it internally head data they're convinced it was the superior power and respectfully in light of the nature of the rejection from the p t o which said determinations that she made she said he had no motivation to lie to the p t o because look they can actually commercialize people of his own and there is nothing dated up there are right and they present it in an object but the thing is is that the presented to the f d a didn't have basic information concerning how to make the five f o uses and there are only three other compounds it's not like you've got a whole universe of compounds of different structural motion she said i'm not going to grant a limiting motion because you never asked for the missing note that strikes me as potentially quite incorrect my misreading the that the missing table one data is in missing notebooks if there is no proof that they were ever written down in there for us to begin with  so were the district court then came back and said and by the way mark even though you've got dated it contradicts the families there put forth in table one the fact that you can't show that which is what is in these understand it they asked for the notebooks under on the table in one they think they got twenty eight of them but then they said we that we looked at the twenty eight they don't support they belong with like the rest of the milk and i was never asked the second twenty i would notebooks but this request was directed to that to the other no not for twenty eight that that they already had at the time of the sl twenty eight no such problem as they said we've looked at the twenty eight votes they don't support table one we'd like the rest of the folks you say you can't get them and the district court says you're right i'm not going to order production of that  bills were produced not just for that and i understand but but the question is were there are additional notebooks not produced other than the twenty eight that dated one and yes it was reported so your theory about the in lemonade motion decision is that when the district court says they didn't ask for the notebooks what you what you're saying is that there wasn't any request in connection with this notice a deposition for the notebooks and that what ever earlier request had been made for the notebooks had been resolved by agreement with the production of the twenty eight and that w and that seemed to me problematic  there he's gone because they told the district court that you just should view materially in this case from the spectrum of ours and in our it saying you know what we decided to see if we could slip this one by the examiner and boy did we succeed you know find very many of those cases so to say gosh there was no evidence of intent is not really enough to get you over the problem it seems to me of where whether there was enough basis for an inference of intent that should have been granted it should have been drawn in this case i appreciate it but i think the decisions  underlay table one data ok and they say we've given you everything we've got and what was not given to you that you were entitled to that you didn't get we didn't get for example the experimental records that under inside the experiments on records but that doesn't necessarily mean that the experimental records actually existed but that's not it i'm having a hard time seeing why that's a discovery issue i mean your complaint seems to me is that they should not have been able to been allowed to say these records existed when they were unable to to provide evidence that they d ok but not your complaint it seems to me and correct me if i'm wrong your complaint is not that they withheld records that exist i don't think they exist either truth be told i don't think that there's any lost but in either event you could do discovery for twenty years and they wouldn't show up right so it's none of this coverage well we're back where the harm comes in is that district a credibility when you've got your discovery you've got your thirty p six you got that yes square that there were any other notebooks you got that ask whether whether there was or was not data supporting table want right i mean you've got everything you could ask for and discover the point is that you're saying that on this record the judge should have made a finding that the notebooks never existed rather than that they were all right what i'm saying is that  if he is that the district court should not have permitted to cater to introduce evidence that the notebooks went missing without either a demonstrating that there are evidence in the books ask about whether the documents existed how they were lost what the record keeping was you've got your deposition you've got your thirty six on the right but the yes right yes