in the brief oh eric takes arguments seem to presume that the e e o c is investigating eric takes clients rather than air attack itself identified that just seems highly relevant to me later on or i don't believe it changes the analysis and i think the e e o c has in fact indicated that the air attack and the clients are under investigation i believe the directed investigation letter itself from august nineteenth two thousand and thirteen does state that it's both the organization facilities and those owned and operated by the clients so your honor i believe that they are targeting both of us and all the arguments go to both their tech and to the clients being  case and with that your honor looking at what the request is which of the request for twenty two thousand plus client names the issue here first of all is that the standard of review here before the court is one more of use of discretion the problem we have is that by that standard the movement or attack must demonstrate that there is factual determination on which is based that are clearly erroneous or that the ruling constitutes an abuse of discretion the problem we have here is there were no that has not yet been produced yes your honor the original subpoena did ask for a contract employee names and their contact information and also client information and those and that's linked to sixty two facilities nationwide for a period of five years eric's act as voluntarily produced the information about the contract employees including their contact information so the only thing before the court is the intent of the cation twenty thousand plus clients there you have not produced any of that information yet we have produced it your honor because our state that's what i'm asking you if they still issue although we produced that information you got the stay was denied right we are still here before the court to argue that the definition must  pursue a stable and it's just a court and before this court yes the state was denied in both courts and therefore the court's order at the district court level was in a fact an artist to comply by producing information ok or risk contempt citations to exactly right or get that attention ok why is this not mentioned in the briefs that i missed something i mean the issue of having produced the irish quest to return information that has already been produced which seems to me to essential to whether we actually have a viable case or from traverse you before us well i believe the timing is such that we've filed our initial brief before turning over the information the stay we sought one  the court to to let us know well your honor i don't believe that it's relevant that the information turned over in fact the e e o c if you don't think this is an issue that should have been at least raised with us when the relief you're seeking doesn't even mention while you're on a given that the motion to stay was submitted to this court as well along with a notion reconsideration we thought as within the court's knowledge that  that even if you were required to turn over information in a quote it would not move this appeal quote and the argument or the understanding is that if this court were to reverse the district court then in effect ios he would return that information put a hold or limit on investigation what we're trying to prevent is overreaching of the e e o c trying to get information which is not relevant to their their investigation or the charge question letter at hand the investigation as they wish we did not control them we did not limit and part of us a geisha is as they move along they come back ask for additional information it's not unusual they come back and say we found some evidence of wrongdoing now give us these twenty personnel files we've found something wrong here turn this over that's a typical process but to come out and say based on a single allegedly improper requisition at a facility we now want the thousands of clients well and then have hundreds wri all responses the up to investigate we have unique identifiers for all the clients if they give us a list identifiers they want the client name please give it to them but we don't want to give them twenty two thousand plus client names part of the situation is that brief we're talking that was under the f t c statute but that's the standard that applies here where the court said the sort of investigation is more analogous to the grand jury which does not depend on a case or controversy for the power to get evidence but can as well as masticate by the respondent made other discriminatory referrals by interviewing aero techs temporary employees to find out what relevant information they have and quote that's the only discussion of relevance in their application earlier conversation indicated so when you've asked you their application was before you had produced a number of items correct correct on a including those files with the request scratch the but it also makes sense if this court decided that it was and have you been using the information that was provided under the with the subject of the appeal what yes what i know is that we have the information and that aerotech has an object we're processing the information whether or not you specifically contacted individual clients yeah i am not aware that what i am on i'm sorry for were before we learned all this jurisdiction yes that's precisely it your honor just that level of oversight and you had opposing counsel had responded to you by saying that we were investigating both aerotech and the and the clients the only responded in this case aerotech and aerotech argues that the only clients only the clients who worked with aerotech took place potentially discriminatory requisitions are relevant to this court has and the kid at that is not the standard the information sought does not have to lead to a finding of discrimination it doesn't have to lead to probable cause of discrimination be relevant all that it needs to be relevant is that any material that found as far as six and sixty two offices that there are there are checked recruiters that were willing to go forward with discriminatory potentially discriminatory requisitions we don't know that they're just