Free Affidavit in Opposition to Motion - District Court of California - California

Case 3:074cv—02748-I\/IHP Document 96-3 Filed O2/11/2008 Page 1 012
EXHIBIT I
VERITY DECLARATION IN OPPOSITION TO MOTION
FOR PARTIAL SUMMARY JUDGMENT AND IN SUPPORT
OF CI~IANG’S CROSS-MOTION FOR PARTIAL SUMMARY
JUDGMENT

. Case 3:07—cv—02748-MHP Document 96-3 Filed O2/11/2008 Page 2 of 2 S
. 0
From: Mark Litlge " it ..-:1 .=‘· ` .,;,»¤ -2
Subtest: Fwd: CMC ·- IP and Non·—Solicitation _
Date: January 16, 2006 3:38:03 PM PST
To: Andy Verity
, 1 Attachment, 76.0 KB ._
ietls discuss asap.i like his approach & idea to put confidentiai header on ali of our stuttthis is one of the things
that is easy to put off or overlook &· then you damn yourseif when you need to have done it
Begin forwarded message: _ . ‘
From: "John Marlow" t .
Date: January 15, 2006 7:15:48 PM PST ‘ -
To:
Qc: "'ivtark l.iiige“' · ‘ .
» Subiect: CMC — IP and Non»Soticitation . _
Hi Andy: _ `
I l took another look at the Confidentiality and Non-Solicitation Agreement ‘
and made a few additional changes J revisions to tryto highiight that CMC ‘
_ customer lists are confidential information.
As we discussed, to strengthen this position, l think client, vendor and _
supplier information (tothe extent possible) should be availabie only on a .
n.eet:i-to—i . - access to this information and, if it is printed out, pot Oonficientiai J
information in the Header or Footer ofthe document.
All of this said, there is a fine line between a non—Soiicitation Giause and
a Non-Compete Clause. Non-compete provisions are not _enforceat;ile in
California, while noresoiicitation clausesiare often enforceable. t say
"often_" because the case law is not completely consistent on the Q
enforceability of non-soticitation clauses, out they are the best you can
do. l always recommend them because, at a minimum, they generally deter _
former employees from soliciting current customers and ernoioyees and, if
push comes to shove, the clause is in the agreement and most be
addressed_ilovercome hy the former employee in a dispute (i.e., the fact that
the ernpioyee agreed to the restriction can always be raised before the court
- I arbitrator). ._ _ _
Please discuss this with Mark and iet me know if you have any questions. I A
Regards, ‘
U John ‘
John Marlow ` · - . `
Partner ‘ ` ‘
Entrepreneurs Law Group, LLP _
388 Market Street, Suite 400 ' ` _ ` ·
San Francisco, CA 94111
I _ A\/0128

Case 3:07-cv-02748-MHP

Document 96-3

Filed 02/11/2008

Page 1 of 2

Case 3:07-cv-02748-MHP

Document 96-3

Filed 02/11/2008

Page 2 of 2