Rimkus Consulting Group Inc. v. Cammarata - Ballard Spahr LLP
Rimkus Consulting Group Inc. v. Cammarata - Ballard Spahr LLP
Rimkus Consulting Group Inc. v. Cammarata - Ballard Spahr LLP
Create successful ePaper yourself
Turn your PDF publications into a flip-book with our unique Google optimized e-Paper software.
Case 4:07-cv-00405 Document 450 Filed in TXSD on 02/19/10 Page 87 of 139<br />
form U.S. Forensic until after Bell had left <strong>Rimkus</strong>. But there is no evidence that before Bell<br />
resigned, he communicated his preparations to <strong>Cammarata</strong>, DeHarde, or Janowsky.<br />
<strong>Cammarata</strong> testified that he was not asked to take any steps to organize information related<br />
to U.S. Forensic before leaving <strong>Rimkus</strong> on November 15, 2006. The record evidence is<br />
consistent with the deposition testimony of Bell and <strong>Cammarata</strong>. Bell took the preparatory<br />
steps to form U.S. Forensic. Bell and <strong>Cammarata</strong> did not testify falsely about when they<br />
agreed to form U.S. Forensic.<br />
In sum, with one exception, the grounds <strong>Rimkus</strong> cites to urge this court to find that<br />
Bell and <strong>Cammarata</strong> committed perjury do not support such a finding.<br />
D. The Additional Allegations of Failures to Comply with Court Orders and<br />
to Respond to Discovery Requests<br />
<strong>Rimkus</strong> alleges that in addition to the spoliation allegations analyzed above, the<br />
defendants failed to comply with this court’s orders to produce reasonably accessible,<br />
relevant, nonprivileged electronically stored information and to determine the feasibility,<br />
costs, and burdens of retrieving electronically stored information that is not reasonably<br />
accessible. At the August 6, 2009 hearing, this court ordered the defendants to search the<br />
accessible sources and to produce electronically stored information relating to marketing<br />
efforts on behalf of U.S. Forensic or information obtained from <strong>Rimkus</strong>. On August 13,<br />
2009, the defendants informed the court of their efforts to retrieve the information. This<br />
court held a hearing on August 17, 2009, and determined that considering the scant<br />
likelihood of recovering further responsive electronically stored information, the potential<br />
benefits of further retrieval efforts were outweighed by the costs and burdens. The<br />
87