Given a paragraph about movies and a set of conversational questions and answers about the paragraph, say whether the passage contains sufficient information to answer the follow-up question. Say Yes if it is answerable; otherwise, say No. The paragraph has the prefix 'CONTEXT:'. Each conversation question has a prefix `Q:` followed by the answer prefix `A:`, and the follow-up question has a prefix `FOLLOWUP_Q:`.

[Q]: CONTEXT: Under civil law frameworks based on common law (which we have in the US), there is the doctrine of res judicata -- or "already judged." Once the appeals process is complete, or the time frame for filing appeal has run out, res judicata states that the suit cannot be brought again, even for new evidence (there are exceptions, such as proof of fraud). Its purpose is to strike a balance between the rights of the defendants and plantiffs as well as to make the courts run more efficiently ... kind of like the principle of double jeopardy under criminal law. The U.S. military has affirmed it holds to the doctrine of res judicata. So in this episode, where the time for an appeal of the original case had likely long expired, it could not be brought again, as it would be dismissed as already ruled upon.  <sep>  Q: Does it seem to you that The Good wife season 4 episode 6 ending was wrong? A: where the time for an appeal of the original case had likely long expired, it could not be brought again, as it would be dismissed as already ruled upon  Q: Do you have legal knowledge to confirm that facts presented were mainly wrong? A: Under civil law frameworks based on common law (which we have in the US), there is the doctrine of res judicata -- or "already judged  <sep> FOLLOWUP_Q: What are the grounds to reopen a military case?
[A]: Yes


[Q]: CONTEXT: I believe the moral of the story is "Don't judge book by its cover". The whole movie is against stereotypes. The bunny should be a carrot farmer, because that's what bunnies do, the predators are bullies an deep down everyone feels that way, because when assumption is made that only predators are going feral, everyone accepts it as truth. You can see that even the fox is bullied for being a predator because he is perceived as one.  <sep>  Q: What is the moral of Zootopia? A: I believe the moral of the story is "Don't judge book by its cover  Q: Is the story about taking risks? A: The whole movie is against stereotypes  Q: What is the relevance of the bunny in the film. A: The bunny should be a carrot farmer, because that's what bunnies do, the predators are bullies an deep down everyone feels that way  Q: What is the relevance of the predators? A: You can see that even the fox is bullied for being a predator because he is perceived as one  Q: isn't the moral about trying everything in life? A: I believe the moral of the story is "Don't judge book by its cover  <sep> FOLLOWUP_Q: Is there anything else that's relevant from the film?
[A]: No


[Q]: CONTEXT: While Frollo's function was indeed divided between several characters, Disney also deviates and simplifies the material to make it compatible with a younger audience. Hence, characters have alternate back stories that present different motivations and the nuances of the source material may be forgone, rendering certain details like Quasimodo's lineage inconsequential. As such, while it is intriguing to consider possibilities, there is no hint, aside from disreprencies with portrayals, that the gypsi woman was not Quasimodo's true mother. Honestly, this is similar to the puzzle as to why characters see a similarity between Malcolm and his daughter in The Lost World.  <sep>  Q: In Disney's The Hunchback of Notre Dame: Is the gyspy woman really Quasimodo's mom?
[A]:
Yes