and so let me let me stop you right there and ask the problem question as i understand it from the record the city discontinued that list and i will be that was close in time to shortly after  s supreme court actually found that the damages could potentially be available even in a case where the only thing that was played was a request for declaratory injunctive relief and damages were not even discussed until a case that gotten assume they could have been played but they were the choice was made not to and i mean i can see the court almost using its equitable powers to say yes you're entitle to other relief but you'd have to consider equitable factors as to why they weren't demanded before here i don't see any good reason why they work if they're actually your client at damages why she didn't request they someone of the shop you said the focus was to get the city to change the power see it appears that you were successful that they did chains or what why do you think that there's a reasonable likelihood that they would go back to the for the policy was changed they look at things like whether there was a well reasoned justification for the change which there was not here which they know well reasoned just whether or not there was russia now whether or not it was done in secret which it was here kind of thing so isn't that more transparent than the other policy so i guess that brings the question to my mind why would that be a more favorable position to everybody and even to the city so what would make us think that the city would refer to some other you know the few areas policy that might pick and choose who they get information we don't know what they would do we did request discovery requests for discovery was denied to see how the policy was being implemented so we simply don't know if the city is still using an e mail list of other sorts for if said that this policy was done in secret this new policy was i mean occurred in secrecy is this policy was this one developed differently than the procedures for the other one was with the other one open to public comment a notice or anything like that there was no written policy related to the e mail was prior to previous version of the media relations policy at no discussion regarding the e mail list it was something that the city did it was that it was done in secret also basically in washington are absolutely ok but that the secrecy goes to in many ways to whether or not the decision was legislatively that is  you know even if the city is process and implementing the new media relations policy was ad hoc within the meaning of speech st can we still find that that changes which in un and what facts could you  you have the timing you have the lack of transparency and the city's reservation of the right to do that to change its policies at any time without notice and you also have here if the earlier by the city to address in find that in that case where there was ready change in a forum that was in challenge as illegal the court said that the change in form did nothing to eradicate the effects of the prior inv for me at this time thank you for begin all right let's hear from the attorney for the city there please the court my name is bruce mcmullan and i represent the city of memphis in this case the issue before the court today is whether the district court properly dismissed mrs thomas's claim against the sitting methods because there is no longer a last case or controversy to be decided this thomas brought this suit because she wanted to be added to the city's media advisory she sought only injunctive relief and i must say today is the st time i've heard anything about monetary damages it was not brought up in meaningful action it would have been simple to add mrs thomas to the list but as the court has pointed out in previous questioning that will open the door for the city to take her off the list affect other media outlets other digital media outlets and it was a a fix for that entire situation  the timing of it we don't think well it was that the timing of it was senator around a complaint that was looked into and and there was a situation there was a situation in which the city wanted to remedy the complaint and i'm sure we should we interpret most madness comments to miss thomas about the concern that she had not been we evaluate those extremist comments on this issue of timing and motives well those comments were made two years two or three years prior to the suit being found  so in time i don't see really the relevance of both comments and i think ms met and say it did not rule out giving her in abuse in the future so that was a specific situation that predated wants to be on the list are and is outdated from a practical matter the new policy is more efficient it reach more people it's easier to manage for the city and there's no practical reason to requirements to show that there is little likelihood that the city would revert back to the zero policy absolutely two to two things a government as the court knows is more credibility because i believe because they're more accountable to those would be five years that that would whether the court finds that the city did it on a basis in which we don't think that was the the situation we produced a document we did it in a legislative manner and produced a document and we personal personnel policy meaning if somebody tries to create a list of vising media outlets will be subject to disciplinary action not only it would be impractical from where we are with technology the city needs to disseminated much information to as many people  under these suspects in order to meet the legislative problem what would the city have had to do are you saying that they would have had to formulate a policy put it and actually have a go before the city council how public meetings to discuss the change they could have also opened things up to public comment and provided an opportunity for the public to hear the rationale behind the decision they didn't do that so when you say they did the minimum are you c that they met the floor i'm saying they did the minimum that's required under their policies rather they say that they had to get two written approvals and have a decoration infancy attorney written that's the only thing that was required to make this policy chicken but there can be a vast vast chasm between the floor and the ceiling and i hear you saying ok they did the bare minimum so they met the floor but they did nothing more than that that and i think what i'm saying to be clear