instead of applying this circus holding the gram one that the discovery rule applies to all civil claims under the copyright act the district court created an exception for the application of the discovery  reasoned the discovery did not apply to a d r yet because a b i will not need an equitable extension there is no legal authority in this circuit to support the district court's refusal apply the discovery will a b i and copyright claim additionally there is no legal authority to support the district court's reasoning that copyright plaintiffs first show in applicable the so i don't see that it causes any problems certainly causes any problems with respect to well let me ask you this your honor are you asking with respect to the discovery rules cause an issue because as the rd circuit held in graham one the discovery rule applies to all civil claims under gram to we came up with that it was a tolling rule i guess i guess my question would be which is it and does it matter whether it's in a cruel cruel rule or tolling rule is it a cruel world in and your position is that you adequately pleaded deliberate concealment of it in this matter so you need not do anything more this stage is that supports your position there's some contrary gardy from the district of columbia circuit some years ago and phillips versus time  do you distinguish that cage of you think it's just an outlier should not pay any attention to  act and of course you know that is in the law and that circuit for some time which has been entirely consistent we follow it and should remain a lot of charity thank you investigation and diligence that is the factual issue and it cannot be resolved on a motion for judgment on the please thank you note and i keep your time is up  puerto rico why somebody in good standing to practice medicine there and in your florida north carolina he was on the one new york television news on monday been interviewed for how he's voluntary  about point of a b i am just to identify the party it's a business it's not really a board it doesn't have any governmental or academic already it simply is there to make money and it's in the lucrative business of providing so called board certifications in the field of internal medicine which is the specialty of dr sallis rush so and this has nothing to do with any school this has nothing to do with anything any licensing requirements it's in and using them that's made available to young physicians which dr sells rushford was back in two thousand and nine started out his career in puerto rico and he took a test prep course offered by a b i am certified physician in new jersey and this course was recommended to all me didn't know anything about the course it had no connection with the instructor and at all relevant times dr saltz russia acted under the guidance of the f b i i'm sort of fired physician who was teaching the course d i am exam and he never communicated any questions that he saw on his exam to anyone so that's a little confusing for misleading the posture of this case the before he took it in august of two thousand and nine preparation which was under the guidance of the a b a i am certified test prep instructor are you arguing the merits of your case rather than for more than five years after the alleged cause of action accrued and to the point raised by judge sirica the statute of limitations in the copyright act does refer to a cruel well we've got here right and so i'll move on to that they allege that but but nevertheless there's no doubt that the a quarrel was in august two thousand and nine so it's unclear there's no clear authority under the of cruel starts the clock then this case is over there they were certainly more than five years after the your cool so now going on to the discovery rule if the court applies the discovery rule there's also no question that the law of the circuit is that the discovery rule is an equitable to it's got to be equitable where is the equity there's got to be allegations that equitable tolling is appropriate those allegations are not going to be i am complaint they don't make the  point they need to make to justify equitable tolling and judge below cited the supposed case quoted from it which sets forth the three prong test for equitable fraudulent concealment no your honor the use of the elements for equitable tolling doctrine because again it's a tolling but it has to be equitable so you have to have proof and allegations that equity needs to apply or to prevent injustice and in the law and this circuit certainly and i get to some of the other circuits to it that's pretty much true at other circuits well but it's very clear in this circuit that when the plaintiff discovers their cause of action within the state should limitations period then there is no need to plot apply equitable tolling it doesn't apply they realized their claim within the original statutory period and a b i am alleges that in their complaint that they became fully aware of all the facts they needed in january of two thousand and twelve to write in their complaint paragraph fifty and then the original stay and she did not expire until august of two thousand and twelve whole they had all the facts that they needed and they admit that more than the six months before that original with a case where the identity of the defendant was unknown output judge hyde and primarily based her decision on and she said they had more than six months to file the complaint and she had by the way when they filed it st of all they didn't file it for another two and a half years more than two and a half years they didn't file and when they did filed it was just mostly a copy and paste job of a complaint they filed against the mouth instructor in defense of them birth two thousand and ni might argue counsel that's not a matter of did they needed eight months or more than a box if you get their argument is that if the discovery rule apply they get three years from that time not just whatever's left of the original special limitations how do you respond to that yeah you're out of that should not the law of this circuit it's an equitable tolling director it's not an entitlement it's a doctrine that it's rarely used or it's justified by the equities of the situation am i always very clear about that there's another case of counting ham which i cite in my brief which says we will sometimes make an exception to the statue of limitations rule where its rigid application would be unfair because the defendant concealed its wrong and prevented a diligent point from bringing her quiet within the limitations period this is not such a case of putting cunningham the circuit and if not the case here is even if there were fraudulent concealment and that's about properly alleged either but even if there were it is necessary to allege to prove that but even if it were a v m since they knew more than six months before the statute expired so under kamiya it says that equitable towing only applies if the plaintiff was prevented from bringing her quiet within the limitations period and as i argued below and i believe judge and i'm quoting this i mean what attorney when you hear about a cause of action and your statute of limitations is more than six months away what attorney ignores and just goes through that station limitation it's not discoverable it's not an idle it's an equitable doctrine work if you didn't cover it until after the statute expired and you had no way to meet the statute then in a rare exception the court will bend the statue of limitations and allow but here a b i knew they knew within the statutory period there's no reason to bend the rule say well we knew about the touts instructor in two thousand and nine but we couldn't find dr saltz russian friends identity until two thousand and twelve that's more than two years later and they give no if b m provides no allegation of the two year delay why there was a two year delay or why there was another two and a half year delay after they allegedly found his identity before they sued there's none of that due diligence that has to be alleged unproven to satisfy the requirements of equitable tol a citation which opposing counsel five to the seven circuit opinion by judge posner but if you look at what he said near the end of that decision is the expression he says that we do not think aquittal poing should bring about an automatic extension of the statue of limitations for the length of the tolling period or any other definite time it is after all an equitable doctrine it gives a plaintiff extra time if he needs it if he doesn't need donating to the station because artful pleading to always create a custom made new statue of limitations for players and the copyright case and that's certainly not what the copyright act tries to do with that three year short statute of human concealment and in that case it the party in that case there was no issue about a party where it came aware of injury allowing those periods if not with how for how long or when the claim accrues because whether you call it a cool or tolling the entire point and that as well is that this circuit you know has recognized that there are certainly going to be plenty of circumstances where happy right playing it is not going to be aware for enjoyment of its work and it should be entitled to have the opportunity to discover that and to do and in allowing that discovery will for copyright point that not only q on necessarily why the american board of internal medicine need to teach the contents of an exam confidential the question we use but in this situation we have a defendant who is e being an it seemed to me at this point the american board of internal medicine or other thing enough is enough and say we will not pursue this case further