prohibits discovery hofman holds that in terms of relevancy that that documented workers are not entitled to back pay for a number of policy reasons the logical question next question that is raised ok now my understanding is that after hoffman the pointers proposed to the core methodology for dealing with that issue is that correct that's correct and as we see it here today with this interim market story appeal in front of us that procedure has not either been rejected or approved that is correct if that procedure was accepted by the district court think the most important or the most significant objection we have is that it would mean the plaintiffs some of the plaintiffs to the extent that they are not authorized or were not authorized to work in the united states would be able to put those cla before the trial a fact and knowing that they're not entitled to a remedy and that based upon those claims that leads me to my question which may be the sixty four dollars or three guess what i'm asking i'm but i think i know what you would like us to rule on the merits with respect to the application of hoffman the title seven but there's no doubt in your mind that that is the issue the merits or she was before  which the court certify that the legal issues for appeal if for example let's say after this we went back in and said judge we would like you to modify this protective order move for this might be a relevant area of inquiry from the get go from the very beginning of the deposition of the well i think when the question was when the very first question that was asked was where were you married and when they came forward and relevant though i think it is i think it's going to come up in other proceedings of the defense has raised that in any number of different contexts include in terms of trial issues i think there may be issues of you know when the evidence would be the question again information as to whether your clients are prohibits defendants from inquiring into the galathea cleanest working the united states through the civil discovery process or more other iraq i assume that's tightly means prohibits defendants from applying the after acquired the judge and the judge just below based their orders on and that includes the issue of intent behind or it includes the chilling effect that our clients will undoubtedly discovery we are proposing in camera procedure below as a way of trying to avoid having to litigate these issues where the information would come to the attention of the court and the court would act accordingly and not grant front and reinstate irrelevant we're saying that what's the best way to get that information and as you know half and was not a discovery case that issue was simply not reached by the supreme court and so as our backstop in terms of what can we period and the second part was certain questions can be asked but subject to limits on disclosure i guess my concern is if we allowed questions in the first group wh questions directly going to immigration status to be asked to limits undisclosed or that that still would have very much the same chilling effect that it would have otherwise there is california statute is correct and damages right and i think the cases are clear that the states have full authority to go beyond what congress has enact in terms of civil rights laws in terms of remedies and protections and i so i think that it's pretty clear that there is no preemption constraint here correct and that's been the position under existing law that was which was that articulated by the legislature when it passed s b eight hundred eighteen i just want to sort of close by talking about what some of the ramifications would be if the protective order were reversed i think it would be powerful to turn against any workers particularly undocumented workers starting their rights under workplace protective statutes it would through private enforcement actions not by the e e o c or other agencies it's very similar to the type of modification of the discovery order that the judge was attempting to do and that we fully support and that is you can ask these questions but they can only be used for this limited purpose they can't be disclosed beyond here but when went in for the discovery order they changed that and instead said no you're completely barred from any questions or any discovery related to immigration status that is what the current protective order says you're completely regarding are related to immigration status and so that they can they kind of back track with their protective order we just want to go back to the originally protective order at the time we couldn't do that because one of the co defendants still employed some of these scientists and there was concern that if that we would be requiring wade to violate immigration laws by moving them from utilizing information that that a current employee was bar and it is a complete part it doesn't allow any kind of inquiry or discovery regarding discovery immigration status it's a complete bar and there's no there's no legal authority for that the other thing is that they said is that we could go back again at any time and request a modification of that protective order given the changed circumstances at the time that the magistrate ruled on the protective order the prevailing law now needs to be decided ok now it's that's not true anymore the circumstances are different from when the imagist was originally ruling on this protective order so let's go back in and we consider this we still have that outstanding question can i can i can modify this protect the border in any manner counsel was the question that jeje she was asking no you cannot because i absolutely have that's discovery and that was that was the