and we resume in may and they're on their seventh witness they haven't completed their case and we have approximately fifty witnesses briefly and the ground lyon has inspected by u s d a which they're required to be inspected by u s d a and winds required to pay for that they have found inspection certificates where either the inspectors name was forged by someone or the results of the inspections certificate were altered and that is in six different loads out of thousands of loads you know of these the documents in controversy here right here on earth the only thing they are required to show us are the documents with respect to the loads that they are discussing check sheets that were seized from lyon what we have observed in the proceedings the administrative proceedings is that when u s d a completes the inspection they're supposed to fill out the line checks  photocopy with lion which were seized by the government and retain their original lines actually what we are asking for in our for your request is the u s d a retained line because the next hearing we have found at least two instances where our line check sheet that they left us with does not compare with the life check sheet that u s d a retained because after they gave us our copy they added more things to it and that's happened on two of the six loads we are asking for a copy of our own wine check sheet that u s d a retained a copy of which is  raisins there is no provision in it for them to change alter and add to what they left the copy of us with isis and the thing is that since we never see what they've retained we always presumed it's identical to we had but we have found out in this hearing they have added things they have changed things particularly in the remarks section which is on the right hand column of the line check sheet i've i've provided a copy of one of  the dr clayton of u s d a claimed that since line is being accused of falsifying inspection certificates and one check sheets it would interfere with the law enforcement proceedings to provide the the problem with that is the fact that if they retained their original their original inspection certificate their original lin and provide us a copy of those what can we do to interfere with their we're not asking for give us the line check sheets that you're accusing us of in some criminal context or other context of of  into law enforcement exception they have to describe each document and showing how the release of that document would interfere with ongoing criminal investigations the only evidence that it would interfere with criminal ongoing criminal investigations is the ex parte under seal in camera decoration filed by the criminal prosecutor which of course we didn't get to refute and of course the major portion of our  opening brief in our reply brief is based upon ninth circuit precedent that says as much public information must be disclosed as possible before the court can ever rely on something in camera because the government has destroyed the adversary process because we cannot contest what is stated in a in a separation that we haven't seen the line check sheets were not compiled for law enforcement purposes the beast of an exemption for law enforcement means that they have to be compiled for law enforcement purposes why check sheets are not compiled for law enforcement or  i don't understand under what theory you would be entitled to the inspector general's report or the market service just to get your reports well the court relied upon louis and in our opening brief we we explain why lewis doesn't apply because in lieu of the defendant are they the person who subject to a criminal ongoing criminal investigation one of the entire criminal  investigative report that would disclose witnesses documents the scope and extent of the i r s investigation and in this case the problem is your honor it could very well be exempt the problem is before the district court could determine that it was exam to the district court was required to read the disk recorder never looked at the two investigative reports so what we have this is the court is expecting us to buy a pig in a poke based upon well it's an investigative report therefore can't be disclosed because the beast of an exemption only allows the exemption if they provide a detailed explanation as to why disclosing any portion of that report page by page would actually interfere with an ongoing criminal investigation why isn't it sufficient to say it's an investigative report and sit down it's not a public record or this or that investigative report but because of the seven exemption does not allow them to just say hey it's an ongoing investigation that's not a not but not that it's an ongoing investigation but that the document itself is of investigative report like a police report well in lois in the louis case which is the court is that what is the case that the government relied upon and what the district court relied upon in that case there was a detailed affidavit by the criminal investigator detail in why the investigative report would interfere with an ongoing criminal investigation all we know is that there were two supposed investigative reports done prepared one in one thousand nine hundred nine and one in the last part of two thousand early two thousand and one that supposedly was an inspector general report of u s d a regarding wind raisins they said well it's an investigative report therefore it's except the problem is the b seven exemption as just as described in have some of the information redacted write correct what you're all from the position as to what you want on your competitors line to actually if the court looks at the addendum to our reply brief we have provided a employee name the inspector name and all you end up with is the time that the inspection occurred and what the bare bones analysis of what the grade moisture of the races were for that particular inspection having those documents the bare bone results does not contrary to  eighteen point zero is the maximum allowed by u s d a u s d a is accusing lyon of all three reports falsifying inspection certificates scientifically it is utterly impossible to get three eighteen zero let alone seven eighteen zero because you have five thousand raising producers the ration producers bring in the ratings they're all in very in the present incoming moisture your honor there are some inspectors to do a correct job and when we get those inspectors that lie and they'll say you're eighteen four you've got to rewrite it and get the moisture out while block others you know let's cut to the chase do you do you have jack to what you not now know that they're seeking i believe i believe it's going to have the same infirmity whatever it is that the criminal side has with the lions getting its own that i'm not sure of that you have to take it off the table if that's what my colleague said i as i said i don't know what they said i'm inferring that there was some kind of reason why even the civil side of our office could know and i assume that was grand jury but if it's not then i'm law enforcement conceivably what law enforcement purpose could be frustrated legitimately frustrated by by giving lie in a copy of the original suppose that further that line is in need of preparing other documents to bolster some defense that it has it can no longer keep track of its own applications because it isn't sure at this point which  you got back were edited and which were not edited by byline maybe that's why i said i'm speculating that may be why my colleagues don't want them to see our retain copies because they don't want line the but the reason the very reason you you're given is it tells speculation that's true what you're saying is you know we can base a law enforcement exemption on speculation right my hope is that the affidavit law enforcement exemption apply to records compiled for law important for some purposes under the john doe decision it has to be compiled for law enforcement but it doesn't have to have originally  they can't get the u s d a copy now is that you think they might use it in the sense of their criminal case you don't know even though theoretically it's supposedly the identical document that they were in they can get they were given a the same fraud or different broader what they're what they're looking at now anything else if there are any questions about the proprietary aspect of the information even even acted as the report as as now there is willing to take the court might notice that throughout the appeal they continue to insist that they wanted some kind of code that would you know the packer for there's a problem but i'm not sure that in the raise an industry it's a small town it's a small business a packer just got a big federal contract for a school lunch program it's going to be beefing up on ten pound bags of rais right but these are we're talking about planets that are fifty years old and that incoming price is that it's a commodity by the racing bargaining association each year coming in and you could infer what someone's profit margin wa anderson made the point that if you had just said give us whatever you have on on lions then it would be appropriate to have on index where you say we have document one and it's this and we're not going to give it up because of that document to improperly maybe they didn't but there's no reason provide index and i'm under the circumstances that it seems to make some sense to me if you know your order if i think you're correct with respect to line check sheets of lyon they don't have to go through this line checks because this exemption blah blah blah what i'm concerned about with the spoke to that is the fact that the whole basis of the decision in this case by the district court was based they said that you have to make as much information public as you can before you ever start relying upon in camera sealed affidavits and here that the whole basis mr anderson can't even argue the point because she's never seen the official in denying my appeal from the forty officers denial where he says by the way judge coyle already said that you could get copies of what was  so i want to spell that rumor secondly with respect to first a seamless question regarding historical data you assume that the products already been shipped the marketing order requires that once the inspection occurs it has to be shipped out within five days in the quote at my page nineteen the affianced decoration it says per the disclosure might enable lewis to tamper with evidence which the i r s might subsequently request accusing us of call to find altering for gene we believe that these documents not only would provide a defense to the criminal case which i don't think they're ever going to indict i mean they just they served a search warrant three years ago they haven't subpoena any grand jury with this is as far as we know for years but we need a defense to the department case departing us from inspection puts out of business because inspections are mandatory incoming what the government wants to give us on the sixth if there are two hundred other loads which show that u s d a falsified or alter their own inspection certificates their own light check sheets they're the ones that have that information in information resource versus sun microsystems