Opinion
CIVIL ACTION NO. 03-CV-679
March 18, 2004
MEMORANDUM
The Court held a pretrial hearing on March 12, 2004.
First, the Court considered a series of pleadings relating to the issue of Plaintiff securing Defendant's medical records which Plaintiff has sought as appropriate discovery in connection with Defendant's claim of intentional infliction of emotional distress. To resolve this issue, the Court directed Defendant to sign the appropriate release form for his medical records during the hearing, and Defendant voluntarily signed the appropriate release. Plaintiff's counsel may now use the release to secure Defendant's medical records. Therefore, Plaintiffs second Motion to Compel Defendant's Execution of HIPAA Releases, etc. (Docket No. 122) is deemed moot. The Plaintiff noted that it reserves the right to seek additional, but limited, discovery on this issue. Plaintiff also requested costs and/or sanctions, but the Court declined to order any costs or sanctions at this time.
The Court also heard argument on two motions filed by Defendant — Motion to Compel Production of Documents Pursuant to Court Order and for Contempt (Docket No. 129), and Motion for Contempt, Sanctions, Perjury, Dismissal, and Reply to Plaintiff's Motions for Summary Judgment, Injunctive Relief and Contempt (Docket No. 136). After hearing argument, and for the reasons stated on the record, the Court concluded that the Defendant does not have any persuasive evidence to prove that Plaintiff has withheld production of documents that are relevant to the issues raised in this case. During the hearing, Plaintiff's counsel did indicate that one document on which Plaintiff relies in its Motion for Summary Judgment was inadvertently not produced to Defendant, but has demonstrated that Defendant was not heretofore prejudiced by the non-production of this document. Plaintiffs counsel also indicated that one additional document would be produced to Defendant on March 12, 2004. Therefore, Defendant's Motions in Docket Nos. 129 and 136 will be denied.
The Court also reviewed preliminarily Plaintiffs Motion for Summary Judgment (Docket No. 131) and Defendant's initial response to this motion included in the papers filed under Docket No. 136. The Court advised Defendant that his papers filed as part of Docket No. 136 were insufficient under Rule 56 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. After discussion, Defendant agreed that he could refile a separate response to Plaintiff's Motion for Summary Judgment by March 22, 2004. The Court advised Defendant to be certain that the response was in the form and substance required by Rule 56. Plaintiff may file a reply brief in support of its motion by April 9, 2004.
Concerning Plaintiff's Motion for Contempt and Immediate Injunctive Relief for Defendant's Violation of Court's Preliminary Injunction Order, filed March 4, 2004 (Docket No. 133), Plaintiff called Defendant to the witness stand in support of this motion. Plaintiff contends that Defendant has violated the Preliminary Injunction entered by this Court on May 8, 2003, and which held, in pertinent part, "Defendant is enjoined from communicating to any third party any confidential information belonging to Securelnfo (such as trade secrets, customer lists, financial information) that Defendant received from Securelnfo while employed by Securelnfo."
Defendant admitted sending the e-mail, which is Exhibit A to the motion, to Mr. Burkhardt, and also that he sent the e-mail dated February 25, 2004 to Tom Wagner, who has been identified as an employee of the Veterans Administration. The Court finds that the other e-mails attached to the e-mail sent to Mr. Wagner were acquired by Defendant from sources other than Plaintiff, and thus, Defendant was not in violation of the Court's Preliminary Injunction when Defendant sent these e-mails to Mr. Wagner. The Defendant testified, and the Court accepts as true, that the Defendant did not send any confidential documents which he received from Securelnfo while he was employed by Securelnfo, to the Veterans Administration.
Plaintiff relies on two other facts. First, Defendant also sent to Mr. Wagner of the Veterans Administration a letter dated February 13, 2003 signed by Chet Noblett, Chairman of SkyFrames, Inc., to Keith Frederick of Securelnfo, which makes certain assertions about Mr. Linton, an employee of Plaintiff. Plaintiff's counsel asserts that this document does not state correct facts. Plaintiff asserts that Defendant drafted this letter and that it was sent by Mr. Noblett at the request of Defendant, who denies these assertions.
What the Court finds most troubling about the letter of February 13, 2003 sent by Defendant to Mr. Wagner is that part of the e-mail that states as follows:
Attached are emails relating to Securelnfo and specifically VAST LLCs General Manager John Linton relating to disclosing government confidential documents and requesting stock in exchange for his influence at the Veterans Administration. The documents disclosed by Securelnfo violate the following clause in the VA CIRC RFP/Contract. If you want copies of the documents they disclosed you will have to contact Securelnfo.
The Defendant knows that the Veterans Administration is in an important business relationship with Plaintiff. Defendant did not provide a satisfactory response as to why, in the middle of this litigation, he would send such a document and e-mail to the Veterans Administration, knowing that it was in an important business relationship with the Plaintiff. As such, the Court can only conclude that the sending of this e-mail may be evidence relevant and material to the claims pending in this case.
However, for the reasons stated above, Defendant sending these communications to the Veterans Administration does not constitute a violation of the Court's Preliminary Injunction Order. It was not the intent of the Court to bar all communications between the Defendant and the Veterans Administration, because as discussed at the preliminary injunction hearing, and mentioned in the Court's Memorandum dated May 8, 2003, the Court had and continues to have no intention of interfering with Defendant's own business opportunities or Defendant's First Amendment rights. Thus, the Court did not intend to, and did not, prohibit Defendant from communicating with the Veterans Administration. Although this Court does not intend to prejudge the matter, the Defendant does not have any right to make tortious communications to the Veterans Administration.
Although Plaintiff has brought to the Court's attention facts which may be relevant at the trial of this case, and the Court may consider this evidence in connection with Plaintiff's Motion for Summary Judgment, the Court finds that the Defendant did not violate the specific prohibitions of the Preliminary Injunction. The Court also finds that Plaintiff's proof does not show that Plaintiff was actually damaged by the above-quoted communication sent by Defendant to Mr. Wagner of the Veterans Administration. For these reasons, the Court will deny Plaintiff's Motion.
The Court has also considered whether to enlarge the scope of the Preliminary Injunction or to take any other action, but declines to do so. The Court has previously rejected Plaintiffs request that the Court enjoin Defendant from tortious activity in general. If Plaintiff proves its allegations concerning tortious interference, then the jury may award damages against Defendant. The fact that Defendant may be unable to satisfy any damage award is not a reason to grant injunctive relief broader than the evidence permits.
An appropriate Order follows.
ORDER
AND NOW, this day of March, 2004, following oral argument, it is hereby ORDERED as follows:1. Plaintiff's Second Motion to Compel (Docket No. 122) is DENIED as moot.
2. Defendant's Motion to Compel (Docket No. 129) is DENIED.
3. Defendant's Motion for Contempt, Sanctions, Perjury, Dismissal and Reply to Plaintiff's Motion for Summary Judgment, Injunctive Relief and Contempt (Docket No. 136) is DENIED.
4. Defendant shall file a response to Plaintiff's Motion for Summary Judgment in accordance with Rule 56, F.R.Civ.P., by March 22, 2004. Plaintiff may file a reply brief by April 9, 2004.
5. Plaintiff's Motion for Contempt and Immediate Injunctive Relief for Defendant's Violation of Court's Preliminary Injunction Order, filed March 4, 2004 (Docket No. 133) is DENIED.