174 



NO. 93CI04806 JEFFERSON CIRCUTT COURT 



DIVISION TEN 



ROBERT L MADDOX, ET AL PLjMNTIFFS 



VS. ORDER 



UNKNOWN DEFENDANT BY HIS ATTORNFV DEFENDANT 



J. FOX DEMOISEY 



Before the Court ii the PlaintifPj, Wyatt, and Intervening Plaintiff i, Brown & 

 Williamson Tobacco Cotp. CB & W") Motion for a Tetnporvy Injunction and the nmultaneous 

 motion by tbc Defendant, MeneD WiDiams ("Willianu") To Dissolve the Prejent Re»triining 

 Order. Both panics h«ve fHed extensive brie£t and written arguments lupportiDg tbeir re«pective 

 positions IS well &s responding to the opposing parties motions. The PlaintiS also filed a reply 

 brief to the Defendant's motim and response menKHandum. Having reviewed those 

 wcxrxKssdum u wefl as having coostdered the oral argumena heard by the Court on 

 September 29, 1993, and having reviewed the deposition of the Defendant WilEamt. the Coort 

 makes the following Findings of Fact and Coochuions of Law. pursuant to CR 52.01 and 65.04. 



The Defendant Williams was employed as a paralegal in the Plaintiff Wyatt law 

 fnrn frotn Januaxy 6, 19S?, to seme period prior to July 1993. There exist within the PlaintifPi 

 firm an analysis project foe the btervening Plaintiff B & W. Williarm was assigned to this 

 project (affidavits of Ernest Oenents, Sosan Mays, Lorraine Harrison, and Baibar* Boiasky). 



As a result of his employment, the Defendant was reqniied to sign a nondisclosure 

 agreement similar to one attached to the original complaint oo Exhibit 1, or Exhibit B attached 

 to the Plaintiffs Motion far Tea^xMvy Injunction (these are similar, but diffaent farms). The 



