the personal involvement of the highest levels of so cal glass management and quote executive leadership in the state the oversight of and response to the ghastly and also judicially admitted that no modeling is that did you specifically bring that evidence before the district court or is this something you're now asking us to take judicial notice of on a field so that the run through new information that i have laid out kind of if you want to you want to introduce it as evidence of that as fact when i assume it is hotly contested by the defendants exactly how much involvement there senior officials tha responsibility that if that doesn't that suffer from the same factual deficiency that the district court was concerned about the district court kept telling you i want to know who what when where why and how and that doesn't answer that question does it well he doesn't tell us to figure out whether it appears the planets have a reasonable chance of successfully stating a plan to give another opportunity these are all i guess the concern i have is that litigation is taking on aspects of a moving car get as far as the intent people rarely exactly admit things but now circumstantial evidence can be pulled together to show cyan terrorist specific intent but you have to somehow link it to something and what i'm having problems with is psyche through the kitchen sink against the law and but you're not really you're not high on your allegations two specific statements that would that that the siam would relate to sow i just see a whole bunch of stuff thrown against the wall but i can't pull the link together well let's let's focus on the on the gas leak allegations are a little more discreet little easier to highlight during that period so cal gas went door to door reassured residents that there was for no threat to public safety it does not pose an imminent threat to public health at the time we know that the and these these allegations by the way are uncontested on a feel the gas leak was spewing out toxic air pollutants at levels based on the core of the issue day that this is data that was available in real time during the ghastly our expert calculated the levels of air pollutants that were being released which not only both the hazard they also triggered reporting obligations during that time so cal gas and several were saying there is no helpless independent aerial himself with was talking his hose fill those leak comments were regarding you know apologizing for the bad smell or saying that you know we were doing everything we can as quickly as possible and  more worried about the odor and you know that that the scent of this leak when and that's months into the leak where in your rd amended complaint do you specify the date on which the company knew this information and what it knew i read your two hundred and ninety two pages or whatever it was i didn't see it so there we have a combination of what they do and what they have no right though they they deliberately reckless in not knowing articulated you make this general out conclusory allegation but then when i ask ok who within the company knew that information your complaint doesn't answer that it  that because a public health and to do say the las angeles county department of health received x number of complaints over a certain period of time that somehow somebody in the in the company but you don't say who you  california public utilities commission and that ministry to see things and and that's where they belong and where they will be resolved and the district judge here quite correctly concluded that there is no of federal securities i'm i'm sure the court has this focus in mind but when we're speaking about what this i enter allegations have to show they have to they have to show with respect to extreme recklessness on the which approaches into and something which is but did that information available to the public the v a in any material respect what the company knew at the time your honor of their it's the sort of the the prospectus we're talking about is a sale of notes it's not stock if it's a it's a prospectus which is the description of said involves information that was widely known with respect to the existence of the and there is no suggestion and that disclosure which the company was providing included a whole series of press of press releases and other information as well as working on an interactive basis with the state regulator the the dogger agency and there's no  a few moments ago you have to show it with respect to specific statements so no missions and link it up to particular individuals but with respect to no mission it has to be information that is does your honor if you look at the record has in it earlier sales then misread undertook and in those sales are a consistent pattern of selling the stock necessary to ok the taxes that she roughly puts you at the highest tax brackets for the fed at federal and california returns and under this court's around coney eighty s which sets out the steps you look at with respect to a stock sale or consistent pattern of selling an amount of stock which is a neat you know reasonably calibrated to pay the to pay the taxes that she would have been expected to receive now it's true that she received more shares in tw sixteen and she had in past years but her sales amounts were appropriately calibrated with respect to the taxes that you would expect over the amount that she received and with respect to ms reed i think it's also important to emphasize there's there's no allegation anywhere in the week that links for her to any statement she has she's not she's not attributed as us as a speaker with respect to any of the statements that that are made nor to any of the leak is going on of statements that he that he will take stand they're taking steps to try to deal with it and address it in real time and then his statement that he made to the president of the public utilities commission that working  circuits about whether it really applies when you don't have to decide in this case for who or whether you want to adopt or not because if you look at the facts here we're talking about one of one hundred and fifteen well and one of several storage facilities of a company which is involved in the distribution of natural gas to be sure but as to bad business it has several different components it's not just storing the gas it's acquiring it it's shipping it it's delivering it to customers so so this is not the kind of situation which rises to the level of being asked which is so obvious in the in the language of the d s am global days so obvious that it would be absurd to think that an actor would not be aware of it it doesn't factually went south in that sort of characterization and i think the best illustration of that is if you look at in the nd go round the court decided the falsity had been adequately pleaded in fact if you look at the judge's decision there's a footnote in which he makes very clear that he's not decide he wasn't deciding the question of falsity and as we've pointed out in our something which has to get reviewed under rule fifty nine dollars and rule sixty and that's how the district judge looked at it at the st go round an important factor that of the plaintiffs don't want to focus on is even with respect to the to the so called blade report the root cause analysis that that they were trying to offer at that time the district judge recognized that they have the has failed to demonstrate that was even new evidence because much of the material that was in that pleading was something that they could have presented sooner so so so that that's an important reason why we shouldn't be going through this serial reopening of proceedings and then and the the next round of reconsideration with respect to the materials that were actually shared with the district judge there the court also went through and concluded that there was nothing within those materials which would suffice to change the conclusion the court reach its respect as i enter it didn't meet those kind of the staffing or is this court put it daunting requirements that are necessary in order to satisfy that  what were the possible reasons that led to the aliso canyon lease and what sort of among other things the report talks about what sort of reforms perhaps ought to be undertaken on the part of the state noting for example that while the plaintiff in this case likes to talk about the absence of a subsurface valve at this stage never required them on this sort of aware so the best kind of analysis a look backward at what what might have been or done differently and what what might have been a cause all of which is still very much in dispute and by no means settled all of that does not lend itself to supporting the kind of rule fifty contents of the the gas that was being released my friend doesn't remind you of the fact that there are in the record by way of requests for judicial notice in support of the motion to dismiss as to which there was no objection there are there are reports contemporaneous reports from three different public agencies pointing out that there was not perceived to be any serious risk of health or safety raise those were from the california office of emergency services which is the state interim c which takes care of emergency situations in the state that was from the report of the california i'm sorry  report of the los angeles department of public health which formed the same conclusion and it's also the conclusion that was reached by the south coast air quality management district which had concluded that the the content of the air in this particular area as a result of the leak was really no different than it would ordinarily be in serving california and it's very important fact that i think it's lost over when we talk about this which is that the this facility is actually not immediately obvious into residential communities and is puerto ranch community which is where most of the the plaintiffs are reside in the context of the civil litigation it's a mile away and so again going back to this kind of see enter inquiry how could we have expected or how can we survive without some very particular ised that's true allegations which we will not find present in this case bill into natural gas the more captain you know it can have it can have an effect on people when he does it but he's not regarded as a long term effect and so insofar as there were people complaining about the exposure in the gas and the smell in the life i mean that's the same kind of alert and i don't mean to trivialize it by any means but it's that's part of what the captain is there to do is is to make sure you're aware of it so you can deal with the gas my friend talks of this statement that he is in his the latest request for judicial notice is from which there's you know really never been briefed because he's in so late in the record that somehow there's a there's a there's in the testimony before the public utility commission then that that the highest levels of the gas company or aware of and acting in dealing trying to address the crisis there's order or to the leak rather there is no there's no indication of who that pattern of obstruction which included a walk into a farm the public health saying that they were walked from taking accurate air leadings early on they got a watered down version of what they needed into a to impact public health nd there was the point about defendant reed and not specifically being a speaker we've read this issue under janet both lead and burial our speakers even of the things that are not specifically attribute unknown i e that there was a leak and all aligned with the reality of the leak unknown to the defendant for purposes of assessing that prospectus by the point of that perspective the top kill it failed the greater was widening seems very clear this leak was not close to a corrective the answer is yes two days away a three day delay would have cost over half a one million dollars that's independently suspicious now the rd factor is the history of guy so i've got two factors already on board the rd factor history but to go with them on history you have to believe this i just thought that when she sold on january th around the times you'd sold the four she had just no idea that the state of california was apologize i don't know the answer that question right now but but what we do know that she had received stock in early january in prior years and had sold part of it to pay her and come back so i corrected this is this was twice the size of the stone it was in the midst of an ongoing catastrophe two days before that capacity to declare an emergency i would i would close in just saying this you know we did better than eminence capital week we moved the needle in my my adversary sort of disclaimed