objects to the government's motion to dismiss and talk about why they don't satisfy will we have to we're going after hearing actually requested you you say it should move on summary judgment that they should be put to proof it cetera where do you say we should have the statutory language says shall provide an opportunity for hearing so it should not prohibit it presumably but if we were to conclude that it really wasn't requested or is it your position that whether or not you the opportunity for the hearing is i would think that there are cases where the government says we're going to dismiss you know move to dismiss a calling him and there were later all the insanity and the number one opportunity for hearing is not an automatic hearing no i don't brief in opposition set forth the facts that you just that should make the government think twice about what it's doing yet that would be set for sitting here and i don't see anything you're saying you know make the government do more miss case he didn't do anything he didn't speak the reason why you dismissed the government's motion he didn't articulate any reasons in the decision but we just issued an order you're not complaining about that you're really you're on appeal your only issue is needed here well i think we were complaining that the fact that the that the district judge granted the government's motion to dismiss and didn't articulate why he didn't say i find for example your honor that the government's assertion of waste of resources is a legitimate reason to go to for the government's motions because he didn't say anything is that in your are you really contending that i didn't take your grief as having a substantive to dismiss it has to provide notice and the court has to provide an opportunity for your good that hearing be we consider the moving papers we consider your objection and that's it version of a hearing i agree it could be could be the court could statute well it's a curious fact it says the government may dismiss it doesn't say the government made to dismiss almost seems like and when there's a settlement in the key tam action there are specific requirements that the settlement be approved that's not arbitrary and capricious it cetera so when congress wants to put a standard in and they know how to do it here they say the government may dismiss provided that the court has provided an opportunity for a hearing so it's kind of curious that there aren't really any standards i would agree with your honor i mean it's well in my view intellectually the court it's certainly going to weigh on the argument it could either accept  i would just say that so the fact that the statute itself says and provide an opportunity for hearing and hearing certainly in the context of the statute knowing that it's a court case here you have some involvement of the district court judge would go back to if the statute didn't contain that language or that phrase opportunity for hearing i think that rationale problem should prevail and i i wouldn't have a good argument i would my organ hinges on the language of the statute itself and this well suited to make those things but i do think the courts would say opportunity for hearing means if there's an objection to the motion to dismiss the district judge at least half to say i reviewed the board submissions and i find the following if the district birds eye standards it will be going to set forth that the standard of the government is longer satisfy the government has investigated it and the statute says the government may dismiss i mean these cases even when the government doesn't intervene the government has to cope prosecute this case and you know the court's going to nd guess that and once they determine that this motion is pretty pretty thorough the government don't know i don't think that's in the rocker know about it but they five they said set forth in their motion now he's a frequent flyer in terms of what these kids can actions he certainly knows how to how to produce or have to request a hearing but it seems to me if the statute says the you i think the problem though with that is that again i referencing that document fifty three dollars if you go on page four there were labor then says well they said wage the resources and he will balk why that's not really a legitimate reason in th particular piece as he set forth any facts that would bolster his claim that this grant money you know is is related i mean i didn't do anything in there other than put the government to its proof they should have to produce more and you would think if the relator has has done its own investigation and thinks that the government's wrong should put forth in the opposition what facts there are there that would counter it i agree with you that maybe the bretheren opposition could have been more detail in that regard but i i do think there were leaders amended complaint details why he thinks the cac violated before calling him out that solved so to that extent and again because it was a motion to flip the bird the what what the document that mr confusing on referred to that's this where you put that documentary fifty three says he is given the lack of entrance intervention and the fact that relator has borne the full effort in this matter the only evidence in the record demonstrates that the governments have presently deployed minimal resources and essentially if if that isn't enough then then what we're saying is what appellant is saying is the government has to prove its its assertion that there's that there's a basis to dismiss this and that seems like it it clearly flips flips the balance on its head here it's their preference there is a reference to a hearing in the legal discussion of what under the two standards might occur at that hearing but that's that's all there is rather bleak yes but there is a reference to this thing i fear ng that should  court not just up a formal in person hearing so we would suggest that given that you know just to subsections earlier you use the same word the implication is that the same opportunity is the the d c circuit acknowledges this in swift there are circumstances such as a problem a court where there would be a need for the court to step in and say dismissal here is not proper but those circumstances everyone agreed that those circumstances are extremely rare courts have said we don't really need to decide which standard we're going to apply here because under either standard the standard is clearly satisfied on these facts and if there's a poor preacher of the opportunity for hearing then you don't need to go to either the th circuit or these are indeed  another possibility that you know we talk about either unfettered discretion or rationally ship it the government moves to dismiss and the relator comes in and has a lot of good reasons why it shouldn't be dismissed and the district court says you know i'm going to deny the motion to dismiss it move forward because there are a lot of reasons why it shouldn't be dismissed and doesn't have to do a rational relation i mean just leave it to the district court to figure out when and mr gore knows how to handle motions sure and knows how to resolve them and it doesn't think that the government really has looked into it just deny the motion  the deeper dive that the district court is permitted to take into whether the government's reasons are adequate the more likely that those resources get deployed not to any of these investigations at all but in in right sort of defending its decision to dismiss the cases that it has decided are beast worthy of using its resources on right if and that's really the issue and usually want to want that government talk about the extent of the investigation that it's done and what it's uncovered when you actually use it i mean i just learned recently how extensive the government does look into these key town matters and yet it matters a lot to the relator they get a huge percentage  you know if they're successful so there's a lot on the line at stake on both sides here yes or i think again the concern is that where the government's decision to dismiss is under some sort of searching scrutiny now you know the covered the government may have a go it's really easy time in a particular case as it did in this case concluding that both of the dollar amount was very small and that there was a district court starts digging deeper and saying why you know i want you to put on witnesses and i want you to show me of a court how deeply you've investigated this case i think we've moved out of the circumstance in which the government which is always the real party in interest rates the government's claim it's the government that's been defrauded and the government has decided we don't we don't think over her has a best friend over here we think are we supposed to serve her best bend over there and now it's it has to spend a again i think it is it is true that on on this record the court could say we don't need we don't need to get all the way to the bottom of what the standard is and exactly how it would apply and on that point the do you have the statute there in front of you i if the court determines after hearing that the settlement is fair and so on and then the last sentence says upon a showing of good cause that hearing can be held in camera so what's the difference between the hearing in subsection b and the opportunity for hearing in s language as federal criminal civil or ministry of hearing in which the government or its agent is a party as compared to here it's a hearing on the motion or in camera hearing it's just there's different i don't think i think they're apples and oranges i'm not focused so much on the word hearing ok what i'm hearing versus opportunity for hearing again i think opportunity for hearing certainly suggests that there is less need for the court to insert itself into the situation the the bar is lower i guess i it's hard to know exactly how much lower but to the extent that appellant's case is predicated on i didn't get an in person hearing and i was entitled to one i think opportunity for hearing is is dispositive on that issue the distinctions are quite small but nevertheless significant and they're significant in particular with respect to this issue of a burden that i was speaking about earlier in what how the district court interprets its role is the district court's role to inquire into the adequacy of the government's investigation and the accuracy of its or the propriety of its reasons for dismissal or is that burden on the relator and i think under both standards big it is clear that the burden for that is on the relator but it's up to the relator to come forward with some basis for for needing needing to dig more deeply and just to be here earlier you mentioned you mentioned the analogy to prosecutorial discretion and again in the in the washington case recently this court in that circumstance identified the you know even in circumstances where the discretion was not absolute the bar for the need for discovery and the need for the court to sort of dig in more deeply to the basis for the decision the bar for that is already quite high what the what the person seeking discovery or seeking a hearing needs to come forward with is a great deal and in the prosecutor your prosecutorial discretion context that person is potentially facing imprisonment here the real leader certainly has a role under the false claims act but it's it is the united states not the relator who's claim is that issue here so i would suggest that the bar here is is even lower in terms i looked through again this dog this famous dog of a fifty three because i don't want to leave anything on the table but the only time he really graphic is the word here and as far as i can see is on page three