i think small. do you? in civil and criminal litigation, that is not a large number. that is before you get to all of the points that jack made in his reply, which was, it s duplicative, it s been available. the main reason this is just not an issue in this day and age, we are not in the 19th century, or the 20th century. we do not use pieces of paper. this is the land of old-timey. everything is done by computers. you do, you get rid of duplicate. you do computer searches. you use a.i., you get rid of discovery paralegals. all of this is done in a really, fast computer search way. it s targeted. so, that was basically his argument. i have to say, this is one where the briefs are really, for the public. because judge chutkan knows this. any federal judge who s dealing
century, or the 20th century. we do not use pieces of paper. this is the land of old-timey. everything is done by computers. you do, you get rid of duplicate. you do computer searches. you use a. i., you get rid of discovery paralegals. all of this is done in a really, fast computer search way. it s targeted. so, that was basically his argument. i have to say, this is one where the briefs are really for the public. because judge chutkan knows this. any federal judge who s dealing with civil and criminal litigation, knows if you come in and say, oh, there s a lot of discovery. yes, they want to know that you have time. but to pretend like it s hard copy paper that goes to the washington monument? it s not a serious argument for the court. it reminds me of a judge saying