Rimkus Consulting Group, Inc. v. Cammarata
688 F.Supp.2d 598 (2010)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
When a party intentionally destroys relevant evidence in bad faith after a duty to preserve has arisen, but the opposing party is not irreparably prejudiced, an appropriate sanction is an adverse inference jury instruction and an award of attorneys' fees and costs, rather than a terminating sanction like a default judgment.
Facts:
- Nickie Cammarata and Gary Bell were employees of Rimkus Consulting Group, Inc. ('Rimkus') and signed employment agreements containing non-competition and non-solicitation clauses; Bell was an officer of the company.
- While still employed by Rimkus in 2006, Bell began taking preparatory steps to form a competing company, U.S. Forensic, L.L.C., including registering a domain name and preparing a corporate logo.
- Bell resigned from Rimkus effective October 31, 2006, and Cammarata resigned on November 15, 2006.
- On November 15, 2006, Bell, Cammarata, and another former Rimkus employee immediately began operating their competing business, U.S. Forensic.
- On November 11, 2006, Bell sent an email discussing a plan to file a preemptive lawsuit against Rimkus in Louisiana to invalidate their non-compete agreements, triggering a duty to preserve evidence.
- After their duty to preserve arose, Bell, Cammarata, and their partners intentionally deleted emails related to the formation of U.S. Forensic and their solicitation of Rimkus clients, later claiming it was due to a 'policy' of deleting emails older than two weeks.
- Bell and Cammarata took confidential Rimkus information, including client lists, copyrighted reports, and financial data, for the benefit of U.S. Forensic.
- Bell forwarded confidential Rimkus financial documents to a personal Gmail account which he later denied having during a deposition.
Procedural Posture:
- In November 2006, Nickie Cammarata and Gary Bell sued Rimkus Consulting Group, Inc. in Louisiana state court, seeking a declaratory judgment that their non-compete agreements were unenforceable.
- In January 2007, Rimkus sued Cammarata in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Texas (the court of first instance in this matter).
- In February 2007, Rimkus sued Bell in Texas state court; Bell removed the case to federal court, where it was consolidated with the Cammarata suit.
- The Louisiana state courts ruled that the non-compete clauses were unenforceable under Louisiana law.
- Rimkus filed a counterclaim in the Louisiana action for misappropriation of trade secrets, which the Louisiana trial court dismissed on summary judgment; that judgment is currently on appeal.
- In the current federal action, Rimkus filed motions for sanctions and contempt against defendants (Cammarata, Bell, and U.S. Forensic), alleging spoliation of evidence and seeking to strike their pleadings and enter a default judgment.
- Defendants moved for summary judgment, arguing primarily that the federal suit is barred by the preclusive effect of the Louisiana state court judgment.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does the intentional, bad-faith destruction of electronically stored evidence warrant terminating sanctions where the opposing party is not irreparably prejudiced by the loss of the evidence?
Opinions:
Majority - Rosenthal, Lee H.
No. The intentional, bad-faith destruction of electronically stored evidence does not warrant terminating sanctions where the opposing party is not irreparably prejudiced. Although the defendants intentionally deleted emails in bad faith after their duty to preserve arose, the most severe sanctions of striking pleadings or entering a default judgment are not warranted because the prejudice to Rimkus was not irreparable. The court found that the defendants' proffered reasons for deleting emails were inconsistent and not credible, supporting a finding of bad faith. However, Rimkus was able to obtain a significant amount of the deleted evidence through third-party subpoenas and its own forensic analysis, allowing it to prosecute its claims. Because the sanction must be proportional to the culpability and the resulting prejudice, the appropriate remedy is a harsh but less extreme sanction. The court will permit the jury to hear evidence of the spoliation and will give an adverse inference instruction, which allows, but does not require, the jury to infer that the lost evidence would have been unfavorable to the defendants. Additionally, Rimkus is awarded the reasonable attorneys' fees and costs it incurred in identifying the spoliation and litigating its consequences.
Analysis:
This opinion provides a comprehensive framework for determining the appropriate sanctions for the spoliation of electronically stored information (ESI). It emphasizes the principle of proportionality, requiring courts to balance the spoliating party's culpability against the degree of prejudice suffered by the innocent party. The decision solidifies that terminating sanctions like default judgment are reserved only for cases of 'irreparable prejudice,' where the innocent party is substantially unable to present its case. By opting for an adverse inference instruction and monetary sanctions, the court demonstrates a preference for remedial measures that level the evidentiary playing field and deter misconduct without resorting to the 'death penalty' of litigation.
Unlock the full brief for Rimkus Consulting Group, Inc. v. Cammarata