one argument against your position on this one of the arguments is that if you're now arguing that this trade secrets act in puerto rico required more specificity then they gave which i can understand why you would read it to have done so that argument about that requirement being in the trade secret act accordingly can was never raised to the district court so what's your response there response is that it was specifically to raise in the motion for summary judgment it is specifically citing concluding that there was some requirement to be more specific now we firemen peace laid out in the law but you know not the way but but the but i think their argument is that you didn't make the argument to the district or deck the statue or rico statute principle that you have to identify the trade secrets in your proof in order to recover and they never did that they never did that here your honor and that's why we went and hid her and let me off trial for  i would say also was the what was the district court doing making all these findings in the court she would understand what was in dispute the court seemed to understand what the plaintiffs were contending were trade secrets then made findings about the lack of specificity being a basis for you winning i st i st asked for discovery yorkers to try to get more specifics about the trade secret and they were denied and then on summary judgment after and that was and then that was the night and then only after that at trial it was the st time in your view that it became clear what they were talking about you had your view of the district works findings that we have before us are all based on the evidence that came out at trial sorry just the peasants question is the district court seem to have figured out what was being claimed to be detained secrets and made a whole bunch of findings about you in response seem to know what it's talking about at that point in your briefing to us engage with those the district court at that point when it was able to identify what with the trade secret you're saying that's based on evidence that st appeared at trial for days then yes th view the trade secrets are at stake i mean though those don't those depositions include discussions of the of the c p r as the you know of the strategy as it's called but my understanding that mr columbia calamity academic thank you that's me he and his deposition she seems to be describing those documents as as what's so concerning to them describes them as trade secrets describes why they are trade secrets describes all the time and effort that goes into their creation describes how much business is generated by them clients we got there gary information we see it and make announces and then we come up with a report that sounds like what i do every day in my office and it's not a trade secret when i asked me start columbia exactly the same question why does the specific information you know so what we did was try to figure out more specifically in discovery what confidential information but then they couldn't dig their answer was everything everything twenty six gigabytes a few formation in the do you know ever move once the federal claim was out of this case even though you want to even though you thought the state law questions were novel not on that's not what happened was that there wiretap was was federal act and he was dismissed after trial so the court still had to decide on the wiretap so we went to trial on the federal the shelf wiretapping specific which satisfies the definition of a trade secret what is that here what the district court held and i think correctly is that with respect to the capital preservation ordered the secret compile all the information which includes an analysis and advice to its clients and the end result is e capital preservation report that the secret use and the process it falce that that in itself is the trade secret it's just seems so what you describe it touches seems like it's the application of generally known laws to the specific facts brought forth by a client i don't understand how contained within the capital preservation report or information i should i struck that not with an information used to prepare the the capital preservation report in the underlying documents used in the us possession strategy that by itself is not a trade secret what when it becomes a trade secret is by the very use that gives it the process that he uses and the end result that is a trade secret and that is supported by these which we're having trouble finding any precedent in any trade secrets laws anywhere that mimic it and i just don't fully understand what what is the sense in the federal court being the one to give such a novel interpretation of other than federal law rather than either certifying or as a lot of our cases it just wants the federal case plain drops out of the case exercising discretion to just dismiss the state law plains and  again with his honor statement judge parent but i do think that that is just as in other cases where the state court is not necessarily to find an issue or tackle an issue the federal court does not need to certify it ific if you can reasonabl and just to your point and this goes back to the certification issue the judge barron was mentioning the puerto rico trade secret act is based on the uniform trade secret act that up i believe most of the states u respect to the trade secrets and just to put this in perspective and i think i hope i i address judge dykes concern with respect to the trade secrets are the reality is and i think this will also address some of the comments made by ms ramos earlier the reality is that in this case t l s claimed that all of its confidential information that the appellant's had misappropriated were its trade that except for the capital preservation report issue and the u s possession strategy issue i should also note going back to the capital to both the capital preservation report and the u s position us up  strategy the district court was very careful in saying i am not holding that the underlying documents or the information used to render to create this strategy and this report our trade secrets what i'm think supported by the fact that there was no evidence that any other entity in puerto rico any other entity in puerto rico was or has been offering these two trade secrets that  the interpretive process that's going to be given to the uniform act in puerto rico are they going to look to law elsewhere and interpret it yes you are i and i apologize because i can't think of a specific  statute that i could mention for the court but i can say that the supreme court of puerto rico does regularly look to other jurisdictions and how they've interpreted other statutes that are similar to statutes to the particular statute in puerto rico that the supreme court is interpreted if it is not an issue regarding the civil code and which case it was i would obviously go to civil court or recall or if we needed to look elsewhere it will go to the civil code of  proposed to the district court why isn't the nondisclosure agreement here invalid is permissible complete agreement under the this argument that the confidentiality clause had issue has it can or should be treated as a non compete clause with the legal requirements and restrictions that that are necessary  first the most basic reason and the obvious reason is that this is not a non computer remit that this is a confidentiality clause but secondly i think this goes to what his daughter wants me to dress the compete the confidentiality clause at issue here does not preclude competition it does not it precludes the use and disclosure of t l s confidential information t l s is not requesting that opponents not compete in puerto rico or elsewhere t l s is merely requesting that they do not use their confidential information to do so now i will grant you your honor that there is a of non competition there but i do not think that that reduces to the level of a non compete clause such as the one in arthur young i think that they are separate i think that they are easily distinguishable as i've just hopefully  you're claiming is protected is distinguishable from the content of the  following there are i suspect many ways that that report could be compiled there are many ways or reports which is that could be compiled there are many ways that a report like that could address  information that it contains or or use different guidelines analysis and so forth and so i think that the decision you're asking about is that the way th secret that you're describing by saying something that is not in the report is the only way to violate it but i think something that is in the report such that there's going to be a perfect matchin between the of the room or in the trades i think that there is a way of violating and i think that the way would be to conduct the same process that conducts to prepare the report no he describes a process and then he does he goes into the report which are two different things but i should say that i do think that and i respectfully disagree with with judge dyke i think that the report can be the trade secret can be a tra secret in addition to the process which is what the court concluded and i think that one of the reasons why if i just say this to finish one of the reasons i concluded that is because there was testimony uncontested testimony that this specific report this type report st of all it was it was not it's not offered by any other anti and secondly as has been developed it for years  gives to the information that i require which would not be a trade secret or the information that it uses to provide the capital preservation report you're i'm i know my time is up i'm happy to answer any questions on wave or otherwise  why because they enjoy clients from going to other firms and doing those same processes in other fires so if it was a unique t l s and nobody knew about it why would a client n it however there are about fifteen pages in my motion for summary judgment explaining how that violates young and how that plea cation that t l s is giving to that