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

Case 4:07-cv-00405 Document 450 Filed in TXSD on 02/19/10 Page 125 of 139
(emphasis added). Bell does not name Rimkus or any other engineering firm in these emails.
The content and context of these emails show that the purpose of the challenged statements
was to highlight the difference between U.S. Forensic and large forensic engineering firms
in general, including but not limited to Rimkus. A reasonable reader, including a Rimkus
client, would not automatically associate these statements with Rimkus and ignore the
reference to multiple engineering firms and companies in general. There is no basis to
conclude that the implications of Bell’s statements “point to [Rimkus] and to no one else.”
In addition, there is no evidence in the record of special damages. 48
There is no
evidence that any of the allegedly disparaging statements played a substantial part in causing
third parties not to do business with Rimkus. Rimkus does not assert that it has lost any
specific client as a result of Bell’s disparaging statements.
This court’s rulings on spoliation do not change this analysis. The evidence in the
record does not show that emails deleted by the defendants would be relevant to the
disparagement claim or that Rimkus has been prejudiced in its ability to litigate the
disparagement claim because of the defendants’ spoliation. The emails Rimkus relies
on—dated November 5, 2007 and August 21, 2007—do not provide evidence of
disparagement. There is no basis to conclude that any of the unrecovered emails would
contain anything different than the emails Rimkus already has in its possession. Summary
48 For this reason, Rimkus’s supplemental response to the defendants’ summary judgment motion, which
contains other similar emails, do not raise a fact issue as to disparagement. (Docket Entry No. 389, Ex. K;
Docket Entry No. 392). There is no evidence that the sending of these emails caused Rimkus to suffer special
damages.
125