well that's a great question but keep in mind that the analysis has been when you look at an e mail on i s p they said that that isn't sufficient for purposes of backup protection and all the court say they look is at whether or not is there another version of the e mail that's being backed up and that's what dan morgan's declaration created is a situation where you have an server back up but you also have another version a private a private a privacy violation case in part but the reality is is that i respectfully disagree with you in that summary judgment issues judge bashin status conference to determine if there were enough facts to go forward to believe i think we need i think we indicated that we might be willing but we didn't at the time initiation the posture between the parties was not such that we thought it would be successful exchange account i understand that but i guess just looking scout about the back of that you would have a van morgan's affidavit is founded miscible but there's a microsoft system in a sense to have multiple backups within the system like google existence of backups servers and if you look at this claire's declaration originally filed in the case she says no uncertain terms that they did not have a store only use the online services from microsoft exchange but the motion was based on mr morgan not being qualified to offer the opinions needed to substantiate their allegations that there was an access and that it that it met the criteria to standards of summary judgment is the purpose of the process is not to resolve questions of fact it's to a den of fire whether they exist and i repeat isn't morgan entitle to observe that there was in fact to back them a routine story in an entity and whether there's a vaca if there's not a back up there's not a violation of this statute which might call a good judge callahan accurately describes as not being focused primarily on reality as the best congress could do at the time when they were trying to deal with this emerging technology but the a f l simply requires that there be a backup morgan says there was and that's material to the resolution of the case isn't it it sound that way yes your honor i again don't believe that's what morgan says i think he said miss clare told me the following things he repeats stuff but i don't think he said that he actually did that it's a three paragraph declaration across two pages it says that's the nothing other than a couple of different statements without explanation for why they are and certainly not for a while the opposite three paragraph morgan declaration which just has a series of statements that don't explain why they are what they are it's a declared a series of declaratory arguments rather than a fact basis for the argument we made before the trial court was that insufficient to create a question of fact it's just a series of statements that themselves can't really be interrogated but if we're wrong in a sufficient insufficient we weren't even really trying to get to those elements we were saying that the id guys desperation without a question the point they're arguing there's nothing in this record talking about microsoft three hundred and sixty five to change other than to know it's existence or anything the court could without lying on things outside the record put in to describe how any of this technology that maybe some of the questions we've asked the answers can be they can be considered in different ways by different people and that the awful and or  protect the privacy of individuals from other parties from rd parties the court needs to be mindful of the fact that andrea learned of this invasion in two thousand and eighteen she had been out of the