united states district court for the central district of california think two problems with that one is that we have repeatedly said that this the courts have broad authority to interpret their own rules and this would be especially so where we're talking about a single judge adopting a set of rules of the  to your supplemental authority for the proposition that we said the district court was act acted within his or her discretion to denominate a motion to amend solely on the basis of the supreme court's decision  but here we're talking about a standard of review that that is abuse of discretion so even if it's true that it might have been within a district court's discretion to deny a motion to amend wouldn't would the judge they hated those particular motions because he felt that he felt that five motions to much and that they should have but one motion and so that started a scheduled pre have better issues than that given the amount of time and resources those would take up when alice comes down they say this is actually incredibly good it's now moved up in the priority list and that's a good enough reason to allow them to to do what the court wants them to do which is to prioritize how the case is going to  they couldn't but it isn't it fair to say that given the splintered nature of our decision alex and the fact that there was clearly going to be some time frame in which it was going to take the supreme court to the sense these questions that that maybe the defendant thought the case was going to move more quickly and they could focus on otherwise the positive issues and not get mired in that one a one world well here's the other problem in that  granting in part defendant on this motion for summary judgment which is a motion that started a three orders judgment entered against mortgage grader and in favor of first choice one doesn't say with the scope but it in light of the motion that ran the order that subset of activities leading to the creation of contractual obligations is that alice is that in the subset is the ones that are really old  sufficient answer to say they had nothing to dispute that there are things like there were things like that as i guess that's probably the first question did they have evidence to dispute what that page of the washington post then put it on a computer or use a computer to do this and circumstance in which the argument is that the computer is absolutely necessary to the process in order to maintain it in an image that the process offers disarray addressing judge starts point on the summary judgment question this court is a clearly that is a question of laws or whether something complies with one on one at least in a censure and arrhythmia they have said computer he wanted to present a serious problem just slightly different from discrimination based on race or or other that's certainly an issue that can come up with anonymity but the steering problem is the mortgage broker gets paid you know a thousand dogs if i give you a one particular loan and five hundred bucks if i give you a loan it is better for you but not better for me and that is that the other aspect of the problem is in trying to be addressed here and mr level with his hard to say at this point you know i didn't have anything specific in a matter of a set in my brief did you move to extended discovery the only the only extension of the discovery deadline was we we reached agreement with them because some of their back witnesses were also expert