[00:00:02] Speaker 00:
Good morning, Your Honors, and my name is Attorney Sean Louise, and I represent Rodolfo Asuncion, who commonly goes by the name Rudy, who's the plaintiff appellant in this matter.

[00:00:16] Speaker 00:
And I thank the court for having an oral argument, and I hope to answer the specific questions that were set out in the order that was filed May 27th, 2025, as well as any other questions that please the court.

[00:00:31] Speaker 04:
Forgive me for interrupting, but I should have started with that.

[00:00:33] Speaker 04:
Did both Council receive our focus order?

[00:00:36] Speaker 04:
Thank you for confirming that.

[00:00:37] Speaker 04:
Go right ahead.

[00:00:38] Speaker 00:
Oh, thank you, Your Honor.

[00:00:41] Speaker 00:
So I think that the, I appreciate Your Honors focused on this issue with the different numbers that were exchanged with Council, which was me.

[00:00:56] Speaker 00:
with the DLA, Mr. Somerville, the operative, who was trying to transmit the final agency decision to me.

[00:01:05] Speaker 00:
And it's interesting that the numbers don't match.

[00:01:11] Speaker 00:
And that might be a big reason why the file was encrypted and I was unable to access it for the amount of time that I tried to do so.

[00:01:19] Speaker 00:
And I did want to just point out that there were some things that I noticed in reviewing the

[00:01:25] Speaker 00:
excerpts of record from both the government and from myself.

[00:01:30] Speaker 00:
If you look on the initial page of the excerpts of record on page 58 of the record, the number identified is DLAF21-0424, but then you go to page two to the end, and it's actually a different number.

[00:01:49] Speaker 00:
It's 200424.

[00:01:52] Speaker 00:
There are different numbers.

[00:01:55] Speaker 00:
Yes.

[00:01:57] Speaker 00:
And then also on page 86, there's another number there, DLAF 20-0420, which is a third number.

[00:02:12] Speaker 00:
And then there's also the designation at the end.

[00:02:16] Speaker 05:
Your time is ticking away there.

[00:02:19] Speaker 05:
We have different case numbers, as you have pointed out, and we have different pass phrases, right?

[00:02:25] Speaker 05:
Yes.

[00:02:26] Speaker 05:
What should we conclude from this?

[00:02:27] Speaker 00:
So I would conclude from that that the government transmitted the wrong case numbers to me and the password, so I was unable to open the encrypted file.

[00:02:38] Speaker 05:
And I think when- Did you need the correct case number or was it an icon that you would poke on and you needed to be able to put in a password or did you also need the case number?

[00:02:46] Speaker 00:
You had to actually copy and paste.

[00:02:48] Speaker 00:
So what I would do is I would either type, I would take, there was three, there was like a, there was,

[00:02:57] Speaker 00:
I forget the exact word, but there was like a passphrase, another phrase, and then a password.

[00:03:02] Speaker 05:
Do we have a screenshot of that?

[00:03:04] Speaker 00:
Yes.

[00:03:04] Speaker 05:
Okay, what's the ER site for that page?

[00:03:07] Speaker 05:
Or maybe you can give it to me when you come back.

[00:03:11] Speaker 05:
I don't want to take up a lot of your time.

[00:03:13] Speaker 00:
Oh, okay.

[00:03:17] Speaker 00:
On those documents, you have to either manually type it into each phase when it asks you to enter the information.

[00:03:27] Speaker 00:
And I kept getting an error message, so I was unable to open it.

[00:03:32] Speaker 00:
So one of the phrase, and what I remember was, I didn't even get to the third password.

[00:03:39] Speaker 00:
I was prevented.

[00:03:40] Speaker 00:
When I tried to do the first two, that's where the glitch was, and it didn't let me proceed to the third to enter the pass phrase.

[00:03:47] Speaker 00:
And this isn't my first case with the federal government.

[00:03:49] Speaker 01:
Excuse me, what do you mean you wouldn't let you proceed?

[00:03:51] Speaker 01:
So you got the wrong pass phrase.

[00:03:54] Speaker 01:
Then you got the wrong passphrase again.

[00:03:56] Speaker 01:
And then on that same day that you got the wrong passphrase, about an hour later, you got the right one.

[00:04:01] Speaker 01:
You're saying you couldn't use that one?

[00:04:04] Speaker 01:
Is that what I just heard you say?

[00:04:05] Speaker 00:
Yeah.

[00:04:06] Speaker 00:
How come?

[00:04:07] Speaker 00:
Both appear to be incorrect numbers.

[00:04:10] Speaker 01:
Well, you got the incorrect numbers twice, and then you got the right number.

[00:04:14] Speaker 01:
And you're telling me you couldn't use the right number?

[00:04:16] Speaker 01:
Is that what I'm hearing you say?

[00:04:18] Speaker 00:
For some reason, it was still encrypted and would not open.

[00:04:21] Speaker 00:
I believe all the numbers were incorrect.

[00:04:23] Speaker 01:
They finally sent you the correct number, but without acknowledging that the previous numbers had been incorrect.

[00:04:31] Speaker 00:
Yes.

[00:04:32] Speaker 00:
And I was still unable to open it.

[00:04:34] Speaker 01:
Did you try using the correct number or do you recall?

[00:04:37] Speaker 00:
I recall trying to use the correct number and it still did not open.

[00:04:40] Speaker 05:
But what I couldn't figure out is whether, once you got what I understood to be the correct number, whether you had the correct case number, because it seems like you had to have both at the same time.

[00:04:49] Speaker 05:
There were three things, three windows that had to be filled in, and you would have had to have the correct, I think that's why you couldn't get to the passcode.

[00:04:56] Speaker 00:
Yes.

[00:04:56] Speaker 05:
Right, because the case number you were putting in wasn't popping up.

[00:05:00] Speaker 05:
If I'm understanding it correctly.

[00:05:02] Speaker 00:
You click on the link and then you either type or copy and paste what's transmitted to you in one email.

[00:05:12] Speaker 05:
So right there, you're not being very specific, forgive me, but do you mean you copy the case number before you need to put in the passcode?

[00:05:21] Speaker 05:
Because it seems like you had different case numbers and different passcodes.

[00:05:26] Speaker 00:
Yes.

[00:05:26] Speaker 05:
Is that right?

[00:05:27] Speaker 00:
That's correct.

[00:05:29] Speaker 00:
And whatever the sequence was,

[00:05:32] Speaker 00:
I've done this before and I've downloaded encrypted documents and whatever I normally do was not working.

[00:05:42] Speaker 00:
So that is for sure.

[00:05:44] Speaker 05:
So we've eaten up quite a bit of your time.

[00:05:47] Speaker 05:
Do you want to go into any of the other points or would you like to reserve time for rebuttal after we hear from the government or what would you like to do?

[00:05:55] Speaker 00:
I'd like to reserve time, my time for the four minutes from the government.

[00:05:58] Speaker 05:
Do you have any questions at this point?

[00:06:00] Speaker 05:
Judge Fletcher, okay, let's do that.

[00:06:01] Speaker 05:
We'll reserve your four minutes.

[00:06:03] Speaker 00:
Thank you.

[00:06:10] Speaker 03:
May it please the court?

[00:06:12] Speaker 03:
Good morning.

[00:06:12] Speaker 03:
Tracy Weinstein on behalf of the United States.

[00:06:15] Speaker 03:
I'd like to first address the questions that the court had in the May 27th docket order, then discuss why equitable tolling doesn't apply here, and then touch upon why it was correct for the district court to deny reconsideration.

[00:06:28] Speaker 03:
So I can go through each of the inconsistencies in the typos that the court did point out, but I think it's really important to note that the punchline here is that none of these inconsistencies affect the outcome here or the now.

[00:06:40] Speaker 01:
Let me interrupt you though.

[00:06:43] Speaker 01:
Are you assuming that he simply could not access the file?

[00:06:48] Speaker 01:
You're saying that the limitation period runs even though he couldn't access the file?

[00:06:53] Speaker 03:
Correct, because the analysis is about the receipt of the notice of the final agency.

[00:06:58] Speaker 01:
Okay, so let me make sure I understand your position.

[00:06:59] Speaker 01:
Your position is the government can, quote, send something to him that he is absolutely incapable of accessing, but the period runs from the time you sent it.

[00:07:11] Speaker 01:
irrespective of the fact you sent it to him in a form when she could not access it.

[00:07:14] Speaker 01:
That's your position?

[00:07:15] Speaker 02:
Yes, Your Honor.

[00:07:16] Speaker 02:
Oh, boy.

[00:07:16] Speaker 02:
Why didn't I acknowledge that there was a mistake that occurred here?

[00:07:20] Speaker 02:
I mean, I assume that the agency is not regularly sending out the wrong case numbers and passcode.

[00:07:26] Speaker 02:
So in this instance where an erroneous number was clearly sent, I think, I mean, I actually haven't heard you acknowledge that, but it sounds like you agree.

[00:07:36] Speaker 02:
Do you agree that an incorrect passcode was sent?

[00:07:41] Speaker 03:
Your Honor, I think it's unclear whether or not it was the incorrect passcode because we don't know whether Mr. Louise attempted using that first passcode before the link had expired already.

[00:07:53] Speaker 01:
No, no, I'm sorry.

[00:07:53] Speaker 01:
That can't be right.

[00:07:54] Speaker 01:
We have it here.

[00:07:55] Speaker 01:
We saw the number that was sent was the wrong one.

[00:07:58] Speaker 01:
You can't contest that.

[00:08:00] Speaker 03:
It, Your Honor, it could possibly, so I spoke with Mr. Somerville and what happens is you choose the pass phrase.

[00:08:07] Speaker 03:
So it's possible that he put that pass phrase in for this decision.

[00:08:11] Speaker 02:
What we do know is that- You can't say with certainty that you sent the correct case number and the correct pass code.

[00:08:18] Speaker 02:
That's correct, Your Honor.

[00:08:19] Speaker 02:
And what we're looking at are numbers that appear not to match.

[00:08:22] Speaker 02:
Correct, Your Honor.

[00:08:23] Speaker 02:
Okay, so without the ability to say with certainty that this is the correct number,

[00:08:29] Speaker 02:
Why not just acknowledge that an error occurred here that made it impossible for the plaintiff to access the FAD?

[00:08:37] Speaker 03:
Your Honor, I agree with what you're saying and that's that we don't know and we're not trying to deny that the wrong thing was possibly sent.

[00:08:45] Speaker 01:
What do you mean possibly was sent?

[00:08:48] Speaker 01:
I have the numbers right here in front of me.

[00:08:50] Speaker 01:
They were the wrong numbers.

[00:08:51] Speaker 03:
Exactly, Your Honor, but what I'm saying is that it's possible that that was the wrong number was used for the correct file.

[00:09:00] Speaker 03:
So who bears the consequences of this mistake?

[00:09:04] Speaker 03:
Sure, so I think, Your Honor, no matter what happened here, we can concede that there was a mistake.

[00:09:10] Speaker 03:
We can say, let's say, assuming 100%.

[00:09:12] Speaker 05:
So you kind of have to, or that's the way the three of us are reading this.

[00:09:16] Speaker 03:
So you want to go on to your next point?

[00:09:17] Speaker 03:
Yeah, so my next point is that

[00:09:20] Speaker 03:
The tolling for the 90 days is not affected by this.

[00:09:23] Speaker 03:
What this applies to is the equitable tolling here.

[00:09:26] Speaker 03:
And we still know that equitable tolling is not applicable here because Mr. Louise didn't satisfy the two elements, and both elements are required, that he acted diligently and that there was extraordinary circumstances that kept him from filing on time.

[00:09:40] Speaker 02:
So if the extraordinary circumstances are that he received the wrong number, it's not typical, that's extraordinary,

[00:09:47] Speaker 02:
Why isn't the diligence factor satisfied here based on the sort of repeated communications that your office received to get access to the FAD?

[00:09:59] Speaker 03:
Yes, Your Honor.

[00:10:00] Speaker 03:
I think if you look really closely at the record, you can see that diligence, there wasn't full diligence.

[00:10:08] Speaker 03:
Mr. Louise first waited three days to try to access the file the first time.

[00:10:13] Speaker 03:
And then when he couldn't access the file, he waited a week in between following up.

[00:10:18] Speaker 03:
And then when he couldn't access it that other time on November 21st, he waited another week.

[00:10:23] Speaker 03:
till December 3rd to contact us to try to get the file.

[00:10:27] Speaker 03:
On top of that, there's nothing in the record indicating that he followed up a single time with a phone call in between any of these week periods.

[00:10:36] Speaker 05:
The government was communicating with him not by phone call.

[00:10:39] Speaker 05:
The government was communicating by email, right?

[00:10:43] Speaker 05:
And on November 14th, he received two emails with two different pass phrases, right?

[00:10:49] Speaker 05:
So one of them has to be wrong, right?

[00:10:51] Speaker 05:
Then on November 21, he emailed, I still cannot open it.

[00:10:54] Speaker 05:
Please send by mail.

[00:10:56] Speaker 05:
The government didn't do that.

[00:10:59] Speaker 05:
He sent another email on December 3, another email requesting, please just send by mail.

[00:11:04] Speaker 05:
Of course, there's Thanksgiving in there.

[00:11:07] Speaker 05:
December 5, the encrypted version was emailed and receipt was confirmed.

[00:11:12] Speaker 05:
Then there's the email exchange where I think they were miscommunicating pretty clearly when he says thank you with an exclamation mark.

[00:11:20] Speaker 05:
He thinks that he's reading that one way and they're reading it a different way.

[00:11:23] Speaker 05:
But these intervals that you've just described don't strike me as excessive or unusual.

[00:11:29] Speaker 05:
You feel that he was not diligent?

[00:11:32] Speaker 05:
They demonstrate lack of diligence, that's that it?

[00:11:34] Speaker 03:
Yes, Your Honor.

[00:11:34] Speaker 03:
I think that when you're concerned about a statute of limitations issue or accessing this final agency decision, I think waiting a week in between and not following up with a phone call is- Why is it fatal to his claim that he waits a week?

[00:11:49] Speaker 01:
He's got 90 days.

[00:11:50] Speaker 01:
We're at the very beginning, and lawyers are busy.

[00:11:53] Speaker 01:
He waits a week.

[00:11:57] Speaker 01:
Why is that negligence or delay on his part?

[00:12:01] Speaker 03:
I think because of the exact reason that we're here today is that this sort of situation can happen.

[00:12:07] Speaker 01:
Well, and he has 90 days, and he waits a week.

[00:12:11] Speaker 01:
And that's fatal to his claim?

[00:12:12] Speaker 03:
Well, he waited a week multiple times.

[00:12:14] Speaker 01:
Two times, right?

[00:12:15] Speaker 01:
Yes, Your Honor.

[00:12:16] Speaker 01:
Multiple of two.

[00:12:17] Speaker 05:
The certificate of service was November 8.

[00:12:19] Speaker 05:
He got two emails on November 14 from the government.

[00:12:23] Speaker 05:
He couldn't have opened it until November 14, right?

[00:12:25] Speaker 05:
That's the first time he got a passcode.

[00:12:27] Speaker 05:
Correct.

[00:12:27] Speaker 05:
Okay.

[00:12:28] Speaker 05:
So the time between November 8 and November 14, that week doesn't count against him, right?

[00:12:33] Speaker 05:
He can't open it.

[00:12:34] Speaker 05:
They hadn't given him any passcode at that point.

[00:12:38] Speaker 05:
Right?

[00:12:38] Speaker 03:
From November 8 to November 14.

[00:12:41] Speaker 05:
Right.

[00:12:41] Speaker 05:
Yes, he couldn't open it.

[00:12:42] Speaker 05:
Right, he got two emails on November 14th with two different passcodes, right?

[00:12:46] Speaker 05:
Then he waited one week, as you and I think Judge Fletcher just discussed, between November 14 and November 21, and then he said, yeah, I still can't open it.

[00:12:55] Speaker 05:
Please send by mail.

[00:12:56] Speaker 05:
The government didn't.

[00:12:57] Speaker 05:
Then December 3rd, I still can't open it.

[00:12:58] Speaker 05:
Please send by mail.

[00:13:00] Speaker 05:
And then December 5th is when it was received.

[00:13:03] Speaker 05:
So we're really talking about, I think, all in one month out of the three.

[00:13:07] Speaker 03:
Yes, Your Honor, and even with that point,

[00:13:10] Speaker 03:
I think it's really important to point out that even if Mr. Lewis was mistaken after he followed up with Ms.

[00:13:17] Speaker 03:
Lewis, because he was concerned, he wasn't sure when his statute was gonna run from.

[00:13:21] Speaker 03:
So he asked Ms.

[00:13:22] Speaker 03:
Lewis, I can get into those emails, but I think the really important point is that no matter what happens with those emails, the Ninth Circuit has specifically held that an attorney's miscalculation of time is not an extraordinary circumstance that warrants equitable tolling.

[00:13:38] Speaker 01:
Wait a minute, how did he miscalculate the time?

[00:13:41] Speaker 01:
Lewis emails him on December 14 saying, according to 29 CFR 1614, the time starts when you as the attorney received the FAD.

[00:13:51] Speaker 01:
That's the final agency decision.

[00:13:53] Speaker 01:
He interprets that to mean just when he actually received it.

[00:13:56] Speaker 01:
Okay, so time runs from that.

[00:13:58] Speaker 01:
Why is that a misinterpretation of that email from Lewis?

[00:14:03] Speaker 03:
Yes, Your Honor, I think it's really important to read both of Ms.

[00:14:06] Speaker 03:
Lewis's emails together, because if you look at ER 107, that's her first email, and she says, the final agency decision was emailed to your email address, attorneylouise at gmail.com on November 4th, 2022.

[00:14:20] Speaker 03:
She meant November 8th.

[00:14:22] Speaker 02:
See, I agree with you that his interpretation of the email was incorrect, that in fact, you know, these are, they're not connecting on the same topic.

[00:14:32] Speaker 02:
But if we agree that the statute of limitations begins to run at the time that you receive the FAD, but now we've moved on to equitable tolling, so we're not really talking anymore about the calculation of the statute of limitations period, we're talking about the tolling, which

[00:14:50] Speaker 02:
allows us to stay the statute of limitations period for the time where the government was sending the wrong passcode to him.

[00:14:59] Speaker 02:
So, I mean, it sounds to me like you're arguing one point, but that's not really relevant to that equitable tolling analysis.

[00:15:06] Speaker 03:
So, Your Honor, to that point, I think if you broke down the timing, he still would have been late because he filed on the 88th day from December 5th, 2022.

[00:15:18] Speaker 03:
So that would have

[00:15:19] Speaker 03:
Even if that period from November 8th to November 14th was told, I believe he would have been way past it regardless.

[00:15:28] Speaker 02:
I don't think that's right.

[00:15:29] Speaker 02:
I think that if the time is told, then he's within the statute of limitations period.

[00:15:36] Speaker 02:
By one day.

[00:15:36] Speaker 03:
Starting from which date, Your Honor?

[00:15:39] Speaker 05:
I didn't mean to jump in on top of Judge Desai's question, but I think we're both, all three of us, calculating that he didn't get any passcode until November 14.

[00:15:52] Speaker 05:
He got two different ones on November 14, but I don't see a universe where the time between November 8 and November 14 is running, because he literally can't open it.

[00:16:04] Speaker 05:
Are you including that week?

[00:16:07] Speaker 03:
Yes, and I think that it's still, I would have to break down the calculation.

[00:16:11] Speaker 05:
Okay, so let me, I don't mean to be absurd here, but if I'm understanding the government's position correctly, it is that on November 8th, when a certificate of service was sent, that the government, this would never happen, but that the government could send a certificate of service giving notice that a decision has been entered and not send the passcode until the 88th day.

[00:16:31] Speaker 03:
Yes, that's correct.

[00:16:32] Speaker 03:
And the courts have held, I mean, in the Erwin case, they state that if a plaintiff is truly concerned about this or something like this happens, they can file a basic claim just to preserve their statute of limitations and then supplement that later.

[00:16:45] Speaker 03:
Erwin says that explicitly.

[00:16:48] Speaker 05:
We've also talked a lot about the government needing to be fair in dealing with people.

[00:16:52] Speaker 05:
And I fully appreciate that there are authorities that have looked at slightly different fact patterns, like where a lawyer had mail and didn't choose to open it.

[00:17:06] Speaker 05:
Goofy situations like that, where equitable tolling, I think really clearly demonstrates a lack of diligence.

[00:17:12] Speaker 05:
But on this one, I'm struggling with it.

[00:17:15] Speaker 02:
I'm not sure if we got an answer to your question, Judge Desai.

[00:17:18] Speaker 02:
I mean, it seems to me that the math is the most important part of your case.

[00:17:22] Speaker 02:
It's surprising to me that you don't know the exact numbers of days from the time that he actually was able to open the email and access the FAD to the time that he filed, but my calculation shows that he's within that statute of limitations if we apply equitable tolling.

[00:17:40] Speaker 03:
I apologize, Your Honor.

[00:17:42] Speaker 03:
My calculation may have been off, or I may have miscalculated from a date that

[00:17:48] Speaker 03:
it from our position we didn't think would have been told under.

[00:17:52] Speaker 05:
Okay, so your position is that the statute, sorry, your position is that he would still be late because you think he would have filed on, how many days would have passed?

[00:18:04] Speaker 03:
He filed on the 88th day from December 5th, 2022, and that was March 3rd, 2023, which was 115 days from November 8th, 2022.

[00:18:15] Speaker 05:
So you're starting the clock on November 8th.

[00:18:19] Speaker 03:
That's where we started the clock from arguing that a tolling wouldn't apply.

[00:18:25] Speaker 02:
Right, so you are doing the math, assuming tolling does not apply, and what I'm asking you is if tolling does apply, then he's within the 90-day statute of limitations, correct?

[00:18:36] Speaker 03:
I didn't calculate it that way, Your Honor, just because I subtract, so 115 days is when he filed, and if we're counting from November 14th, I think that's only a nine-day

[00:18:47] Speaker 03:
difference from 115 days.

[00:18:51] Speaker 03:
So it would still be, it would be 106 days.

[00:18:54] Speaker 05:
I think we understand your position.

[00:18:56] Speaker 05:
Thank you.

[00:18:56] Speaker 05:
Are there any further questions for council?

[00:18:59] Speaker 05:
No.

[00:19:00] Speaker 05:
Thank you.

[00:19:00] Speaker 05:
Thank you.

[00:19:01] Speaker 05:
Argument, we'll hear rebuttal.

[00:19:11] Speaker 00:
So I think the government's argument, I just have a hard time wrapping my head around this because it's like who is really at fault in this situation?

[00:19:21] Speaker 00:
It's like, I'm the innocent party, I'm just asking and trying to get a final agency decision copy, and I'm being accused of not being diligent for waiting a week to send an email.

[00:19:34] Speaker 00:
It's like, as Your Honor pointed out, lawyers get busy, you have other cases, you go to download this document and it should be there, you should be able to access, but it makes you think about what if the government sent an envelope and it was empty?

[00:19:49] Speaker 00:
What if there was no final agency inside it?

[00:19:51] Speaker 00:
It was postmarked and you get the envelope, you open it and there's nothing inside it.

[00:19:56] Speaker 00:
Or what if there was a malfunction with their printer and the pages were blank?

[00:20:02] Speaker 00:
So in this case, as far as the equitable tolling, Council for Appellant was using best efforts to try to get a copy of the final agency decision.

[00:20:15] Speaker 05:
And then even Can I interrupt you because I think we appreciate your argument on this point.

[00:20:19] Speaker 05:
What I'm interested in is how you would have us fashion a rule.

[00:20:22] Speaker 05:
What do you think the rule ought to be in the Ninth Circuit about what it takes to start the clock?

[00:20:27] Speaker 00:
So I'm kind of thinking with this case, this might be like fact specific.

[00:20:33] Speaker 00:
So I'm not so sure if, if.

[00:20:36] Speaker 00:
That's not what I asked you.

[00:20:38] Speaker 00:
Okay.

[00:20:38] Speaker 05:
Because when we publish an opinion, um, it's, it's not going to write, has to have broad application and where you've got this case law, you've both cited it and explained it to us at length in your briefing.

[00:20:49] Speaker 05:
What do you think is the best reason decision about what it takes to start the.

[00:20:53] Speaker 05:
I think.

[00:20:55] Speaker 00:
Sorry, your honor.

[00:20:55] Speaker 05:
Not at all.

[00:20:56] Speaker 00:
I think the ninth circuit should protect the citizens and plaintiffs of the ninth circuit.

[00:21:01] Speaker 00:
I think.

[00:21:02] Speaker 00:
the unequal positions between the government and plaintiffs not being equal in the situation that I think the best rule would be that it's 90 days from actual receipt of the final agency decision.

[00:21:18] Speaker 05:
We have a certificate of service that in any other universe we'd say, well, that's it.

[00:21:22] Speaker 05:
That's the certificate of service November 8.

[00:21:25] Speaker 00:
But that's rebuttable.

[00:21:27] Speaker 05:
Well, let me just ask you, am I right, from my little scribbles here, I've made this timeline right, and I think we're all looking at the same dates.

[00:21:35] Speaker 05:
When the certificate of service came, it announced a decision had been entered, and then there was no passcode until November 14, is that right?

[00:21:43] Speaker 00:
That's right.

[00:21:44] Speaker 05:
And then on that day, there were two different passcodes?

[00:21:46] Speaker 00:
Yes.

[00:21:47] Speaker 05:
Okay.

[00:21:48] Speaker 05:
I don't have anything further.

[00:21:49] Speaker 05:
Do you have anything further?

[00:21:51] Speaker 05:
I think we're ready.

[00:21:52] Speaker 05:
Is there any closing remarks you'd like to make?

[00:21:55] Speaker 00:
Um, yeah, there was, there was just, uh, I was going to say something, I forgot, lost my train of thought, but.

[00:22:03] Speaker 05:
Not at all.

[00:22:03] Speaker 05:
I think we have your argument.

[00:22:04] Speaker 00:
Oh, okay.

[00:22:05] Speaker 05:
We want to thank both of you for your careful preparation today, and we'll take that case under advisement and go on to the next case on the calendar.

[00:22:11] Speaker 00:
Thank you very much, Your Honors.

[00:22:13] Speaker 00:
Aloha.

[00:22:14] Speaker 05:
Thank you both.