and say well you know help me out what was wrong with my application where was a week we have we have actually done that the answers have not been full and forthcoming organizations  accomplish by obtaining those identities and affiliations week five by knowing that we would be able to know whether or not the people who reviewed our applications there were not any conflicts between h s and those organizations between the people who were doing and whether or not there was any change in that process as set out in the army's papers and in the declaration darling friction there is a review  to make sure that the process is fair and is clean as possible because we believe one for ourselves if we get this grant money we're going to do the things that two we have and we have a nonprofit mission to benefit all people with aids in each i v and making sure the entire process itself is fair and  important value to all the people that we serve so that's the primary reason why we're interested in that information and believe that we have rights like any number of the public to that information that the flight is basic purpose that conflict either in the problem the process itself in the process the nature of what we're trying to do is we're trying to eliminate the reasons why we were not funded and that's one of them and i think there's an interesting day just knowing i think of public interest as well knowing that the process itself is clean and fair the grants providing the same services that you the list of people going back to the e mails the reaction pushing the e mails it's unclear whether any of those persons were involved in the decision any of the processes at all their names their titles do not match up to the decision process that was laid out in thousands of people who are involved in the process that i don't know your honor but i thought there was evidence in the record that there's a small community of people who are drawn upon to assess that's the characterization if it's a relatively small pool of people we're talking about me and their names are released it would compromise their ability to be candid because then they're going to say they will fear that their names will be exposed there will be pressure brought you know the community you know will impinge on their integrity there is there some credence to that idea that if you expose the names of the individuals who are doing the evaluation you fact that somebody reviewed an application and somewhere down the line the department of human services decided not to fund the application does not mean that it wouldn't take much to match up the person with their evaluation if you get enough information and that's i mean that's basically what you think you want to do you want to see if there's a conflict between some of the people who are doing the valuation in your organization so that's essentially what you want to do is to get the names of the people so that between that and the open government policy of fact haven't you been offered the identities of these people but without reference to specific decision making correct and again it's doesn't it doesn't get at the purpose that we're trying to establish whether or not there's been any the fact that we know you know the people who were involved and the objective review process in general doesn't mean whether or not any specific application has been in any way done unfairly the bottom line you got all the information except for the specific individuals who made the decision on your application at this point correct and again to the extent that that that that i reviewed whose applications and without that was my point about the deliberate deliberative process exemption is that if you do get the specific people who are in who reviewed your application how does that help the unfortunately it wouldn't because again i don't know whether what what what applications were reviewed by which people should look at all of those people and all the affiliations and whatever evaluation you want to make it so whether or not it's that particular person  this case stands from three separate point requests by its health care to the agency's in response to those requests approximately eight hundred documents have been released but was an issue in the district court where nineteen documents only two of which were completely withheld the rest is just portions of information what is now before this court is only fourteen documents one documents one through eleven are e mails where simply a line or sometimes a couple of words have been read acted and documents twelve through fourteen are just simply the names of our viewers which we've already been discussing this morning so is very limited amount of information and i think in the spirit of complying with the agency ha administrative level it went on in the district court and your honor asked mr myers about whether you know he had just called up and asked for some information about what had happened in terms of  they may have had an acceptable application however when the money comes in and sometimes there's not enough to go around there are three funding points during the year they may not have been funded a given time eyes are corrected they do now know the names of the universe of reviewers who were used in the application process is an issue those were produced in accordance with the district court's order which was granted in part and denied in part the agency's motion for summary judgment response that we did go ahead and release the names of the reviewers is approximately forty names so it is not an extremely large number of people certainly the identification of any names of individuals who perhaps have some sort of conflict christian indicates that at the time the review committee needs together to discuss applications there's a determination made about whether anyone in that room has a conflict with anyone else who is being reviewed and if that is the case that person not participate in the discussion of that particular service providers application what's your response to opposing counsel citation to the philadelphia newspaper obviously it's not a case that's fine in the ninth circuit right it is your court case from pennsylvania but how do you respond to your citation of that case to support his argument that the names and organization process of the agency in making these types of terminations so as mr christian explained to her declaration it is difficult to find people that are able to assist in reviewing these applications and getting good input analyzing them so forth so there was only a small amount of money paid to them to do this and as i understand it a large amount of work involved so to expose them to this kind of  public scrutiny or scrutiny specifically by the people that they're evaluating i think would impede that process it would certainly make them most willing to give frank comments about what they're doing and perhaps we would see something more of a generalized approval or denial without that the good rationale that we see in the documents even those that are just closed here so i think the names are central to protecting the process because those individuals are our pro they're the people who are making the determinations and and some tough calls about where money is going to go amongst a number of deserving providers service providers so without that specific rationale that may in the end h server if bidding was open for the oakland area they submit an application and clearly just been turned around and used over and over again that had the l a area on it or they used now question how inappropriate dates on it again this is a process whereby the service providers repeatedly request funds through the through the years and they can reuse their their applications they do hire grant writers to assist in that process at least from service providers too so these are things that were clearly missed or overlooked in which should have been a simple application process and could not be overlooked when it came to a limited pot of money that could be spread around to the service providers who were applying for it so he was given reasons why there were problems with his submissions and there were offers made to discuss those and correct them exemption which we lost on at the district court there is a quote in mr christian's declaration that indicates that mr myers has interpreted to mean that we are conceding on the issue that this doesn't tell us anything about the process or any component there i think we need to remember that she is talking about the basics exemption there which is slightly different and that's really talking about component to the bouncing test under exemption si and it concerns questions about the public's interest in shedding light on agencies with respect to their statutory duties i would liken it to monitoring their activities for example you know are they timely processing applications are they thinking processes involved in those employees interviewers who are looking at these applications and the interest there is really to protect that process and i think the best case that discusses that  assessing evaluating allocating awarding these funds as part of their statutory duty they said it has nothing to do with that they said it's personal information i think that makes it clear that it cannot fit under this layer of process privilege which deals with material set up to make a decision the exposures of which would harm that process and it has nothing to do with the process the disclosure of it cannot harm that process i did is a situation where the department's trying to say two different things about the same piece of that different relations get different funded at different times and there's a different measure of funding so one organization make it funded every july etc but the decision to fund itself appears to be made once i thought that doesn't council