“severability and judicial modification provision.” Accordingly, these Defendants’ non-solicitation is modified to preclude solicitation as provided for under the agreements, if he or she uses Wells Fargo’s trade secrets to do so. Phoeniic Capital, 176 P.3d at 844. Similarly, as .to Mr. McQuate’s agreement, the non-solicitation provision is overboard, but' the Court agrees with Wells Fargo that' the agreement may be judicially modified, even though it does not provide for such modification. See Whittenberg v. Williams, 110 Colo. 418, 421, 135 P.2d 228, 229 (1943) (trial court acted within its discretion in reducing overbroad territorial restriction and enforcing it only to the extent, necessary to. afford employer contemplated protection); Doubleclick, Inc., 402 F.Supp.2d at 1259 (<HOLDING>). Accordingly, as to Mr. McQuate’s agreement,
holding that the judiciary is without authority to modify alimony in a nonmerged separation agreement holding that trial court is without authority to modify a settlement agreement but may enforce and interpret it recognizing court has authority to modify agreement to cure any unreasonable provision as to duration or scope holding that a trust provision granting a trustee the power to alter amend or modify the trust agreement was never intended to confer authority to amend the trust agreement in so vital a part as to extend the period of its duration holding that court may not refuse to enforce noncompete agreement solely because geographical area is unreasonable but rather must modify unreasonable restriction and enforce agreement as modified