case involves voting rights and voting power between the state and federal government who gets to decide who gets to vote sensually so it's an important underlying case that we are a tangent  things that are not in any way going to be court records but the red is things that the court actually relied on and then the white area is where the dispute largely lies or i should  something along those lines just trying to find out what was happening if we couldn't we were quickly then met with a sure denial going citing that the existing interveners adequately merits interveners in the underlying voting rights case adequately represented our interests and that the records we were seeking to unseal were court records no i've course of not seen these i don't really know i suppose what's there to be honest  you review his holding it so that there is an open question as to what is what in that white zone is a not relied on but not a relevant enough to qualify as a court record one of the defendant beaners in this case made a mission of sorts that the he reckoned that the judge could decide the case without going into this the sealed materials but he did cite them and so i think could is necessary but not sufficient to sort of if we're going to subdivide whitestone or push some of it into the blue or the red we're not the red i'm sorry it might get picked up so just thank you could decide a case that relying that doesn't mean that you that it's not relevant and i think that the test of relevance in fact the government doesn't seem to disagree with us they say in one of their headings that it's properly before the court and relevant we agree with that although we might quibble with the government about properly means in that construct but appeal you move to intervene and then you have another argument mag and that was based on new evidence hypothetically and your intervention is denied the court never gets that or if there's a late appeal you move for leave to appeal late and then you have other things to say if you deny we deny them would you say that the amica streets are no longer court records that people go aren't entitled no i don't think it's real if we did not accept i think if you could have i mean if you're if you're willfully ignoring arguments that are clearly true and the ending of certain legal if you are now if you say it's late then i suppose maybe the answer is yes i would maybe agree with that but if it's if you just and i believe we can we can refuse to allow the public to see that in this case and just records it was sort of like a fruit of a choice in history sort of situation they affectively misled a series of forks and then they were lying on their victory here and that is something that you could take into account in the public and i'm actually running o court has made so when metlife this court made clear that where something in the sealed material is part of the administrative record on which the decision had to be based and went to a claim that was actual result i think metlife only applies to administ examination of the merits of the other pulling their injunction wrong cannot be complete without review of those materials under seal here if the court warden average is less than two and seal it so you like the issue was whether it shows up in the final opinion you just said what the courts do or do not what does or does not persuade seems unless the arguments were very much to the court to look at those materials part is just its decision making process even if they don't actually end up in the right this isn't somebody who took a bunch of slanderous stuff or a bunch of information involving a search warrant that wasn't relevant and threw it into the record the district court approved propositions yes r been considered until after resolution a privilege imagine i'm reading your brief and i agree with the st part and i say well i don't need to read the rest and in my opinion i say i didn't need to read the nd half of the government's pre supplementing ministry records someone says i lose on the current record but i win if you look at these additional materials and here's all my arguments as to why you should look into conditional material and it's and then we issue a decision suppose we don't think we don't there probably part of the ministry of record what half those of those briefs we think would depend on their the rationale that the court actually i mean that's of course not what actually happened here but we do think that it would depend on the rationale that the court gave and if the rationale were simply  this wasn't part of the administrative record we don't ever need to look at the documents then you would need to look at the underlying documents if however we're going to be indicated i think we very well may have looked at the documents and the process of trying to understand the other parties argument and if you can't do that we think this is a very close call here's all the arguments for including in the record here's the ones against the they balance out everything's in judicial record and we come and go this is an easy case their arguments fail they're not in the admission of evidence so if this court is already told repeatedly it's common ground that not every family has digital records and if the only decision is x and not because i looked at the underlying material and you know it's more prejudicial th were argument i did not refer to material that's not probably in the administrative record would be would be would be a judicial record so you're not resting it really at all on the point that the court didn't reach or need to reach that's not part of your you have to drop that totally from your argument no your honor we think that although although we do think that it could be an independent ground for ruling us in this particular case truth that would be an independent ground to but it's relevance to the question of here are the ordinary presumption where the seal material goes of things that court should not consider before making a war that they that they are properly admissible and then there's no get around to the merits without reaching it he didn't say you had to in other words it wasn't necessarily relevant it could be bypassed but that didn't they did not something they could rely on so it could have a light on and it's a could have these records were submitted under seal without going through however that's hundreds a two way street it's not a lot of your crap you can go in easy but it's hard to get out so this report misbehaves here and so that's part of this and that is i guess the other the problem was because we didn't have an appeal it seems to me we could sue the clerk to get access under the st amendment the clerk is not a judicial officer is not immune and that would just be worse than what we're trying to do