thank you your honors good morning rob hock for james crane this courtship they keep going or junction because affirming it would radically change the law transform the inevitable disclosure doctrine into a mere fear potential disclosure doctrine insufficient to satisfy the inevitable disclosure doctrine there must be a quote high probability high probability of disclosure no words and out of all of not quite taken literally is still taken seriously in the inhabitable disclosure so now we turn to the circuit court ruling and there's just no fun there's just no point that disclosure here is inevitable were even highly probable were the factors to be considered so there's there's a variety of factors that should be considered the courts have t m has rigorous policies and procedures in place that they rigorously communicated that vigorously communicated those to mr craig when he joined that upon hearing even just a concern out of tape not even just a concern cape they took the extra steps to make sure that no ten mile information came into a t m they don't want to and we know even more because we know here not only did they take all the proper steps and do everything it's supposed to do but we know that a t m didn't hide mr pratt because of his experiences testimony again undisputed is that mr cray went to school and studied for this field of industrial structure he worked for years at various customers of a t m and that's what attracted a t m s attention to mr craig when they were looking to bring on somebody in this up position that they were that they were looking to fil go through the cases when we actually look at the cases that have been properly found inevitable disclosure and support injunctions you see dramatic differences between those cases and this case and again what you have all you have from the d that kind of information in his head his new job he could not help the course it could not help but refer that's directly obvious directly opposed to the testimony in this case again undisputed what the right how is that balance though with the as a trial judge the thought that there's the apparent intent to take information with you so this is done deed based on the testimony regarding dunn drive and you know this place and so forth agree justice justice connected thinkers there's facts to balance here but the balance is alternately pointing at the question what's the likelihood is there a high like w likelihood increase the employee that's the subject of the bet we're looking at has shown i rather urgent need to  making a beer showing some kind of a fair showing of the likelihood of success on the merits but the standard of a fair showing of a likelihood of success on the merits is pretty low that's just a gatekeeper to say look if your case isn't is doomed to fail your case  they're going to have some very common but they'll have some information in their have that they can't help but they can't they can just forget so that so you need something more in the are we already talking about what's in his head that's right and that but that's an important fact so unless he has to bring the documents after documents look at them refer to them in connection with this work at it here that's what he has to do in order trial judge in mine title to take into account the evidence of his  that they're hiring you know one would hope that he would know they're going to be maybe tough on making sure there's no there's no lawsuit about i e they're going to put it safe and yet he engages in behavior that is suspicious to his fellow employees it might cause the judge to say when this guy says he didn't take it and he doesn't have it he's not going to refer to it that's a credibility issue and it's a that's fine against the employee then whether he uses the words or not he's thinking about inevitable  sprint and the cases talk about evidence of covering his tracks of evidence of people going out of their way and in the r k i case file mind you the employer to participate in the the new employer participated in the evidence to inevitable disclosure that can happen and this is exactly the kind of case words appropriate for that words were words necessary for that to happen you don't have a strong indication you don't have the kind of strength of intentional conscious wrongdoing you haven't disputed the evidence i recognize your honor that the judge said he did not find mr craig's testimony credible but that was on a specific issue because mr craig testified that for his entire time at tate mile he had been using some drives to back up his computer all along and that he thought is was that his supervisor knew that and his supervisor said no i didn't know that and the judge just finding if you look back at the ruling you'll see the judge is finding about lack of credibility on craig was he simply the judge simply agreed that he was hostile or schrock his supervisor was testifying credibly that she didn't know and so that there wasn't any kind of suggestion that lyle was comfortable with mr craig taking information out of eight mile and bringing it home to work on it at home and all i can back it up on congress there's no so so that that failed but that's a far cry from saying the trial judge is absolutely certain that mr craig was behaving suspiciously with a consciousness of wrong but well you have to be the only fine people we have to be positive about it but the that's right he just he just to but if it's only a fair show if it's only fair showing