good morning good morning your honor may please the court my name is jeff weingarten and i'm here on behalf of the defendant appellee viber media as a r l formally viber media inc our position of course lack of information around what all these terms meant and how they how they actually work and what the trade secrets are behind them he determined that by looking at the cartoonish lines as he called them and by looking and by reading the euro chang hoe declaration and the march declaration he could not determine what the trade secrets are that there weren't any trade secrets identified and that th basis of his decision the the problem with the reply that my understanding put in is that she's on the one hand arguing that that there was an issue with judge solomon parsing of this the scheduling order that he has submitted and and so she's saying that in reply that she's not really complaining about the scheduling order if you recall there was a phase one in phase  ordered to produce shall produce to a defendant by media all materials and information which they allege were disclosed and or provided to viber and container constitute trade secrets are confidential confidential information on the plaintiffs and it goes on to identify the trade secrets that or that were set forth the new men a complaint argument is that  because judge solvent made the decision based on solely won't was not produced in phase one in other words that next was not able or did not of those indicate that you first have to identify what the trade secret is in the proprietary information is once you do that then you're out of phase one you can go into phase two and everybody can get discovery what happened in our phase one was  never communicated to next and was he was the one interpret ing what the slides conveyed but even his declaration was vague and ambiguous and didn't and trying to solve it goes through any any contact with viber and they couldn't they couldn't articulate what the trade secret was well if they articulate a trade secret that was conveyed either in the slides or conversation objected to mr prado because he said he didn't have any firsthand knowledge but they stuck with him and so we don't have any indication of the verbal it was conveyed oh or whether it was designated confidential one of the things that says that the materials have to be designated as confidential that's one of the things we see that she's she adversaries focused on the discovery order and then in the reply says they don't take any issue with the discovery order and so therefore her she stands by that the standard should be to no more review but in but in essence she's basically saying that she she says on the one hand and the she's trying to she's trying to basically say that that the concept of finding what happened to she she's basically talking about two different things she's written or in the fact the scheduling order says specifically that next was obligated to to provide to us in phase one what was a trade secret that was conveyed that was conveyed and then if there if nothing was a trade secret that was conveyed then judge belvin said well why go our position and it's also broken and it's also illustrated in the record that that we don't have marks any nothing in marks is a trade secret and we can go through and i can i can i can show you that that's the case identified with specificity and that's on the set up case and the cage quotes sites time in this court's case and big vision and imperial chemical where there has to be a description unified description of all the features that we're into related the know how and the method by which things were done and how how to make it work none of the none of the materials show how it how it was to be made to work