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 59 of 139<br />
and “To: Gary Bell,” with no indication of the email addresses. (Id.). When the email was<br />
produced in native format, it showed six attachments not included in the original PDF<br />
version. (Docket Entry No. 411). <strong>Rimkus</strong> filed the attachments under seal. (Id.). The<br />
attachments contain contact information for <strong>Rimkus</strong> clients in Florida and for one client’s<br />
national catastrophe manager in Minnesota. (Docket Entry No. 410 at 7). <strong>Rimkus</strong> asserts<br />
that the metadata shows that Darren Balentine created the documents at <strong>Rimkus</strong> on<br />
December 14, 2007 and April 2, 2008, while he was working for <strong>Rimkus</strong>. Balentine<br />
subsequently quit <strong>Rimkus</strong> to become a 50% owner of U.S. Forensic Associates. (Id. at 8).<br />
The metadata also shows that the documents were converted to PDF on April 2, 2008. (Id.).<br />
On May 1, 2008, less than a month after the April 6, 2008 email with the clientcontact<br />
information attached, Bell had testified in this court that he did not take or use<br />
confidential information when he left <strong>Rimkus</strong> and started U.S. Forensic. (Docket Entry No.<br />
410, Ex. Supp. V at 80:16–:24). On October 6, 2009, Bell testified that he did not remember<br />
getting the April 2008 email until it was produced. He did not know whether he had received<br />
other <strong>Rimkus</strong> client information. (Docket Entry No. 430 at 12). Bell testified that he had<br />
never used the client-contact information in the email attachments. (Id. at 14). Bell also<br />
testified that he did not ask Balentine for the information and did not know why Balentine<br />
sent it to him. (Id. at 16). Bell’s counsel, Demmons, stated that he had prepared and printed<br />
the emails for production and could not explain why the initial production not only failed to<br />
include the attachments but concealed their presence. (Id. at 36).<br />
In his April 9, 2009 deposition, Balentine stated that he had not to his knowledge<br />
59