With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". already public. While she admits she may have had access to some “confidential material,” she claims her access was limited, and no greater than that of ACCI’s administrative and clerical staff, who were not required to sign noncompetition agreements. Moreover, plaintiff alleges that she had little understanding of the substantive content of the documents she was creating. This latter allegation may become significant because our law recognizes that human beings have a limited capacity for the retention of information they do understand, let alone information they do not, and employers cannot demand that its employees sign a noncompete agreement based on the presumption that employees will retain knowledge of every document they have ever viewed. See Laidlaw, supra, 20 F.Supp.2d at 759 (<HOLDING>). The judge dismissed the complaint on a Rule

A: recognizing that employee would have to be the rainman to be able to retain recall and make use of information contained in documents with which he worked while employed by defendant where he did not take those documents with him when he left
B: holding that where original documents were illegally seized those documents as well as all copies had to be returned
C: holding that i have a gun is sufficient to justify the sentencing enhancement because it merely requires a teller to make the reasonable inference that a robber would use the gun he claimed to have if he did not receive the money he demanded
D: holding there was enough evidence to find the defendant abandoned his child when he claimed to have knowledge of cpss involvement he admitted that for periods of two years and six months he did not attempt any contact with his child and from the date he canceled a home study until the petition was filed he did not attempt to contact the child or cps or provide support even when he was out of jail
A.