what question correctly one question i had was with the rd party information if we were to conclude hypothetically that the names of the life should be redacted does that take away the vast majority of the concerns raised here with regard to be the nd round of redactions some but not all your honor if you were to reject the names of the licensees that would issues it would not address unilife concerns about its own trade secrets and its only an interest in maintaining the confidentiality of those license numbers to connect can i ask you  assume for purposes of this question but your right to the legal standard of the balancing that the district court engaged in was not right nevertheless to read act was very substantially over brought why doesn't that nd basis suffice to support the the rulings on appeal which now include a nd ruling denying reconsideration on a basis that could have been available the right to go back and read addressed issues specifically relating to licensing amounts we could not constitution which the court said no you over redacted and therefore you don't get a nd chance could have you presented a case and i think i understand the sort of core notice idea or something behind behind this point but do you have a case that says that i those somewhat in reverse order i would suggest that the question of reconsideration is a bit of a red herring in that we also appeal the original order this is not an appeal just of the rejection of the motion for leave to file reconsideration rather we use that as a chance to give this court the chance to address those documents again and put into the record the retrenched redactions regarding whether it's an abuse of discretion i can't find a case like that because no court has ever said this is the only chance you get to see these documents and this particular information which every court in the north industry california ever to address this has said these are traits i could not find a case in which the court said no you don't get another chance every single instance in which this particular issue has been addressed in the northeast california every single one of those every other party has been given the chance notice issue that judge toronto referred to briefly why if this court had said you get you're going to get one chance to do this you wouldn't be here i assume right i mean your suggestion is that you're arguing that you should always get a chance because that's what everybody else does you positing that even if the judge had said to you st off you're going to get one chance to do this guys and you better get it right would you still be here situation every single precedent every single example has given the parties the chance to go back and do it again in retrospect yes it would have been a better practice if we had known if we'd ever seen anything like this we w asked for more time because frankly when we got the motion at ten thirty pm on friday and had to file the motions to seal the following tuesday we did not have time to address the line by line points in retrospect that would have been a better practice if the court had said you get one and only one chance that is my rule that would be one thing but that's not the situation you see here and we're not suggesting that the court say that  i'm on the assumption that you're you're right about the premises here about a consistent practice cannot be changed without advance notice and you know relevant to circumstances like this even though they're you know it's not it's not like changing a formal rule it's changing what you say is the uniform practice everywhere and any of the parties here have been able to not that the district court i mean there's nothing that suggests that all district court judges in a particular jurisdiction have to follow the same rules correct correctly don't just instance everyone is not a that a district court can't decide on his or her own that they want to be a little more stringent and scrupulous about how they view these documents what's the problem with that the problem the problem is that it does not give the party notice on how you should have handled the matter at that point perhaps going forward it would but from that point when in terms of extreme i would address again with thousands of pages those motions were denied once twice three times four times over your face and apple reduced its focus from two hundred and fifty documents to thirty and in each do you get what if you had gotten one trial and one try and just tear it down to sixty percent of what you were asking for and the judge clearly within his discretion says that think judge toronto may have another question which you should hear what i had i would agree that at least one try is sufficient if the district court judge made that a mistake of law or upon the loss of the facts or for that matter a mistake a practice then i would submit that there is still an issue that could be appealed to this court i certainly agree that abuse of discretion is a very high standard but i would also submit that judge the judge in the court below uses discretion and so even if a party is given a nd chance and the judge says no i still don't agree with this it's all going to be public if there's information in there that should be seal to remember in apple samsung was the argument made or addressed by this court that your respective of the details of what was your rebuttal time let's hear from s mom are you there ye between apple the samsung we think supports our position because there you hide initially a large list of potential trial is that it's very common that the parties have a long list of things they think may get into trial and that doesn't happen and being cited for the st time not accompanied with an opportunity to narrow and maybe you're saying well yeah that's the st time but there are no other circumstances where the initial request was sufficiently was a opportunity to narrow initially overprice requests and by soon you're also saying even doing it for the st time is perfectly legally sufficient saying overbroad go away these documents are in our in the are now going to be in the public record unless you come back and show us something that you couldn't have told us the initial round and in fact they had months and months for they could have done that and we put them on notice that the you know reduction for overbroad and i mean this is entire pages of the legal argument section were rejected yes but again the notice we're talking about mr moss is the notice that they didn't recognize because of the practice in the district or otherwise that they would not get another cha to be honest there there are unfortunately a lot of patent cases in particular courts don't always do the rigorous analysis and scrutiny of the assertions that are supplied in support of a ceiling request excessively just a lot of these actions but that's kind of the reservation we're having which is that the they whether they had a sufficient basis to think that this was going to be a problem or at least they wouldn't get a nd chance can i just move you on to one question we started with your friends on the other side which is what about the rd party names of the licensees i mean even if for the reasons you say there's nothing that's ever been  the get go why do we penalize or apply next ordinarily stringent rules to the private to the interests of rd parties who were don't bear any responsibility for whatever excesses we to their names and disclose the substantive information anonymously and that has never been a request that was before a judge also it's not even our quest that here on the rd try appellant is willing to accept and i in and voiced their concerns about being identified as that's not right i believe that they have voiced concerns about the identified but what we're saying is that you know i have never suggested or accepted think it's the fact that it is not amenable to that solution reflects the fact that the privacy of rd party licensing is not the driving rationale for the ceiling request and one could figure that out is that wrong i took it it was something on the order of what i just said to mr jacobson was diverting to to be honest i don't know i don't know how to two thousand and ten and i you know i so i don't know and don't have any ground based on what is publicly available to think that we could reverse engineer based on the date wholly failed to provide a declaration in a timely manner of the rules required and the court did not give them a nd chance so it is we agree that courts have discretion in this matter to give multiple chances but they also should have and we think the local was allowed to give them discretion to give parties only one chance and and then or set a high standard such as meeting the reconsideration standard who will seventy nine before they can come back and try to fix apple would not oppose arraignment for instruction to seal the information i think it's the table in exhibit a to apple's original motion below that information to us makes good sense we all t let me just be clear on that so the to buy extra year you're saying that you would not oppose taking the table which just does not just consist of a licensees name consists of all the information about the licenses yes i think it means amount and time i think there are i don't know for all of the cases but at least some of them i think there is a distinct possibility that you could match them certainly in amounts in time to leave some of the cases that were settled and so for case it was that the district court pointed out a lot of what your life was trying to steal included citations to federal circuit case law and things that business court i think it called out in re violation of rule twenty a d as a matter that should not be seal do what about the alternative to sort of sanction i mean i course i'm not recalling any particular case but i know in our in our experience when people overreact in the old days of confidentiality over marking i think our course would be if there was a significant overreaction including names of cases and kind of things you're talking about here the court would do a notice to show cause as to why the party should be sanctioned but what the relief provided was not that we don't love them to have any confidentiality markings at all because of th given for reconsideration and the reasons for rejection of reconsideration was that the requests were still on just of not just that they could have been made at the st round is that right  could be that you have to meet the local rule seven and that's what happened in that case you have to meet the standard for reconsideration and when you have reconsideration denied on the grounds that everything you are now saying you could have said before agree that if it addressed the failure to have done it right the st time kind of explained that it would be fully on point i do think it still is helpful to show the district court you do have discretion and have exercised that in the past  clarification i know you have very little on left and i don't want to use that but your friend from apple which as i understood just expressed that he would not oppose this table of the licenses is there or is there more stuff that the licensees are arguing about or is the most of the information that some dispute clued in the table that mr were interviewed if you referred to the certain party licensees are only concerned about that document there are other rd parties that are concerned about other matters for example the loan agreements and other financial information that have rd party information in them but in terms of the licensees it's only that one table ok thank you both sigh and the case