you want to focus on the initial response of the agency right that that is what the speaker we do you must give us the real reason so we can have a meaningful ministry to deal yes indeed the assessment is not exempt and certainly its parts can be segregated searchable that's what the judge said but the agency continues to say nothing can be segregated so we want to focus on the individual the initial response  you making the same argument you're making here right and is that the point of one of the points of the administrative exhaustion those arguments get played out in detail here and there before they're reviewed here well did the administrative appeal forget about the initial response we're going to go directly to the merits of these documents so that that decision in the jail eggleston points out is is binding on us that's why we did not file administr doing twenty there julie twenty fifteen brief twenty five the agency must show with reasonable specificity why something cannot be segregated page twenty six they say we will surely detail justification for why you're not going to wanted he's not it's not directly making a policy and in practice arguing he's making an argument for himself he wants to the opportunity to make it in a meaningful administrative appeal if the agency will rewrite its initial response then he's able to do that and there's a chance if that's what he's asking for he wants the right to a meaningful administrative appeal i believe the agency agrees with me that nobody can make it in ministry of a meaningful administrative appeal based on this initial response i think that you will agree with me on that what would be say in the appeal if we appeal that was the assessment sense of the department of state or through the ice we don't know so we appeal things we don't even know we're talking about the agency has the documents in this here in the file they know exactly what they are i officer and do they say to us those are entirely exactly your several exemptions nothing can be segregated out of the notes then after the war so the notes come out all the notes are all of a sudden discoverable and nothing is everything easy to segregate i don't see why they say that you know i think it's very annoying when they use the same one thousand words in the first sentence of twenty five letters that is worth a plate with a capital b they're not trying to segregate the fact that they use th file lawsuits to get things they should give us why don't they give us to us promptly congress wants prompt disclosure of information in front disclosure of the reasons and the agency is not trying hard to do this and so i want i think that they should be told letter of december seventeenth two thousand and thirteen satisfy the constitution to the statutory requirement as well as the court's ruling in crew versus f e c respectfully the government submits that if they're still seeking the underlying document how is it not a i'm sorry i misunderstood the question are in the record there is no there is there is the record indicates that they've said that they're not challenging any end of the day but step on is i want to go through this proceeding first at that point you may have some arguments on the merits maybe there's a problem with doing it that way i don't know but in terms of moving this i don't i'm not understanding how it can be moved because they decided to do sequentially of a statutory scheme as this court looked at and crew says that you have to go through certain steps for the entire scheme to make sense and so if they're not if at some point during the litigation they're action is in essence moved i'm not sure i understand but i don't think they're saying they don't want the documents they're not i think you're presuming that what they mean by don't want the documents is we never want the documents and as i understood the exchange with judge millette at the beginning that's not what they're saying they're not saying we don't ever want the documents they're saying we're going to focus on the here and now for present purposes and it will deal with that stuff later but we're not abandoning the of the district court's consideration was that they said that they didn't want the documents the statute does not permit to choose whatever process they want the structure has its specific provisions about you then came in the government came into court and sad all have some more documents and here's a new letter a new explanation or a new explanation of what we're holding my or withholding  and then ten documents were withheld i believe fourteen were referred and of those ten documents the ten documents constituted essentially the notes and the requires a six a six day one requires as a score seven crew to just give reasons that you have an idea what the documents are and give some reasons and that's that's what what was done at the agency you are that's just a creature of the way that he's chosen to go around the statue had he just exhausted this is an anomaly would not have happened he probably what has happened so far especially what has happened is that the district court and this court exit essentially the exhaustion process for him and how he done that earlier that situation might not have presented itself he's going to say you may seems  come in and their special request for the assessment or the notes it stands to reason that the responses will to those requests will be fairly similar i don't think that there's anything much to be taken from the why what why weren't the why wasn't the initial response to the requests why it didn't look more like the explanation that was given in the district court judge well that's been talk the apple and had he done that that's may very well be what would have happened and that's what happens all the time that happened as that makes it sound like you're saying so the way the system is set up is that the agency gives boilerplate the satisfying the one that the proper thank you for why wasn't that done in the first instance instead of waiting to the district court i understand your i think your point is you didn't choose the form of the district court right you didn't use it or you gave a response there because that was the question in front of you my only question is will each one of the agency wait till then why wasn't that the initial response of the agency is the question of manpower i don't hold specifically what the timeline was wrong  him i can't say for certain your honor but at some point recently the agency has released notes and it's and i think that that's perfectly within the agenc honor i i can't answer the question as to why i think i answered the question but i cannot and i don't know what the answer is with regard to the timeline but i think we're again we're getting further down the road then then we should be this is a lot simpler a lot easier than it has turned out to be had he taken the opportunity that the statute gives him and this court has said  plus that it would give deference to two that it owes deference to the cost to the to congressional intent with regard to exhaustion that had he just part of that process we probably there's a good chance we wouldn't be here and this changed this he posited no argument you know i don't know that the he would have gotten the assessment had he gone through the exhaustion process but that's what the process is supposed to serve do you suppose are required to go through that process and for good reason to it for four in order for there to be to avoid premature premature prematurely seeking judicial review for there to be a proper administrative record to allow the agency to exercise its discretion those gets reconfigured based on what happens in litigation so that you only litigate the open issues is not something that actually happens as a matter of practice i don't think sort of there are i don't think that litigation necessarily changes the way that the agency reviews for requests but the nature of the occasion is that the agency has to provide a more robust explanation of the decisions is i mean i know i guess i'm talking about what would happen down the road under your approach to this case so what you say is the sequence of events happen in the real world where when you go back then to think about what happens before the agency turns out the state of play has changed because of what happened in litigation and so then you start thinking about exhausting the thing that should have been exhausted before it's no longer that i think anymore it's for the documents and then notice of appeal it's a fear it's someone criticize that is being quite quite quite lax why didn't quite why didn't he say they they fall within that here now not not as careful as you would li