Non-Disclosure Agreements in California

Due to the exclusion of confidential and trade secret claims in the arbitration agreement, the agreement is substantively unconscionable.

AWA alleges that these defendants breached certain non-disclosure and confidentiality agreements. (See Cross-Complaint, ¶¶ 76-80.) These allegations are sufficient for pleading purposes because claims for breach of contract may be pleaded in general terms. (See Ochs v. PacifiCare of Cal. (2004) 115 Cal.App.4th 782, 795.) The cross-defendants may obtain further information regarding Cross-Complainants claims in discovery. (See Khoury v.

Further, De Leon does not contend that Allied Services is seeking such relief here, nor does he explain how this provision affects his causes of action in the Complaint, none of which arise from terms of the Employee Non-Disclosure and Confidentiality Agreement. Thus, considering the Arbitration Agreement and Employee Non-Disclosure and Confidentiality Agreement together, De Leon has failed to show substantive unconscionability on this ground.

Phase I party dealt with the validity of certain confidentiality agreements, the breach of which are at issue in phase II. Notably, Judge Mooney concluded, based [on] what could potentially be determined as independent wrongful conduct, the court declines to declare the non-disclosure/confidentiality provisions void and unenforceable . . . . (July 12, 2022, Minute Order (emphasis added).)

The parties represent that a copy of the settlement agreement was electronically submitted to LWDA. (Nguyen ¶ 7.) 2. The Proposed Settlement and Release The proposed settlement covers Aggrieved Employees, meaning any non-exempt employee hired by CED in California since December 30, 2020. (Ex. 1 at p. 1.) The Parties estimate that there are currently about 941 aggrieved employees. (Mot. at 9, fn. 6.)

(3) “2020 Utility Hybrid NDA.pdf”: An 8-page Long Term Vehicle Loan and Evaluation Agreement between Ford and LAPD, dated January 10, 2019. (4) “Fleet Data Ts and Cs.pdf”: A 4-page agreement dated January 20, 2019 between Ford Smart Mobility and LAPD. (5) “Fleet Services Agmt.docx”: Ford represents that this unproduced agreement is a 13-page unexecuted draft agreement.

Plaintiff’s claim for attorney’s fees succeeds under the Non-Disclosure Agreement (admitted at trial as Ex. 104). The provision provides: “In any legal action between the parties concerning this Agreement, the prevailing party shall be entitled to recover reasonable attorneys fees and costs." Plaintiff is the prevailing party on the breach of contract claim premised on the Non-Disclosure Agreement.

Nothing in the Non-Disclosure Agreement concerns FEHA or other aspects of Plaintiffs employment. Defendant argues that arbitration of this dispute is required pursuant to the terms of the signed agreement. (Petition, p. 6:34.) Plaintiff argues that this agreement only covers items related to confidentiality and non-disclosure, not to other conditions regarding Plaintiffs employment. (Opposition, p. 2:1222.)

Pursuant to the arbitration agreement, both Plaintiff and Defendants agreed that any claim they had against each other “shall be submitted to and determined exclusively by binding arbitration . . .” Ekstrom Dec., Exhibit A at ¶ 2. The Non-Disclosure Agreement (attached as Exhibit A to the Complaint) does not impact that mutual agreement but simply states that Defendant “shall be entitled to an injunction prohibiting [Plaintiff] from [violating the Non-Disclosure agreement.] Complaint, Exhibit A at ¶ I(e).

Though he has had notice of CHP’s response, counsel for Zrodlo has not come forward with any reason why he will not sign the Non-Disclosure Agreement or why he should not be required to do so. The purpose of the DMV subpoena is for use of the MVARS video at the DMV hearing. The Non-Disclosure Agreement does not in any way limit use of the video at that hearing. The court finds that CHP is not in contempt and need only produce the MVARS video when counsel for Zrodlo signs the Non-Disclosure Agreement.

Plaintiff also seeks attorney’s fees under the attorney’s fees provision in the Non-Disclosure Agreement (admitted at trial as Ex. 104). The provision provides: “In any legal action between the parties concerning this Agreement, the prevailing party shall be entitled to recover reasonable attorneys fees and costs."

On December 4, 2020, Plaintiff filed the public version of its XC against all cross-defendants, asserting causes of action for: 1) Tortious interference with prospective economic advantage; 2) Breach of contract—NDA; 3) Breach of contract—June 2019 letter agreement; 4) Breach of contract—IRA; 5) Breach of confidentiality agreements by disclosure of complaint; and, 6) Misappropriation of trade secrets.

On February 16, 2020, Plaintiff filed a confidential version of its FAXC against all cross- defendants, asserting causes of action for: 1) Tortious interference with prospective economic advantage; 2) Breach of contract—NDA; 3) Breach of contract—June 2019 letter agreement; 4) Breach of contract—IRA; 5) Breach of confidentiality agreements by disclosure of complaint; and, 6) Misappropriation of trade secrets.

Trade secrets or information subject to a non-disclosure agreement may constitute an overriding interest sufficient to support sealing. NBC Subsidiary v. Superior Court (1999) 20 Cal.4th 1178, 1122-23. Plaintiff seeks to seal, arguing the information contained in those paragraphs is subject to a nondisclosure agreement which must be sealed to prevent damage to plaintiffs commercial interest.

Trade secrets or information subject to a non-disclosure agreement may constitute an overriding interest sufficient to support sealing. NBC Subsidiary v. Superior Court (1999) 20 Cal.4th 1178, 1122-23. Plaintiff seeks to seal, arguing the information contained in those paragraphs is subject to a nondisclosure agreement which must be sealed to prevent damage to plaintiffs commercial interest.

Additionally, Plaintiff concedes that his complaint “failed to include his . . . causes of action for Breach of Contract and Breach of non-disclosure agreement.” (Opposition at pg. 2:10-2:12.) Here, this concession is dispositive.

Plaintiff's claim for fees appears to encompass all fees incurred in connection with the litigation, and does not even attempt to identify those fees associated with prosecution of the claim under the Non-Disclosure Agreement and/or the California Uniform Trade Secrets Act.

First Cause of Action (Breach of Confidentiality Agreements) Defendants argue the first cause of action fails because Plaintiff fails to allege that the conditions precedent to Defendants performance under the confidentiality agreements occurred. (Dem. 12: 8-11.) Under the confidentiality agreements, Stockdale was prohibited from using Evaluation Material or Confidential Information. (See Exhibits 1, 2, 4 to FAC, 2017, 2018 and 2021 Confidentiality Agreements).

With respect to the non-disclosure agreement, the terms of the non-disclosure are not set forth and Plaintiff offers no evidence that the agreement relies on the records in this action being sealed, i.e., that the parties cannot complete their obligations under the agreement while this case remains unsealed. ( Ibid .) Therefore, even if sealing previously-public records would be appropriate under the Cal.

This action arises out of an alleged violation of a confidentiality/non-disclosure agreement that Lilanna Shakhnazarian (“Defendant”) allegedly entered into when she was hired as Executive Assistant to Mariah Carey (“Plaintiff”). The Complaint alleges that Defendant violated the confidentiality/non-disclosure agreement by secretly filming Plaintiff engaged in personal, intimate activities without her knowledge or permission and displaying the intimate videos to Plaintiff’s friends and co-workers.

In reply, Plaintiff states in her declaration that “I do not recall a discussion of confidentiality or non-disclosure during the Mandatory Settlement Conference with Judge Ongkeko.” (Peluso Decl. ¶ 6.) Based on the foregoing, the Court is not in a position to enforce or enter the settlement agreement. “A settlement agreement is interpreted according to the same principles as any other written agreement.

App.3d 1383, 1390 is distinguishable because in that case the appellant "failed to allege an express non-disclosure term in four earlier complaints and having adopted a position in his prior complaint that there was no such express non-disclosure term, appellant alleged an explicit oral contract of non-disclosure [in his fourth amended complaint.]" There are no such contradictory allegations here.

Trade secret concerns are routinely addressed by protective orders and/or confidentiality agreements and the parties should submit a boilerplate stipulation to the court, forthwith. The parties are cautioned that unreasonable conduct at the deposition may result in motions for which sanctions will likely be imposed.

Defendants have failed to show that the employment agreements and confidentiality agreements contain trade secret information, attorney client communications or otherwise private employment information other than standard contractual language.

Defendants contend that the non-disclosure agreement has a “limitless” definition of trade secret information, which renders it void and unenforceable in its entirety. Opp. at 16-17. Defendants have equated the non-disclosure agreement with a non-competition agreement. They are distinct: the former may be valid and the latter is invalid. Loral Corp. v. Moyes, (1985) 174 Cal.App.3d 268, 276.

The only pertinent objection was that the evidence sought may be subject to confidentiality agreements. In her further response, Mageno verifies that this is the case. No further response is therefore required. II. LEGAL STANDARD Code Civ. Proc. §2030.300 governs motions to compel further responses to interrogatories.

As framed by the Complaint, Plaintiff alleges that Defendants breached the 2017, 2018, and 2021 Confidentiality Agreements by us[ing] the Confidential Information outside of the purposes of the Confidentiality Agreements. (FAC ¶ 66.)

of such a non-disclosure agreement, such that Mulgrew has not shown that every category of its trade secrets that it contends that Maijala misappropriated was the subject of reasonable efforts to maintain its secrecy. [2] (Houshiar Decl., Ex.

As to Issue #4, this court had previously denied a motion for summary judgment brought by Defendants on the same issue: that the MTCA signed by Defendant Karpel on leaving WG released her from her prior non-disclosure agreement and is a complete defense to this action. The court found that the MCTA was ambiguous, and that parole evidence raised triable issues of fact as to whether the parties intended the MCTA to release Karpel from the previous non- disclosure agreement.

The Complaint alleges the existence of a written settlement agreement (Complaint, ¶ 8), a copy of which is attached as Exhibit A thereto (the “Settlement Agreement”); that Plaintiffs “did all, or substantially all, of the significant things that the Settlement Agreement required of them to do” (Complaint, ¶ 19.); and that “Defendant’s breach of the Settlement Agreement was a substantial factor in causing Plaintiffs’ harm.” (Complaint ¶ 22). The second element (breach) is a closer call.

Per discovery responses, Raposo admittedly never signed a non-compete agreement, had no issue with the non-disclosure agreement, uses contacts from his time at Technologent, has not been prevented from working in his chosen field and freely talks to Technologent employees. Defendants’ Separate Statement (DSS) 12-14. Defendants argue these admissions establish there is no “actual controversy” regarding the non-compete and non-disclosure agreements.

Plaintiffs may establish breach and the threat of future breach of the confidentiality agreements to obtain injunctive relief. Plaintiffs have sufficiently pled the elements of a breach of contract cause of action that does not rely upon the disclosure of the unauthorized recording to LAPD, government entities or in the whistleblower action. See CACI 303; Richman v.

Both Petitioner’s request to have the alleged settlement agreement entered as a judgment pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 664.6 and Respondent’s counter-request to deny the same and/or set aside the alleged agreement due to alleged non-disclosure, duress and/or coercion pursuant to Family Code section 2100 et seq., entail an evidentiary hearing that is not suitable for a short-cause hearing. 

Again, OFW is skeptical a confidentiality agreement actual prevents discovery. In the absence of evidence that the documents are covered by a confidentiality and non-disclosure provision, the Court orders Plaintiff to provided further responses and to produce documents.

Defendants argue disqualification is required because David Lee worked for CALUMS San Diego and signed a non-disclosure agreement. Defts.' Exs. A and B. In March 2014, Attorney Lee was hired to teach a class on paralegal studies. He spent approximately two, one-hour sessions on campus. D. Lee Decl., ¶ 7. Attorney Lee resigned on June 12, 2014. M. Lee Decl., ¶ 9. The non-disclosure agreement pertained to the school's trade secrets, confidential information and proprietary data.

Similarly, Costco contends that, aside from disclosure as part of the stipulated temporary non-disclosure agreement, they protectively safeguard this material. Plaintiff did not file an opposition.

Cantor’s continued employment with Dorfman was conditioned on her execution of one or more written agreements, including a “Confidentiality, Non-Disclosure and Non-Competition Agreement” (hereafter, the “Confidentiality Agreement”) which Cantor signed on November 30, 2004. The Confidentiality Agreement renders confidential various categories of information, documents, and data, including information pertaining to Dorfman’s patients.

Here, the complaint alleges that Plaintiff signed a Confidentiality Agreement and the complaint attaches said written agreement. (Complaint ¶ 8, Ex. 1.) Thus, the complaint adequately alleges that the contract was written.

Bradshaw argues that the relevant facts, particularly the existence of the non-disclosure agreement between Safety and Aramsco, were known to Safety a long time ago, even if they were not known to Safety’s counsel. He further argues that amendment of the complaint is not timely, would prejudice Bradshaw, and would be futile because the proposed amended complaint fails to allege facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action. 2. Futility.

Defendants’ motion to sever trial regarding enforceability of confidentiality and non-disclosure agreement is denied without prejudice. The severance of trial issues is a matter best determined by the trial judge assigned to hear the trial. This is especially true where trial in this matter is only a few weeks away. For these reasons, the court denies the motion without prejudice to allow defendants to renew PLACER COUNTY SUPERIOR COURT THURSDAY, CIVIL LAW AND MOTION DEPARTMENT 42 THE HONORABLE CHARLES D.

The operative pleading does not include any of the challenged emails, or copies of the referenced confidentiality agreements. The averments that the authors are high-ranking officials subject to the company’s confidentiality agreements are supposition, thin at best. In addition, the averments offered do not on their own show illegal conduct. Exposing company salaries and questioning corporate practices is not necessarily illegal.

January 14, 2019 Dept. 56 This is an action arising from an alleged breach of a non-disclosure agreement. On March 1, 2017, Plaintiff filed the operative Complaint for declaratory relief. Defendant seeks a protective order allowing her not to respond to Plaintiff’s requests for admissions, set two, (request nos. 36-302) and requests for admissions, set three (request nos. 303-536.)

The Complaint does not allege whether the Non-Disclosure Agreement and Intent to Acquire Agreement are oral, written, or implied by conduct (but one assumes they were written). Defendants also argue that there is no allegation that individual Defendant Yeh entered into the Non-Disclosure Agreement and Intent to Acquire Agreement in his individual capacity.

Plaintiff points to the non-disclosure agreement between the parties, which provides that confidential information – including information about customers – received by defendant during its relationship with plaintiff would be kept confidential. (Id., ¶¶ 4-5, Exh. A.) The mere fact that the parties entered into a non-disclosure agreement is not sufficient to warrant sealing the information.

Beck asserts that the agreement did not prevent him from soliciting or recruiting Plaintiffs employees. Beck does not examine any particular portion of the agreement in support of this argument and ignores the plain language of the agreement cited above. The agreement included a provision prohibiting him from engaging in any activity with a business that competes with Plaintiff during [his] employment. (TAC, Ex. A.)

As Plaintiff notes, Defendant did not provide a copy of the Non- Disclosure/Proprietary Information and Invention Agreement; however, as discussed above, Plaintiff bears the burden of proving unconscionability and Plaintiff does not provide a copy of the Non-Disclosure and Invention Agreement either. Absent the Non-Disclosure/Proprietary Information and Inventions Agreement, the Court does not find that the Agreement is substantively unconscionable.

Initially, the Court notes that paragraph h), Governing Law, of the Employee Confidentiality and Non-Disclosure Agreement signed by defendant Danielson does not establish consent to this Court’s jurisdiction. This provision is a choice-of-law clause not a forum-selection clause. The Court views this as a case one where the issue is whether it has specific jurisdiction over Danielson.

Greene Trust ("Plaintiff") to offset the settlement agreement for the amount of defendants' delinquent property taxes and for appliances removed from the property by defendants is DENIED. In their settlement agreement, the parties expressly waived Civil Code section 1542. (Declaration of Craig A. Brandt, Exhibit 1, ¶ 7, Exhibit 2, ¶ 1.) Plaintiff argues that the non-disclosure of delinquent property taxes amounts to fraud or resulted in an agreement that was not reached in good faith.

Breach of Contract and Fiduciary Duty Plaintiffs reference Exhibit A to the Verified Complaint, which is a Non-Disclosure Agreement. Exhibit A to the Verified Complaint is actually two agreements, a Confidentiality Agreement, and a Non-Disclosure Agreement. Neither contract appears to state the terms alleged as breached. Namely, neither contract indicates that a “$60,000, transfer was to be utilized to remodel and refurbish the house and/or its backyard in various respects.”

Plaintiff argues that Philip Kirk, who is a former executive and consultant of Plaintiff, entered into three confidentiality agreements with Plaintiff and the C&D Letter was necessary to prevent Kirk from violating the agreements and disclosing confidential information to Defendant. Plaintiff argues that the Protective Order does not nullify the confidentiality agreements between Plaintiff and Kirk.

Monroe Operations, LLC (2025) 111 Cal.App.5th 1009, 1015-16 [HR manager misinformed employee that arbitration agreement gave employer power to resolve disputes without parties having to pay for lawyers].) Thus, a low degree of procedural unconscionability exists. In assessing substantive unconscionability, the Court reads the Agreement together with the Offer Letter and Employee Confidentiality and Non-Disclosure Agreement (NDA).

In the arbitration proceeding, plaintiff alleges Newhard and Didisheim breached their confidentiality agreements and stole plaintiffs proprietary information. In this lawsuit, plaintiff alleges Newhard and Didisheim started new companies, defendants 48North and Anvil, which were formed based entirely on stolen information, data and clients. (Comp., ¶ 7.)

Moreover, the agreement provided: Non-Disclosure. During and after the Employment, Employee will not use, disclose or otherwise permit any person or entity access to any of the Confidential Information other than as required in the performance of Employee’s duties with Employer.

(“Liz”) filed the operative First Amended Complaint (“FAC”) for (1) breach of contract, (2) conversion, (3) embezzlement, (4) breach of fiduciary duty, (5) fraud, (6) fraudulent concealment, (7) negligent non-disclosure, (8) negligent misrepresentation, and (9) unjust enrichment. The allegations of the FAC are as follows. Plaintiffs and Defendant Yeon Kyung Kim entered into an oral agreement in which Jwa and Kim would be 50/50 shareholders of Liz.

House entered into a settlement agreement memorializing additional terms relevant to that payment]. Plaintiff responded to the subject RFA as follows: A Non-Disclosure agreement was signed pertaining to this matter, I cannot answer this question without violating that agreement. If the Court Orders me to answer this, I will do so. Defendant propounded the Special Interrogatory, No. 12 on Plaintiff on May 6, 2022.

Plaintiff claims in paragraph 15 that Hankins and Kilde acted in concert to achieve the aforementioned goals (steal Plaintiff’s clients), even though Kilde knew Hankins was employed with SJC and had signed a Confidentiality Agreement and non-Disclosure Agreement.

Settlement agreements typically have confidentiality agreements. Absent any argument from defendant regarding why the requested information is relevant, the Court will not order plaintiff to potentially breach confidentiality agreements by providing the information requested in Special Interrogatory No. 14.

Despite Rodriguez characterization of the 2nd – 5th causes of action as “trade secret claims,” they are actually claims for breach of non-disclosure agreement, breach of employee confidentiality agreement, negligent interference with contractual relations, and negligent interference with prospective economic advantage, respectively.

Specifically, in Section BC-1, Plaintiff both checked off the box indicating the parties had an oral agreement and then, in the very next line, checked the box indicating a copy of the agreement is attached as Exhibit A. The Court might be able to overlook this contradiction as a clerical error if Plaintiff did in fact attach a copy of the agreement as Exhibit A. However, it didnt.

On October 6, 2017, Versa filed a complaint for (1) breach of confidential non-disclosure agreement, (2) breach of employment agreement, (3) breach of covenant of good faith and fair dealing, (4) tortious interference with economic relations, (5) intentional interference with prospective economic advantage, (6) breach of fiduciary duty, (7) breach of duty of loyalty, (8) misappropriation of trade secrets, and (9) unfair business practices.

Breach is sufficiently alleged at ¶19 of the X-Complaint: Durand has disclosed confidential information and documents of Crown Stone and One Palm to third parties, in direct violation of Durands confidentiality agreements attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference& See X-Complaint, ¶19. Plaintiff demurs to the breach of Confidentiality Agreement claim on grounds that no damages are alleged.

Further, the moving party has not shown that the document at issue, which is an exhibit prepared for this litigation, actually contains confidential information that is protected by unspecified confidentiality agreements in multiple other cases. Moving party can only state that that an order is necessary to prevent "possible disclosure" "in that the total amount of the settlement in each case could be estimated by making an assumption regarding the contingent fee percentages."

Chui, from whom Sierra obtained the trade secrets, was also subject to a confidentiality and non-disclosure agreement with respect to the source code. (FAC ¶ 29.) These are sufficient allegations that the source code was subject to confidentiality agreements both with LADWP and Chui. The FAC also make detailed allegations of the steps it took to protect its trade secrets. (FAC ¶ 33.) In Epicor Software Corp. v. Alternative Technology Solutions, Inc. (“Epicor”) (C.D. Cal., June 21, 2013, No.

There is also tortious conduct that occurred after the Vendor Agreement. For example, it is alleged that defendants misappropriated trade secrets beginning in January 2019 and continuing to the present day. There is also the breach of contract cause of action involving the Vendor Agreement and the oral non-disclosure agreement with Hinojosa, which was allegedly memorialized in the Vendor Agreement.

of the agreement.

Eataly, in turn, argues that the Handbook signed by Soto supersedes the Non-Disclosure Agreement, and because the Handbook does not contain the same potentially problematic provisions as the Non-Disclosure Agreement, Soto’s conscionability concerns with the Non- Disclosure Agreement are rendered moot. (Reply, pp. 6:16-7:10.) The Court agrees with Eataly that the Handbook supersedes the Non-Disclosure Agreement.

Eataly, in turn, argues that the Handbook signed by Soto supersedes the Non-Disclosure Agreement, and because the Handbook does not contain the same potentially problematic provisions as the Non-Disclosure Agreement, Soto’s conscionability concerns with the Non- Disclosure Agreement are rendered moot. (Reply, pp. 6:16-7:10.) The Court agrees with Eataly that the Handbook supersedes the Non-Disclosure Agreement.

Eataly, in turn, argues that the Handbook signed by Soto supersedes the Non-Disclosure Agreement, and because the Handbook does not contain the same potentially problematic provisions as the Non-Disclosure Agreement, Soto’s conscionability concerns with the Non- Disclosure Agreement are rendered moot. (Reply, pp. 6:16-7:10.) The Court agrees with Eataly that the Handbook supersedes the Non-Disclosure Agreement.

Eataly, in turn, argues that the Handbook signed by Soto supersedes the Non-Disclosure Agreement, and because the Handbook does not contain the same potentially problematic provisions as the Non-Disclosure Agreement, Soto’s conscionability concerns with the Non- Disclosure Agreement are rendered moot. (Reply, pp. 6:16-7:10.) The Court agrees with Eataly that the Handbook supersedes the Non-Disclosure Agreement.

Eataly, in turn, argues that the Handbook signed by Soto supersedes the Non-Disclosure Agreement, and because the Handbook does not contain the same potentially problematic provisions as the Non-Disclosure Agreement, Soto’s conscionability concerns with the Non- Disclosure Agreement are rendered moot. (Reply, pp. 6:16-7:10.) The Court agrees with Eataly that the Handbook supersedes the Non-Disclosure Agreement.

Defendant’s memorandum of costs shall be taxed in the amount of $3,035, representing the amount of fees paid by Defendant for the discovery referee. 2 While it is true that a party may not withhold documents because of confidentiality, rather than privilege, and Plaintiff did not have to stipulate to a protective order, protective orders or confidentiality agreements are not illegal.

¶ 26 of the 1AC alleges that on February 15, 2012, Plaintiff CMB and Defendant PCCP IRG entered into a Confidentiality and Non-Disclosure Agreement (“NDA”). 1AC, ¶¶ 26, 42; Exh. A thereto.

provision of the settlement agreement will be breached. (4) The proposed sealing is narrowly tailored: California Rule of Court 2.550(e)(1) states in part: “An order sealing the record must: . . .

For the above reasons, (Jones Lang LaSalle Brokerage, Inc. and Zach Niles) Demurrer to Cross-Complaint of Jeff Anderson (filed on 6-6-18) is SUSTAINED without leave to amend, as to the third (Fraud and Deceit—Non-Disclosure) and fourth (Breach of Fiduciary Duty) causes of action. Cross Defendants are to give notice.

.: 22SMCV02196 MOTION: Vacate Arbitration Stay HEARING DATE: 7/29/2025 Legal Standard On petition of a party to an arbitration agreement alleging the existence of a written agreement to arbitrate a controversy and that a party to the agreement refuses to arbitrate that controversy, the court shall order the petitioner and the respondent to arbitrate the controversy if it determines that an agreement to arbitrate the controversy exists, unless it determines

In fact, the CC&Rs themselves provides that “Subdivider and County intend and consent to the recordation of this agreement in the office of the county Recorder of the County of San Luis Obispo, and such recordation of this agreement shall serve as constructive notice of the obligations contained herein to be performed by the Subdivider and the successors in interest to all or any portion of Subdivider’s Property.” (Paragraph 12 of the Agreement, attached as an exhibit to the Opposition.)

However, the Confidentiality Agreements choice-of-law and forum-selection provision does not render the entire Agreement unenforceable. A court may decline to sever an unconscionable provision of an arbitration agreement where that agreement is permeated by unconscionability.

Exclusions from Non-disclosure and Non-use Obligations.

Petitioner has not met her initial burden to make a factually specific showing of good cause justifying the discovery of the settlement agreement. Petitioner is seeking the document on the basis of conjecture about what it says. Petitioner does not make a showing that the settlement agreement itself is likely to have probative value related to the Petition's claims. Speculation about what is in the agreement does not constitute a factually specific showing of good cause. [Part 2 of 3]

(2010 Reverge Labs-Autumn Games Development Agreement (Reverge-Autumn Agreement), § 6.10.1; UMF 10.) Section 6.10.5 of the Reverge-Autumn Agreement requires Reverge to license or otherwise provide Publisher the ability to use such technology, code, documentation, and other materials as may be necessary for Publisher to exercise its rights under this Agreement, including without limitation any such access and rights Publisher may need to develop Derivative Games Works.

The case which Plaintiff cites in support of his argument that the Arbitration and Confidentiality Agreements should be read together, Alberto v. Cambrian Homecare (2023) 91 Cal.App.5th 482, is distinguishable from this case. In that case, the agreements were meant to be read together, or at least did not have any language defining the agreements as separate. In this case, the Arbitration and Confidentiality Agreements are separate, fully-integrated contracts with distinct purposes.

On May 21, 2020, Defendant Birdwell Retail, LLC filed a demand for arbitration, alleging Plaintiff had violated the non-disclosure agreement by attaching it to her complaint in this action. According to Defendant Birdwell Retail’s opposition, the arbitration was voluntarily dismissed by Defendant on October 16, 2020. Defendant asserts that after the dismissal the arbitrator denied Plaintiff’s request for attorney’s fees under Civ. Code § 1717, finding there was no prevailing party under that statute.

The First Amended Complaint (“FAC”) alleged five causes of action for (1) breach of loan agreement and promissory note; (2) breach of non-disclosure agreement; (3) breach of employee confidentiality agreement; (4) negligent interference with contractual relations; and (5) negligent interference with prospective economic advantage. On July 7, 2016, Rodriguez filed an answer and a cross-complaint against Plaintiff.

Uber protects its information by requiring its employees to sign a Confidentiality Agreement to protect dissemination of Uber’s information not generally known to the public. Kreutter Declaration, ¶ 8-9. Uber’s third-part vendors are required to sign Non-Disclosure Agreements. Id. ¶ 10. These measures are required to protect Uber’s place in the marketplace. Mr. Kreutter describes additional measures to protect its confidential information. Id., ¶ 14. Mr.

provision of the parties’ agreement will be breached and irreparable financial harm result; (4) The proposed sealing is narrowly tailored: California Rule of Court 2.550(e)(1) states in part: “An order sealing the record must: . . .

Both had access to sensitive and confidential information, and signed confidentiality agreements. Plaintiff also used outside sales agents including defendants Engineered Specification Products, Inc. and its principals Arena and Dennis. Murickan left employment in 2011 and DeChellis in 2013. Both went to work for defendant Pioneer Custom Electrical Products Corp.

Plaintiff alleges the parties concurrently executed an option agreement, which allowed Plaintiff to repurchase the real property in Colorado for $280,000, if payment was made no later than March 27, 2019. According to Plaintiff, the listed the assets in the property sale agreement were in fact owned by a third party.

Accordingly, although they are non-signatories to the Arbitration Agreement, they are entitled to enforce the Arbitration Agreement against Plaintiff. By so alleging, Plaintiff is estopped from denying the Arbitration Agreement cannot be enforced by the non-signatory defendants as well. Garcia v. Pexco, LLC (2017) 11 Cal.App.5th 782, 788.

On June 16, 2017, plaintiff’s counsel sent a letter to defense counsel, requesting that the raw data be produced to plaintiff’s counsel and offering to stipulate to a non-disclosure or confidentiality agreement. In a letter dated June 16, 2017, defense counsel responded, stating that a neuropsychologist is permitted to produce the testing results, but is not permitted to produce the raw testing data to a non-licensed psychologist, under Cal. Code of Regulations, Title 16 § 1396.3, and that Dr.

As discussed above, the current allegations do not establish Chase engaged in fraudulent non-disclosure. Moreover, the allegation that the conduct at issue is of public concern because Chase has engaged in unconscionable loan modification practices "as evidenced by class actions across the nation," is impermissibly vague and without legal effect. The demurrer to the Third Cause of Action is sustained without leave to amend.

The basis of every cause of action is the non-disclosure of the Gauden Exterminating Inspection Report, but it is also the alleged non-disclosure of the substandard condition of the roof and the non-disclosure of the grading and drainage defects.

A, Non-Disclosure Agreement; see Construction Protective Services, Inc. v. TIG Specialty Ins. Co. (2002) 29 Cal.4th 189, 199; McKell v. Washington Mutual, Inc. (2006) 142 Cal.App.4th 1457, 1489). According to the Non-Disclosure Agreement, the Recipient (Mr. Nguyen) agreed not to disclose confidential information of Plaintiff’s without permission.

Defendants Coutrakis, Brust and TCYBLDG demur with respect to the allegations pertaining to the Third Lease Amendment and the License Agreement on the grounds that these defendants are not parties to those agreements. Defendants Coutrakis and Brust also demur to the non-disclosure agreement on the grounds that they were not parties to it.

The confidentiality agreement is not part of the arbitration agreement. The arbitration agreement specifically states that breaches of confidentiality and violations of non-disclosure/non-solicitation provisions are arbitrable, as well as other claims brought typically by employers. As to attorney fees, the arbitration may only award fees available under state or federal law. There can be no award of attorney fees in violation of FEHA. Judicial review of arbitration awards is limited.

This conduct breached the non-disclosure agreement." Plaintiff states they have sustained damage due to the breach. Thus, P has properly alleged breach of contract. Thus, the demurrer is overruled as to the 1st Cause of Action.

The Court finds that Defendant/Cross-Complainant is entitled to recovery attorneys’ fees based on the provisions of the subject non-disclosure agreement (Civ. Code §1717) as well as under the applicable provisions of the Labor Code. Moreover, the Court finds the number of hours expended and the hours fees charged by each of the respective billers to be reasonable as reflected in the evidence submitted with the declarations of counsel in support of the instant motion.

Page 2 of 5 Ee a Eo TS Oo SE Sc SRS aS CV0000353 The APA references the Non-Disclosure Agreement in paragraph 16(e), which states that the terms of the Non-Disclosure Agreement shall remain in effect and be incorporated therein. The APA also references a Sales & Marketing Agreement (“SMA”) and states that “in addition to the sale of the Purchased Assets, concurrently herewith, Sean and [PWC] shall enter into .. .

Page 2 of 5 Ee a Eo TS Oo SE Sc SRS aS CV0000353 The APA references the Non-Disclosure Agreement in paragraph 16(e), which states that the terms of the Non-Disclosure Agreement shall remain in effect and be incorporated therein. The APA also references a Sales & Marketing Agreement (“SMA”) and states that “in addition to the sale of the Purchased Assets, concurrently herewith, Sean and [PWC] shall enter into .. .