throughout the midwest or across  members were members of d e c you before he ever became involved in two thousand and two providing financial advice and services visuals became members of your employee's credit union throughout throughout those twelve plus years where he was abusing dear employee credit union members he did go off very substantial relationships with him in early two thousand and fifteen he are exploring a new opportunity with l were only seeking to enforce one provision of the crown for specifically that provision dealing with the solicitation so we were servicing members that he had provided services to during his final two simply attempting to protect its interest and its members it developed over many many years and spent thousands of dollars and resources on the circuit court recognized that the credit union has a legitimate interest in protecting those credit union members he admits he gallagher's that he only reason he had developed those relationships over the years is because the credit union employed him and put him in touch with these individuals this is different than point for two thousand and fifteen when he resigned he was a managing one hundred ten million dollars worth of investment assets or about seventy three percent of the total assets under the credit unions management is a big player a substantial player and he had relationships with the list customers a list members because of his employment ethic right list numbers we're talking about numbers that have the most significant investments is the numbers that if you're providing financial advice and services you want to work with you he provided that list he gave it will be in direct determine ok what did that particular account make over the next year we can foresee it five years two years three years ten years down the road it's simply very hard to predict and all of these cases are teed up procedurally when you read them is you seek injunctive relief to stop the bleeding right away because from the list goes the more we can polish clients and the more damage she can do which is why in these type of cases you sense there's a couple ways look there are number one first of all we do not at this point in time have a separate count one for the dissemination of the names we learned in discovery after the case was file to restrict the activity of non science that is the customers in restricting customer choice and that's very important in this field and mr lewis who is the c e o of the e c u said that in his  props this falls fails on all three tasks mine if you know greater than is reasonable and necessary to protect protect the interest of the employer this is coming out that they want doing it that they would be into their things narrowed here ok as the we go we're talking about whether or not there was once to enforce this section is it wrong what is relevant is whether the trial judge got it right that that to take their account out but the way they've written they're having it we couldn't sell to them we couldn't do business with that because it's just overly broad the second prong reliable fire is it can be harmful to all the time he was employed not just in the last two years so that is totally over brock and it would include former members and they clearly have no interest in former members now it's obvious that they recognize its provisions prohibiting you from selling to certain customers or certain numbers our activity or strings they're not competition restraints and that's an important difference because the activity restraints the non solicitation restraints are subject to a much lower scrutiny then they were trying to say mr smith you cannot work in the financial industry at all mr smith has no sense and thousands and thousands of customers he can focus on  he testified to in a junction hearing his first base is the quad cities three hundred fifty thousand people in we are the entire it was to the entire country we're trying to prohibit and protect our relationship with a very states where you do work so you actually cross out a restriction of five hundred miles in restricted to under cross out five years were stripped at the two meters this is a different situation it's not a modification is choosing to force a certain in essence here is this credit union chose to make their contract so broad that it would apply to thirty two thousand people for five retirees the right you know people who are no longer members people we never ran sm smaller group they can't do that because what they're doing is they've they've chosen they've made their bed and they've got a look they got a statement you can't have this why dr nat and then when challenged pull it back because that's not