letters once that record then produced to us the department for summary judgment they're moving papers slows another record that we felt might be responsive that that document is the other one can memorandum the judge the district court judge ordered that a portion of that memorandum of be released i believe it's a five page memorandum but only the only like the subject line was actually used the rest is if it would have to contain the final decision the final decision of the secretary is a termination to release that and has to go through the exchange so there's evidence in the record that it was common for the secretary of defense to get a cover memo like this and attached correspondence to read the cover memo signed the attached correspondence if he agreed with that it was ready that so notify congress i don't think there's anything in the record suggesting that when the secretary gauges in that common practice he is there by adopting the cover m reasonable to assume that a memo might say you know i suggest you send these letters to congress you could do it for a reason a you could do it for reasons b you can do it for reasons see you know we live secretary could read it and say either i think reason a is is off the wall but i agree with reason b and reason c or these reasons all seem wrong to me but everything in the letter is precisely what i want to communicate and therefore sign so i'm just not sure there is that that there's any evidence to support your proposition it might be the case but it might very well not be the case and we need lie on the tension between the parents the conclusion of the district judge that this was a decision document given then the narrowness of your amended for your requests as seeking only decision documents if she's listing it all in upon index or requiring that it be identified then that must be because it's decision and therefore in your view it needs to be produced since no longer deliberative because the decision has been  the ruling that it was responsible i i don't believe so but there's not there's nothing in the decision either you know that it takes back you know the initial ruling that it was responsible typical practice is cover memo accompanying letters often the secretary only signs the accompanying letters and so i'm wondering why it's a necessary implication of that practice that the secretary is there by adopting the memo as the explanation of his decision and why we wouldn't in fact read the opposite from matt that the secretary is saying i'm going to keep him there i'm i'm just going to adopt as my decision what's in the letters and and not cross the bridge of whether there might be additional sort of other considerations that i'm just not both ways you are i would i would also point out that the congressional notification letters are just that they're they're just notification the only other record it fairly issued here is the  i mean many decisions are made within government where the decision itself is a decision that the secretary crystallizes in his or her own mind and then there's a memorialization of the decision and it may be are you questioning that it could be the case that the letters are in fact the only written memorialization it doesn't seem to me that we have a reason to doubt that they might in fact be the only reading on moralization of the decision you've been via the letters might might in fact be the only written memorialization of the decision you're right there are part of the decision the decision is in the secretary's mind and resolve but i i'm not and i know you pointed to record keeping requirements but i don't have a basis in this briefing record to conclude that there must necessarily be a document over and above the notifying letter that  court august plenty with the justice department here on behalf of the defense for all we think this is a straightforward exemption five case of the document issue was a recommendation to the secretary made by an official who was as quote i have determined that these various statutory provisions are meant that's a j seventeen so that that document self reflects on its face that it is the decision document of the secretary on the transfer now if the if the memo to cover my mouth had a line for the for the secretary's signature and was signed by the secretary would your position do the same think if that were the case then it would likely be an that because that concerned me with something the district court said after relying on ass after such shower on page seventy six he said absent some showing that the agency either express the or implicitly utilize the can memorandum what about that or implicitly i don't think that's enough is it no i an implicit adoption th actually makes it not deliberate because it's actually being used post decision to explain the agency's decision if and if the court and he sees me if the agency does that it's making it and and an intentional determination that it's going to use this analysis to explain a decision that's already been made and it's very clear that a using material to explain an agency decision is not is not a deliberative document in that circumstance so it's sort of taking something that was  this memo is said you know dear secretary here are the recommendations if you divorce these recommendations as your final decision please sign and transmit to congress the attacks letters of this these reasons as your final decision please sign and send the attacks letters if that were the case then that would be in your view and express adoption of that that that that would memo into a decision on my yes i think that the language you mention is important because the secretary has to accept the reasoning set forth in the subordinates memo explicitly in order for there to be an adoption and we don't have n it's got it explicit action or implication that that really is it down you are the agency decision maker to make the decision that what the subordinate did is going to be the official agency were on the