Rimkus Consulting Group Inc. v. Cammarata - Ballard Spahr LLP

Case 4:07-cv-00405 Document 450 Filed in TXSD on 02/19/10 Page 79 of 139
recently produced April 2008 email Bell sent himself that contained Rimkus customer
information that appeared to have been created by Balentine while he was still employed at
Rimkus and Bell’s testimony that he did not use Rimkus customer information in soliciting
U.S. Forensic clients. Rimkus argues that Bell could not have obtained contact information
for these individuals without using Rimkus customer lists and that Bell’s “denial of the use
of Rimkus’s confidential client information in soliciting clients therefore is outright false.”
(Docket Entry No. 313 at 25).
Rimkus’s arguments do not take into account Bell’s deposition testimony about how
he obtained contact information and who he attempted to contact after he left Rimkus. Bell
testified that when he first began soliciting business for U.S. Forensic, the internet was his
primary source for obtaining contact information. He also used the Casualty Adjuster’s
Guide. Bell testified that he “tried to get work from anybody that would send us work. It
didn’t matter to me if they were a Rimkus customer, if they weren’t a Rimkus customer, I --
I had to do it on my own -- and, you know, many of the people that don’t use Rimkus were
exactly the people we wanted to target.” (Id., Ex. D, Deposition of Gary Bell, Vol. II at
62:15–:21). Although many of the emails show that U.S. Forensic focused its solicitation
efforts on former Rimkus clients the U.S. Forensic founders knew, which is inconsistent with
Bell’s testimony, the record is not sufficient to show that Bell committed perjury when he
stated that he did not take Rimkus’s confidential customer contact information.
Rimkus argues that the April 2008 email Bell sent himself, with Rimkus client-contact
information attached, makes Bell’s prior testimony that he did not take or use Rimkus client-
79