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

More documents

Recommendations

Info

Case 4:07-cv-00405 Document 450 Filed in TXSD on 02/19/10 Page 56 of 139 and Bell both testified that they obtained a copy of a Rimkus wind/hail powerpoint presentation to use at U.S. Forensic. (Id. at 15:22–16:4; Docket Entry No. 389, Ex. I, Deposition of Gary Bell at 69:10–70:13). Rimkus filed an amended complaint alleging that the use of the powerpoint presentation and other Rimkus materials constitutes copyright infringement. (Docket Entry No. 403 at 13–14). Cammarata testified that one of his clients at U.S. Forensic gave him photographs taken by Rimkus of a job in the Port Sulphur, Louisiana area because the client wanted Cammarata to continue working on that job at U.S. Forensic. (Docket Entry No. 389, Ex. H, Deposition of Nickie Cammarata at 10:9–15:21). Rimkus argues that Cammarata misappropriated these photographs from Rimkus and used them in preparing U.S. Forensic reports. (Docket Entry No. 389 at 5). On September 13, 2009, Cammarata produced, for the first time, fifteen disks of electronically stored information and numerous boxes of paper documents. Rimkus reviewed these materials and “determined that [they] contained a significant amount of Rimkus correspondence, job photographs, job files, engagement letters, Terms and Conditions, client contact information, and Rimkus PowerPoint presentations.” (Docket Entry No. 389 at 5). Rimkus points to Cammarata’s October 4, 2007 deposition testimony that he only retained “some reports” in a box as further evidence of perjury and discovery obstruction. (Docket Entry No. 393, Ex. K, Deposition of Nickie Cammarata at 122:17). Rimkus also submitted evidence from its own forensic analysis of Bell’s Rimkus laptop. The analysis showed that on the day he resigned from Rimkus, Bell downloaded 56
Case 4:07-cv-00405 Document 450 Filed in TXSD on 02/19/10 Page 57 of 139 financial information from the Rimkus server to the laptop. This information includes financial spreadsheets for six Rimkus offices, including Chicago, Indianapolis, Jackson, Lafayette, New Orleans, and Pensacola. These offices comprise Rimkus’s Central Region, which had been Bell’s responsibility. Rimkus argues that there was no reason for Bell to download these documents from the server on the day he resigned other than to misappropriate them for use in his new competing business. On September 30, 2006, Bell sent an email to his personal Gmail account containing financial data for four Rimkus offices. Bell had downloaded this data from his Rimkus laptop. In an earlier deposition, Bell had testified that he did not have a Gmail account during this period. (Docket Entry No. 394, Ex. A, Deposition of Gary Bell at 450:10–451:11). In his August 2009 deposition, Bell was asked about the belated disclosure that he had sent Rimkus information to a personal Gmail account: Q: Now, do you remember me asking you in your prior deposition about all of the email accounts you had? A: I believe you did. Q: You didn’t mention a G-mail account, did you? A: Not that I recall. Q: And I specifically asked you if you had a G-mail account, right? A: I don’t know if you specifically asked me. I don’t use the G-mail account. I set it up during the hurricane right after I evacuated to Lafayette. I got an invitation to set one up. I set it up and it’s really something I haven’t really used. 57
Page 1 and 2:
Case 4:07-cv-00405 Document 450 Fil
Page 3 and 4:
Page 5 and 6: Case 4:07-cv-00405 Document 450 Fil
Page 55: Case 4:07-cv-00405 Document 450 Fil
Page 107 and 108:
Page 109 and 110:
Page 111 and 112:
Page 113 and 114:
Page 115 and 116:
Page 117 and 118:
Page 119 and 120:
Page 121 and 122:
Page 123 and 124:
Page 125 and 126:
Page 127 and 128:
Page 129 and 130:
Page 131 and 132:
Page 133 and 134:
Page 135 and 136:
Page 137 and 138:
Page 139:
show all

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

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?