in this matter dismissed the plaintiff's complaint that alleged three counts that are all founded over a nine competition not solicitation of confidentiality and entered into between the plaintiff here because if you look at the ruling the transcript of the court's ruling in there is no written in this case just a horrible ruling on the bench the judge didn't apply any of the standards that the supreme court articulated in particular agreement is no greater the required for legitimate business interests of most of because it basically covers the entire country and every job related to the fish industry well the food industry well it is more limited than that justice for also it's more limited because it's specifically is tied to the work of mr felt he solved it from a set of while he was at and set up and i refer but i think it's very well wait there's a lot though that says we're busy to currently does business and that's that's pretty definable not that he did any business while he was employed there or into it has to be a product or service that means that it was selling after time that mr felpham ball was employed so it's not at all a typical of restrictive covenants you see it just so happens that this is a company that sells some to its customers in its suppliers to take him through its warehouses to show him how you know what the process is for harvesting the product to processing it to bring it into distributing it and so on and so forth the cases say that a company has a legitimate business interest in protecting that and best and that's what's going on here and i would know you know we do have a situation here we have two different plane per he he worked for a better now company before he was a salesman who's who thousands seven i believe it was from his that he was a salesman he's very good at being a salesman we tried him in the business when he left me is that  he went in he got his broker's license so this is an individual who sells many different types of products and services his life unlike what we saw mr art his life is not his professional life is not a professional life that's focused on one industry he's a salesman he's left me is that i he went to work proof i've been wanting surance business he was going to get a piece of the business turns out he didn't like that so he came back to mazatlan and we continued to teach in the business to amass him in our business to spend time money and effort and importantly to give him access to all of our confidential information information that's not publicly available information that we have here and make available in a secure place  companies and i think any given day is that accurate well i think what the record must of course were not exclusive you didn't have permanent customer relationships in other words if they're going to get a better place somewhere they're going to go  dismiss despite the fact that it's almost unanimously i didn't find it or that he hasn't said it has said these are fact intensive questions in the parties must be given the opportunity to compel yes we were given that opportunity here  factual analysis we have to be allowed to develop the facts relating to exactly what mr calvert hall did while he was out with it and we submit that those facts are going to demonstrate in detail all of the confidential information he had access to all of the customers that he approached and of course we don't know because we were shocked wow when the motion to dismiss was granted of course we don't know what customers he went after to prevent him from dealing with customers who are suppliers and i'm trying to find a language that he felt with while he was in the boy governors even if he didn't become a customer does that is what i'm saying and i ambiguous and i suppose a very strict reading of that say even if you call this person to say you know how all that would be covered here i think that's true roger and i think that that with this type of ambiguity i think that's goal teaching this guy or business sharing our confidential information with them so that he can construct prices that would give customers come to us get suppliers the self less that has the balance of this company and it's not publicly those circumstances among a myriad of other facts that we need to be given the chance to go in discovering i think the supreme court is telling us less have discovery give the parties the opportunity to develop the evidence and then files at the same time you were and his laptop we haven't been able to find out what he was doing or what he accessed or what he found that we need the opportunity to be able to develop that evidence as part of our discovery sees the judge in the trial court just turning the case with without their kind of factual the information that in all of these cases parents are given a chance to develop going back for a moment it's related but the problem i guess i'm seeing with this one there was something specific there but with this one in order to accomplish or your purpose is to get him to stop this you st have this or that it's you have to do all of these things if we can't get past the the st part whether there is a valid and forcible contract by its troops fights four corners what's left why do that this agreement is tailored enough to at least allow the parties to develop the other things in this case see what was breached to see what was done by this defendant i submit we have a right to do that if it by well it has but i would also explore the position and reserve the ability to present position that during the period of time of this defendant was breaching the contract it doesn't count against here in the us so the eighteen months would start a new from the other things you just have to worry about well i handed i haven't found any cases that factually analyze that provision other than what the supreme court said reliable which is it's a fact intensive analysis as to whether  court said that's too broad because you didn't do this work and also the court looked at the customers or clients that assurance partner was using the n the restrictive covenant that was found the fact of in the act case trying to find  for customers or clients that he never had any contact with that there was a list that was a part of that agreement and these customers are not hurt that list so yes to answer your question i think it is a fact analysis that has to be restrictive covenant that you shouldn't go into the same business that he said i understand i have many other offers in the food business and otherwise so i think what the facts are last and to believe we can support with evidence are facts that services with customers that he work with while he was at is that one more thing i want to make sure i have a chance to highlight you for my time is up and that is in this case like in c t yesterday we have a sophisticated individual who out from any employment in any position for any competitor located anywhere in north america that's why she called the recall because that's way too broad insured parkers and cambridge engineering countless other cases explained you just not enforceable from the get go but one thing i didn't think i'd have addressed is just the language of this that is that brought in other words the type of limitations and restrictions that were being described a moment ago aren't aren't here i mean this goes to prohibit in mr bills of all from directly or indirectly in engaging in any business with any competing organisation which does business anywhere in the territory so it's not limited to particular customers it's not was that the people that necessarily even bought they used the word in that when she got to the not solicitation who had contact with mr belford vault that's the problem it's are looking to apply them because they prevent people from earning a livelihood in their profession the courts scrutinize them very carefully but in any case a plaintiff has to have a good faith basis to file a lawsuit to begin with you don't get to say i might have a case i need to discovery to plead my case in the st instance that can't be how it works you have to have some investigation and time and time again we heard comments in that transcript of the gist of this sort of court proceedings where the it was pointed out to counsel from azad that you do not allege anywhere that you conducted any type of reasonable took anything down with anything used anything disclosed anything you got and nothing me with my firm does these type of cases on both sides all the time there are forensic studies you can do in the computer age very very easily to say whether someone room we don't know what he was doing here well if you take a personal computer in here doesn't that indicate something i didn't see anything about a personal computer i think that what was drilled down on from end of the transcript and we have it was simply that they're talking about the process of logging on to work every day when you log on to work that's all they're talking about that's how efficient this was because one thing we brought up from the very beginning was from the  to disprove whether or not he had done anything improper without any basis to say usually somebody says you're talking to these three customers we know that you have this information because we've heard this there was no valid basis it was almost like what's the hero combined with a motion for summary injunction and six x with a discovery i think it's extremely telling when you see somebody not and i think it's even more telling when they asked for multiple extensions to answer motions to dismiss never ask for any  there was no discovery that was going to change the language of these provisions they don't contain the type of narrow and defined terms that the court held in reliable fire could potentially be something that they will want to hear more in the the these provisions aren't changing and there was nothing you sort of have it on both sides you have these draconian provisions which run of course when reasonable on their face by any applied measure the case law combined with the absence of any specifics as to customers talk to information used any type of trade secret nothing of the kind and so i think those are the reasons why it wasn't even a close call that this complain might have five or six suppliers on any given month week or day there's no master supplier agreements anybody has pointed to that or near company customer relationships where you know gibson says i'm only going to buy from these folks for the next six years or you can amend this complaint in conformity with your rule one hundred and thirty seven obligations go ahead i'll give you thirty days and what happened no amended complaint was filed at all no attempt to cure the deficiency it had been identified no attempt to put all anything and i think that is a very challenging thing to overcome for a plane when you've been given leave to file an american plane after the court gets a chance to rule after we put our car for a table and said here's what's wrong with your case and they couldn't the matter how many dead so you take or how much discovery do is a question of law and therefore it was properly decided in the manner it was decided  ok so there's no discussion in there about motions to dismiss about whether or not it's proper to evaluate a motion to business with the court hell it was that you know you have to look at each one on its facts accorded look at this on his bags but that good faith basis to plead the claim then you shouldn't be in court and we shouldn't be in the lawsuit and i do think that's why the case was dismissed in pleadings staging the joint in six hundred and fifteen i'm not sure if i'm with my time but i actually my questions i respectfully submit the council is being a little too wishy washy with the record what what judge we ask me that that argument was have you allege what information mr felt of downloading on his laptop confidential information are all of the things that i've described before they need in order to sell these customers didn't count down well we don't know what he downloaded on his laptop i have said your saying he learned this information customers and and carried out the business the things that are dressed as to what he actually did as an employee of missouri and he's now being going to work for a direct competitor for these products improve the services that's sufficient to stay because of ac know that and we're entitled to do discovery to get specific information developed to effect well you know that that's why they hire them away from that i think that but if you just look at this agreement and that's concept that when you have a provision that has this paragraph try this remedies that says and over provisions prominently stated in this agreement that