matter really really did the connection your honor it is looking at the issues that you should fire as well as the issues presented in the current manner in the prior matter it was a trademark action as your honor points out the we don't need to get to that question of course point out it's irrelevant whether confidential information was actually passed to the attorney the question is whether it's reasonable to infer better tourney representing a client in such a matter would have most important assets and based on the allegation those allegations alone i would say invent a new trading making that allegation would have necessarily made assuming it was well grounded fact i have no reason to attorney protect the sanctity of the attorney client relationship and higher error in the cases recognize this it's also to komodo what confidence in the legal system and i will tell you anecdotally my client was shocked when we went  however in this case we have from the mary legal issues at least to put women area legal issues before you get to the question of whether the ultimate decision it was an abuse of discretion these two preliminary legal questions are whether the also in page eight of the reply bring numerous cases that were never dies that simply allowing employees or agents access to trade secret material does not destroy the trade secret quality of the data it's obviously necessary in large corporations that numerous people have access to that information in this case the employees were subject to the confidentiality and obligations imposed and removed for a handover is that clear is that really a clear statement of what was expected of them i believe it protected all student information which obviously one included anything in the client list that pertained to students   it is password protected there's a unique walking assigned to each employee i would also add that employees were not given the same level axis access was provided not a need to know basis in other words certain case i think i reserve the unusual position of defending the right ironically your honor this is the second time this year i've been before this court and it's the second time this year of defending myself before this court but it is i think a position that is certainly defensible the fact is and the only thing that i really want to make sure that i've pointed out to this court it's not necessarily in the briefs i don't know that specifically there is that i do have an obligation under one forty nine and i think they can put that one coun raise the issue of whether my representation of the predecessor company not the company that he has represented for the predecessor company in cases in trade secret action against m t v s jennifer lopez created this independent lawyer was the defendants in this case i have been representing them since the outset of their business since the outset of my business i did some work for the company for which they were in matters completely unrelated to them do no consider what the legal standard would be and then the question becomes whether the court acted with it and its discretion under that standard there's been nothing shown in this proceeding to demonstrate that even assuming th the misconstrual the rules that she was supposed to follow that she should to reach the same result anywhere couldn't reach the same result anywhere but in affirming an issue of discretion in this court is generally interest in the factual affidavit that i presented to the court your honor the only factual evidence of percentage of the court on this issue whatsoever there was nothing presented from anybody on either side was to that effect and it was specifically to say that in suing jennifer lopez and  suing m t v we were dealing with a pop leave visible mark and the value of the publicly visible mark has a trademark and a trade seeker are inherently they're both intellectual properties but they're absolutely opposite ends of the spectrum intellectual properties one deals with secrets and the other deals with the city that which is visible to the world and that which is also lives of books and no one nothing about trade secrets had anything to do with jennifer lopez whatsoever and wouldn't ever come to that case there would have been no reason to talk about things that defendant didn't know the things we're talking about was that which was registered with the patent trademark office and more importantly to that point your honor the fact remains that the reason this case came into being presumably if there were any trade secrets at all was because my clients in this case you about those trade secrets the people that i'm representing in this case are accused of knowing things that they somehow there's no suggestion that anything that i learned working for moves fifteen years ago for a higher density in a prior unrelated case gave me insight that my clients didn't already have there's no lego that i get on any level  that contact if anything i could have walked into this case is a complete stranger and if there were really traits you preach to be had learned them from my audience for the first time but soon where that would have supposedly mattered in the confidentially from that prior client that would give you an advantage that you shouldn't be able to use against them so for example if i had been involved in moves the prior incident in the construction of let's say their their manuals with respect is or isn't supposed to be kept confidential what is their business which we trade secret and i knew what went into that writing and i knew what they were trying to protect in their writing we're getting to a point where i now remember my own work this one of the reasons why emphasize for the purposes of disclosure the i had done a couple of the things for the senate to decide it's just this jennifer lopez case and i want to make sure that everything before judgment was above board and if the important thing to recognize first of all this perth litigation but all that it my belief was and then remains that the trial court judge should be able to look at that record with open eyes and be able to evaluate clearly whether there is any potential conflict because i have to recognize there's reasonably reviewed the record and i think the record was really very clear there is nothing about the moves logo that has anything to do with this case shift years ago ask you whether the way that i'm tempted to answer that question your honor does kind of bite into the idea that there could be some kind of a question of fact on it but the problem is that you can look at the thing the way in which it's in this and book about client confidential information specifically about kids and we redid it's not necessarily something that you can read as having anything to do with the business of the company so much of it is what we have to do in this case the complaint was first  has an obligation if something's kind of discounts attention with respect to children's identities and children's information and so much different thing than the idea that you were protecting information from disclosure that would give somebody a market damage and i don't know that you can read this handbook as clearly establishing that there's some kind of a marketing advantage issue or that confidential information provision to the contrary there's an entirely separate provision in the handbook that defines trade secrets patience is that in this case the pundits had it a leg up on every one of those cases the clients who has a non computer agreement who two years later goes to work for a competitor and disclose information with they were contractually obliged not to do  may of two thousand and fifteen saying even be careful about what you do with documents and which you do with customers because you got some commodification is out there and it's a very uncertain letter about what they're supposed to do or not to do and then there is a circumstance july of two thousand and fifteen one of the end of may two thousand and fifteen if the lawyer should actually already been hired said have them come in and just give us everything here's a list of what we want you to provide that in syria could have taken care of any return that's a question of return well your honor you can't return the names from the program the program shows every class of the kids state you can't return that you can't return your facebook contacts you can return the mother's phone number that was given to you in every other mother you can't return the emails that are in your database someplace on your own person you know that was the only you know they used for some time years that have come to you from parents along with a hundred other information relating to children as i said the way that i read that the first time through that relates to the idea that if you know of his medical needs you're not supposed to disclose to the public if you've got stuff you think gave you that was confidential you give that what the dance teacher who was in charge of the programs day to day management had to do to make sure the dance costumes were paid for the piece it was paid for and the thief kids knew what they had to spend to go into specifics event so if there's a competition of the paramount theater and the total cost for the team to compete is three hundred dollars and there's ten kids it's thirty dollars a kid this is commonly known stuff as as you pointed out  you pointed out in the depositions of pointed out in the summary judgments these are teachers that have been doing this since twenty years ago you know that they know how to do budgets it's not like they're some sacrosanct information or some secret we have no sworn testimony from anybody on their side to show any communication whatsoever with respect to that suppose or trade secret and what was supposed to be done no indication that anybody was ever told you're not allowed to talk about the budget it's a secret so why my clients are being held standing where they have to defend themselves in a lawsuit over something that they were never told you're not alone talk about those is the big question in their mind was it do ideas budget and counsels reference to it being commonly known stuff it wasn't commonly known stuff and we know that because there was e mails from the defendants in this case and analogy that is going to be of value to them  their new business and it's in the record to see two one five four where the defendant klug status quo you know just in case we ever needed the info we weak and quote so clearly it was not commonly immediately want it was brought to my attention the first hearing course of that was not intentional but you know he didn't submit this even under seal or asked if the impound there were specific allegations in the complaint identifying exactly what the