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 43 of 139<br />
deposition, <strong>Cammarata</strong> produced two emails relevant to the formation of U.S. Forensic. In<br />
November 2007, <strong>Rimkus</strong> served the defendants with a request to produce all such documents,<br />
including all emails sent among those setting up or working for U.S. Forensic before January<br />
1, 2007. The defendants objected to this request as overbroad because it could include<br />
irrelevant personal emails and “day-to-day emails regarding the operation of U.S. Forensic’s<br />
business,” but stated that they “searched several times for any such responsive emails and<br />
turned over any responsive emails in their possession.” (Docket Entry No. 345 at 47).<br />
<strong>Rimkus</strong> asserts that from November 2007 to June 11, 2009, despite repeated requests, the<br />
defendants did not produce any emails. In June 2009, the defendants produced<br />
approximately sixty emails sent by the defendants and others involved with U.S. Forensic<br />
during the fall of 2006. (Docket Entry No. 313 at 4).<br />
In the spring of 2009, <strong>Rimkus</strong> noticed the depositions of Gary Bell, William<br />
Janowsky, and Michael DeHarde. Each was served with a subpoena duces tecum seeking<br />
any email communications about U.S. Forensic’s formation. On March 7, 2009, Bell<br />
testified in his deposition that he had “printed out the things that [he] thought might be<br />
responsive, and sent it to [his attorney], when [he] first received the first request” for these<br />
emails. (Docket Entry No. 314, Ex. 6, Deposition of Gary Bell, Vol. 1 at 16:24–17:2). Bell<br />
testified that it was his custom to delete an email after completing the task for which he<br />
needed the email but that he might have saved some relevant, responsive emails on his<br />
personal computer until the related tasks were completed. (Id. at 15:21–16:4). When asked<br />
whether he still had that personal computer, Bell testified that he had donated it to charity in<br />
43