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

Case 4:07-cv-00405 Document 450 Filed in TXSD on 02/19/10 Page 84 of 139
additional support for the adverse inference jury instruction and for the award of Rimkus’s
fees and costs in identifying and litigating the spoliation. See, e.g., Belak v. Am. Eagle, Inc.,
99-3524-CIV, 2001 WL 253608, at *6 (S.D. Fla. Mar. 12, 2001) (awarding the defendant the
attorneys’ fees incurred in moving to strike a pleading that contained false testimony).
Rimkus is entitled to the fees and costs it incurred in attempting to recover the deleted emails
from other sources and in redeposing the witnesses after those attempts. In addition, Rimkus
is entitled to recover the reasonable costs and attorneys’ fees incurred in moving for
sanctions based on Bell’s false testimony about getting rid of evidence.
Rimkus also alleges that Cammarata committed perjury. According to Rimkus,
Cammarata falsely testified that he did not solicit Rimkus customers on behalf of U.S.
Forensic. Rimkus argues that emails Cammarata sent to clients he worked with while
employed at Rimkus show that his testimony was false. This argument is unpersuasive.
Cammarata testified that he has “called people that used to be a client of [his] at Rimkus”
since starting U.S. Forensic but that he did not recall sending marketing emails to such
clients. (Docket Entry No. 314, Deposition of Nickie G. Cammarata at 114:25–115:1;
134:14–17). Cammarata testified that he “communicate[s] with some clients that way. A
given client, I might do it regularly, but I don’t regularly communicate with all the clients via
email.” (Id. at 134:18–23). The emails Rimkus cites were the subject of specific questions
at Cammarata’s deposition. Cammarata testified that the emails were only to clients for
whom he had open files when he resigned from Rimkus. Cammarata testified that after he
gave Rimkus his two-week notice, “at least two, possibly three clients were pursuing my
84