IMO, enforcement differs from determining whether the NDA/CC remains in place.  And, IMO, such is the case in all contract law.  The courts may be called upon to aid in the enforcement of a valid contract, but need not necessarily be a party to amendment or cancellation of the contract - one aspect of the contract.  After all, such as in this case, the Judge didn't sign the contract, the parties in dispute did.  Further, if the parties that were in dispute elected to cancel their agreement/MOU specifically regarding disclosure of terms and conditions, I suspect the only action required with the court would be for the contracting parties to each/jointly advise the court that the NDA/CC provisions of the contract have been agreed to be cancelled and ergo the court is relieved of any oversight responsibilities/obligations in this specific regard.

I suspect that the good Judge Ward included this language to give the NDA/CC "added teeth" in the eyes of the participants, and also to attest to the validity of the contract/agreement/MOU/NDA/CC.  Of course this language also makes it clear that all participants must live up to all terms and conditions, like the Js paying up!  And there's the jurisdiction aspect, where the true meat probably lies.

JMHO. 

SGE