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

Case 4:07-cv-00405 Document 450 Filed in TXSD on 02/19/10 Page 82 of 139
of intent to sublease office space in Louisiana, which states that Bell was in the process of
separating from his company and was planning to use the space for four employees and to
grow over five years. (Docket Entry No. 410, Ex. Supp. Q). Rimkus points to Bell’s
previous testimony that he did not know he was leaving Rimkus and that he did not have a
firm plan to form U.S. Forensic until after he left Rimkus. According to Rimkus, the letter
of intent establishes that Bell’s earlier testimony that he did not have a firm plan prior to
leaving Rimkus was false. (Docket Entry No. 410 at 13–23).
The passages of Bell’s deposition testimony that Rimkus cites do not show perjury.
The testimony Rimkus points to shows that Bell did not provide a firm date on which the
lease began or when he found the office space; Bell testified that it was “something like”
November 5, but he did not know the exact date. (Docket Entry No. 410 at 20). Bell
responded “maybe so” to a question asking if the lease started in October. (Id. at 21). Bell
also testified that even if a lease was in place by October, there still was not a firm plan to
form U.S. Forensic. (Id. at 22). Bell’s testimony is insufficient to show perjury.
Finally, Rimkus argues that Bell falsely testified that he did not use personal email
accounts for “purposes related to Rimkus or U.S. Forensic” and that he did not try to get rid
of evidence. (Docket Entry No. 313 at 27). Bell testified that during his “employment at
Rimkus,” he used the Rimkus email system for Rimkus work, not a personal email account.
(Id., Ex. D, Deposition of Gary Bell, Vol. I at 17:21–25). When Rimkus completed a
forensic analysis of its own computer system, it found a “cookie” showing that Bell accessed
his BellSouth e-mail address on his Rimkus computer to forward documents to
82