honor he's employed outside of the job that he had originally been given he was the vice president for cardiovascular services taking a broad sweep of the entire system the entire health care system in hudson county now he is relegated to serving a small facility outside the geographic scope of the injunction the non compete and he serves only to be administrative folks at that facility a vastly different job she  services for the entire system and for others for the facilities where and when you see this is really you know you you can make it sound very dramatic but this is where did it once geographic scope limited in agreed to for a number of reasons around first of all first and foremost there was no irreparable harm that was demonstrated which is a prerequisite from the from the outset the judge says  said look this intermediation is it is a real problem a business a temporary staffing this or staffing business and if you allow this to happen it destroys the very business model in which there are salish you know what's what's wrong with that reason why is that is the same as saying you know it's a real problem if real estate buyers and sellers once they're put together by a real estate agent is the client a real estate cited by the other side not one of them dealt with the contract that we have in play here which is the p s a contract preferred staffing agreement contract that contract specifically  section one day that upon notice contract and says that's not that's not a waiver of the non compete that's a statement that we won't charge a fee in the event that such a hiring is the gulf war but if you if we read the p s a the way you do point cannot quote solicit direct influence or tenth influence or hire any employee or independent contractor employee engagement party within the preceding six months if we read the contract the way you're suggesting don't we just contract means and that specific provision means is something that the judge took evidence on and made a fact finding right no your honor she is taking evidence on it and you're citing the evidence isn't that mean that this is actually some contract interpretation going on here and the judge is trying to get the meaning behind this yes your honor it was contrary interpretation based upon the  point where he can be anywhere else and that information could be disclosed first secondly we take seriously should with this with the fact that the information number one was confidential confidential plans  called opportunities were and by his only admission he said we were very nascent and we can use the word nascent was a very preliminary discussions i think some of the some of the e mail traffic going back and forth to mr butts who was given this not delve into exactly what these opportunities were he heard no testimony from the representatives of the on the other side of the opportunity and took the word of mr howard  imposed upon mere speculation with there is a remote possibility of down the line that there might be might be disclosure that might impact somehow negatively on mr socko if if we specific wording and says this actually isn't just a one off money claim this actually destroys the business model in which the business itself is if you may disagree with that but what is th how is that it's not something beyond mere money you are i don't believe that the court in find making that finding misinterpreted the plain language of section one day of the health care  care care point and h r staffing agreement that the language was specifically negotiated it was clear on its face upon notice there's a carve out it was a specific carve out for about fifty individuals and fifty individual cause within the piece i say however that clause likewise provides that it's prescription only quote except with prior written consent the other party which may be provided or withheld that th plus that clause was also waived by section one so the position you're taking is but in negotiating the pieces say they created an internally inconsistent document where one section waves another section ha action and who were sort of on the fence on this case early on your point is not a party that you parties are mr bunch the former employee and h r staffing the employer there's a there is an idea to be us employment agreement place contains a fairly common type of restrictive covenant it's one year it's five counties generally enforceable has specific provisions as to when and how that agreement can be modif case by the defendant to make an argument that somehow despite the fact that mr abbas was previously employed had an employment agreement in place with h r staff and despite the fact that something that that this record judge had to deal with and that we've got to deal with so we might as well deal with it they say the p s a c is the written agreement it is the statement by your client that they waive the nine compete as to a certain class of employees including potts so you know what's wrong with it at a factual argument that our one bears on the other well the argument itself is wrong for a number of reasons interpretation is wrong not just incorrect but wrong is that in order for there to be a way for has to be a knowing and voluntarily knowing involuntary clear and unmistak that's that's a basic new jersey supreme court instruction of waivers the fact that we're having this discussion i would say indicates that you can't take the position that this is a knowing involuntary waiver of any rights under the employment agreement richard bus which is an event which isn't specifically referenced number two we have a provision that says that to the extent that there are employees who were previously employed they're governed by their employment agreements so defense resists contract makes an internally unworkable well they say there's a there's a waiver here but there's not a waiver there open at least if you take the position that that the at the outside of the remaining terms of the p s s you have a non compete we have a provision that says that the l t p employees all employees are subject to employment agreements will continue to perform pursuant to their agreements was one d of the p s s a meant to counteract or in any way be an exception non compete provision in section six mr barker's that position was was was marked in portions of it works out that is direct testimony in the case both by the plaintiff and by the fans mr barker answers no and why did you believe it was not it's very clear that it's related to the placement it's related to the existing staff payment of a  consented to what i know that mr rubin ever say that you know if any of those people ever said that to you what would your response of then it would have been red flags i would have gone to talk to agreements are referred to expressively without regard to the fact that we have a non competition provision in the p s a in this regard the new jersey supreme court's guidance on when you have a knowing and voluntary claims any rights under our employment agreement with you that contains a restrictive of it so the reality is that even the condor the party's down and straits that there is no willy nilly pick and choose whatever we no we can't for the following reasons i would move away from the disintermediation argument for a second that's more of a theoretical and let's talk about confidential information the court heard testimony at length not high in the sky testimony or this is what we want to do some day and this is what we discussed with mr butts about we want to do some of that but real concrete evidence naming names meaning  matter of real discussions live discussions with your points competitors now under the p s a which is particularly relevant on this point although each our staffing enough stream would have you believe clearly to negotiate and discuss competitive venture against share point during the time that the the p s s a was in force they cannot operationalize it they cannot all they can do at that time is negotiate and talk in march of this past year those discussions a started they were in full swing continuing at least from the records from the perspective of the record to the date that the record was created and i can represent that they're continu self compete for the seeing patients and compete for the same physicians to join that everywhere it wasn't there were hiring bots for that purpose use most president of cardiac services as as as vice president of the of those services relationship was falling apart and wow you could disclose it now you really don't want to disclose it because that is your livelihood considering the fact that the preferred stopping agreement was going to expire right that that that that's exactly it your honor other words but what's what's happening right now today that the staffing agreement has been terminated the relationship is terminated we're now in a position where there's negotiations can become fruitful and they can operational reinstated into that position as the head of the cardiovascular line overseeing in developing the cardiovascular line relationships with physicians at the hospital he can't help but not take the forget about th slow sure he can help but not take a defensive position knowing who his former employers are talking to what those former employers are talking to those folks about knowing that there is going to be a  and he's prevented from working in a capacity where the inevitable disclosure and use of that information would occur that position is his former position it carefully ok was prepared was poised as these other cases in the case had any suspicious activity as to whether he was going to disclose anything in fact the records just isn't so it doesn't speak to the point mr are