whether the district was denying a motion for sanctions or whether it was simply denying the quest for free motion can manage can you and the point is well actual motion and then rolled on the motion and see i'd like to address the st question presented to my opponent regarding whether the court tonight the application for a promotion conference or construe the application for a pre motion conference as the motion itself i submit that the relevant precedent is best payphones incorporated versus manhattan telecoms corporation cited in our brief and that decision this court held that a district court pre motion letter as the motion itself so long as each party has an opportunity to make their case and the letter submissions given the length and detail of the letter submitted here it just a court properly construed did not your honor factor required your honor to address that point i'd like to refer the court to anderson versus the supreme court case centered on our priest and this course decision and lambert says emperor corporation district adopt propose findings of facts and conclusions of law submitted by parties and so long as the court does so that's the findings of the court and i think i think well the both of these proposed findings or are these merely an articulation i'm sorry your honor i did not hear the last part of your question or were these merely judged to merely adopt a set of facts which were part of or what the movement was suggesting with the facts operable operative in this case i mean what i'll back up what i finished in a trial to court of the court says the right counsel you have two weeks to give me proposed findings think about right anyway but it seems to me that what you maybe are arguing about aren't those are what you are proposing aren't those proposed findings there are an articulation a good articulation  submit that a district court need not invoke magic words or specific legal terms to adopt propose findings of facts i think the fact that the court considered both parties submissions and the facts contained therein is demonstrated by the fact that the court's indorsed order was made on a copy of defendant's submission the court obviously looked at both and considered them and made a ruling based on that and in that ruling it adopted the proposed facts made it by the plaintiffs and then to address the question of specificity the reason why we point to anderson and lam relevant precedent is because those decisions were bunched decisions made pursuant to rule fifty two a one and the standard under fifty two dollars a one is that the court must find the faxed specially and plaintiff submit that there is no difference between that standard to make a finding of fact specially as compared to the the standard set forth in the p s l array to make specific findings it's the same standard your honour's and that's exactly what the then add conclusions of law is that is that not forcing a district court who is very did say to take time now to do what is essentially a ministerial tax your honor i believe that is schedule to restate them in its own words in a separate document in this case plaintiff's submission accurately recited the facts and set forth conclusions of law that the court adopt requires the court to go through that exercise and the exercise is the exercise is getting on the computer scanning it in reducing it to word bringing it over to a document and signing these are my findings and those are my specific findings and the record statute is very specific and says that findings have to be with respect to each claim each party and  facts these are my findings colon right and due consideration of course and then recite you just block in the rest of the letter and back to judge jones question would you be  happened is his phraseology substantially for the reasons a problem for our proceeding down the path i'm suggesting it is because because it's not specific  specific and it's not a finding