Nondisclosure Agreement between
digEcor and e.Digital
In April of 2002, William J. Boyer and
his company APS (now known as digEcor) signed a Nondisclosure Agreement
with e.Digital. Among other things, the Nondisclosure Agreement contains
a broad non-competition provision that restricts e.Digital from
competing with digEcor for a period of seven years after the termination
of the Nondisclosure Agreement. At a minimum, the non-competition
restriction runs through April of 2009-and potentially longer.
The Nondisclosure Agreement has been
included by digEcor as part of the current litigation between digEcor
and e.Digital. At a recent hearing, e.Digital argued that the
Nondisclosure Agreement was superseded by a subsequent agreement between
the parties. Federal Judge Ted Stewart rejected e.Digital's arguments
and issued an order on January 19, 2007 stating, as a matter of law,
that the Nondisclosure Agreement has not been superseded.
Accordingly, digEcor hereby provides
notice that e.Digital has a current Nondisclosure Agreement with digEcor
that contains a broad non-competition provision. If you have questions
regarding the extent of the restrictions or the propriety of e.Digital's
current activities, please contact digEcor." Notice the language "as a
matter of law,". The judge is saying that the law is clear on this
matter. The April agreement is still in effect and was NOT superseded as
e.digital had argued. You article reads exactly the opposite. It is
because of that January ruling that DigEcor went back to court
requesting that the judge enforce his ruling and stop e.digital from
competing.
Since e.Digital lost on its superseding
argument, it invented several new arguments to get around the signed
agreement. First that even if the agreement is still valid, Bill Boyer
did not disclose any new information to them. Second, since the state of
California does not always enforce covenants not to compete and
Washington and Utah do, when e.digital signed the contract, it believed
that it would never have to abide by the NDA. This is a novel theory. "I
signed the agreement and the agreement says that I intend to be bound by
the agreement, but in the recesses of my mind, I believe that I will not
be held to the agreement that I am signing." (This is based upon an
affidavit that the signed filed with the court.)
What the court held based upon the
October 9, 2007 hearing was that there apparently were factual disputes
to be resolved and that the court did not have enough evidence before it
yet so the motion for summary judgment was denied "without prejudice"
which means that digEcor can come back before the court and re-file its
motion with more evidence that might eliminate the factual disputes. The
court also stated in open court that it still needed more facts to
determine which state law should apply to this issue.
What e.Digital did was create enough
doubt in the judge's mind that there were factual disputes and thus it
was not time for the judge to make a ruling. The judge punted until the
case is more fully developed. The whole hearing came down to the judge
saying I don't know what is true and what is not so I need for facts
presented to the court. E.digital dodged a legal deadly bullet by
creating enough doubt to cause the case to proceed further. They did not
win anything else and DigEcor won the right to re-file again since the
motion was denied "without prejudice".