the protective order in place is is not the only thing we're looking at i think we would drill down a little bit on that and say that the judge applied the wrong standard and the the matter back to the lower court to have them actually do the proper balancing to actually apply this court standard to determine whether the documents which are still labeled protective order but the parties because we recognise that that and conferred and decided that a large part of them a large number of the most ignorant facts were not properly classified as confidential and and just decide which of those documents which of those reductions we would like removed we could do that we haven't done that yet because the question is a bigger question whether we're even going to get to do that and that's why we're asking this court reassess counsel still do care about it and leaving us with with documents that are redacted so we can't release our confidential documents because we're less than that but you would have thought that the appeared in front of not straight who indicated that he had read in re roman catholic archdiocese recognized that there was a standard that he had to apply that was a good cause standard was going to have to go through some substantial work and recommended to the parties those parties the be adams and the county that they spent time going through these documents to see to see if they could agree on which documents were made by counsel because it's a little different than what's presented in the brain the reason why there are additional documents that were not subject to the amendment after the were subject to the original with the magistrate judge so any challenge there has been waived and clearly not profit at this point and the related protective order well you can challenge at any time there's been no formal challenge to those additional documents and be clearly would be have the boy i mean it would be beyond exception there because at this  now additionally mr manning said his client work part or his client wasn't party to the motion filed by the that's not correct they joined in that motion and requested to but when we filed the the amendment the proposed amendment there was no objection asserted by the plaintiffs who would still party to a pm when joined in that motion and they've been provided the documents which have had the confidential designation removed with very minimal reaction reaction are required by the law really not beyond what would be what the county would have to the document and share five that they have done so no they have not your honor they documents that were never challenge or then the challenge was withdrawn and should say they never complied and do not return those documents and then since they filed the bill as in the documents that had been challenge we have not pursued that issue but no they have the originals have never been returned but even then new documents without the designation and with the considered a collateral ordered offering for the same reason all under the collateral or her offer of the same reason and even if you get past all of those points there's a huge moves factor in that like we've been talking about these documents th the issue remains were when relief and be given at this point and it doesn't seem to be an issue that would come up again because it's very specific to the protective order entered in this case for these parties for  pacific documents there's no legal issues still to be determined and i think it's very difficult to start making any kind of good cause analysis of this point as we got past that point we litigated it again and there were reasons and the county able to merely decided not to pursue the good cause issues don't i and unless there are questions on that point from later on and i don't really want to waste the time getting into that and the nations have been removed before us sure that's true we should just regard that i can't speak definitively at this point but as a document then aren't challenging remain confidential and subject to that protective order and the laws that require them to be returned or destroyed i imagine that would be the next step in due course i would just like to really emphasize it seems like we're talking now in this case although that's not s out in the briefing so it's a little surprising today about documents that were not the subject of a later motion to be along with the plaintiff and those documents some once we understood what the documents work which took a while to get that information and we recognize that they were properly classified or properly confidential and we did not proceed on that basis but we were not party to what the b and d and the county agreed to so we don't actually know except by going through every documents no precisely which of the documents that we that they that we didn't and we were not part of the suit so there are some documents out there now i think that's getting into the weeds a little bit because the main thing is that we should be back in front of the magistrate we were to get iran to stop so it's not something that we should be doing before the documents which were not subject to the stipulated protective order reached between the d adams and the county and then he reviewed those redactions which we believe are not