received originally from the national archives the individual who was reviewing whether to disclose those documents to us send us an e mail indicating that one of the documents was the final letter were all correct or not well i've i've think this right we don't have a final decision on the second appeal if there was one we don't know we should we that's right but just to go back to the point about the national archives the original response that we received from them indicated that there were three letters the only one that was ever disclosed was the one that you're talking about whether where the support  has been tested in any way and if it's being released as a kind of this is what happened then if the government of your position is the public has a right to know what happened it isn't really fair to treat as what happened when it's at a result on one side and i would say that given that this is being disposed you know decided on summary judgement there's enough inference in the record that it was that it didn't proceed up for this these allegations that we're aware of but there are two pieces there are two pieces of evidence in the record the first is it's from the government itself indicating that there is evidence that this case was appealed to the  was one but we do have the statements in the record from the government and we also have in the record i mean this is the government can only releases documents that exist and can create  but they do say there there was an appeals for them files cannot focus on on the public interest which really seems like that's you know the make or break point for your ta interest in having this particular document reveals well i think that you know the public interest would be bad for us all i mean i think that this high should be treated differently than the civil rights lawyer who brings civil commissions and sometimes i would argue very that that's that's that's arguable but they should face so ok the impact they can have on people's lives and the control they have over ok i was charging this and there's that as you see there's a slippery slope on all personnel actions telling with all people who are in some way bearers of governmental authority which arguably could also be well i mean i think that it would be it would be the same thing you would be learning if you want to cover evidence of misconduct in decades old cases where you had someone who was prosecuting multiple criminal defendants and those people might still be in jail they might still be impacted by those prosecutions and people want to know i mean people have an interest in you know whether people have been wrongfully accused prosecuted and you know that there's a question been raised here at the here was somebody who apparently failed to perform in a way that allowed him to be remain in the job as an individual who  prosecuted directly by him and there is a grave the liberty the person you have the liberty interest of the highest order when we're talking about putting people in prison   that mr lewis is has proposed is this is something that the public cares about how do prosecutors do their job when somebody is you know facing charges and there has you know very strict  guidelines and rules that constraining guide prosecutors and here's somebody who apparently didn't follow those in some new way doesn't the public want to know well your honor this court has held and in cases involving more serious allegations of misconduct like the it's that the public has a minimal interest in the criminal was under section seven was and then it was under section seven c but there the court with engaged in a similar balancing of the public interest in the privacy interests and found that the public interest where there had been admissions of misconduct in our investigation that the details of that investigation that there was a limited public interest in the details of the investigation are you since a similar balancing but it's not quite a similar balancing there's something fresh there's a stronger allegation that this would shedding light on current practices and in fact the district court well to the contrary that there is a limited public interest in unearthing details about how the u s attorney's office many many years ago  engaged and disciplinary proceeding which you know continuing but just because it may be show past practices that the public has no interest in learning what past practices were  recall the district judge actually had do you reckon that a investigation that on what the justice department did up doing is giving these two individuals want to forty day suspension interest in knowing whether there has been misconduct but i take the government's position to be if the judges looked at it and said there isn't misconduct here the public doesn't have an interest but doesn't the public also have an interest in knowing took place but obviously if one were to go down that road then all everything would have to be open and so there's so we're heard so you're basically asking the public to rely on the in camera kind of gate keeping judgments of someone in the position of either us or the district judge in this case yes your honor where the district court has reviewed it and determined that there is no public interest in this material misconduct by senior level official of the type that this harness found would satisfy the public interest and would outweigh the privacy interests and that's what about a situation in which there was a misconduct but there was a lot of neglect would that satisfy the public interest standard to just there's a big power being being used by a lot of people and there is just neglect let's say hypothetically of constraints on  official that and the rank of the national who was implicated in that disciplinary action here we don't have an education on the proposed discipline and we don't have the type of misconduct that this court has found to be sufficient  similar cases and on the privacy interests do we know anything about what granger thinks about whether this is a privacy problem and so when you're asserting a privacy interest you're asserting it on behalf of kind of a category of people similarly situated to him and kind of the the record holders but it wouldn't matter to you if he said fine clear my name i'd rather this be released that wouldn't matter it's sort of like when the government asserts presidential privilege even when the sitting president says well you know took to his lawyer hey i maybe it would be better for me if we let this out there is that there's an institutional interest in the privacy of a former a you say in personnel matters there here is an interest here there's not that any such waiver and there might be an interest of privacy interest in those who use a val more towards disclosure them seven see where most of these cases come up requires this one really where there is a balancing initial terminations that was for when that when he was when he was treated as a probationary employee when it was determined that he was not a probationary plea that's when the government proposed the letter that issue here soon so there is no public image speed be decision that refers even vaguely to this proposed government is asserting an interest in granger's privacy and potentially also in the privacy of other individuals who might have been involved let's say in a supervisory role in this personal action yes the government is asserting those asserted as to acts that were taken in the horn of record such as you know failing to you know file an indictment within the thirty day time period  failing to respond to a judge you know in those inquiry or something of that nature i mean how are we to determine  if you know how how strong their privacy interest is as opposed to something that doesn't happen then you know on the record in court so that the privacy interests that are asserted here with respect to the in that that does not undermine the fact that doesn't undermine the decision by the district judge to not disclose the parts of the letter that discuss those i thank you and mr lewis we gave them silly quite a bit of additional time and so i will give you some rebuttal thank you three minutes i just one point just quickly i believe that the government has waived you know we haven't seen the letter your honour's have her or plan the district court judge saw in the government seen it so it's we don't we don't know exactly what's in that we've got what the judges put on the record in terms of  this was willful disobedience or bad or garden variety misconduct professional misconduct or what have you so you know i don't i don't that we're kind of we're getting a little bit  blindly but i would say that all of the cases that are being cited and that were cited by the district were all under seventy save one district work case which is parker and i believe there is parish that is very hard  there's you know a single incident of discipline where there might have been you know bet and they were related to the case work that that prosecutor attorney was doing it was your public interest she w it's too difficult to farm government lawyers and con their fine congress perhaps should consider legislation such as law has passed for the veterans administration twice you know order to make it easier to fire government at your public interest law that's not my public interest home watching i mean i think that i thought that's what you're getting at no i mean i think that it is incredibly difficult and that makes this a rare case and so it's so rare case and this is an aberration then and it happened twenty five years ago what does it tell today's public about what its government is up to see it from soup to nuts you see its inception t don't see it half cocked you don't see you know the some minor thing that's then retracted in record business do you actually you know would see it here i think i mean i think there's an interest in the rare case because it shows it all it being the process by which you have to you terminator and war for whatever reason you permit a prosecutor to to do thirty seven hundred pages worth of areas points its case its cases i mean it's not obviously whatever misconduct was going on spilled over and i mean i think it's a fair inference that if you was playing fast and loose with the government's rules he