temporary restraining order that had been empty for two weeks earlier without notice to mr sit and then there was the subsequent order over wine two thousand and eight sales representative from a t m on august effect of august three thousand and eighteen that started the salting business there prior to that point he had been a part time farmer has a farm full time barber so that that was his plan so we used to sell it now i always tell people by his position was on behalf of a d m to sell the sweetener products and there are five companies that do that manufacture and sell sweetener products then in his consulting business to service a consultant for the fockers so and  that so you'd be working part time but a t m wasn't ethnicity and retaining him as a consultant to be a broker for a t m after he resigned and then he came up he decided to pursue his consulting business afterwards to represent buyers now i think it's significant that the trial or at the end of the hearing on september twenty seventh two thousand and eighteen when addressing entering the extent of the order or away from the trial court of the court finds the people excuse me not the people but the petition well with all due respect to counsel i think the bond should be higher than what he's recommended i don't know that i'm right today i don't know that i'm wrong i would hope that i'm right but if i'm not the appellate court sees it differently i don't want him to lose any fines the bond will be set at two hundred fifty thousand dollars i'm here today to respectfully submit the got it wrong and implore the hell of court to see it differently based upon the standards that have been a none see aided as to when a former employer can obtain a court created non competition restriction when there is no were stripped of company in any of which describes inventions protection and has a couple of sentences that he will not disclose confidential information and significantly there was no evidence of any violation of that agreement inevitable of this closure of trade secrets doctrine that those standards were not met and i believe or employ to court to reach that conclusion the port discuss what the standards to have a port created that computer grima where the employee never signed on and the court stated in trial packaging group the war consider the following factors in determining whether disclosure of trade secrets is inevitable one of the level of competition between the former employer and the new employer to whether the employees position with the new employer is comparable to the position he held with the former employer and three the actions of the new employer fe can prevent the former employee from using or disclosing trade secrets of the former employer and the court goes on to say the mere fact that someone assumes the position at a competitor does not without more make it applicable that he will use or disclose trade secret information and that the fear but its former employer the fear of the employer articulated in any findings of the trial for there was first off mr simlins not working for a competitor both sides acknowledge there are five companies involved in the manufacturing and selling of the sweeteners crops one of which is a t m his consulting business for me how to fire for customers competitor so that is the first basis that we respectfully submit there should be no judicial rated nine heat obligation or restriction on running  then secondly that that should resolve the case but i respect we need to address other issues than the but the second point here is when you look at the case where this very printed and twelve proprietary documents and information i believe or your honour's would say that's when that doctrine has been not here when the only evidence that was disputing that mr sedley like most employees of a company or sales were up wouldn't have access to some have confidential information on but there was no evidence what so ever of any use of confidential information of a t m no evidence whatsoever of any disclosure of confidential information of a t m no evidence says in other there was a lot of that it is about this system data upon which confidential