Rimkus Consulting Group Inc. v. Cammarata - Ballard Spahr LLP

Case 4:07-cv-00405 Document 450 Filed in TXSD on 02/19/10 Page 112 of 139
information was previously unavailable to Rimkus because the defendants deleted it in bad
faith. By deleting relevant emails, by providing information in discovery that concealed their
existence and deletion, and by delaying discovery responses, the defendants “conceal[ed]
from [Rimkus] information that would materially affect the outcome of the case.” The
policies underlying preclusion law—conserving judicial resources and protecting litigants
from multiple lawsuits—are not served by applying issue preclusion to the misappropriation
and related claims in this case. The defendants’ conduct prevented a full and fair opportunity
for Rimkus to litigate the misappropriation, breach of fiduciary duty, and disparagement
claims in the Louisiana lawsuit. The facts of this case call for denying the application of
issue and claim preclusion. Rimkus’s claims for misappropriation, breach of fiduciary duty,
and disparagement are not barred by the May 11, 2009 Louisiana state court judgment
granting summary judgment on the claims in Rimkus’s reconventional demand.
The defendants have also moved for summary judgment on these claims on grounds
other than preclusion. Those grounds are examined below.
E. The Merits of the Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment on
Rimkus’s Claims
1. Misappropriation of Confidential, Proprietary, and Trade Secret
Information
The defendants argue that the record does not raise a fact issue as to Rimkus’s
misappropriation claim. According to the defendants, the names and contact information of
Rimkus’s clients are not confidential, proprietary, or trade secret information because they
are generally known or readily accessible in industry guides and publications and on the
112