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

Case 4:07-cv-00405 Document 450 Filed in TXSD on 02/19/10 Page 113 of 139
internet. The defendants assert that Rimkus’s pricing information is not entitled to protection
because Rimkus shares that information with its clients. The defendants further contend that
there is no evidence in the record that they took or used Rimkus’s client, pricing, financial,
or business plan information.
Rimkus responds by pointing to this court’s August 13, 2008 opinion, which stated
that Rimkus’s “customer database, pricing information, and annual business plan are entitled
to trade secret protection.” (Docket Entry No. 159 at 49). Rimkus argues that the contact
information for many of the Rimkus clients the defendants solicited in November and
December 2006 was not publicly available at that time. Rimkus contends that the evidence
in the record raises a fact issue as to where the defendants obtained the names and email
addresses and whether that information was entitled to protection as Rimkus’s confidential,
proprietary, or trade secret information. Rimkus argues that the evidence in the record,
including the September 30, 2006 and April 6, 2008 emails Bell forwarded to himself, raises
fact issues as to whether the defendants took and used confidential Rimkus information.
Texas law defines a “trade secret” as a “formula, pattern, device or compilation of
information used in a business, which gives the owner an opportunity to obtain an advantage
over his competitors who do not know or use it.” Triple Tee Golf, Inc. v. Nike, Inc., 485
F.3d 253, 261 (5th Cir. 2007) (quoting Taco Cabana Int’l, Inc. v. Two Pesos, Inc., 932 F.2d
1113, 1123 (5th Cir. 1991)). “To state a claim for trade secret misappropriation under Texas
law, a plaintiff must (1) establish that a trade secret existed; (2) demonstrate that the trade
secret was acquired by the defendant through a breach of a confidential relationship or
113