so this roundtree you're here you're here somewhere ready to go threats ok the first case for argument this morning is fourteen five zero eight four very versus united states thank you your honor it may have please the court i implore heard and i am here today on behalf of the kansas way donors bringing this appeal this case comes before this court after almost a decade of litigation more than three thousand one hundred hours of work by attorneys for the landowners including paralegals and the justice department himself had spent about four thousand eight hundred hours almost a thousand more defending this case these leaders prevailed entirely on their points and have since been paid can i just let me stop you there because that the number you just gave us is the subject of a motion to supplement the record right so that number is not currently them we had in the course of discussions with the justice department earlier we had had some indications that they would provide it informally but at this point we had to request it formally with the foyer request and as to the the admissibility of this  of the record we think it's both obviously relevant it is not just relevant but there is no disadvantage we're prejudice to the justice to par because they produced and created these records and also no surprise when these are their own records there's no question claims to me you both went through some considerable time and effort making your arguments to the queen of mines that could have plans a lot of time to considering each and every argument presented to her and this wasn't there to factor if you presumably think this is a game changer at least an important factor well if that's the case then it should have been hers i mean essentially you're saying we'll throw out everything she said because now we've got this new information that was available before he and but we didn't ask for it  now we should just do a do over based on the new information how can that be appropriate we're not saying that we're saying you say it's a game played i wouldn't characterize the information as a game changer i do think that it certainly would provide some compelling support for  decision i believe you're referring to a good growth in two thousand and fourteen but that was not the final decision because it not only had reconsideration we still had to actually calculate the fees in consistency with judge firestone's decision so the two thousand and fourteen decision was not by any means the final word from the court of federal claims even before the before the motion for reconsideration but had the justice department provided that information within twenty days  to judge firestone and in the course of her in the course of the calculation these pursuant to her to the totally apart from that information that the justice enhancement unless such an explanation is given adequate appellate review is not feasible and without such review widely disparate awards may be made the words may be influence or appear to be influenced by the judge judges subjective opinion regarding particular tourney's with the importance of the case so here are the errors she made first she made blanket cuts with no evidence to support them of in for example in the kansas supreme court argument she cut that from six hundred hours to  star but the failure to use a prevailing market rate also conflicts with the supreme court's yours proves the rapes that she had out that there is no evidence at all in the record to support the what they call the d o j brakes which are thirty five percent less than the rates that are the salazar adjusted customarily used rate in the district of columbia so those are the rates that should have been done this court's footnote for by waters indicates that well then the court has produced some obligation to provide evidence on why the method they did it just laughing rates was appropriate and there is no evidence of any sort in the record to support that all there is is a footnote buster citation to a footnote in the department of justice is website that has the d o j laughing matrix either way you are adjusting the laugh you make of it the only question is are we going to just them based on the change in the cost of pizza cigarettes and  dry cleaning or are we going to adjust them based on changes in the legal service index which is what salazar is so that's why the third circuit embrace self check that's why this court noted  salazar with approval in the by waters decision i have asked reserve the balance of my time so very thank you please support i believe i heard counsel say that the federal circuit in by waters adopted the cabin on matrix if i heard correctly that is incorrect there the the lower court made this point clear and it's clear from a reading of the court's just this court's decision of my waters that there was no explicit adoption of the cabinet matrix so is it your view that the just discretion and it's quite as always the district court compelled for purposes of our being able to review their decision their choice between the two to give some analysis or explanation as to why they're picking one rather than the other  i believe that the character of the matrix itself speaks for itself but i also think the court needs to understand the context in which this was all presented to the court of federal claims their response this significant amount of evidence presented to the court and in addition to references to cases that have either affirmed the use of the standard laffey matrix or indicated expects press that its characteristics were sufficient for purdue where the court basically said the bottom line is when you're looking for reasonable hourly rates you look for prevailing market rates in the relevant community if you look at the standard laffey matrix it meets that but your friend relies extensively on produce but the are for another proposition the and that proposition is that the c f c erred in making percentage reductions and that clearly is not what produce stands for in terms of when adjustments are to be made on that point produce clearly says that the normal course for the lodestar calculation is that the court has to look at hours and the hourly rate make adjustments as it's determining the lodestar and then reach a lodestar figure which has a strong presumption of being reasonable that's exactly what the court did here in produce however the trial court made it was an upward adjustment after the lodestar had been calculated that's what the supreme court had a problem with that's what this court had a problem with and by waters and that's why those trial courts were reversed and the court was told the trial course hold on remember do the calculation in the beginning look at the factors that you determined were appropriate for adjustment and see if they fit properly with the loadstar calculation as it's normally done and this court actually by waters actually acknowledge that though the results might be the same the process is to be followed so this court realize that there is a sick there is a difference between making an adjustment before the load or as part of the lodestar calculation versus after appellant suggests that there's no difference at all a close read of both purdue and by waters  close read of the case not just of snippets of phrases taken out of context make clear that what the court is looking at is when the adjustments are made and whether it's in keeping with the strong presumption of reasonable ness that the lo words within the courts discretion and this is aside from all of the evidence that that's in the record with this is also in the record when appellants were in the c f c and trying to convince that court that the hourly rate it should be using they pointed out that the capital matrix rates were higher than the law firms rates the law firms nat national rates now why they say that said that then was they were trying to convince the court to use the hourly rates in their single the deposition she testified about the problems with applying the cabin or matrix for purposes of two terminating hourly rates for washington d c o n n i'm sorry i think i see it in your face and i'm i don't know what it means but i'm going to just  one footnote one and page nine ok or civilians who got suburbs are turning back to the expert of a balance sheet during her deposition testify that she had written an article in which she pointed out the problems with using the cabin on matrix for purposes of determining proper hourly rates reasonable aurally rates for washington d c that's found at the see if the docket number one sixty four dash one she does testify that some of the problems with the cabinet matrix included that the matrix addresses the basic consumer oriented legal services that are usually flat fee or usually very simple and it measures the inflation increases to other reasons why the c of c is use of the standard life the matrix was appropriate is because as i said it comports with the supreme court's guiding principles for determining hourly rates it provides two things it provides prevailing market rates and it's specific to the relevant community that's because the standard laffey matrix is based on d c hourly rates the laughing matrix back in eighty three was originally based on d c area rates they were adjusted yearly based on inflation so the laughing matrix the standard levy matrix began with the d c area the rates and its adjusted annually based on the consumer price index that specific to washington d c which is the relevant community in this case the laughing matrix also does something that appellant's speak to erroneous like the laughing matrix for i mean the consumer price index for the district of columbia addresses inflation rate for goods and services not just pizza delivery not just dry cleaning but goods and services that include legal services that's actually indicated in the salazar decision at one twenty three that the what's been submitted by appellant shows that the government explained that they didn't receive the original request so the time delay between the original request the second request that was made was just an error it's not say hey i thought their thirty four hours was way excessive what they would be good and now i'm looking at the other sides time spent and it's up there at forty eight whatever the number is so it changes my view of really what was an expense x excessive amount of time spent on this case it's got to be of some relevance that got to be cases of the district court where in order to evaluate the use of time for one side they get the records on the other side with all due respect had they made that argument you'd be right that no arguments not been made but that aside there's no reason why appellants couldn't have sought a stay somewhere saying to one of the courts we've got this big information never talked about it before but now it's a big deal and we need to get it and we would like for you to stay the proceedings so we can get that information presented to you for the first time that was not done there's no indication as to why they felt their hands were tied simply because the government wasn't able to collect all of the information and if you look at the number of cases for which they originally requested this boy information there are quite a few cases i i knew the number but perhaps over one hundred or i don't the the motion will show that there is a long or it were part of the materials there were many cases that was pared down ultimately but i still don't see how the timing of the government right or wrong whatever the reason was i don't know why  there is no reason and they often a reason as to why they didn't go to the court and say please stay the proceedings until you receive this material here pages are missing which is why i gave you the docket number as opposed to a joint appendix number so i apologize the only thing i can offer though is that perhaps when you return to chambers you can go and look at the testimony from her deposition was supposed to be in the joint appendix but those pieces are pages are just missing so i apologize which is why i offer you docket numbers repeatedly brought up to judge firestone that the reason the fees and the time which so excessive was because of the conduct of the justice department and we noted particularly in the briefing below as we do here that the justice department's own making this a test case a scorched earth litigation strategy on their part required us to devote the time that we had to spend to it now what we didn't have with that supplemental information is actually the numbers the actual hours they spent but the issue was certainly before judge firestone and it was they are below we just couldn't quantify it until they finally answered therefore your question the second time was twenty one or twenty it is twenty days it is my understanding for your stature and i believe we cited in our supplemental reply is that it's twenty days and they have to respond to that and as you mentioned we had one outstanding where requests never responded to that now said they washed it or didn't receive it can send it certified mail then finally we get this other request that we said we did to make it in time that we would still have that information before judge firestone entered her final decision in the calculation of the fees and hearings very frankly after that that's my recollection rapes adjustment there's just not that's not so that's not the record that's not something judge fires don't consider read her opinion her opinion says the reason i'm adopting these rates is because i found a website and she suburbs of virginia may not be appropriate for the prevailing rate that's a qualification she made during her deposition in no way to she dispute using the salazar adjusted laffey matrix that we've used in this case on the facts and circumstances of this case but most importantly in this case the justice department admitted that my firm's hourly rates were in fact consistent with prevailing market rates in washington d c now my friend was talking and she said how we conceded the point that our normal customary rates in europe fox are somehow less than the salaries are laughing that's correct it's very nominally less when you had it up out of more than two matrix too well to make that if you just let me know finally the the challenge that we have to judge firestone adjusting the lodestar it's a challenge not to specific our only adjustment she made about two hundred thirty seven hours that she excluded from the building for very specific reasons we've not challenge that but we challenge to these placate unjustified percentage cuts across one category of  ten percent when it could cut just because there's a few properties a twenty five percent cut or seventy five percent cut in the fees for this can't the argument in the kansas supreme court there's no reason for there's no statement that you know you spent forty hours on thirty percent across the board cut there because five of the plane just were originally dismissed well this court reversed judge firestone and now three of those played have been paid and were brought back in the case and that kind of prevailing plate is we have any time that's specific to an individual plate if that was dismissed was excluded from the billing requests the only time that was there that they were while they were in the case before she dismissed them and later this  percent cut in the lodestar fee that we submitted be considered to be consistent with what congress intended in the uniform relocation act to enable people such as this to bring their case and to have the justice accomplished for their claim for the