you're doing evil yes you are and will settle for that amount if we don't you know settle for that whether your client did or didn't do what they're accused of somebody does an investigation and says i think you've you know you've done you've taken our subscriptions and done deal with them and we think you've caused us this amount of damage  we'll settle for this amount and if you don't settle for this amount will pursue our legal remedies and it's assumed that all happens which is what happened here and in essence and there was no prior settlement this is the first time this occurs within the litigation privilege or not it would not apply and the reason for the rest now with not apply because if the thresh if it's a reasonable or good faith if i come up and say all right there's fifty thousand dollars worth of damage but then i come out and say you have a million dollars so why wouldn't apply it in your in your view because they asked for too much and they asked for an amount that they asked a reasonable amount with yes if there was a reasonable amount however if there is not a reasonable amount and there's no basis for the amount then it wouldn't apply and what how do we conclude on this record that the judge erred in finding if that's the standard that it was reasonable to ask for this view of this a tricky question as it was the litigation and mister but tell tell me why the judge we have a judge who made a determination that this was a good faith litigation tactic how do we how do we review that determination i think at some point the litigation privileges become a discovery privilege and i think that if someone is going come out and we do have litigation privilege and we are to be healthy we were given this privilege to come out and say it's someone this is why it's rational here's what you did here's everything here's how this all took place and here's why it's a reasonable amount they did nothing they just came out with arbitrary numbers they had a large list of everything that they are claiming that my client fraudulent these subscriptions that my client had fraudulent only obtained and serviced but yet my classes for the proposition that the litigation privilege doesn't apply to preclude a geisha in demands if the demands are not factually correct i think believe flatley alluded to that in that a when you go to a demand letter or there's talk about settlement and that would be privileged however i think flatly then did say that it doesn't apply if it is not reasonable your case turns on whether it's reasonable correction and what a district judge fine he did find that to come into court it's protected that if it's contemplated and filing a lawsuit the fact that if i filed a lawsuit in the district court your honor i am asserting that that is made in a good that is a good faith lawsuit and everything in that is accurate however i think there's a little bit of a problem there because if i don't fell off that i can just go out and every auditor every investigator can go out and still demand these outrageous amounts that make absolutely no sense and demand it whereas they don't have to bring the lawsuit we could go after the an attorney who brought a completely frivolous lawsuit but in the case of this auditors or investigators can hide under that again saying we're contemplating bringing this lawsuit but then they don't and they then turn and it's it should be stricken because of because of the privilege or the i slap on the district court as the stuff that led up to the lawsuit was preparation for the suit and i don't find that the s is brought in bad faith and so the question is how do we were view the judge's finding that now you say that faith is the key here because you admit that these would be privileged if it done in good faith so why why is matters are brought to you know and why he would be brought as far as there was a subtle way your honor and i think that the other party is taking full advantage of this other case this prior ca without coming out and saying well this is just part of our business model or is it just the cifelli guest i knew or is it against i and you and a couple others that we've been retained to look at or it's just part of our business model we just go defendant went out and looked at it just i and you for the specific the specific lawsuit prior but we don't know whether or not p s i's saying well that's what we're taking the do and that's why it's in the litigation and that's what we're reviewing to look at the previous case was that you had just you had a settlement yes these guys had some reason to think that that perhaps the settlement wasn't being abided by they hired p i went out and made a report to them and they said in effect you were going to litigate about this unless you stop it or pay up or both and you didn't and they filed lawsuit and so in the end the judge said that lawsuit was brought in good faith and that stuff done not leading up to it was within the litigation privilege of preparing for a lawsuit so tell me why that finding was wrong in the prior lawsuit was brought in good faith that but the judge also didn't dismiss this one on your advice not motion correctly so he necessarily found that it fell within the privilege and they had an abuse the privilege right that your your claim is that by all the stuff they did leading up to the lawsuit was an abuse of the privilege right there and the judge said no it was preparation for litigation and you say all but it was bad faith preparation for taking requiring them to bring up any evidence whatsoever to support what they're bringing there was a prior lawsuit there was a settlement my client cleaned up everything they had done their work to make after lead publishers solutions international the just records of order granting publishers anti slap special motion to strike was correct and deserved to be affirmed here's why decisional law has established and the anti slaps that you covers claims based on litigation communications or not based on actual know the validity of the publisher's report plays no part in determining whether the anti slack statute or the litigation privilege applies it's an absolute defense to publishers under the second prong of the anti slapp terror if i make a demand on you to pay me for an auto accident that never occurred that's different than well let me just let me finish i may be subject to all kinds of sanctions for doing that but exception to the and i think that you in this case there was no evidence that publishers report to elsevier fell within the for the crime exception because publisher to not concede that it was a report was illegal as a matter of law and the honest is not established that the letter so you're saying is a completely fraudulent demand might be illegal but i guess i'm trying to come up with a case in which well we know that i get hit by a car and i don't know who hit me so i look around and i say i'll sue you established a pre litigation settlement demand letters made in anticipation of litigation absolutely protected by litigation privilege that since we know the end i sat statue covers i news claims against publishers because the government was publishers premedication else and that shifted the burden to i on you to demonstrate a probability that with a veil on its cause of action failing to understand that it was its burden to produce evidence to demonstrate a probability of prevailing i knew forfeited any issue concerning the second prong regardless of the absolute litigation privilege provides a complete defense for publishers last i and you did not demonstrate a probability prevailing because it did not place any evidence that publishers disparaged i and use good for services for these reasons as more fully discussed in publishers brief and as a record establishes the district court's order the state is all discovery it's state it prohibits an amendment of a complaint and host of others core purpose of this was to prevent others from  free speech and petitioning activity such as lawsuits however it's not its core purpose is not to impose impediments to