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

Case 4:07-cv-00405 Document 450 Filed in TXSD on 02/19/10 Page 80 of 139
contact information false. Although the April 2008 email is evidence that Bell had Rimkus
client information after he left Rimkus, it does not establish that Bell took the information
when he left Rimkus. Rimkus argues that Bell obtained the information from Balentine after
Bell left Rimkus. Nor does it establish that Bell used this client-contact information to solicit
Rimkus customers for U.S. Forensic. Sanchez’s affidavit also does not compel the
conclusion that Bell used the contact information contained in the attachments to the April
2008 email because Sanchez’s affidavit and deposition testimony do not show that the only
source of the contact information was the information contained in the email attachments or
other Rimkus sources.
Rimkus also cites Bell’s deposition testimony about when he began telling potential
clients about U.S. Forensic and soliciting business from them. Rimkus argues that this
testimony is contradicted by the dates of emails from Bell to potential clients. Rimkus points
to the following exchange in Bell’s deposition:
Q. Okay. Prior to November 16th, the date you began
formal operations of U.S. Forensic --
A. Uh-huh.
Q. -- did you have communications with any person that you
knew to provide business to Rimkus Consulting Group
about your starting a competing business?
A. I don’t believe so.
Q. Well, you would know; wouldn’t you?
A. No.
Q. So, as you sit here today, you can’t tell the ladies and
80