Rimkus Consulting Group Inc. v. Cammarata - Ballard Spahr LLP
Rimkus Consulting Group Inc. v. Cammarata - Ballard Spahr LLP
Rimkus Consulting Group Inc. v. Cammarata - Ballard Spahr LLP
Create successful ePaper yourself
Turn your PDF publications into a flip-book with our unique Google optimized e-Paper software.
Case 4:07-cv-00405 Document 450 Filed in TXSD on 02/19/10 Page 32 of 139<br />
correct the pleading and get it in — then I call Markham. 23 Damn the torpedoes — full speed<br />
ahead!” (Id.). <strong>Rimkus</strong> argues that the defendants’ plan to file a preemptive lawsuit is<br />
evidence of a bad-faith attempt to prevent <strong>Rimkus</strong> from obtaining relief in Texas under Texas<br />
law. The presence of the plan is important to the duty to preserve relevant records.<br />
Bell responds that none of these actions breached his fiduciary duty to <strong>Rimkus</strong>. Bell<br />
contends that even a fiduciary relationship between an officer and the corporation he serves<br />
does not preclude the officer from preparing for a future competing business venture.<br />
<strong>Rimkus</strong> acknowledges that general preparations for future competition do not breach<br />
fiduciary duty but argues that Bell’s preparatory actions, combined with his misappropriation<br />
of trade secrets, solicitation of <strong>Rimkus</strong>’s customers, and luring away <strong>Rimkus</strong>’s<br />
employees—all while still employed by <strong>Rimkus</strong>—breached the fiduciary duty he owed as<br />
a <strong>Rimkus</strong> corporate officer.<br />
<strong>Rimkus</strong> alleges that both Bell and <strong>Cammarata</strong> misappropriated client lists, pricing<br />
information, and other confidential <strong>Rimkus</strong> business information to which they had access<br />
while working at <strong>Rimkus</strong> and that they used this information to solicit <strong>Rimkus</strong> clients for<br />
U.S. Forensic. The record shows that Bell and <strong>Cammarata</strong> emailed some <strong>Rimkus</strong> clients in<br />
November and December 2006. Some of these emails refer to prior work done for the clients<br />
while Bell and <strong>Cammarata</strong> worked for <strong>Rimkus</strong>. All these emails offer U.S. Forensic as an<br />
alternative to <strong>Rimkus</strong>. It appears that the emails sent to <strong>Rimkus</strong> clients soliciting business<br />
for U.S. Forensic were first produced by an internet service provider pursuant to a third-party<br />
23 This is presumably a reference to Gary W. Markham, <strong>Rimkus</strong>’s former Chief Operating Officer.<br />
32