piece should not be happening which is that there was a paper trial there was actually a determination by the district court as to the merits on summary judgment i believe that entitled to that and the reason why i'm saying this is if you look at the district court's memorandum opinion and order you will see there that there is the district court basically made a decision to not accept the testimony the submission by mr williams and rather contrary to that excepted the submission by the food service administrator ms bailey one of the defendants in this case one of the kind of the crux is our position in this case two responses to that first the menu plan ms bailey says in her affidavit her submission it's a menu plan was supposed to be twenty two hundred twenty four hundred calories per day our position is that what was on the tray that was actually received by the inmates was not that now to directly answer the question that you asked there for twenty eight hundred calories per day for the inmates now mr bailey has said that her menu was designed to achieve twenty two hundred twenty four hundred calories per day i do not know  that specifically says the menu itself was inadequate what i am aware of in the record is the affidavits of mr williams and two other inmates you know i believe one current inmates and one former inmate that the corrections the affidavit mr williams in its final paragraph indicates that he had a conversation with wharton last broke regarding the nutrition and  respect to count three of what the district court's order related to which is a nutritional issue this issue about the two meals per day as opposed to the way and doctor shopping i did you know i was a little bases that on his estimate and conversations he had with people who worked in the kitchen is that correct that is my understanding now and it should be candid with the court the complainant does also reference sixteen hundred calories a day and twenty eight hundred as what he expected to receive i find it interesting that the twenty eight hundred he's referencing corresponds to the twenty eight hundred in that case tha all i don't know are quite candidly i don't know where he got those numbers from but those are what he has alleged and i would take the position that given the question of the twenty eight hundred twenty two hundred in the twenty four hundred judgment and allowed for the trier of fact to determine who was more credible on that issue the question that goes to that his allegations that certain compartments entrees were not filled is there anything in the record that talks affidavits that are attached also indicate that in other institutions and in other circumstances where they received three meals a day all of the compartments on the trays were fill so i don't completely know whether i what it's clear to me that what mr williams is saying is that under the branch program a decision was made to not fill all of the compartments o quite honestly the information that relates to that is uniquely within the possession of the defendants as the folks who are involved with the food service and the dissemination of o i really i have to tell you i shudder to think how prisoners behave towards day after and towards each other when they have for that length of time but is there any evidence in the record on the time of their meals i mean he clearly complains of how they hunger which you know common here and there's no issue about his treatment at this time so the court time unless the court has questions i would end with that question the couple brief comments in response to the state comments as you can see what what was said repeatedly was operating on the assumption that the mules received by the inmates are nutritionally sufficient you're never judged got a direct response to your point where in the record does it say that the meals arbitrate actually received by the inmates met the twenty two hundred to twenty four hundred calorie count that was intended by mr bailey there is nothing in the record to establish that and that is information that is uniquely within the of a of availability o that judge i have gone back and i have asked that question and i have seen e mails that go back to at least august of two thousand and seventeen in which my colleague who repeatedly asked for depositions of these defendants thirty six representative and we were repeatedly told there were scheduling problems those people were busy people we were with we were having problems getting a hold of them responding to the mall in the district court in footnote two of the memorandum and order basically and i'm somewhat baffled by the language in there said that the affidavit that it was not properly we do have an affidavit that does explain the additional discovery the need for that and i think you know as a separate issue i believe that there was error on the district court i recognize that they have  discretion on that point but i believe that that was in the views of discretion and we could have under those circumstances repeatedly asking for that discovery and not getting it and then being faced with a summary judgment on information uniquely within the possession of the defendants being quote in that posture would you be able to subpoena to be able to do with thirty six numbers if you don't get a response you will to compel involve the court earlier before fifty sixty minute standing judge was that there were multiple continuance of the discovery that had been brought up with the court and that was the intent was that we were trying to cooperate with the state in getting those depositions and i believe that the record shows that they had even asked for a day of discovery prior to the ruling on the summary judgment and and that is all going into that now i would also add just briefly that i believe that there even on the record that we program mr williams wasn't there from july of two thousand and fifteen until after december first when the program ended i see that my time is just about are there any additional questions that i can address