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 66 of 139<br />
wrongdoing but to “ineptitude” and that <strong>Rimkus</strong> is not prejudiced because “the vast majority<br />
of information requested by Plaintiff, and previously thought to be lost or destroyed, has now<br />
been produced.” (Id. at 28).<br />
2. The Duty to Preserve<br />
The record shows that no later than November 11, 2006, when the defendants were<br />
about to “preemptively” sue <strong>Rimkus</strong>, they had an obligation to preserve documents and<br />
information—including electronically stored information—relevant to these disputes. The<br />
disputes included whether Bell breached the fiduciary duty he owed <strong>Rimkus</strong> as an officer,<br />
whether Bell or <strong>Cammarata</strong> breached enforceable obligations under the noncompete and<br />
nonsolicitation provisions in the parties’ contracts, and whether Bell or <strong>Cammarata</strong> breached<br />
contractual or common-law duties not to take or use <strong>Rimkus</strong>’s confidential and proprietary<br />
information.<br />
Bell sought the advice of counsel before leaving <strong>Rimkus</strong>. The November 11, 2006<br />
email from Bell to <strong>Cammarata</strong>, DeHarde, and Janowsky discussing the final steps of the plan<br />
to sue <strong>Rimkus</strong> in Louisiana to challenge the noncompete and nonsolicitation provisions<br />
shows that the defendants knew that they would be suing <strong>Rimkus</strong> within days. The duty to<br />
preserve electronically stored information and documents relevant to that suit and reasonably<br />
anticipated related litigation was triggered no later than November 11, 2006.<br />
The defendants’ argument that their preservation obligation was limited to documents<br />
or emails related to breach of fiduciary obligation claims against Bell is unpersuasive. Bell,<br />
<strong>Cammarata</strong>, and DeHarde sued <strong>Rimkus</strong> in Louisiana seeking a declaratory judgment that the<br />
66