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 78 of 139<br />
reasonably incurred in investigating the spoliation, obtaining emails from third-party<br />
subpoenas, and taking the additional depositions of Bell and <strong>Cammarata</strong> on the issues of<br />
email deletion. No later than March 1, 2010, <strong>Rimkus</strong> must provide affidavits and supporting<br />
bills and related documents showing and supporting the amount of those costs and fees.<br />
C. The Perjury Allegations<br />
<strong>Rimkus</strong> alleges that Bell and <strong>Cammarata</strong> perjured themselves during their<br />
depositions. 36<br />
Perjury is offering “false testimony concerning a material matter with the<br />
willful intent to provide false testimony, rather than a as result of confusion, mistake, or<br />
faulty memory.” United States v. Dunnigan, 507 U.S. 87, 94 (1993). Perjury is not<br />
established by mere contradictory testimony from witnesses or inconsistencies in a witness’s<br />
testimony. See Koch v. Puckett, 907 F.2d 524, 531 (5th Cir. 1990).<br />
<strong>Rimkus</strong> argues that inconsistencies between Bell’s deposition testimony and<br />
documents produced in this case establish that he committed perjury. <strong>Rimkus</strong> cites Bell’s<br />
deposition testimony that he did not take customer information or other confidential <strong>Rimkus</strong><br />
information when he left the company and emails Bell sent in November and December 2006<br />
soliciting work from individuals he dealt with while at <strong>Rimkus</strong>. <strong>Rimkus</strong> also points to the<br />
incurred in connection with this motion.”); Broccoli v. Echostar Commc’ns Corp., 229 F.R.D. 506, 512–13<br />
(D. Md. 2005) (ordering the defendant to pay “reasonable costs and attorneys’ fees,” including those for<br />
“client, third party and intra-office meetings” and “time charged for drafting and editing the motion” but<br />
reducing the amount sought).<br />
36<br />
<strong>Rimkus</strong> also alleges that DeHarde, Janowsky, and Darren Balentine of U.S. Forensic Associates, LLC,<br />
gave false testimony in their depositions. These individuals are not parties and did not testify as a party<br />
representative. The Rule 30(b)(6) witness for U.S. Forensic was Gary Bell. <strong>Rimkus</strong> does not allege, and<br />
there is no basis to conclude, that DeHarde, Janowsky, or Balentine gave testimony on behalf of U.S.<br />
Forensic. The testimony of these third parties, false or not, does not provide a basis for sanctioning the party<br />
defendants in this case.<br />
78