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

Case 4:07-cv-00405 Document 450 Filed in TXSD on 02/19/10 Page 81 of 139
gentlemen of the jury whether or not you contacted
somebody or not? You just don’t know?
A. I think, I didn’t. We didn’t have insurance. We didn’t
have engineers.
(Id. at 63:13–64:4). Rimkus contrasts this testimony with two November 15, 2006 emails
Bell sent Rimkus clients to tell them he was starting a new company. These emails do not
prove perjury. Bell clearly testified that although he did not believe that he had contacted
Rimkus clients about his new company before November 15, 2006, he was not sure. Given
Bell’s uncertainty about when he contacted Rimkus clients on behalf of U.S. Forensic, the
fact that two emails were sent one day before the date Bell was asked about does not
establish that he intentionally gave false testimony.
Rimkus also argues that Bell falsely testified that he took precautions not to contact
customers he knew to be Rimkus clients. Rimkus points to an email from Cammarata telling
a former client that if he wanted Cammarata to work on the project to ask Rimkus to send the
file but asking him not to forward the email to Rimkus and emails Bell sent in December
2006 to individuals Bell had worked with at Rimkus. (Docket Entry No. 394, Ex. F). These
emails do not establish perjury. Bell testified that he “generally tried to avoid sending”
marketing emails to Rimkus clients. (Docket Entry No. 313, Ex. D, Deposition of Gary Bell,
Vol. II at 57:20). The fact that some of the hundreds of marketing emails Bell sent on behalf
of U.S. Forensic were sent to people Bell knew were Rimkus clients is not inconsistent with
Bell’s testimony.
Rimkus also points to a recently produced email dated August 15, 2006, with a letter
81