what's your basis for thinking that the district court didn't do everything appropriately is it just a hunch or you think that for important cases you get to peer behind the curtain even if there are very good reason recognizable reasons to seal things nonetheless the new york times gets to be in the discussion  that doesn't necessarily mean that it was true at the time they were sealed it just means it is true now right that ceiling or into that limited extent that's not what you're looking for here this different in any other situation where the court seals the reasons for the sealing not sometimes almost in every case right i'm trying to think of a situation where it would not before you got there so i'm just curious where you're going with this so the fact that sort of newspapers or other periodicals speculate as to what's going on then compels the court to reassess the basis for sealing has clear the government made the initial motion to unseal large portions of the stock it being injunction with the filing of an additional indictment so the government obviously made the initial application to c e o and then also made the initial application until large portions that was sort of dismissed the issue is three times now for example you did on october st make this voluntary motion to unseal but then five days later th for some of them i think that's correct i do think that it's it is a human process the process of determining which be sealed and which should be unsealed i think that there is an organ it that we have gone above and beyond and that the compelling interest or interests that are discussed in a sealed briefs and appendix would justify a less conservative ceiling i do believe here we try to be as narrowly tailored as possible some of the things that wound up getting unsealed when we were reviewing the docket  in connection with the in preparing for argument here were documents that were not filed by the government that were filed either by another party or by the court and that the government didn't specifically asked to  undertake a process to go through and ensure that the ceiling was as narrowly tailored as possible but it doesn't change the underlying compelling interest or interests that justified sealing of those limited portions of the plea transcript which is what's before this court and as i said in connection with the appeal well we had not specifically requested that the court's entire order be filed under seal we went back through and attempted to very narrowly determine what portions of that order sho given those compelling interest or interests in the government has consistently followed the standard set forth and know and obviously i think somewhat the times this argument ignores is that there is a district court reviewing everything that we're putting in front of the district court and we put everything in front of this court and obviously to the extent that i know the district court where this court finds that there's compelling interest or interests or insufficient we will abide by those rulings but we really have attempted to be as narrowly tailored as possible docket entries that was granted i believe in december of twenty one thousand dollars and the only thing that remains under seal that could be unsealed are the portions of the district court's original order that we've highlighted in our brief but everything else that we've sought to have unsealed has in fact been  in fact it would be fine if in the government's perspective either way we have consulted with the other party the defendant as well we can put that in from the district court or hidden this court could order that as well is you know to the extent the government said that you know it really reviewed the docket in preparation for this appeal i mean that's that's a little too late we're well courts and  i guess the moving party have an ongoing obligation to make sure that the things that are sealed still need to be sealed right correct what i'm saying your honor is some of the things that have been unsealed here we don't know whether they would have been unsealed had we not brought this appeal i mean i guess that is true all we can do is pass on what is currently sealed and determine whether there's a legitimate basis to seal it right and i'm not disputing that your honor i'm just making the point that you know the public in the press have sort of limited resources to challenge sealing like this you know we handle cases like these in house the press at a time like this don't have resources to hire law firms and do this the public has sometimes a hard time exercising its right of access we're saying here is that you know what has happened here now recently is only because the times has brought this appeal and the public in the press often don't have the capacity to sort of do that and so that's why we think that's an ongoing burden of justifying sealing when the st amendment right applies and when the common law right applies and they simply haven't done that based on the facts before this court and the rd thing which i just want to speak to because it was raised here was that the for the docket entries that were unsealed except in one case there are documents underlying those docket entries which remain sealed in full so we are skeptical that what remain sealed here in the district court level is actually meets the st amendment standard but i mean maybe i'm confused there was some mention of the docket but i don't recall it being the relief you seek are you seeking with respect to additional items that