requiring it to continue this collection and significant expense to the agency so is there is there anything left in the case other than the piece of the district court order that deals with getting the percentage of response the response rate up so that response rate th and it's not as opposed to burden but that is ancillary to the main part of the relief which is and then is that it so if you have the associated filings that it's records and then the percentage match but beyond that as for the governments concerned there's nothing left and correct me if i'm wrong as i understand there's informational standing in the sense that arises for example i under the freedom of information act where you don't have to in order to have standing to claim a f don't have to show that the lack of the information would have an impact on your organization's services or activities because you're just intitled to the information even out of your we are curiosity so that is one version of what we refer to as informational standing and here i take it that these plaintiffs are not claiming that kind of standing there claiming that there is information that before the the sea was legally required to obtain and that the lack of that information had demonstrably the fact that they showed with declarations on their representation of clients on their public education activities on their you know monitoring the workplace and so it's a more traditional standing and parade and in a way it's informational standing in the sense that they're what they're wanting is information but it's not in that narrow for us and i i take the plaintiffs here to be arguing that you your claim that you need a  information is comes out of that like for want of a better word narrowing term the sort of point of type information standing and then it doesn't apply where what they're claiming is a right to information that they would use and the harm is to their activities and what's your response to that i do want to briefly bracket we take issue and i think it comes up more in the remedy part of the discussion but we don't agree that you see what's legally required to collect right and i have a question about that also but i just take that press to take to take up arms for now we disagree that the the international standing doctrine is as narrowly confined to the sort of conception of the showing my saying for example we represent plaintiffs and people pack cases and that information that this is e o one amended foremans is seeking to get would be tremendously important and helpful  obligation on the e e o c to collect data via and you know one and it can only use the currently invalid approved and you know inventory the whole baseline of this litigation you wouldn't bring a case to invalidate a stag of an obligation without assuming that what would happen when the state is peeled back is that the obligation would then be revived so the notion that it wasn't litigated feels i'm not entirely following you because i agree it wouldn't be right to live in gave  story so i guess one way to think about it is this yes let's just let's presume that you're right that there wasn't an obligation to collect the information because ios he could come up with a reason not to collect it that would be true baseline expectation when the stage of it and the baseline expectation i think was that both the component wanted component to data would be collected because the only thing that was stopping that was a step and then yes it's true that something else could happen so years he said look yeah right now you've got to submit the revised as the regulations says and their latest revised one includes the component two and you've got to do that there could be something that comes along that caused the u c changes mind sure that could happen but the base legal obligation as to that either right yes you have we would say that and the but what happened here was the district court went so far beyond relief that is clearly in the limits of appropriate relief circumstances such practical difficulties associated with collection reconsidered its decision to collect the data so yes you had made a decision to collect the data to be operating on that decision yes although i think i think there  the government may have had a different understanding standings d sooner than others in the case about what would be realistic in terms of the logistics of the collection earlier and perhaps that could have better been better communicat circumstances where after multiple trips back to egypt even if you still haven't complied with a clear legal directive from court that the court has acknowledged the power to go for that if that's not the circumstances here again you see you was under no legal obligation other than acknowledging that they had been lifted and that had already to go forward with this clash and was under no legal obligation to take these particular actions so plan is the only option the government you bring another implication of your position just that they would have to then move for some kind of judgment or relief against of c so that the legal issue would be briefed about what the what the commission obligation ends and whether it has difficulty or are reasons to stray from assumed baseline that an eon would go out each year it's possible that could work or maybe there could be an amendment to the complaint somehow but that the meaning is that the claim some version of that legal argument needs to be brought up at five and litigated in the ordinary course that simply wasn't passed and here is the legal obligations were assumed by the court the court didn't seem to think had the government made clear early that hey even if the stay is removed you know you're going after a barrage here because there isn't any obligation on  to produce this and i think that comes out in the standing argument perhaps that it could have been presented differently in more of a remedy question although again the government never imagined that this grant that you really was very unexpected but that this standing argument does say that you know there is no requirement for you see to collect this in the st place and certainly no obligation to disclose and that nd point is conceded so that the sort of sh dispute about whether the response rate is adequate under the district's order and then that there's got to be some there's going to be subsequent briefing and argument and a determination about that february we have to be have we have  collection throughout litigation of the district court plaintiffs recalling the government we are eager for a decision in this case a timely manner so that we can be got a collection schedule for spring two thousand and nineteen could include component to the government never told us us form including component to be back in effect and as discussed with the government the e u says regulations requiring that employer submit data handily and the form of submission is controlled by the currently accrue paperwork reduction  that you would be i guess what was the basis of your assumption many years see you would necessarily collect data under whatever lawful form  are mechanisms for it to do so it couldn't receive the new paperwork reduction act approval to change the form or their on their options to exercise that story but can't do is just change the form without receiving a new approval and thereby not complying with the district court's order couldn't read couldn't use really only approved form but tell employers on its database i guess assert some of what are dead were not actually asking you submit the data and under the for the new component till we get some more bugs worked out and i guess the question is why was that not something that is your burden to seek relief against or or protection against by actually litigating that point given that you are you know at this point that you are serious and are one resistant about this and it's an agency with its own  authority to figure out how to go forward but i think if you if you're honest step back what was happening in march of last year before they just recorded the summary judgment opinion i think issued and they got a collection of opened with only component one component whether it was complying with the district court's order and i find the e e o c was unable to governments and you excuse me was unable to tell the district court when you intended to impose the component if you got a collection or any plans for compliance thereafter the parties had several opportunities to submit papers explaining the government had an opportunity and time to put forth a plan which eventually did which is essentially the planet district court imposed and so it could be just to clarify when it opened the be a regular course that's a question about the response rate part of it so where does that if there's even if you think that there was an expectation testimony to the district court heard in march from the c c p the officer but i think what's important as to the question of whether this remedy was within the district court's discretion discretion it's revisit some of the factual determinations that the district court made with your really unrefuted by the government would say that the district court could order one hundred percent response rate and it seems like what what i took to be your position and i'm not sure whether i'm understanding here is that the district judge was acting within remedial powers the nature of which was to try to put the plaintiffs in the position they would have been an but for the unlawful step and not necessarily involves some kind of factual and as you say because of the nature of the violation and was in effect a slow walking or a prevention of something that was time limited there was some urgency we're trying guess accounts for you know pushing to get this far but in terms of the percent collection to be radical to your position and she looked at what the percentage response rates were in the past on the years he was  have never gotten some permission how do we know what the response rate is when the system is functioning in a healthy way we're going to look to the only family we have and whether that was you know as finally done or insensitive to the difference in the nation that is  actually require it i'm not sure i'm following that that one reason either because if they have if they are if the idea is you're supposed to mimic what happens there's no requirement in the water or anywhere i think that the response rate has to be the same every cycle what happens is you get the response rate that you get just because it happened to be say eighty five percent last time doesn't mean there's an entitlement eighty five percent the next time it means you get the response rate that failure to follow through there's a pay actions that could be brought for that but in terms of the authority to compel even if we assume that the goal was to carry forward a response rate that had been roughly in existence before is there actually  legal obligation to continue the same response rate the next cycle i think as far as like a standalone piece in the st instance i think it's unlikely there would be a cause of action or that that in terms of the district court ensuring that the government actually comply with  obligation to you so there they were committed to the collection and i guess where i'm from from whence arrives the legal obligation to be committed to the collection of this data i mean whether that i think there's another issue about using that benchmark for the response rate which is this is a very different kind of data it's it's maybe more voluminous harder to collect i don't know but certainly a new data collection so the idea that the well oiled machine that's been in place for decades and gets a ninety plus percent you know when would that be an apt benchmark for the brand new type of data back to question but that but the underlying question of how great thing is why do we assume as a remedial benchmark that the agency has to be put its shoulder to this wheel why don't we use the ordinary in their arguing you remember the agency view to see the agency and it can it's a new day it's doing things differently now if the agency had undertaken to impose a component to in the st place got a mean of the prior four years that's something the government didn't contest at the district court and i think i'm asking the more basic question which maybe we've just beating this dead horse already but the notion that there is an standing the response rate and the monthly report with the government appeal is nearly mooted we expect that the district court will in fact have a collection wind down with use for a big chunk of that so that his records and it can continue to be live for additional period is that also moot and i think the government so you peel back but is that something that matters to you in any way whether that today it seems to me is premised on the notion that a lot of things were sued in the district court and never abused the district court that before it enters summary judgment and distinct from offering a lot of interesting opinions on the issues that the parties have addressed in their brief but this this train has left the station is largely out i agree but there are all we're saying is that there may be ways in which and warner is saying that the state never should have an impact either affect the way the information is treated or of the allegations of employers in a form on you may be right a lot of points but the train has left the station so what are we going to do now campbell trying to back up and we'll start all over again no but you've already started all over again by proceeding you just you know and don't know for sure right and i'm wondering if it matters in terms of how you think your clients will treat anything let's say the data that they've collected all right the compliance rate and the reporting we're not saying anything about the legal issues under law and the government's appeal that's all i'm getting at we're just saying it's no longer a case or controversy obligation for when the argument what i'm getting at is they have said they're not going to insist on the compliance rate so let's go on the thirty day obligation is gone  line for us to deal with except by advisory opinion on a lot of very interesting issues in the question about that but you haven't forfeited any of them or weight room and in there have happily that's all i'm trying to get the station that the court is not expressing and you on your challenges to what happened in the district court those issues will all come up in didn't the february th date is indeed for a dream filing about the status of things but if the district court especially contemplated that it could require further actions by the commission beyond that point and it is that i mean let's suppose that those issues do get resolved yes and i understand your point that they have been resolved and we can't be sure that they will be if those issues do get resolved and the collection is closed off and everybody agrees that the collections closed off and the district  signs on to that and says ok i'm satisfied then there's a possibility that you want to preserve which i understand that there's still me it may be a life controversy as to the standing issue because that could have real repercussions so you haven't made a definitive conclusion about that you least want to preserve the ability to argue that and then let's suppose further and hypothetically you're going to resist this but let's suppose further that we agree with that and then we issue a decision that says that there is standing and then at that point there's nothing there's no need at that point to do anything further