[00:00:00] Speaker 02:
I would like to request three minutes for rebuttal, please.

[00:00:03] Speaker 01:
Could you state your appearance for the record, please?

[00:00:05] Speaker 02:
Oh, my apologies.

[00:00:06] Speaker 02:
Sean Sitara on behalf of the appellant.

[00:00:08] Speaker 01:
That's fine.

[00:00:09] Speaker 01:
And you can certainly reserve time for rebuttal.

[00:00:11] Speaker 01:
Just keep your eye on the clock, if you would.

[00:00:13] Speaker 02:
Of course.

[00:00:13] Speaker 01:
OK.

[00:00:13] Speaker 01:
Thank you, Your Honors.

[00:00:14] Speaker 02:
You bet.

[00:00:16] Speaker 02:
Your Honors, the Fair Credit Reporting Act is a very important statute to protect the privacy interests of employees that are seeking employment

[00:00:30] Speaker 02:
There is only a single, and this is confirmed through Syed and Gilbert, there is only a single exception to the Fair Credit Reporting Act in terms of the disclosure, and that single exception is the authorization.

[00:00:49] Speaker 02:
In this case, the district court erred

[00:00:51] Speaker 02:
because of three different categories of information that was extraneous, I'd like to discuss the hyperlinks.

[00:01:00] Speaker 02:
There's an excess of 20 hyperlinks on the form, and the statute is very clear.

[00:01:07] Speaker 02:
I mean, we have Syed, we have Gilbert, we have Walker v. Fred Meyer, that is extremely clear.

[00:01:18] Speaker 02:
Nothing extraneous should be included

[00:01:21] Speaker 02:
in the disclosure form.

[00:01:23] Speaker 02:
This disclosure form was designed by UPS.

[00:01:28] Speaker 02:
There is no dispute that all this additional information, additional language, for example, the home button, the About UPS button, the career areas working at UPS, Contact Us, Stay Connected, the Facebook links, the Indeed links,

[00:01:51] Speaker 02:
There's a tremendous amount of extraneous information that is consistent with Gilbert, is consistent with the case law in Syed.

[00:02:06] Speaker 02:
And defendant argues that these are simply formatting items.

[00:02:13] Speaker 02:
In other words, similar to a page numbering, similar to a company logo.

[00:02:21] Speaker 02:
These unequivocally are not formatting items.

[00:02:28] Speaker 02:
When you have all of these hyperlinks, they're designed for people to, I mean, we've all used websites before.

[00:02:36] Speaker 02:
These websites are intentionally designed, these are all intentionally designed for people as they're going through this application process and as they're going through this disclosure to click on.

[00:02:51] Speaker 00:
That doesn't really answer the legal question, though.

[00:02:53] Speaker 00:
So if this is a website and you can click, click, you get to go to home, and then you can click through to other tabs that are in the document, right?

[00:03:04] Speaker 00:
I mean, in large part, they seem to me like a navigation tool, not unlike if I gave you a document and I very handily put tabs.

[00:03:14] Speaker 00:
So it's easier and you don't have to read through the whole thing if you only want to look at certain tabs or certain information.

[00:03:21] Speaker 00:
Why isn't it the same thing?

[00:03:24] Speaker 02:
Well, to simplify the argument, let's make believe for a moment that this is not a web page.

[00:03:33] Speaker 02:
This is a printed out document, which is the argument that we made in our brief.

[00:03:39] Speaker 02:
So if this was a printed out document,

[00:03:44] Speaker 02:
I don't think anybody would disagree that these items are extraneous.

[00:03:50] Speaker 01:
That's just it.

[00:03:51] Speaker 01:
We're trying to translate, it seems to me, rules that were developed envisioning a paper application, and we're trying to translate that to what happens so frequently now, which is an online application.

[00:04:03] Speaker 01:
Some of them, pursuant to Judge McEwen's point, you have to have some other stuff in there because you've got to navigate through the

[00:04:11] Speaker 01:
pages, some of that, and that's not gonna be distracting because we've all done, we're pretty familiar with how that works on a, whatever desktop or laptop we're using.

[00:04:22] Speaker 01:
Or you can just ignore it if you don't wanna go through it.

[00:04:25] Speaker 02:
Well, I mean, you can ignore it, but that's going to be violative of the plain meaning of the statute.

[00:04:33] Speaker 01:
Well, it seems like your strongest argument is that if something is a hyperlink that takes you to another page that really distracts you, right?

[00:04:41] Speaker 01:
from the disclaimer, that's gonna be the most problematic.

[00:04:45] Speaker 01:
And so if Judge McEwen's tabs are like that, taking you to a different place, is that the analogy you're asking us to make?

[00:04:54] Speaker 01:
I'm not sure what rule you want us to distill.

[00:04:58] Speaker 02:
I think the distraction that is discussed in Walker v. Fred Meyer, which I believe that's what you're referring to, is simply

[00:05:07] Speaker 02:
an extrapolation or analysis as to why the statute was created.

[00:05:13] Speaker 01:
Right, so if there were a paper application, I can imagine a paper application that is taking me through something and then it says Perin C, you know, page 17 for more information about your health benefits.

[00:05:25] Speaker 01:
And then you go on and it says Perin C, whatever.

[00:05:28] Speaker 01:
That seems to me pretty common to navigate the reader, tell the reader where other information is available.

[00:05:36] Speaker 02:
Well, to confirm the district court's ruling would essentially rewrite the statute and create additional exceptions to the statute.

[00:05:50] Speaker 02:
Nobody instructed UPS to include all of these distinct hyperlinks that are in excess of 20 hyperlinks that are all over

[00:05:59] Speaker 02:
The page, I mean, I know the web page- So here's what would help me.

[00:06:03] Speaker 02:
Okay, I apologize.

[00:06:04] Speaker 02:
I'm trying to- No, no, no.

[00:06:05] Speaker 01:
This is a conversation and you're doing exactly what you're supposed to do, which is advocate.

[00:06:12] Speaker 01:
But we have to figure out what the rules should be.

[00:06:14] Speaker 01:
And this paper world has to be translated into one that's not paper.

[00:06:18] Speaker 01:
And so I'm trying to figure out where you think we ought to draw the line about what hyperlinks or what navigational tools should be permissible, because some of them

[00:06:26] Speaker 01:
Just, again, speaking for myself, some of them are going to have to be, or people won't be able to navigate.

[00:06:32] Speaker 02:
Well, the navigation simply should include the Continue button.

[00:06:38] Speaker 02:
You don't need the navigation.

[00:06:40] Speaker 01:
No hyperlinks is your rule?

[00:06:42] Speaker 02:
Yeah.

[00:06:43] Speaker 02:
Why do we need a hyperlink to Facebook?

[00:06:45] Speaker 02:
What does Facebook have to do with a disclosure with the Fair Credit Reporting Act?

[00:06:50] Speaker 02:
What does LinkedIn have to do?

[00:06:52] Speaker 02:
What does someone trying to find another job at UPS have anything to do with the Fair Credit Reporting Act?

[00:07:00] Speaker 02:
This is not a very complicated statute, and we've had the Ninth Circuit say over and over again, Syed Gilbert, Walker v. Fred Meyer,

[00:07:10] Speaker 02:
It does not use any extraneous information and the statute is rather ingenious because it has a singular exception which is the authorization.

[00:07:25] Speaker 02:
You know, to have, to read into the statute these implied exceptions for Facebook, LinkedIn, you know, finding other jobs, working at UPS, other career areas about UPS would be rewriting the statute.

[00:07:41] Speaker 02:
And it's a very scary, slippery slope.

[00:07:45] Speaker 01:
Is your rule, forgive me for interrupting, is your rule no hyperlinks on the disclosure page, the standalone page?

[00:07:53] Speaker 02:
What is your rule?

[00:07:55] Speaker 02:
My proposition is no hyperlinks.

[00:08:00] Speaker 02:
We just have the disclosure, which is what the law requires and mandates as Congress has mandated.

[00:08:06] Speaker 01:
So forgive me.

[00:08:08] Speaker 02:
I think the answer to my question- No hyperlinks.

[00:08:10] Speaker 02:
No hyperlinks other than- Sir, my question is no hyperlinks- My apologies.

[00:08:14] Speaker 01:
Not at all.

[00:08:15] Speaker 01:
No hyperlinks on the disclosure page?

[00:08:17] Speaker 01:
that that's that's correct only the only uh... navigational part of it like you to continue to the next page is that your rule that that's correct that's what i believe i don't know what i was trying to get it was not a trick question you know i would like to

[00:08:35] Speaker 02:
Reserve the two minutes or if I can go quickly through the other issues the You know the check the box language that has nothing to do with authorization The authorization is a completely separate document the check the box language never discusses authorization never references authorization and it's an agreement and

[00:08:59] Speaker 02:
For a disclosure is simply that, it's a disclosure.

[00:09:04] Speaker 02:
It's not an agreement.

[00:09:07] Speaker 02:
And then when the language that it says, I understand its contents, understanding its contents is the same thing as a liability release.

[00:09:17] Speaker 02:
Because the statute says that it has to be clear and conspicuous.

[00:09:21] Speaker 02:
And they're trying to effectively get a liability release from them.

[00:09:26] Speaker 02:
Um, the serial authorizations, you know, is not as clear cut.

[00:09:32] Speaker 02:
You know, we think when, you know, Congress is intent to protect the privacy interests of the public, uh,

[00:09:41] Speaker 02:
there should be additional authorizations obtained and to have this serial authorization where I can get another background check without notifying you a year from now, five years from now, 10 years from now, 20 years from now is unlawful.

[00:10:02] Speaker 02:
Any other questions, Your Honors?

[00:10:04] Speaker 01:
No, no.

[00:10:04] Speaker 01:
But if you want to reserve any time, you're going to have to.

[00:10:07] Speaker 02:
I don't have it, okay.

[00:10:09] Speaker 01:
We'll put one minute on the clock when you come back.

[00:10:11] Speaker 01:
Thank you very much.

[00:10:12] Speaker 01:
You're welcome.

[00:10:20] Speaker 03:
May it please the Court, Yakov Roth on behalf of UPS.

[00:10:24] Speaker 03:
Your Honor, we think Judge Breyer got this one right, that the UPS disclosure does not violate the statute, and at minimum, plaintiffs certainly cannot meet her burden to show a willful violation of the statute.

[00:10:37] Speaker 01:
But what should the rule be?

[00:10:39] Speaker 01:
We have to be concerned about precedent for other cases, not just this one.

[00:10:43] Speaker 01:
And I am most troubled by the hyperlinks and where we would draw the line at, which ones are permissible and which ones are too distracting.

[00:10:53] Speaker 03:
Sure, Your Honor.

[00:10:53] Speaker 03:
So I'll start with that issue.

[00:10:56] Speaker 03:
And I do think Your Honor's question earlier is correct.

[00:10:59] Speaker 03:
The tricky part here is how do we translate these ideas from the paper to the electronic form.

[00:11:04] Speaker 03:
We think the right analogy for what plaintiff describes as the links includes sort of the navigation button at the top and some of the

[00:11:13] Speaker 03:
contact us and other information at the bottom of the page.

[00:11:17] Speaker 03:
We think the right analogy to that is something like an employer logo, contact information, date, the types of things you see on a paper disclosure that are part of the background of how the information is presented.

[00:11:31] Speaker 01:
The logo is not distracting is your point.

[00:11:33] Speaker 03:
I think a logo is not extraneous information.

[00:11:39] Speaker 03:
That's not me saying it.

[00:11:40] Speaker 01:
What about the hyperlinks?

[00:11:41] Speaker 01:
Why do you need to have hyperlinks on a disclosure page?

[00:11:44] Speaker 03:
Right.

[00:11:44] Speaker 03:
So I think one important thing to keep in mind is we didn't put the hyperlinks on the disclosure page.

[00:11:50] Speaker 03:
And actually, I think that's one of the errors.

[00:11:52] Speaker 01:
But what if that were a rule?

[00:11:54] Speaker 01:
Would there be anything wrong with that rule?

[00:11:56] Speaker 01:
I want people to have their attention diverted from that page, the standalone page.

[00:12:02] Speaker 03:
So let me say two things about that.

[00:12:04] Speaker 03:
First, Your Honor, the threshold question that we have to ask to evaluate a standalone claim.

[00:12:11] Speaker 03:
What is the document that we're looking at?

[00:12:13] Speaker 03:
Because you can't have extraneous stuff on the document.

[00:12:17] Speaker 03:
What is the document?

[00:12:17] Speaker 03:
And this court has said, for example, if you're given a package of five different employment forms, you don't look at the whole package and treat that as the document.

[00:12:25] Speaker 03:
You look at what is the distinct disclosure form or page, which could be standalone.

[00:12:31] Speaker 03:
That's what this court said in Gilbert.

[00:12:33] Speaker 03:
So for purposes of the online portal, and if you look at pages 229 and 231, which are the screenshots,

[00:12:40] Speaker 01:
Can you give me just one second to get that?

[00:12:41] Speaker 03:
What'd you say, two?

[00:12:43] Speaker 03:
229 and 231 are two screenshots.

[00:12:46] Speaker 03:
What it looks like when you move through this process.

[00:12:48] Speaker 03:
And what you'll see is there's a constant background, which is the web page and the web portal.

[00:12:55] Speaker 03:
And as the applicant moves through the different forms and clicks continue, the only thing that changes is the center material sort of in the middle of the screen.

[00:13:07] Speaker 03:
So in our view, that is the document that we're talking about, because that's what's changing as you're moving through the process.

[00:13:13] Speaker 03:
You click Continue, you get the next one.

[00:13:15] Speaker 03:
You click Continue, you get the next one.

[00:13:17] Speaker 03:
So we think that is the right frame for the analysis.

[00:13:20] Speaker 01:
And within that center... That's a pretty... ER229, it's a pretty cluttered screen.

[00:13:25] Speaker 01:
And you're calling our attention to disclosure of intention to obtain consumer report for employment purposes.

[00:13:31] Speaker 01:
And then on the next page, authorization regarding intention.

[00:13:34] Speaker 01:
That's what you want us to look at.

[00:13:35] Speaker 01:
And you're saying if I match this all up, your information is that the only thing on those two pages that changes is the bold text.

[00:13:44] Speaker 03:
Is that what you're saying?

[00:13:44] Speaker 03:
What's changing is the material between

[00:13:47] Speaker 03:
So you have the FCRA disclosure and then you have the text and the checkbox and then you have a link to continue, you know, for the list and then continue.

[00:13:57] Speaker 03:
And then if you push continue, all that's changing is what's inside that white section of the page there.

[00:14:03] Speaker 03:
The upper part is the navigational pane.

[00:14:07] Speaker 03:
So it's telling you how far along you are in the overall package of employment materials.

[00:14:11] Speaker 01:
But the green box that says application something.

[00:14:15] Speaker 01:
Right.

[00:14:15] Speaker 01:
That's the location.

[00:14:16] Speaker 01:
That's the same.

[00:14:17] Speaker 01:
And then the next.

[00:14:18] Speaker 01:
Right.

[00:14:19] Speaker 01:
I see.

[00:14:19] Speaker 03:
Right.

[00:14:19] Speaker 03:
So then it's online application tells you how far along you are.

[00:14:22] Speaker 03:
And then it's telling you where you are in the process.

[00:14:24] Speaker 03:
OK.

[00:14:25] Speaker 03:
I'm at the FCRA disclosure.

[00:14:26] Speaker 03:
That part is the document.

[00:14:28] Speaker 03:
I think the hyperlinks that he is talking about are the parts at the very top.

[00:14:32] Speaker 03:
which is sort of the functionality of the website, UPS, about UPS, and at the very bottom, which are the links to the social media and so on.

[00:14:40] Speaker 03:
That's not part of the document.

[00:14:41] Speaker 00:
Just to be clear then, because the statute, we're talking about the document.

[00:14:47] Speaker 00:
So you're saying that the disclosure is the document we should be looking at.

[00:14:57] Speaker 00:
And that's what I'm looking at on this screen.

[00:15:02] Speaker 03:
229.

[00:15:03] Speaker 03:
229.

[00:15:04] Speaker 03:
Right.

[00:15:05] Speaker 03:
The part underneath FCRA disclosure.

[00:15:07] Speaker 03:
Right.

[00:15:08] Speaker 03:
That's white.

[00:15:10] Speaker 00:
Because that- Where it says disclosure of intention.

[00:15:12] Speaker 03:
Correct.

[00:15:13] Speaker 00:
Correct.

[00:15:13] Speaker 00:
So that is the disclosure document.

[00:15:16] Speaker 00:
Right.

[00:15:20] Speaker 00:
But you also make the argument this other stuff isn't extraneous either, right?

[00:15:24] Speaker 03:
Yeah, I think it's two different ways of looking at the same question.

[00:15:27] Speaker 03:
I mean, I think the right way of analyzing it is to say, well, what is the document?

[00:15:30] Speaker 03:
It's that center part, because that's the part that's sufficiently distinct from the other stuff that's part of the process.

[00:15:37] Speaker 03:
That's what we look at.

[00:15:38] Speaker 03:
You can't put other garbage in there to confuse somebody, right?

[00:15:40] Speaker 03:
That has to be just a disclaimer.

[00:15:42] Speaker 01:
If I could just play devil's act, but I mean, it is a very cluttered looking page.

[00:15:45] Speaker 01:
And what you've identified as the document, and I think that's what would be the document as a standalone document, winds up taking up about a third of the page.

[00:15:52] Speaker 03:
Well, all the stuff that's in there is the stuff that's supposed to be in there.

[00:15:56] Speaker 01:
It's telling you- My point is not that it's not supposed to be there.

[00:15:58] Speaker 01:
Oh, I'm sorry.

[00:15:58] Speaker 01:
My point is that it winds up, we get from a statute that says standalone document,

[00:16:02] Speaker 01:
to a point where the document winds up being about a third of the page, and there's a whole bunch of boxes with their different colors in it.

[00:16:10] Speaker 01:
The standalone document winds up taking up about a third of the page is my point.

[00:16:15] Speaker 01:
I'm not sure that that's wrong or bad, but it is notable to me that it's... I'm not sure if your honor is saying that that's a lot or a little.

[00:16:23] Speaker 03:
I'm not sure I understand.

[00:16:24] Speaker 01:
I'm saying that's a little.

[00:16:25] Speaker 01:
If it's supposed to be a standalone document and the document winds up being one third of what's on the page, it strikes me as

[00:16:30] Speaker 01:
That's contrary to the notion that it's a standalone document because there's so much other stuff, to use your word on ER 229, that it is less conspicuous, the document.

[00:16:46] Speaker 03:
Well, Your Honor, I think if you're an applicant and you're actually navigating through this and you're pushing the button, you understand what is going on is that you're pulling up a successive series of forms and disclosures, and the only part

[00:17:01] Speaker 03:
that is changing as you move through is that center language.

[00:17:03] Speaker 01:
And that's what you're going to focus on.

[00:17:04] Speaker 01:
That's because you represent who you represent.

[00:17:06] Speaker 01:
But I'm just trying to push back and say, would it be appropriate to suggest going forward that the standalone document, even though there's these other navigation bars, this other stuff at the top of the page, maybe that shouldn't be on the page where you have the disclosure.

[00:17:23] Speaker 01:
So the navigation bar to go to the next page, I'll grant you that's necessary, it seems to me, to navigate through

[00:17:30] Speaker 01:
But it would be possible, I think, to have this less cluttered.

[00:17:33] Speaker 01:
Do you have to have these other boxes on this particular page?

[00:17:37] Speaker 01:
It's supposed to be the standalone page?

[00:17:39] Speaker 03:
Your Honor, I'm sure there are multiple ways this can be set up and the software can be done differently.

[00:17:44] Speaker 01:
Would that be a better rule?

[00:17:44] Speaker 03:
I don't think so because I think that that information at the top is helping the applicant understand what she is doing at any given point in time and what's left.

[00:17:54] Speaker 01:
If I can be more difficult and your time's almost up so your day's gonna get better here in just about two and a half minutes.

[00:18:02] Speaker 01:
But, but if you've told her that every single page, why do you have to keep telling her that if the if the if the goal and the congressional objective is standalone document, you could make this more standalone.

[00:18:12] Speaker 03:
Okay, so a couple things.

[00:18:14] Speaker 03:
First, I think, although you have that information, the point of the bar at the top, at least.

[00:18:21] Speaker 03:
is to understand where you are in the process.

[00:18:23] Speaker 01:
I know, but you've told me that every page.

[00:18:25] Speaker 03:
Right, but now you know, okay, now I'm two-thirds of the way through, now I'm four-fifths of the way through, oh, this is the last thing I have to do to submit the application.

[00:18:32] Speaker 03:
I mean, that's the purpose of it.

[00:18:33] Speaker 03:
Whether it's, I'm not gonna say that it can't be done differently.

[00:18:36] Speaker 03:
I don't think that that is what the statute means by extraneous information.

[00:18:41] Speaker 01:
What about a rule that said the majority of the page where it requires standalone, the majority of the page should be the disclosure?

[00:18:49] Speaker 03:
Well, you're under the majority of the, certainly the majority of the text here is the disclosure.

[00:18:54] Speaker 03:
the material that's surrounding it, again, I think is just part of the way an online application form works.

[00:19:03] Speaker 03:
And I would say, you know, no court has treated this sort of online application with links or buttons as- I grant you that.

[00:19:11] Speaker 01:
I'm just looking for the right rule.

[00:19:13] Speaker 03:
Yeah.

[00:19:13] Speaker 03:
Well, I mean, I think the right rule is, again, you define the document as the part that is sufficiently distinct from what surrounds it, and that if you look at it that way, there is nothing extraneous.

[00:19:24] Speaker 03:
about the disclosure.

[00:19:27] Speaker 03:
And that's, I think, analogous to the way the court looked at it in Gilbert.

[00:19:32] Speaker 03:
If I could say a word about the checkbox, because I think the checkbox is actually part of the answer to your honest question about being distracted.

[00:19:38] Speaker 03:
If you decide, I'd rather go to Facebook right now and not finish this, the checkbox actually ensures that you have to come back and finish it and click the button and move on.

[00:19:48] Speaker 03:
So I view the checkbox as sort of part of the solution to the problem that they're complaining about, and it's analogous

[00:19:54] Speaker 03:
Again, to go back to the paper version, to a signature line, which again, this court had in Luna, had the disclosure, and then you have to sign it and date it.

[00:20:02] Speaker 03:
What's the point of that?

[00:20:03] Speaker 03:
It's to sort of memorialize, you've seen it, you understand it, you've received it, you're gonna sign to indicate that.

[00:20:08] Speaker 03:
That is the purpose of the checkbox, which we think is consistent with the statute, actually advances the purposes of the statute.

[00:20:17] Speaker 03:
The last thing I'll say, just my time is short, is,

[00:20:20] Speaker 03:
Certainly to the extent the court has any concerns or reservations about any of this, the willfulness issue is an independent basis to affirm.

[00:20:29] Speaker 03:
Safeco, Supreme Court said, this is akin to qualified immunity.

[00:20:33] Speaker 03:
It's got to be not just wrong, but so objectively unreasonable that it was reckless to do it this way, given the state of the law on this point with multiple courts having looked at this, none of them finding a violation.

[00:20:44] Speaker 03:
We don't think there's any way, as a matter of law, that plaintiff can satisfy a burden of establishing willful violation.

[00:20:51] Speaker 03:
that itself is grounds to affirm.

[00:20:53] Speaker 03:
Thank you, Your Honor.

[00:20:54] Speaker 01:
Thank you for your argument.

[00:20:57] Speaker 01:
Adam Clark, could you put a minute on the clock, please?

[00:21:04] Speaker 02:
Thank you, Your Honors.

[00:21:07] Speaker 02:
The fact that these other documents look exactly identical,

[00:21:16] Speaker 02:
You know, the disclosure form, the authorization form, and I don't believe any of the other documents are in the record, this completely undermines UPS's argument.

[00:21:30] Speaker 02:
The statute says that the disclosure form needs to be clear and conspicuous.

[00:21:38] Speaker 02:
It's not conspicuous when you have all of this other information on there

[00:21:44] Speaker 00:
And well, it's in big capital letters.

[00:21:47] Speaker 00:
I mean, it had big capital letters and then it's the only thing with text and then it has a little box that you check.

[00:21:54] Speaker 00:
If, I mean, I look at this and where do my eyes go?

[00:21:57] Speaker 00:
They go to that big disclosure of intention.

[00:22:00] Speaker 00:
Um, that's for the next page and it's all in a similar format.

[00:22:05] Speaker 00:
So I, I, I'm having a little trouble understanding your argument actually.

[00:22:12] Speaker 02:
My argument is... So you would just take off that stuff at the top?

[00:22:17] Speaker 02:
I would take the stuff off at the top.

[00:22:20] Speaker 02:
I would take the stuff off...

[00:22:22] Speaker 02:
From the bottom, I would take off all the hyperlinks.

[00:22:25] Speaker 02:
I mean, these are completely unnecessary.

[00:22:29] Speaker 02:
And to create some rationale on where my eyes would go or where a judge's eyes would go is second guessing Congress's strict adherence and statutory construction of this statute.

[00:22:48] Speaker 02:
The statute says that any extraneous information would be a violation of the law.

[00:22:55] Speaker 02:
So if I say, well, my eyes would go towards the middle of the page and I'm completely disregarding the rest of the page, that's contrary to black letter laws, contrary to Gilbert, contrary to Syed, contrary to the strict statutory construction that Congress is

[00:23:18] Speaker 02:
that congress intended answer thank you for your argument we've taken overtime again okay okay i'm sorry thank you apologize and the willfulness was not addressed by the trial court that's why we didn't brief it we think that visible for violation thank you for your argument thank you for going over and thank you for the additional time no apology needed we thank you both will take that case under advisement and go on to the final case on the calendar please