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

Case 4:07-cv-00405 Document 450 Filed in TXSD on 02/19/10 Page 118 of 139
was able to find on the internet in 2008 does not account for all the Rimkus clients Bell and
Cammarata emailed in November and December 2006. The record shows that Bell and
Cammarata sent multiple solicitation emails on behalf of U.S. Forensic in the first few weeks
and months of operation. Nearly all the solicitation emails recovered by Rimkus were sent
by Bell or Cammarata to individuals with whom they worked while at Rimkus. The record
raises fact issues as to whether the contact information for the clients U.S. Forensic solicited
in late 2006 was publicly available and whether the defendants obtained it from client lists
and similar information they took from Rimkus.
The defendants’ argument that Rimkus’s pricing information is not a trade secret
because Rimkus shares that information with its prospective or actual clients is also
unpersuasive. Disclosure does not destroy the protection given to a trade secret if, when it
is disclosed, the owner of that secret obligates the party receiving it not to disclose or use it.
See Taco Cabana Int’l, Inc. v. Two Pesos, Inc., 932 F.2d 1113, 1123–24 (5th Cir. 1991)
(holding that the plaintiff’s disclosure to contractors of the architectural plans for its
restaurants did not extinguish the confidential nature of those plans); see also Metallurgical
Indus. Inc. v. Fourtek, Inc., 790 F.2d 1195, 1200 (5th Cir. 1986) (trade secrets remained
confidential when they were disclosed only to businesses with whom the plaintiff dealt with
the expectation of profit). Rimkus did not publicly announce its pricing information,
particularly not to its competitors. Instead, Rimkus disclosed the information only to
prospective or actual clients and did not reveal how the prices charged to one compared with
prices charged to others. Even if Rimkus gave its clients pricing information, Rimkus took
118