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

Case 4:07-cv-00405 Document 450 Filed in TXSD on 02/19/10 Page 42 of 139
After the Louisiana state court ruled that the noncompetition and nonsolicitation clauses in
the Employment Agreements were unenforceable under Louisiana law, Bell, Cammarata, and
DeHarde moved for summary judgment on the remaining claims asserted in Rimkus’s
reconventional demand in the Louisiana lawsuit. The summary judgment motion cited only
Texas cases and sought judgment as a matter of Texas law. Rimkus responded to the motion
and argued that summary judgment was inappropriate under Texas law. The Louisiana state
trial court heard oral argument from the parties on the viability of these claims under Texas
law. On May 11, 2009, the Louisiana court issued an order stating that “after reviewing the
evidence, the law and arguments of counsel . . . IT IS ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND
DECREED that the Motion for Summary Judgment is GRANTED, and the reconventional
demands of the plaintiffs-in-reconvention, Rimkus Consulting Group, Inc. and Rimkus
Consulting Group, Inc. of Louisiana, are DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE, each party to
bear its own costs.” (Docket Entry No. 309, Ex. G). The defendants in this case, Bell and
Cammarata, argue that the Louisiana state court’s ruling dismissing these claims is entitled
to preclusive effect.
B. Discovery
In the fall of 2007, Rimkus sought “documents, including emails, related to
Cammarata’s and Bell’s communications with one another and with other U.S. Forensic,
L.L.C. members concerning the creation and inception of U.S. Forensic, L.L.C., their roles
with the company, and contact with clients.” (Docket Entry No. 313 at 4). Rimkus deposed
Cammarata in October 2007. In response to a subpoena duces tecum issued for that
42