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 75 of 139<br />
are unfavorable to the defendants. <strong>Rimkus</strong> has shown that it has been prejudiced by the<br />
inability to obtain the deleted emails for use in the litigation. To level the evidentiary playing<br />
field and to sanction the defendants’ bad-faith conduct, <strong>Rimkus</strong> is entitled to a form of<br />
adverse inference instruction with respect to deleted emails.<br />
At the same time, it is important that <strong>Rimkus</strong> has extensive evidence to use in this<br />
case. And some of the emails that the defendants deleted and that were later recovered are<br />
consistent with their positions in this lawsuit and helpful to their defense. For example, the<br />
Homestead production revealed emails Bell sent to <strong>Rimkus</strong> clients soliciting business for<br />
U.S. Forensic stating that Bell intended to comply with his contractual obligations not to<br />
compete with <strong>Rimkus</strong>. In a November 15, 2006 email to Don Livengood at Fidelity, Bell<br />
stated that he would like to meet with Livengood to “go over the insurance coverages, the<br />
non compete agreement for Orleans Parish and [the] capacity to do jobs out of state.”<br />
(Docket Entry No. 394, Ex. F). Bell emailed Cary Soileau at Allstate on December 4, 2006<br />
asking for the contact information for two other Allstate employees because he “was<br />
contractually obligated to leave all client info behind at <strong>Rimkus</strong>.” (Id.). In an email to Tim<br />
Krueger of Safeco Insurance on December 11, 2006, Bell stated that he was looking for the<br />
name of a local claims person, but Bell stated, “[p]lease keep in mind that due to contractual<br />
obligations we would not be able to accept any assignments in New Orleans until October<br />
2007.” (Id.).<br />
Given this record, it is appropriate to allow the jury to hear the evidence about the<br />
deletion of emails and attachments and about discovery responses that concealed and delayed<br />
75