Here’s one of my favorite parts from document 96…

17. Boyer then signed the agreement at his office in Washington. Id. ¶ 30. Boyer was in Washington at all times during the negotiations. He never traveled to California and e.Digital never traveled to Washington. Id. ¶ 31.

Disputed. On the contrary, Boyer traveled to California just a few weeks after the agreement was signed, to fully disclose the details of his purported idea at e.Digital’s headquarters. Ferguson Decl. ¶ 21; Anandpura Decl. ¶ 3. During that visit to California, Boyer met with Ferguson and e.Digital’s technical director, Atul Anandpura, to discuss in detail the various facets of the idea for approximately five hours. Ferguson Decl. ¶ 21; Anandpura Decl. ¶ 3.

Seems like that would be kind of hard to forget, wouldn’t you think? Can something like this count as perjury?

I also enjoyed the little footnote at the bottom of page 10 (x)…

3 e.Digital further disputes Plaintiff’s titling of the NDA in its statements of fact as the “Noncompete Agreement.” The original document is titled “Nondisclosure Agreement,” and only one of its 11 paragraphs deals with the idea of non-competition. Thus, the title “Noncompete Agreement,” used in Plaintiff’s statement of facts at paragraphs 18, 19, 22 and 23, is a deceptive misnomer. e.Digital hereby disputes each of those paragraphs on that basis.

Thanks silversurfer for providing these documents. You might check my recent post on iHub. If you ever need any financial assistance with this, don’t’ hesitate to ask. BTW, I’m really looking forward to seeing your movie – looks way cool!

- Sinkman