04.11.2014 Views

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

SHOW MORE
SHOW LESS

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 58 of 139<br />

(Id., Ex. C, Deposition of Gary Bell at 10:9–:22).<br />

<strong>Rimkus</strong> argues that Bell first tried to conceal, then distance himself from, the Gmail<br />

account because he used it to “go under the radar” to download and take confidential <strong>Rimkus</strong><br />

financial information. Bell testified in his deposition that he sent <strong>Rimkus</strong> financial<br />

documents to his BellSouth email account, not to use for U.S. Forensic but to help with the<br />

transition of the branch managers in the Central Region before he left <strong>Rimkus</strong>. (Id. at<br />

17:8–18:1). But Bell sent this email on September 30, 2006, three days after he resigned<br />

from <strong>Rimkus</strong>. Bell testified in his March 2009 deposition that he declined <strong>Rimkus</strong>’s<br />

invitation to help with transition work at the branch offices and that he never worked for<br />

<strong>Rimkus</strong> after September 27, 2006. (Docket Entry No. 394, Ex. A, Deposition of Gary Bell<br />

at 78:18–79:4; 80:19–:22; 81:16–:20). <strong>Rimkus</strong> also argues that Bell did not need to email<br />

these documents to himself if he was using them for <strong>Rimkus</strong> work because they were<br />

contained on his <strong>Rimkus</strong> work laptop, which he could take with him until he was finished<br />

assisting with the transition. <strong>Rimkus</strong> also notes that the September 30, 2006 email was not<br />

produced by BellSouth in response to a subpoena because Bell had previously deleted it.<br />

On October 1, 2009, <strong>Rimkus</strong> filed its second supplemental memorandum of law in<br />

support of its motion for sanctions and response to the motion for summary judgment.<br />

(Docket Entry No. 410). In the supplemental filing, <strong>Rimkus</strong> identified an email that had been<br />

produced in native format as required in this court’s August 17, 2009 order. (Docket Entry<br />

No. 411). The defendants had previously produced this email in PDF format. (Docket Entry<br />

No. 410, Ex. Supp. T). The email was dated April 6, 2008 and labeled “From: Gary Bell”<br />

58

Hooray! Your file is uploaded and ready to be published.

Saved successfully!

Ooh no, something went wrong!