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 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