we have six cases on the calendar today four of them being argued cases and and two of them submitted cases the i will just note for the record the two submitted cases the first one is number zero five dash three two eight zero peple versus the department of the treasury and number zero six dash three zero two four quiapo versus the office of personnel management given those two cases are being submitted the first case on the argument counter for the saffron in is number zero five dash one two eight six pixy on incorporated versus place where incorporated mr yorio and i got your name pronounced correctly ok before we begin you reserved three minutes for your rebuttal correct ok when you can start whenever you're complaint listed in the opening and and i'm a little confused because i thought in your reply brief you said that all of those you weren't complaining about anything that the jury did but if i understand correctly one of the four was the result of a jury conference or discovery conference whatever it was that you comply with california law and that california law didn't require you to do anything more than you did and didn't bargain from supplementing and it did not b court unfortunately eldest just to the liberals and that affected your contention that affected these four trade secrets that you're now complaining about for us and you beyond the supplemental disclosure in terms of details of the tribe trade secrets what we should not be allowed to do is identify a completely different trade secret nowhere reference in either disclosure and said well now we want to pursue that last we involved now you hear a word and that weren't disclosed before and that supplemental disclosure the that the combination of the of techniques to minimize bandwidth your claiming new trade secrets with respect to those two that weren't listed in the supplemental disclosure we indeed we argue that they were right in the disclosure and if you look at the language  with respect to the purpose of the disclosure i think the problem i'm having is i'm not seeing with respect to these four where where you tried to supplement them in the opposition to the need to show is where did the district judge say i'm not going to consider these four ideas because you didn't disclose them earlier that that's what was missing to me in the optimized communications but where did he say he was doing it because you hadn't disclosed it earl none of those points a b c was disclosed in any documents that place where and it was made available to the pub there's a fax i may be missing where worked where did she say where does the district court say that those weren't disclosed in the supplementary disclosure online the twenty two and twenty three she says she describes the further description in summ prevented she refused to consider the evidence in support of a b c and despite the fact that those trade secrets and the methodology were not  mazie could only have done so if she was holding fast to the literal language of the disclosure if that if those a b c india are not in any documents made available to the public and they are covered by the trade aviation why should they have been excluded from having a hard time understanding what you meant by by this particular statement here other other statements with respect to the other three  for your kind of what i'm trying to figure out and it seems to me if you're bert to show that she barred to present evidence because of your noncompliance with the california statute that's what i'm focusing on and you say that and in doing so violated california law which interprets court of civil procedure section twenty nineteen where do we find his statement about being limited with respect to the other free trade secret that we're dealing with now submitted in support of that the matter this declaration and all the paragraphs there in the appendix sixteen thirty and thirty four and we make the point that any reading of the supplemental disclosure on  all of the information well that's that the argument was can be considered in support of a different theory that doesn't do much for me but i mean the point they're making is that at this conference pretrial conference or whatever it was they agreed to do what was required under the california it might be some question as to whether the california statute would be binding in federal court but be that as it may is you point out they agreed to do what was required by the california statute as i read the california cases that does allow for some room for supplement the if the if the district court were saying here i'm not going to consider anything that wasn't part of the original supplementary filing that was the subject of the discussion at the pretrial conference if that really a work for their disadvantage and borrowed cards are the the judge of the judge as a bar the judge in considering some of their evidence that may be a problem but that that's not what happened in the court below further for you to change the key to it i will identify the twenty eight which is an extensive in trade secret cases there twenty eight plane trade secrets is an extensive number but typically we're four or five but we had twenty eight that we addressed but what is important i believe you're on the court in the pretrial order this issue came up what about the trade secrets and what about the confidential information because here the parties had contracted that no confidential information could showing it went up to the ninth circuit in that particular case ninth circuit so whatever twenty six see that's not an abuse of discretion on the trade secret mission where it got discussed and agreed the imax yeah decision know i don't quite rude that way when i read them as saying is will do what the california statute requires them to the california statute allows supplementation then it seems to me that they're fairly read the same will supplement the extent permitted under the california statute so what's permitted under the california statute then becomes a perk and so when they when they get a second attempted to supplement in response to the summary judgment the poor say look i've taken you at your word we're going to twenty eight a what the court picked up on is in response to summary judgment you you can't wait to even trial to try and change these it defeats the whole purpose of what we're doing and then so she  purposes i'm not going to lie to do it at this time you've had plenty of opportunity as the case is on board to provide that supplemental information and you didn't do so it's not an absolute bar in this case the timing at which of specificity you've got to give us more because this is the more us it's all so you move for more we move for a protective order from you know discovery of us we can get a reasonably particular state in response to that motion then came in with this twelve page statement saw amending what they had already provided and it's that twelve page statements for the subject of the discussion is today that's correct that identified the twenty eight trade secrets at issue in the case the court allow but you're not contending that they couldn't supplement after that point if that supplementation would be compliant with california law that's correct they had every opportunity throughout that one year period of discovery  fourteen the court if i deny the motion meaning your motion right the place where motion you'll be left with what you provided you are willing to do that yes you want look what are we talking about there what do they need they'll be left with that and they think my time to address that issue well you've still got it oh yes you your time is up i'm sorry i was i was looking at the clock ok well no we missed it we mister missed your e mail has some additional time so that's fine decision that addresses they're saying that the ninth circuit decision and lots of those other district of california says in a different even a nicer well they say there's also a ninth circuit decision done so that doesn't stand for that proposition if you look in the staff ok what's your the support for their position i believe i met completely different imax is during discovery discovery responses the insufficient in motion practice magistrate judge orders further specification arguably is not provided and then it goes on the dismissal in our case there's no discovery dispute there's no there's no suggestion of anything but what the poor what they're saying and it seems to have some merit is that the california statute designed to provide no this so that there are any surprises in discovery and you can use that discovery to supplement the trade secrets and what they're saying is once the discovery is over with as it was here at the summary judgment stage it's too late to supplement unless there's a good cause only if there's an issue that comes up in discovery where they are unfair the good cause in the district court decision is when you are trying to identify a new trade secret it does not apply in the situation where you are providing further detail to how to the court excluded absolutely as a transfer story let me ask you because you you've gone over your time but i'll be greedy and keep you up there for a little bit what what is your response or i guess i should say the right word is what we submit the chapters all about how to the methodology but then the court says if i deny the motion meaning the place where motion you'll be left with what you provided and you're willing to do that no questions if you didn't answer he explained no but you don't need to do anything to tell them about how you were supplementing your original supplementary disclosure statement till after discovery was