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
You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles
YUMPU automatically turns print PDFs into web optimized ePapers that Google loves.
Case 4:07-cv-00405 Document 450 Filed in TXSD on 02/19/10 Page 50 of 139<br />
personal Yahoo! account. None of the emails was from Bell or <strong>Cammarata</strong>. The following<br />
exchange occurred:<br />
Q: Is there any reason that you don’t have any emails from<br />
this same time frame from Mr. <strong>Cammarata</strong>?<br />
A. Yes.<br />
Q. Why is that?<br />
A. We deleted them. We had a policy that we would delete<br />
e-mails during the start-up after two weeks.<br />
(Docket Entry No. 313, Ex. F, Deposition of Michael DeHarde at 18:14–:21). DeHarde<br />
testified that he, Bell, <strong>Cammarata</strong>, and Janowsky had agreed on this email-deletion policy.<br />
According to DeHarde, this agreement was made “[s]ometime in the fall of 2006, fall or<br />
summer, 2006,” while he was still working at <strong>Rimkus</strong>. (Id. at 34:24–:25). DeHarde testified<br />
that there was no discussion with Bell or <strong>Cammarata</strong> about suspending or modifying this<br />
policy once they decided to file the Louisiana lawsuit or when they did so on November 15,<br />
2006. DeHarde acknowledged that he had deleted all emails that <strong>Cammarata</strong> sent to his<br />
Yahoo! account. The deposition continued:<br />
Q. And those were emails that specifically related to<br />
discussions you were having about leaving <strong>Rimkus</strong> and<br />
forming a new business?<br />
A. Yes.<br />
Q. And part of the motivation for that was to make sure that<br />
there wasn’t evidence of those communications, correct?<br />
A. We had a policy to delete the emails after two weeks, and<br />
I followed the policy.<br />
50