Camsoft Suit

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA
CAMSOFT DATA SYSTEMS, INC.

CIVIL ACTION
VERSUS
NO. 09-1047- JJB-SCR
SOUTHERN ELECTRONICS SUPPLY, INC.,
IGNACE PERRIN, ACTIVE SOLUTIONS, LLC,
BRIAN FITZPATRICK, JEFF BURKHARDT,
DELL, INC., DELL MARKETING, L.P.,
STEVE RENECKER, BILLY RIDGE,
HEATHER SMITH, IMAGINE SOFTWARE, LLC,
NETMETHODS, LLC, VERACENT, LLC,
METHOD INVESTMENTS, LLC,
LOGISTIX, LLC, GREGORY MEFFERT,
LINDA MEFFERT, MARK ST. PIERRE,
MARK KURT, SCOTT DOMKE,
PAUL HASTINGS, CHRISTOPHER DRAKE,
ELLEN KIRK, DWAYNE HODGES,
MICHAEL CHARBONNET,
JONATHAN STEVENSON,
AMI CONSULTING, LLC, CIBER, INC.,
DONALD EVANS, BILL TOLPEGIN,
DONALD BERRYMAN, EARTHLINK, INC.,
MOTOROLA, INC. AND
MMR CONSTRUCTORS, INC.
D/B/A MMR COMMUNICATIONS
SECOND SUPPLEMENTAL AND AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR

DECLARATORY JUDGMENT AND DAMAGES
NOW INTO COURT, through undersigned counsel, comes Plaintiff, CAMSOFT
DATA SYSTEMS, INC. (“CamSoft”), a Louisiana corporation domiciled in East Baton
Rouge Parish, State of Louisiana, who respectfully files its Second Supplemental and
Amended Complaint for Declaratory Judgment and Damages. CamSoft hereby
amends and supplements its entire original and first supplemental and amended
1
Case 3:09-cv-01047-JJB -SCR Document 123 09/29/10 Page 1 of 154
petitions for damages to allege specific facts based upon the most recently made
available information.
NAMED DEFENDANTS
1. Ignace Perrin is an individual domiciled in the State of Louisiana, and a named
individual defendant herein.
2. Southern Electronics Supply Company, Inc. is a corporation incorporated under
the laws of the State of Louisiana, with its principal place of business in New
Orleans, Louisiana, and a named corporate defendant herein.
3. Brian Fitzpatrick is an individual domiciled in the State of Louisiana, and a
named individual defendant herein.
4. Jeff Burkhardt is an individual domiciled in the State of Louisiana, and a named
5. Active Solutions, LLC is a limited liability company organized under the laws of
the State of Louisiana, with its principal place of business in New Orleans, LA,
and a named corporate defendant herein.
6. Gregory Meffert is an individual domiciled in the State of Louisiana, and a named
7. Linda Meffert is an individual domiciled in the State of Louisiana, and a named
8. Mark St. Pierre is an individual domiciled in the State of Louisiana, and a named
9. Mark Kurt is an individual domiciled in the State of Louisiana, and a named
2
10. Scott Domke is an individual domiciled in the State of Louisiana, and a named
11. Paul Hastings is an individual domiciled in the State of Louisiana, and a named
12. Christopher Drake is an individual domiciled in the State of Louisiana, and a
13. Dwayne Hodges is an individual domiciled in the State of Louisiana, and a named
14. Michael Charbonnet is an individual domiciled in the State of Louisiana, and a
15. Jonathan Stevenson is an individual domiciled in the State of Louisiana, and a
16. Imagine Software, LLC d/b/a Imagine Consulting is a limited liability company
organized under the laws of the State of Louisiana, with its principal place of
business in Slidell, LA, and a named corporate defendant herein.
17. NetMethods, LLC is a limited liability company organized under the laws of the
State of Louisiana, with its principal place of business in Baton Rouge, LA, and a
named corporate defendant herein.
18. Method Investments, LLC is a limited liability company organized under the laws
of the State of Louisiana, with its principal place of business in New Orleans, LA,
and a named corporate defendant herein.
3
19. Veracent, LLC is a limited liability company organized under the laws of the State
of Louisiana, with its principal place of business in New Orleans, LA, and a
20. Logistix, LLC is a limited liability company organized under the laws of the State
of Louisiana, with its principal place of business in Metairie, LA, and a named
corporate defendant herein.
21. Ellen Kirk is an individual domiciled in the State of California, and a named
22. AMI Consulting, LLC is a limited liability company organized under the laws of
the State of Louisiana, with its principal place of business in Del Mar, CA, and a
23. Billy Ridge is an individual domiciled in the State of Louisiana, and a named
24. Steve Renecker is an individual domiciled in the State of California, and a named
25. Heather Smith is an individual domiciled in the State of Texas, and a named
26. Dell, Inc. is a corporation incorporated under the laws of the State of Delaware,
with its principal place of business at Round Rock, Texas, and a named corporate
defendant herein.
27. Dell Marketing, L.P. is a foreign partnership domiciled in the State of Texas, with
its principal place of business in Round Rock, Texas, and a named corporate
defendant herein.
4
28. Ciber, Inc. is a corporation incorporated under the laws of the State of Delaware,
with its principal place of business in Greenwood Village, CO, and a named
29. Donald Evans is an individual domiciled in the State of Louisiana, and a named
30. Bill Tolpegin is an individual domiciled in the State of Georgia, and a named
31. Donald Berryman is an individual domiciled in the State of Tennessee, and a
32. Earthlink, Inc. is a corporation incorporated under the laws of the State of
Delaware, with its principal place of business in Altanta, Georgia, and a named
33. Motorola, Inc. is a corporation incorporated under the laws of the State of
Delaware, with its principal place of business in Schaumburg, IL, and a named
34. MMR Constructors, Inc. d/b/a MMR Communications is a corporation
incorporated under the law of the State of Louisiana, with its principal place of
business in Baton Rouge, LA, and a named corporate defendant herein.
35. For purposes of clarity, CamSoft is not bringing suit against either the City of
Baton Rouge or The City of New Orleans, nor is CamSoft filing a suit against any
of the above named individuals in their official capacity, nor is CamSoft alleging
any type of vicariously liability on behalf of the City of Baton Rouge or the City of
New Orleans for any alleged violations as further described herein.
5
SUBJECT MATTER JURISDICTION
36. This Honorable Court has previously found subject matter jurisdiction pursuant
to 28 U.S.C. §1331 and §1338(a).
VENUE
37. CamSoft maintains that venue is proper pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §1391 as a
substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise to the claim occurred
within the Middle District of Louisiana.
FACTUAL BACKGROUND
38. In April of 2002, C. Ray Nagin (“Mayor Nagin”) accepted public office as Mayor of
New Orleans. Mayor Nagin ran on a platform of ending city corruption and
modernizing the city through the use of advanced computer information
technologies (“IT Services”). Mayor Nagin also proclaimed his desire to deploy
1,000 surveillance cameras around New Orleans to deter criminal activity.
39. After taking office, Mayor Nagin created the Mayor’s Office of Technology
(“MOT”) and appointed Gregory Meffert (“Meffert”) as the city’s first Chief
Technology Officer (“CTO”) on May 5, 2002. As acting CTO, Meffert hired his
colleagues, Mark St. Pierre (“St. Pierre”), Mark Kurt (“Kurt”), Paul Hastings
(“Hastings”) and Scott Domke (“Domke”), through their jointly owned limited
liability company, Imagine Software, LLC d/b/a Imagine Consulting. Imagine
Consulting was to provide IT Services to the City of New Orleans. Also
employed by Imagine Consulting were defendant employees, Christopher Drake
(“Drake”), Dwayne Hodges (“Hodges”), Michael Charbonnet (“Charbonnet”) and
Jonathan Stevenson (“Stevenson”). CamSoft will occasionally refer to Meffert, St.
6
Pierre, Kurt, Hastings, Domke, Drake, Hodges, Charbonnet and Stevenson
collectively as the “MOT Employees.”
40. As CTO, Meffert provided business cards to MOT Employees, whose email
addresses indicated that they were direct employees of the City of New Orleans
(i.e. cdrake@mayorofno.com for Christopher Drake). At all times relevant
hereto, the MOT Employees brandished business cards, sent emails, conducted
business and otherwise identified themselves as direct employees of the City of
New Orleans, instead of as owners, employees or controlling agents of Imagine
Consulting.
41. Since June of 1992, Plaintiff, CamSoft Data Systems, Inc. (“CamSoft”), has
provided IT Services in the greater Baton Rouge and New Orleans areas. In
2002, President of CamSoft, Carlo MacDonald (“MacDonald”), gained interest in a
small start-up company, FHP Wireless, Inc. (now known as Tropos Networks,
Inc.) (“Tropos”), and its newly developed technology of wireless Internet access
deployable on a large, municipal or city-wide scale (“MESH Technology”). A
CamSoft employee visited Tropos’ headquarters in Sunnyvale, CA and inspected
Tropos’ small MESH Technology demonstration deployment, which consisted of
“nodes” mounted to light poles around the Sunnyvale police station.
42. After returning from the trip, CamSoft signed a Reseller Agreement and
Evaluation Agreement with Tropos in or around October of 2002. Recognizing
the potential of this new technology, CamSoft intended to expand its business by
developing its own governmental applications, as well as deploying technologies
from other companies, around the Tropos MESH Technology. These new
7
applications included software that utilized wireless Internet access for police
in-car laptop computers (“Police Laptops”) and personal digital assistants
(“PDAs”), wireless video surveillance systems, as well as a host of other new
computer software and communication applications and platforms to be
developed for police, fire and EMS personnel. CamSoft further intended to
deploy the MESH Technology for paying broadband Internet access customers,
and CamSoft created a wholly owned subsidiary company, Verge Wireless
Networks, Inc. (“Verge”), on April 15, 2003.
43. In developing such applications, CamSoft signed a Tropos’ “Evaluation
Agreement,” which contained a confidentiality clause protecting both parties’
“Confidential Information.” The agreement stated, in part, “Each party agrees to
keep any Confidential Information received strictly confidential and only use the
information for the purpose of the Agreement and not to disclose to any third
party any such Confidential Information, except to Users and other Company
employees, strictly on a need to know basis, who are bound by a written
agreement of confidentiality at least as restrictive as the terms of this Section 6.”
Thus, CamSoft took affirmative steps to protect its proprietary applications
developed in conjunction with the Tropos MESH Technology.
44. Knowing that deployment of these new applications would first require the
building of a MESH Technology infrastructure, during the late summer of 2003,
CamSoft used its own money and resources to deploy the Tropos MESH
Technology in downtown Baton Rouge. CamSoft hoped to gain local and
national media attention, and the attention of local governmental officials in
8
Louisiana. CamSoft also hoped to use the Baton Rouge deployment as a test bed
for its own governmental applications.
45. In June of 2003, CamSoft received media from the Baton Rouge Business Report
regarding its planned wi-fi deployment. On July 17, 2003, MacDonald emailed a
local news reporter, Rebecca Rainer of WAFB, regarding the potential
deployment of Police Laptops and wireless video surveillance systems as areas
of potential development for the MESH technology deployed in Baton Rouge.
Emails indicate that by July 23, 2003, MacDonald was in communications with
Louisiana state officials regarding governmental uses and applications relative
to the MESH Technology. By August 11, 2003, MacDonald was in direct email
communications with Baton Rouge officials, including former Mayor Bobby
Simpson, and Baton Rouge’s CTO, Donald Evans (“Evans”). Specifically,
MacDonald was communicating to demonstrate the system’s unique police, fire
and EMS applications.
46. After hearing of MacDonald’s wi-fi deployment in downtown Baton Rouge, Brian
Fitzpatrick (“Fitzpatrick”), a co-owner of Active Solutions, LLC (“Active
Solutions”), contacted MacDonald in approximately June of 2003. Fitzpatrick
indicated that he and Ignace Perrin (“Perrin”), an owner of Southern Electronics
Supply Company, Inc. (“Southern Electronics”), were working to develop a
solution for Mayor Nagin’s crime camera initiative. After initial telephone
discussions were held, Fitzpatrick, MacDonald and Perrin agreed to jointly work
together towards designing and developing a crime camera system meeting the
9
needs of Mayor Nagin’s crime camera initiative. Active Solutions was co-owned
by Jeff Burkhardt (“Burkhardt”).
47. On August 21, 2003, Fitzpatrick wrote to MOT CTO Meffert that MacDonald and
CamSoft would be specifically responsible for designing the wi-fi network used
in the crime camera project. In a reply email dated August 21, 2003, Meffert
stated that Drake and St. Pierre must have access to all info and plans for the
crime camera system.
48. Approximately September 9, 2003, MacDonald personally purchased the Sony
camera NOPD wanted to use in the crime camera project. After obtaining the
Sony camera, MacDonald tested the wireless connectivity of the Sony camera to
the Tropos MESH Technology. MacDonald ultimately reported to Fitzpatrick and
Perrin his success in connecting and remotely operating the camera through the
Tropos MESH Technology.
49. In an email dated September 29, 2003, MacDonald notified MOT CTO Meffert
that CamSoft was deploying a free wi-fi Internet deployment in the warehouse
district of New Orleans, similar to the free wi-fi deployment in downtown Baton
Rouge. Although the New Orleans warehouse district deployment was entirely
separate and apart from Mayor Nagin’s crime camera initiative, MacDonald
notified Meffert that the Sony cameras would connect to the wi-fi infrastructure.
50. In an email dated October 22, 2003, MacDonald told Fitzpatrick to finish his
work on getting the crime camera’s power supply box to work with the Sony
camera. MacDonald advised that once the Sony camera had reliable power,
MacDonald and Fitpatrick would then work on changes to the wi-fi part of the
10
crime camera system. This email signifies that Active Solutions had not built the
first crime camera prior to MacDonald and CamSoft working on the crime
camera initiative.
51. In addition to the work in New Orleans, by approximately October 30, 2003,
MacDonald was working to schedule meetings with Evans, Baton Rouge’s CTO.
In an email dated November 12, 2003, MacDonald discussed with Chad Guillot,
an employee with the City of Baton Rouge, the availability and use of homeland
security funds apportioned to Baton Rouge for the deployment of a municipal
wi-fi data infrastructure for governmental applications.
52. In an email dated November 25, 2003, Drake, a MOT employee, sent MacDonald
information and a map of camera placements for a proposed pilot project in the
Iberville Housing Project adjacent to NOPD First District (“Pilot Project”). The
Pilot Project called for the deployment of six (6) surveillance cameras installed
throughout the New Orleans housing project, which had a known high crime and
murder rate. Due to the high cost of running hardwires from the police station
to the crime cameras, the Pilot Project’s primarily purpose was to determine the
effectiveness and feasibility of transmitting the Sony camera signals wirelessly
across CamSoft’s installed MESH Technology. If successful, the crime cameras
would not only provide 24 hour monitoring of high crime areas, but the MESH
Technology would allow wi-fi access points, or “hotspots,” from where police
officers could remotely operate the crime cameras from the safety of their Police
Laptops or PDAs. CamSoft, Southern Electronics and Active Solutions agreed to
jointly build out the Pilot Project using CamSoft’s MESH Technology and a crime
11
camera to be built by Active Solutions. As more fully discussed below, the Pilot
Project intentionally did not use existing wireless technologies, such as “point-
to-point” or “point-to-multi-point.”
53. Originally, Fitzpatrick wanted to install CamSoft’s MESH Technology directly into
the crime camera’s box containing the power and communications equipment.
In a series of emails dated December 8, 2003, Fitzpatrick asked MacDonald how
many of the Pilot Project crime cameras would have the Tropos’ equipment
installed inside the box. MacDonald wrote that neither he nor Tropos backed the
installation of the Tropos’ equipment inside the box. MacDonald then directed
Fitzpatrick on the necessary wireless equipment that Active Solutions should use
inside the box to work with the Tropos MESH Technology. Fitzpatrick agreed
with MacDonald’s recommendation to build the crime cameras according to
CamSoft’s wi-fi specifications. Fitzpatrick and MacDonald further discussed the
fact that only a limited number of Sony cameras could connect to any one Tropos
“node,” which limitation the parties had previously calculated prior to the Pilot
Project’s deployment. CamSoft had to specifically come up with a wireless
surveillance system network design that took into consideration these data rate
transfer limitations.
54. CamSoft further alleges that the December 8, 2003 emails referenced above,
along with both prior and subsequent emails, contained express confidentiality
clauses at the bottom of the emails indicating the sensitive and confidential
nature of the information and technology being relayed therein. CamSoft
maintains that the MOT Employees, and representatives of Active Solutions,
12
Southern Electronics and Tropos, were expressly put on notice of the
confidential nature of the proprietary information relayed in these emails, which
stated:
This transmission may contain information that is privileged, confidential

and/or except from disclosure under applicable law. If you are not the intended
recipient, you are hereby notified that any disclosure, copying, distribution, or
use of the information contained therein (including any reliance thereon) is
STRICTLY PROHIBITED. If you received this transmission in error, please
immediately contact the sender and destroy the material in its entirety, whether
in electronic or hard copy format. Thank you. (Emphasis added)
55. As part of their joint efforts to deploy the Pilot Project and to sell the eventual
crime camera system to the City of New Orleans, CamSoft agreed to
independently pay for and provide the MESH Technology. Active Solutions and
Southern Electronics agreed to pay for and provide the Sony surveillance
cameras and computer data storage facilities. Accordingly, CamSoft risked
independent financial loss if the Pilot Project proved technologically unfeasible
or if no future contract with the City of New Orleans arose from their joint
venture. Furthermore, at the time of the Pilot Project’s deployment, CamSoft,
Active Solutions and Southern Electronics had never once discussed subcontract
agreements between the parties. CamSoft alleges the existence of a joint venture
agreement between CamSoft, Active Solutions and Southern Electronics,
whereby all parties agreed to share in both the profits and losses of the New
Orleans crime camera deployment, particularly the losses if the Pilot Project
proved unsuccessful.
56. As stated above, before the Pilot Project began, CamSoft had previously
determined that the Tropos nodes could only handle a certain number of
13
surveillance cameras given the bandwidth limitations of the Tropos equipment
and the large amount of data bandwidth required to transfer seamless video
images. As originally designed for deployment, the Tropos equipment could be
installed on light poles or other locations throughout a large city area. Each
Tropos “node” could communicate with the other nodes if each node was on the
same frequency channel. That way, if one node was disabled, the other nodes
could transfer data around the “dead” node. However, the large amounts data
sent by the Sony surveillance cameras clogged up the network if the nodes were
all on the same channel. Thus, CamSoft learned early on that the Tropos nodes
could only carry a limited number of cameras at any given frames per second
requirement, and that only a limited number of cameras could be used on any
one channel. In order to design around this limitation, CamSoft designed a
“mini-MESH” to handle the surveillance camera data loads.
57. An email dated January 5, 2004 between Fitzpatrick and MacDonald indicates
that work on the First District pilot project had commenced. Fitzpatrick asked if
MacDonald would like to start the installation of the MESH Technology to get the
infrastructure built before Active Solutions’ cameras were installed.
58. An email dated January 21, 2004 indicates that CamSoft was simultaneously in
the process of deploying a demonstration Tropos system at the Baton Rouge
Police Department (“BRPD”) headquarters. Mike Murphy of the BRPD noted that
a CamSoft employee even went out on their roof during a rainstorm to
troubleshoot some connectivity problems. CamSoft notes that the
demonstration system in Baton Rouge was not specifically built for surveillance
14
cameras, but rather to demonstrate the other useful Police Laptop features.
Thus, CamSoft was not only simply selling a wireless video surveillance system
application, but rather a more purposeful and powerful governmental wi-fi data
infrastructure system built on MESH Technology.
59. During Pilot Project’s actual installation and testing, CamSoft further learned
valuable trade secrets. For example, given that the City of New Orleans
expressed a design requirement for 7 frames per second (“fps”), CamSoft learned
that the Tropos equipment alone, and as deployed in the Pilot Project, was not
entirely suitable for practically achieving the design requirement of 7 fps.
CamSoft determined that a “data backhaul” solution was required in conjunction
with the Tropos equipment. Pilot Project testing further revealed that a
specially designed combination of the “data backhaul” equipment, when coupled
with the MESH Technology, could achieve the desired 7 fps, while also providing
the police with “hotspots” for Police Laptop connectivity. This combination
involved the connection of the crime cameras to certain Tropos node ports,
which prevented a significant decrease in available data bandwidth. The overall
wireless network design following the Pilot Project allowed for a cost effective
solution that could both wirelessly connect the surveillance cameras and also
provide police departments with “hotspots.” From these hotspots, officers could
connect their Police Laptops and PDAs to the network for direct, remote control
of those cameras, as well as other wi-fi emergency personnel communication
applications. After the conclusion of the Pilot Project, no other wireless video
surveillance solution achieved this same powerful result on a scale of this
15
magnitude. Accordingly, CamSoft’s wireless video surveillance system network
design was a first of its kind.
60. On January 30, 2004, Drake notified MacDonald that, “Mark (St. Pierre) loved the
Verge/Tropos stuff as I knew he would.” Drake admitted during his testimony in
the New Orleans litigation that neither he, St. Pierre nor any other MOT
Employee had knowledge or experience in designing a wireless video
surveillance system network prior to the Pilot Project. Drake further admitted
that the design of the system was solely that of CamSoft, Active Solutions and
Southern Electronics.
61. During the Pilot Project’s deployment, and after successfully demonstrating the
system’s capabilities with CamSoft’s own equipment and labor costs, Fitzpatrick
suggested that CamSoft simply sell the Tropos equipment to Southern
Electronics for inclusion in the overall project. In an email dated January 30,
2004, MacDonald wrote Fitzpatrick and Perrin and stated that CamSoft had no
intentions of accepting Fitzpatrick’s recent suggestion that CamSoft simply sell
the Tropos equipment to Southern Electronics for inclusion in the crime camera
system. MacDonald directly stated that if part of the camera solution was to
provide wi-fi to the police cars with Tropos equipment, then CamSoft would be
more involved in crime camera deployment. MacDonald further noted that
CamSoft had planned and designed the wireless network from the start,
including configuration of the network, and that CamSoft had put many
manhours into the project with no guaranteed return on investment. He further
stated that the profit margin on the equipment sales alone was not enough to
16
cover CamSoft’s expenses. Most importantly, MacDonald stated that CamSoft
would protect its proprietary knowledge and trade secrets learned during the
camera deployment. CamSoft expressly stated that it would not simply hand
over information relative to the MESH Technology to those other competing
technology vendors involved in the crime camera project. MacDonald expressly
noted Bellwether, Commtech or anyone else, except for the NOPD employees
working on the system. Moreover, MacDonald directly noted CamSoft’s
intention to compete against CommTech, Bellwether and other Microsoft
partners for business in New Orleans by using the company’s knowledge and
experience in municipal wi-fi deployments. CamSoft excepted from disclosure
the city employees because MacDonald needed his client to know how the
system worked, including its advantages over competing products, and more
specifically, did not see his client, the City of New Orleans, or its employees, as a
competing threat with specific intentions to steal CamSoft’s technology. In fact,
CamSoft and MacDonald remained entirely unaware that the MOT Employees
were in fact owners, controlling agents or employees of a competing IT Services
vendor, which at the time was only Imagine Consulting.
62. Despite CamSoft’s status as the Tropos reseller, and MacDonald’s original
intention to deploy the MESH Technology for Police Laptop deployments prior to
the Pilot Project deployment, in an email dated February 9, 2004, Fitzpatrick
advised MacDonald that Fitzpatrick would bring MacDonald “up to speed” on the
Police Laptop deployment. In response, MacDonald wrote, “[K]eep in mind that
we [CamSoft] have always been targeting police car access, months before you
17
and I even talked….so this needs to be a team effort, not your effort.” While
Fitzpatrick may have had the intent to change the parties’ relationship,
MacDonald clearly viewed himself as part of a team effort rather than merely a
subcontractor.
63. Following MacDonald’s January 30, 2004 email and February 9, 2004 email,
CamSoft, Active Solutions and Southern Electronics had purportedly resolved
their differences. The parties agreed that CamSoft, Southern Electronics and
Active Solutions would collaborate in the submittal of a joint proposal in
response to the City of New Orleans’ crime camera request for proposals process
(“RFP”). The parties agreed that CamSoft would design, install and provide the
on-going service and maintenance of the critical wireless networking component
parts of the crime camera system as demanded in MacDonald’s January 30, 2004
email; Active Solutions would manufacture and construct the surveillance
cameras, although CamSoft would configure the camera’s wireless component
parts to work with its wireless network; and Southern Electronics would act as
the prime, coordinating contractor. The parties further agreed that Southern
Electronics would prepare and submit the joint proposal in Southern
Electronic’s name only, given the subjective nature of the RFP process and
Southern Electronics’ seventy (70) year history in New Orleans. The parties
further agreed that Southern Electronics would coordinate all billing and
properly relay payment to CamSoft and Active Solutions accordingly to their pre-
determined invoiced amounts. At the time of the parties’ joint proposal, no
subcontract agreements were discussed, exchanged or signed. Should the
18
parties not be awarded the contract, CamSoft remained subject to financial loss
associated with the Pilot Project. Each party further agreed that they would
independently profit from the type and amount of services that each party would
provide if they were awarded the contract.
64. On February 16, 2004, CamSoft continued its email communications with Baton
Rouge city officials regarding the deployment of the Tropos MESH Technology
for governmental applications.
65. In an email dated February 17, 2004, Kim Fury, a representative of Dell, noted
that Dell’s relationship with the City of New Orleans had improved under
Meffert’s tenure as MOT CTO. After CamSoft, Active Solutions and Southern
Electronics successfully demonstrated the viability of Pilot Project’s wireless
video surveillance solution, Ms. Fury noted that Meffert “is also throwing in a
video surveillance piece that he will pull from the street if we can provide it.”
(Emphasis added) In other words, if Dell could sell the crime camera technology,
Meffert would identify the technological parts to the solution’s overall design.
66. After the Pilot Project, CamSoft knew that a single MESH Technology deployment
could not handle the entire crime camera project. Rather, the MESH Technology
would have to be purposefully built for crime cameras, with a separate wide-
spread governmental wi-fi deployment for Police Laptop access. In February of
2004, MacDonald worked with Drake to schedule a meeting between
MacDonald, Drake and St. Pierre. In preparation for the meeting, CamSoft even
developed a proprietary mug shot database system application, which would
allow police officers to pull up mug shots via their Police Laptops. The existing
19
police communication system could not handle these new types of applications
being developed by CamSoft, which gave a significant commercial advantage to
CamSoft.
67. In a March 10, 2004 email, MacDonald sent an email to Drake and St. Pierre at
their MOT email addresses thanking them for allowing CamSoft the opportunity
to demonstrate the possibilities of wi-fi connections for Police Laptops. St.
Pierre replied from his MOT email address, “Thanks to all of you for taking the
time/effort and expense to show us the product. It certainly is impressive. I
look forward to figuring out how we can utilize it at NOPD.”
68. In an email dated March 14, 2005, MacDonald continued to contact
representatives of the City of Baton Rouge regarding the city’s desire for a
municipal wi-fi system and wireless video surveillance system.
69. On March 17, 2003, MacDonald contacted Belinda Miller with the Louisiana
Office of State Purchasing (“OSP”) regarding how CamSoft could place its MESH
Technology on state contract. MacDonald noted that representatives with the
City of Baton Rouge had requested that CamSoft get its products on state
contract. Ms. Miller replied with a link for administrative procedures. She also
noted that CamSoft might require FCC registration and or other
telecommunications authorizations. MacDonald examined these requirements
and determined that the sale of the Tropos’ equipment and other video
surveillance equipment was not legal under the State’s Name Brand
Microcomputer and Peripheral Contract (“LANBMPC”). As more specifically
discussed later, Dell employees would later learn that sale of the wireless video
20
surveillance technology was not permitted through the LANBMPC, but decided
to market and sell the technology to state and local governmental agencies via
Dell’s LANBMPC anyway.
70. On April 19, 2004, Tropos drafted a press release regarding the development of
a wireless video surveillance system in New Orleans. Notably, the draft press
release named CamSoft’s subsidiary company, Verge Wireless Networks, Inc., as
well as Active Solutions and Southern Electronics, as the wireless video solution
providers.
71. On April 22, 2004, the City of New Orleans selected the joint proposal of
Southern Electronics, Active Solutions and CamSoft to install approximately 250
cameras throughout New Orleans.
72. After the City of New Orleans accepted the joint proposal from Southern
Electronics, Active Solutions and CamSoft, the parties further agreed to jointly
market their crime camera solution to the City of Baton Rouge. Given CamSoft’s
prior contacts with City of Baton Rouge officials, the parties agreed to keep the
terms of their arrangements the same, except that CamSoft would act as the
prime contractor with primary billing and client communication responsibilities.
73. In regards to the April 19, 2004 Tropos press release, on April 26, 2004, Drake
sent MacDonald an email wanting the contact information for Tropos. Drake
told MacDonald, “Don’t take it personally, but this is about more than cameras
and I have to keep a handle on things.” In another email, Drake stated, “I am
upset by the whole thing, not just particular comments. Tropos is either a team
player or they are not on the team. That simple.” CamSoft alleges that Drake
21
was upset about the press release because CamSoft was getting the media
coverage instead of the MOT Employees. Moreover, this email evidences the
abuse of power and authority MOT Employees would exercise in order to obtain
subsequent reciprocal dealing and tying arrangements for the benefit of the MOT
Employees’ privately held companies, Imagine Consulting, NetMethods,
Veracent, Logistix, and AMI Consulting (collectively referred to hereafter as
“Privately Held Companies”).
74. On April 26, 2004, Perrin sent Drake an email and carbon copied Fitzpatrick and
Burkhardt regarding their joint collaboration for surveillance projects in
Jacksonville and Altanta. This email evidences an agreement between Active
Solutions, Southern Electronics and the MOT Employees, through their private
company, Imagine Consulting, to jointly collaborate, market and deploy the
wireless video surveillance solution developed by CamSoft during the Pilot
Project. CamSoft was entirely unaware of the behind the scenes arrangement
between MOT Employees/Imagine Consulting, Active Solutions and Southern
Electronics. No MOT Employee ever disclosed to MacDonald or CamSoft their
respective ownership of, controlling interest in or employment by Imagine
Consulting. CamSoft further alleges that neither Perrin, Fitzpatrick nor
Burkhardt disclosed to MacDonald or CamSoft the MOT Employees’ association
with Imagine Consulting, despite MacDonald’s clear indication to protect its
proprietary knowledge and trade secrets from competing IT Services vendors.
CamSoft alleges that Perrin, Fitzpatrick and Burkhardt had absolute knowledge
of the MOT Employees’ intention to misappropriate CamSoft’s proprietary
22
knowledge and trade secrets relative to the design and use of the MESH
Technology developed and deployed in the Pilot Project. CamSoft further alleges
that Perrin, Fitzpatrick and Burkhardt did knowingly, willfully, unfairly,
deceptively, fraudulently, and in direct violation of those confidential disclaimers
in email communications and MacDonald’s clear expression of his intent to
protect his trade secrets, later provided the working details of the CamSoft’s
Pilot Project wireless surveillance system network designs to MOT
Employees/Imagine Consulting and Dell.
75. On June 10, 2004, Drake wrote Steve Renecker (“Renecker”), an employee of Dell
charged with the responsibility developing Dell’s Public Safety and Criminal
Justice Division. Drake wrote, “I have been working since we met regarding the
Interoperability project to get the camera system we designed into a somewhat
packaged format for you to look at…We would love some input from you as to
how we could package this into something you and Dell would be interested in
working with us on…If you decide to pursue this and we can develop the Dell
relationship on that piece by then, maybe we put up a united from at that
conference.”
76. On June 14, 2010, Renecker replied, “Currently, I am trying to build the facility
surveillance business here at Dell and was starting with camera and video
software companies. I like the approach you have taken there in New Orleans.
Dell would be interested in talking further about a potential relationship…Do
you work exclusively with Tropos or are you open to working with Mesh
Networks and some of the other mesh companies?” Renecker’s
23
acknowledgement of Tropos evidences that Renecker and Dell knew that the
Pilot Project involved Tropos’ MESH Technology, and that a Tropos reseller and
integrator was likely involved in the design of the Pilot Project’s wireless MESH
Technology network.
77. On June 14, 2010, Drake replied to Renecker, “That sounds great. I will start
planning a meeting for the 8th or 9th of July and let you know what looks
good…With regard to Tropos, we have no exclusive arrangement. They are
not a “core” partner. They have worked very well for us and we have their
products in the field, working very well.” (Emphasis added) This email clearly
evidences the MOT Employees’ unfair, fraudulent and deceptive actions to
misappropriate CamSoft’s proprietary wireless network designs relative to the
crime camera deployment.
78. In an email dated June 20, 2004, Renecker wrote regarding video surveillance,
“Dell’s biggest challenge in this market is to resell a variety of digital camera
solutions (maybe 2-3 pan/tilt/zoom cameras) and then engage Dell Professional
Services to be the installer.” While Dell had the ability and connections to sell
the bundled computer equipment across the world, Dell recognized that an
integrator was necessary to perform the actual in field design, testing and
installation of the wireless video surveillance systems. Imagine Consulting
sought to fill the role of integrator, the very role played by CamSoft in the July 19,
2004 Contract.
79. On June 23, 2004, the City of New Orleans issued Executive Order CRN 04-02,
which permitted Meffert to circumvent the city’s competitive procedures for
24
procuring professional services through the RFP process. Meffert now had the
authority to unilaterally hire contractors to perform services so long as they had
already approved General Services Agency (“GSA”) schedules.
80. On June 25, 2004, CamSoft submitted an inquiry to Anne T. Falgout with the City
of Lafayette regarding CamSoft’s desire to build out a free wi-fi area in Lafayette,
similar to the free wi-fi deployment in Baton Rouge and New Orleans. This
clearly evidences CamSoft’s intent to market the MESH Technology to
municipalities across all of southern Louisiana.
81. On July 5, 2004, Drake wrote Renecker of Dell, “Imagine [Consulting] e-mail
account acting up tonight. Sending from home account. July 8th is a go. I have
everyone ready to work with you that morning…With regards to Mesh, I have
purposefully kept the Tropos guy out [MacDonald] of this set of meetings. As
I said, they are not a core team member for use anyway. They just made the
most sense in the New Orleans situation.” (Emphasis added) Drake further
highlighted the following individuals to be present at the July 8, 2004 meeting:
Drake through Imagine Consulting; Hodges through Imagine Consulting; Perrin
through Southern Electronics; Fitzpatrick through Active Solutions; and
Burkhardt through Active Solutions. CamSoft further alleges that Dell clearly
knew that there was a wireless integrator purposefully being kept out of these
discussions. Despite this knowledge, Renecker and Dell made no effort, and gave
no concern, relative to determining the true role of the “Tropos guy,” who as
purposefully left out of the meeting, in designing the wireless crime camera
system.
25
82. On July 8, 2004, Dell officials flew into New Orleans and conducted a meeting
with Drake, Hodges, St. Pierre, Fitzpatrick, Burkhardt and Perrin (“July 8, 2004
Meeting”). In its interrogatory responses filed in connection with the New
Orleans litigation, Active Solutions admitted to giving advanced wireless
network designs for the wireless video surveillance system during the July 8,
2004 Meeting. Active Solutions’ responses are further consistent with Drake’s
testimony in the New Orleans trial, where Drake testified that Fitzpatrick
discussed the wireless networking designs of the surveillance camera system.
Drake also testified that Fitzpatrick was very vocal about protecting their
discussions through non-disclosure agreements. While vocalizing his intent to
protect himself and Active Solutions, conveniently Fitzpatrick made no effort to
protect CamSoft’s proprietary knowledge or trade secrets, and despite their
already agreed upon joint venture to further market the system to the City of
Baton Rouge.
83. During the July 8, 2004 Meeting, participants agreed that Southern Electronics
and Active Solutions would provide its surveillance camera to Dell for bundled
equipment resale; the MOT Employees/Imagine Consulting would act as the
prime contractor and integrator, and further use their status and power within
MOT to sell other municipalities and funnel in-coming business referrals from
MOT; and Dell would sell the total surveillance solution, including all bundled
equipment and software, via its state contracts, WSCA contracts, GSA vehicles, or
otherwise use its customer relationships to sway opinion in requests for
proposals.
26
84. Ultimately, Tropos further agreed to participate in the overall sales scheme by
(1) either permitting the MOT Employees and their Private Held Companies to
resell the equipment to Dell for subsequent resale, or (2) directly licensed Dell as
a reseller of the Tropos equipment for bundling purposes. Tropos knowingly
and willfully kept secret from CamSoft and MacDonald their business
arrangements with the MOT Employees and their Privately Held Companies and
Dell. This is further despite Tropos’ direct knowledge that CamSoft designed the
wireless network for the crime camera system application during the Pilot
Project. Specifically, MacDonald communicated with Tropos via confidential
emails, and Allen Carr (“Carr”), a Tropos employee, even flew into New Orleans
and physically observed the Tropos equipment limitations during the Pilot
Project.
85. CamSoft will on occasion refer to all the members of the Dell agreement as the
“Dell Alliance Members”, which Perrin, Southern Electronics, Fitzpatrick,
Burkhardt, Active Solutions, the MOT Employees, their Privately Held
Companies, Tropos, Carr, Ron Sege (“Sege”), Chief Executive Officer of Tropos,
Dell, Dell Marketing, L.P. (“Dell Marketing”), Renecker, Heather Smith (“Smith”),
another Dell employee, Billy Ridge (“Ridge”), another Dell employee, and Ciber,
Inc. (“Ciber”). CamSoft will further discuss the respective roles played by Sege,
Dell Marketing, Smith, Ridge and Ciber as the chronology of events unfolds.
86. It was not until September 16, 2009 that MacDonald first learned of the secret
July 8, 2004 Meeting wherein CamSoft’s proprietary wireless network designs
were misappropriated and disseminated. CamSoft alleges that the Dell Alliance
27
Members did knowingly, unfairly, intentionally, deceptively and fraudulently,
withhold the nature and existence of the July 8, 2004 Meeting from MacDonald
and CamSoft. While falsely posing as direct employees of the City of New
Orleans, and not otherwise identifying their true association with Imagine
Consulting or their Privately Held Companies, the MOT Employees did
knowingly, unfairly, willfully, intentionally, deceptively and fraudulently, abuse
their power as agents, representatives and employees of a governmental agency,
the City of New Orleans, which city and employees owed a duty to not
misappropriate or otherwise take the property of its citizens without due
process of law.
87. On July 19, 2004, Southern Electronics consummated the contract with the City
of New Orleans on behalf of both Active Solutions and Southern Electronics (“the
July 19, 2004 Contract”). Again, by July 19, 2004, CamSoft, Active Solutions and
Southern Electronics had never once discussed, exchanged or signed
subcontractor agreements. CamSoft still bore a risk of financial loss if the July
19, 2004 Contract fell through.
88. The following day, on July 20, 2004, Active Solutions surreptitiously executed its
non-disclosure agreement with Dell in accordance with the parties’ discussions
during the July 8, 2004 Meeting. However, in an email dated that same day,
Fitzpatrick acknowledged to MacDonald the purported joint venture agreement
between CamSoft, Active Solutions and Southern Electronics to market and sell
their surveillance system to the City of Baton Rouge.
28
89. On July 21, 2004, Southern Electronics surreptitiously executed its non-
disclosure agreement with Dell in accordance with the parties’ discussions
during the July 8, 2004 Meeting.
90. On July 26, 2004, Imagine Consulting executed its non-disclosure agreement
with Dell in accordance with the parties’ discussions during the July 8, 2004
Meeting.
91. An email dated August 17, 2004 evidences CamSoft’s continued direct
communications with representatives of the BRPD, Mike Murphy, and BRPD’s
continued use of CamSoft’s demonstration Tropos’ Internet MESH Technology at
BRPD Headquarters.
92. On July 29, 2004, Michael Dorman, Southeast Regional Sales Manager for
Motorola, Inc. (“Motorola”) wrote MacDonald in an effort to steer MacDonald
towards using Motorola’s line of “Canopy” products during the July 19, 2004
Contract deployment. This email is significant because Drake will later issue
proposals to Motorola through Logistix for the development and design of a
wireless video surveillance system based upon the wireless network designed
by CamSoft during the July 19, 2004 Contract deployment.
93. In an email dated August 24, 2004, Drake wrote Renecker and specifically stated
that Imagine Consulting is looking for mid-size to large jobs using either Dell’s
direct purchase vehicle (i.e. state contract, GSA, etc.) or at least a subject
procurement vehicle (i.e. RFP versus bid).
94. In furtherance of their purported joint venture to sell their video surveillance
system to the City of Baton Rouge, on August 25, 2004, Perrin sent MacDonald
29
information regarding camera pricing for his inclusion in the joint proposal by
Active Solutions, Southern Electronics and CamSoft to BRPD officials.
95. On August 30, 2004, St. Pierre filed articles of organization for NetMethods, LLC
(“NetMethods”) with the Louisiana Secretary of State. Drake admitted during
the New Orleans trial that while Imagine Consulting competed for wireless video
surveillance opportunities in New Orleans, NetMethods was created to compete
for said business outside of New Orleans. Presumably, this is Meffert’s defense
as a public official in New Orleans to later receiving hundreds of thousands in
credit card benefits and consulting fees from NetMethods, despite evidence that
NetMethods performed IT Services for the City of New Orleans.
96. CamSoft further alleges that the other MOT Employees’ were particularly and
intimately aware of Meffert’s silent partnership and supervisorial role in
NetMethods’ plans to compete against CamSoft for sales of municipal wi-fi
systems, and particularly wireless video surveillance systems. In an email
following NetMethods’ organization, Domke asked Meffert to "take a look at
these templates I can use to build out the NetMethods site." He listed two
template links for Meffert’s consideration. Of the second link, Domke noted that
"Mark [St. Pierre] likes this… I have plenty more if you don't see one you like."
Meffert replied back, "Let's go with Mark's."
97. On August 31, 2004, MacDonald sent Mike Murphy of BRPD pricing information
relative to the crime camera system. In reply, on September 7, 2004, Mike
Murphy replies, “The numbers look ok and funding is available.”
30
98. On September 9, 2004, Charbonnet, a MOT Employee, sent Perrin an email
wanting an update on the camera installation to send to Meffert. Perrin noted
that CamSoft was on schedule to begin the initial camera installation in the Sixth
District. He further noted that three (3) cameras were installed the week before.
Once the deployment of the Sixth District cameras began, MOT Employees,
specifically Hodges, Charbonnet and Stevenson, intimately worked along side of
CamSoft employees. Due to the MOT Employees’ prior lack of wireless
networking design for wireless surveillance cameras, CamSoft alleges that these
MOT Employees were directed to surreptitiously learn and misappropriate
CamSoft’s technological deployments relative to the crime camera deployed
under the July 19, 2004 Contract.
99. After Active Solutions and Southern Electronics struck their deal with the MOT
Employees/Imagine Consulting and Dell, Perrin asked MacDonald for the very
first time to change the parties’ original agreement and sign a subcontractor
agreement. During negotiations, Perrin and MacDonald exchanged draft
subcontractor agreements. Even though CamSoft was already deploying
cameras under the July 19, 2004 Contract, an email dated October 10, 2010
indicates that the parties had still not yet come to an agreement. Notably,
CamSoft’s proposed subcontractor agreement and Southern Electronics’
proposed subcontractor agreement contained a confidentiality clause that would
have protected CamSoft’s trade secrets and proprietary knowledge. Southern
Electronics refused to sign CamSoft’s proposed subcontractor agreement. And
after CamSoft’s attorney reviewed Southern Electronics’ proposed subcontract
31
agreement, MacDonald refused to sign it. In fact, after Perrin’s request that
CamSoft enter into a subcontract agreement, MacDonald even sent a proposed
mutual non-disclosure agreement to Perrin on or about October 4, 2004.
Ultimately, MacDonald advised Perrin that he would not sign the proposed
subcontract agreement. MacDonald further advised that CamSoft would not
change the parties’ original agreement. At all times thereafter, CamSoft did in
good faith fulfill its role in joint venture agreement by designing, installing,
maintaining and servicing the wireless component parts of the New Orleans
crime camera system.
100. On October 15, 2004, Perrin provided MacDonald with camera pricing
information for Southern Electronics and Active Solutions’ portion of their BRPD
crime camera proposal. Through his prior established contacts with BRPD,
MacDonald set up a presentation with BRPD officials. On or about October 15,
2004, the following individuals attended the presentation: MacDonald,
Fitzpatrick, Perrin and Drake. Drake requested that he attend the meeting in
order to provide a testimonial of the wireless crime camera’s success in New
Orleans. As later discussed, Drake was not there to help CamSoft, but rather to
make connections for his later, secret meeting with Baton Rouge officials on
January 17, 2005 as a representative of NetMethods.
101. After giving CamSoft pricing information for their BRPD proposal, on the
same day, October 15, 2004, Perrin advised Drake and Meffert that Sony wanted
to expend considerable resources marketing the crime camera solution
developed in New Orleans. Perrin wrote, “I think this may be the opportunity we
32
need to get some really good national exposure.” Meffert replied, “This sounds
great. I would follow the model that Cisco is (sic) where the technology is part of
the vision of a progressive administration, etc. They are using mayor and myself
to highlight their own stuff with credibility.” This email further evidences the
willful, unfair, deceptive and fraudulent behind the scenes arrangement between
Perrin, Fitzpatrick, Burkhardt and the MOT Employees; whereby, Perrin,
Fitzpatrick and Burkhardt were merely pretending to participate in a joint
venture with CamSoft for the sale of surveillance cameras to Baton Rouge;
knowing full well of their prior deal with the other Dell Alliance Members.
102. On or about November 11, 2004, the recreational division for Pershing
Square Park in Los Angeles, CA selected CamSoft and its wireless subsidiary
company, Verge Wireless, to deploy the Tropos MESH Technology in the park,
primarily due to CamSoft’s experience and prior Internet MESH Technology
deployments in Baton Rouge and New Orleans.
103. On November 22, 2004, Drake sent an email to St. Pierre and Charbonnet
outlining his thoughts on strong-arm methods of coercion that the MOT
Employees could employ in order for the MOT Employees and Imagine
Consulting to take over the crime camera project management from Southern
Electronics. Drake outlined four possible ways of cancelling the July 19, 2004
Contract: 1) Claim that Southern Electronics was overcharging, but Drake noted
that they are not really being overcharged; 2) Make a claim that Southern
Electronics was holding up the project by making improper intellectual property
concerns, but Drake notes that this argument is flawed because any intellectual
33
rights clearly arose prior to the July 19, 2004 Contract; 3) Ask Bellwether
Technology Corporation, another vendor with Southern Electronics, to take over
the project, but Drake notes that Bellwether might say “No”; or 4) MOT could
always use the 30 day no-fault clause as a “nuclear weapon.” Drake wrote, “But
if we choose to try to keep the contract in place and use other methods to
achieve our ends, we must work within the terms of the contract if we want
to avoid trouble down the road.” (Emphasis added)
104. This email comports with comments purportedly made by Meffert that the
July 19, 2004 Contract was the largest contract in the city and “we don’t have a
piece of it.” Meffert would consistently use and abuse his power and authority
within MOT to negotiate reciprocal dealings and tying arrangements to structure
deals for the financial benefit the MOT Employees’ Privately Held Companies,
which companies Meffert acted as a controlling, silent partner, and from which
he derived direct economic benefit.
105. In an mail dated November 23, 2004, Steven Ellis of Bellwether Technology
Corporation wrote Meffert and stated, “I am aware that responsibilities and
arrangements for the camera project are changing, but I do not want to hold up
progress at the 3rd district while we work out the details…We can then figure out
the best possible arrangements for the city going forward.” Meffert replied to
Ellis, “Keep Chris and Michael in the loop to avoid mishap, but I say do it.” In
response, Drake wrote Meffert and Charbonnet, “I’m like you. I don’t want to let
anything we are doing on the other side slow down the rollout. I don’t see any
harm in submitting the order for 3rd [district] at this point. Please advise if we
34
should hold up on submitting that order until next week.” (Emphasis added)
Meffert replied to Drake and Charbonnet, “We can roll ahead. But if the
southern guys keep ignoring the changes I laid out, then we do this another
way.” (Emphasis added) These emails clearly establish that the MOT Employees
were conspiring to delay deployment, and would subsequently deny timely
payment, as a tool of coercion to ensure that the MOT Employees would obtain a
financial piece of the July 19, 2004 Contract.
106. In an October 11, 2004 email, Drake requested the logo of Southern
Electronics and Active Solutions from Perrin and Fitzpatrick. Drake did not
request the logo of CamSoft or Verge. Drake’s presentation at the PTI Municipal
WiFi Summit held in New Orleans only mentioned Imagine Consulting, Active
Solutions and Southern Electronics as partners in the development of the
wireless video surveillance system. After discovering Drake’s presentation
without the CamSoft or Verge logo, on November 18, 2004, MacDonald wrote
Drake, “Hi Chris, I found this power point on the web and noticed all the partners
were listed, but Verge was no where to be seen. Was this an oversight or did we
do something wrong? :) As we talk to people about New Orleans we always
include all the players and logos if available…What is Imagines (sic) contact
information.” MacDonald later wrote, “We would really appreciate it if you
would add the Verge Logo to the partners sections of your presentation.”
(Emphasis added)
107. In an entirely false and deceptive response, Drake wrote, “Carlo Many
apologies…I assure you it was not even an oversight. Your logo was on the one
35
that I presented at the conference. Somehow the version that got to the guy that
has to upload them to the web site was missing it. Not sure how that happened.”
Considering the previous agreement between the Dell Alliance Members, Drake
intentionally did not include either CamSoft’s or Verge’s logo on the
presentation. Moreover, Drake fraudulently, willfully and with malice lied to
MacDonald on his failure to include the logo on the presentation. This email
evidences the lengths at which the MOT Employees, Perrin, Fitzpatrick,
Burkhardt and Carr of Tropos would go to withhold their prior business
arrangements from CamSoft. Moreover, if MacDonald knew that Drake was
associated with Imagine Consulting, then MacDonald would not have had to ask
for Imagine Consulting’s contact information. Notably, Drake made no effort to
inform MacDonald of his status as an employee with Imagine Consulting.
108. In furtherance of the MOT Employees’ efforts to take over the project
management roles of the July 19, 2004 Contract, Meffert wrote Fitzpatrick,
Perrin, Drake, St. Pierre, Mayor Nagin and Charbonnet in a November 29, 2004
email. Meffert outlined the exact steps that Active Solutions and Southern
Electronics must take or Meffert would find the July 19, 2004 Contract in breach.
Meffert stated, “You will be receiving a formal notification immediately
discussing the sharp recommendation for dual project management and a
recommendation more even distribution of work load to all the subs of the
contract to accelerate currently lacking rollout timetable.” This email further
evidences the MOT Employees’ conspiracy to disrupt the July 19, 2004 Contract,
36
particularly in light of Drake’s corresponding email to St. Pierre and Charbonnet
on November 22, 2004 outlining the four (4) ways to terminate the contract.
109. In furtherance of the MOT Employees’ conspiracy and efforts to take over the
project management roles of the July 19, 2004 Contract, St. Pierre paid Meffert’s
membership dues in a New Orleans Mardi Gras parade in the amount of $6,800
on or about December 3, 2004.
110. A December 22, 2004 American Express credit card statement further
indicates that St. Pierre had already issued Meffert a NetMethod’s credit card in
Meffert’s name. Meffert used this NetMethods card for his personal benefit.
Credit card payments through July of 2006 resulted in Meffert’s use of the credit
card in excess of 600 times for total charges of approximately $130,954.70. The
credit card charges included personal related items such as vacations, clothing,
gentlemen’s clubs, jewelry, health food, gym memberships, movie tickets and
visits to Chuck E. Cheese. These credit card payments, along with a later
$67,000.00 per month “consulting fee” executed between NetMethods and
Meffert’s company, Logistix, LLC (“Logistix”), are the subject of multiple counts
of public bribery in a federal indictment against St. Pierre and Meffert.
Moreover, St. Pierre did direct an additional $35,000 to an accounting company
held in the name of Linda Meffert, Meffert’s wife. This too is the subject of the
pending federal indictment. CamSoft alleges that St. Pierre did knowingly pay
these bribes in exchange for Meffert’s beneficial power, authority and influence
as MOT CTO, and for the mutual benefit of the MOT Employees and their
Privately Held Companies.
37
111. After issuing the November 29, 2004 email regarding breach of the July 19,
2004 Contract, Meffert directed Drake to draft an anticipatory breach letter to
Southern Electronics. On November 30, 2004, Drake emailed Meffert a draft
copy of the letter. CamSoft alleges that this letter was drafted in full expectation
to cancel the July 19, 2004 Contract, unless Southern Electronics, as prime
contractor, agreed to Meffert’s demands.
112. Following the July 8, 2004 Meeting, Dell took steps towards selling its
products on Louisiana’s LANBMPC. On August 26, 2004, Dell Marketing, L.P.’s
(“Dell Marketing”) executed of a contract with the Western State Contracting
Alliance (“WSCA Contract”). Dell Marketing agreed to abide by the terms of the
WSCA Contract for the sale of computer equipment and peripherals according to
a fixed Master Price Agreement. On December 20, 2004, Denise Lea, Director of
Office of State Purchasing, State of Louisiana, and Heather M. Smith (“Smith”),
Contract Manager for Dell Marketing, entered into a separate contract whereby
Louisiana state and local government entities were authorized to purchase
computer products and services from Dell Marketing under the terms and
conditions of the prior WSCA Contract (“December 20, 2004 Contract”). The
December 20, 2004 Contract further referenced other Louisiana state
requirements, including the establishment and continuance of a Brand Name
Microcomputer Contract, Website Internet Catalog Purchasing Information and
software purchases compliant with La. R.S. 39:1990 and LAC Title 34, Chapter
55, Section 5505. Given the close working relationship and overlapping
38
employee duties related to the business development for Dell and Dell
Marketing, CamSoft will hereafter jointly refer to both entities as “Dell.”
113. Ultimately, Dell and the other Dell Alliance Members would knowingly,
illegally and deceptively sell, or conspire to sell, a wireless video surveillance
solution to Louisiana state and local governments that was not otherwise
permitted under the August 26, 2004 WSCA Contract or Dell’s December 20,
2004 Contract. CamSoft further show that that Ciber and the MOT Employees’
Privately Held Companies, specifically Veracent and/or NetMethods, would
knowingly conspire in the illegal sale of surveillance equipment on Dell’s
December 20, 2004 Contract by directly participating in the installation of said
equipment in New Orleans.
114. CamSoft further alleges that the Dell Alliance Members did knowingly enter
into this agreement with the specific intent to unlawfully affect competition for
the sale of wireless surveillance equipment to Louisiana state and local agencies.
The Dell Alliance Members did with specific knowledge and intent illegally sell
the wireless surveillance system’s bundled equipment in direct, illegal
circumvention of state public bids laws; thereby, harming all competition for
sale of these products and services to governmental agencies in Louisiana.
115. In an email dated December 20, 2006, Drake informed MacDonald that
Charbonnet would now head MOT’s deployment of the surveillance cameras in
the Sixth District. Charbonnet, and all other MOT Employees, did intentionally
withhold their true identities as Imagine Consulting employees in their relations
with CamSoft and MacDonald. The MOT Employees did willfully, intentionally,
39
unfairly and deceptively gain valuable proprietary knowledge of CamSoft’s
wireless video surveillance network design, including valuable information
relative to the types, brands and specifications of wireless products used in the
deployment and various configurations of camera connections to Tropos nodes.
CamSoft alleges that the MOT Employees did knowingly and deceptively
misappropriate this knowledge for the direct financial benefit of the Dell Alliance
Members. This valuable proprietary information was ultimately further
provided to MMR Constructors, Inc. d/b/a MMR Communications, which
company will be more fully discussed below.
116. On January 6, 2005, MacDonald contacted via email his contacts for the Los
Angeles Pershing Square Park wi-fi deployment, Curtis Gibbs and Bruce
Hammer. MacDonald informed the two men that CamSoft and Verge would bid
on a West Hollywood RFP for public wireless access. MacDonald wrote, “And
this would plug into the Verge Wireless Hot Zone in the city as well. Good start
for a city wide Public Wi-Fi network.” Interestingly, on the same date, January 6,
2005, Drake sent an email to Fitzpatrick, Perrin and Burkhardt regarding their
possible joint proposal for the West Hollywood RFP. Drake wrote, “Short fuse.
Want to bid?...Partner with Tropos for the mesh?” This emails evidences the Dell
Alliance Members’ intent to use CamSoft’s valuable trade secrets and proprietary
knowledge not just in competing for business in Louisiana, but competing
directing against MacDonald and CamSoft across the entire United States.
117. On January 1, 2005, Melvin “Kip” Holden (“Mayor Holden”) was sworn into
office as Mayor of Baton Rouge. Mayor Holden appointed Hampton Grunewald
40
as his executive assistant. Mayor Holden retained the services of Evans as Baton
Rouge’s CTO. Despite Drake’s attendance of MacDonald’s October 15, 2004
presentation to BRPD officials as a purported “supporter” of CamSoft, a “Security
Canopy” sign-in sheet dated January 17, 2005 evidences Drake’s meeting with
officials within the newly elected Holden administration. The sign-in sheet
identifies Hampton Grunewald, Evans, Drake and Stevenson as meeting
participants. Both Drake and Stevenson expressly identified themselves as
representatives of NetMethods, but nonetheless Drake cited his MOT email
address (i.e. cdrake@mayorofno.com).
118. MacDonald and CamSoft were entirely unaware of this meeting until just
recently obtaining discovery from subpoenas directed to various departments
within the City of Baton Rouge. During this meeting, Drake, on behalf of
NetMethods and the Dell Alliance Members, claimed that Drake and NetMethods
employees were the designers of the wireless video surveillance systems in New
Orleans. Drake did further indicate that they were working with Dell and the
other Dell Alliance Members to package and sell the same wireless surveillance
system on Dell’s December 20, 2004 Contract. Drake stated that this would
make procurement much easier, which would not require Baton Rouge to issue
an RFP.
119. CamSoft alleges that Drake’s surreptitious meeting on January 17, 2005,
when coupled with Drake’s fraudulent statements regarding his failure to
include MacDonald’s company’s logo on the PTI Municipal Wi-Fi Summit
presentation in November of 2004, constitutes not just business competition,
41
but worse, a knowing, willful and malicious attempt to harm CamSoft’s business
relations with the City of Baton Rouge and BRPD officials.
120. CamSoft further alleges that, despite the joint venture agreement between
Active Solutions and Southern Electronics to sell and market the video
surveillance system to the City of Baton Rouge and BRPD officials, and despite
their joint presentation on October 15, 2004 to BRPD officials, Active Solutions
and Southern Electronics had direct knowledge of Drake’s January 17, 2005
Meeting and Drake’s subsequent business dealings with the City of Baton Rouge.
In fact, after reviewing the New Orleans litigation pleadings and facts in
discovery, CamSoft now knows that Perrin and Fitzpatrick actually brought suit
in New Orleans for damages related to their secret business arrangement as a
Dell Alliance Members, and not for damages arising from the interruption of the
alleged joint venture between CamSoft, Active Solutions and Southern
Electronics as CamSoft initially believed.
121. In order to provide a funding source for St. Pierre’s newly created company,
NetMethods, Meffert used his power as MOT CTO to strike reciprocal dealing and
tying arrangement with Ciber, Inc (“Ciber”). Meffert would approve Ciber’s
invoices to the City of New Orleans. These invoices would include charges for
work performed by NetMethods. Ciber would then funnel the money from the
City of New Orleans to NetMethods. On or about January 20, 2005, Meffert
approved payments to Ciber in the amount of $165,211.28 and $148,405.38,
respectively. The federal indictment against Meffert alleges that this money was
then used to pay either NetMethods or Imagine Consulting.
42
122. On or about February 1, 2005, Meffert approved payment to Ciber in the
amount of $155,231.40, which money was then used to pay either NetMethods
or Imagine Consulting.
123. Despite CamSoft’s wi-fi deployments in Baton Rouge, New Orleans and Los
Angeles, and its development of a wireless video surveillance solution using
Tropos’ products, Brad Day, an employee of Tropos, wrote Drake in a February
3, 2005 email, “Sounds like you guys are squarely positioned where you
rightfully belong, as a municipal technology leader.” This email clearly evidences
Tropos’ early surreptitious involvement with the MOT Employees to become a
Dell Alliance Member and sell its products via Dell’s WSCA Contract and
December 20, 2004 Contract in Louisiana. In fact, Tropos will later offer
gratuities to Drake and Meffert, particularly flights and hotel accommodations
for municipal wi-fi conferences and Congressional hearings following Hurricane
Katrina. Tropos, Carr, Sege and the MOT Employees initially saw a symbiotic
relationship, whereby Drake and Meffert could further their careers in municipal
wi-fi, while Tropos reaped the financial rewards of Drake and Meffert promoting
their products to officials at the local, state and national level. Unsatisfied with
conferences and hearings, the MOT Employees would ultimately recruit Tropos
assistance in negotiating for illegal reciprocal dealings and tying arrangements
between Motorola and Earthink.
124. On April 7, 2005, MacDonald reached out to his contact at the BRPD to
follow-up on the presentation he gave to BRPD officials on October 15, 2004.
Entirely unaware of Drake and Stevenson’s January 17, 2005 Meeting with Baton
43
Rouge city officials, MacDonald wrote Murphy, “Did we get you enough
information? Drop me a line if you need more info.” Murphy replied, “Too much
information at this point would just confuse them.” MacDonald wrote, “Do you
have a time frame on this deployment?” Murphy replied, “None at all. This was
going into the FY06 Congressional Budget process.”
125. In an April 10, 2005 email, Renecker of Dell asked Patti Laura, another Dell
employee, to set up Imagine Consulting as a Dell Integrated Service Provider
(“DISP”). Renecker’s request for DISP status was intended to allow Dell to the
sell computer equipment on its WSCA and/or state contracts while permitting
Imagine Consulting to work on designing, integrating and installing same under
a services contract through Dell.
126. On April 6, 2005, Ridge of Dell asked Chuck Boorman, another Dell employee,
“Can we sell cameras via NASPO for video surveillance applications?” This email
was copied to Renecker. Boorman replied to Ridge, Renecker and Smith, again
Dell’s employee in charge of sales under Dell’s December 20, 2004 Contract,
“Cameras are not on the NASPO/WSCA contract.” (Emphasis added) Renecker
replied, “Are cameras spelled out, or are all S&P items excluded. I am working to
get Sony cameras added to S&P.” “S&P” stands for a supplier of software and
peripheral computer equipment. Boorman replied, “Cameras are specifically
excluded.” (Emphasis added) In a direct attempt to circumvent the WSCA
contract camera restriction, Renecker wrote, “How about Optical Surveillance
Devices…ok…ok…challenge me why don’t you…” (Emphasis added) Boorman
wrote, “That is reaching but good. It would have to be approved by state
44
purchasing and the purchasing agency and be on Dell’s Retail Price List with out
the work camera in it. Suggest you work with Heather if this one is in LA.”
(Emphasis added) Renecker wrote Smith, “The opportunity that I am working is
for the State of Louisiana at the moment. Is there any way to see about testing
the waters with adding ‘Optical Surveillance Devices’ which are IP based
network devices for the LA contract. This is very different than a consumer
grade digital camera.” (Emphasis added) Smith replied, “What is the device
called when listed on the price list? Is it listed on the price list already? We can
sell under the normal LA NASPO/WSCA contract anything on our price list that is
not called a ‘camera.’ Thus, if the item isn’t on the price list, we get it on there
without the work ‘camera.’ If it already is on the price list, we determine if the
name contains ‘camera’ and if not, we’re all set. If it’s on the price list and called
a ‘camera’ then we can’t sell it and I’m not sure if we can make changes to names
of items on the price list…”
127. CamSoft alleges that Dell, Renecker, Ridge and Smith did conspire to illegally,
directly sell the wireless video surveillance solution to Louisiana state and local
governmental agencies via Dell’s December 20, 2004 Contract. CamSoft will
further show, and does hereby allege, that Dell knowingly created misleading
names on Dell’s invoices to intentionally conceal the true nature of the products
being sold as part of Dell’s wireless video surveillance solution, including both
the surveillance “cameras” and the Tropos wireless networking equipment.
128. On April 13, 2005, Renecker to Drake, “I am in the process of setting up
Imagine as a Dell Integrated Solutions Provider (DISP) which will allow Dell to
45
prime deals and use Imagine as the subcontractor for projects…Billy Ridge has
indicated an opportunity for the State of Louisiana which we would like to prime
with Imagine. Are you still partnered with ONSSI and Southern Electric?” Upon
information and belief, the State of Louisiana opportunity was for a wireless
video surveillance system for the Louisiana State Police headquarters, which Dell
sold through its December 20, 2004 Contract. Drake replied, “Yes we are
interested in expanding our geography, and indeed already have…The national
attention focused on our unique IP Surveillance solution has brought a lot of
focus on our company and we get calls daily from Federal, State and Local
representatives. In fact, we have started a separate holding company to handle
non City of New Orleans business and it is doing mostly camera business
development. It is called NetMethods, LLC. It is here we are doing and will
continue to put this type of work just to maintain a separation from our City of
New Orleans work for various corporate reasons.” Drake’s email further noted
that NetMethods would bid a proposal for wireless video surveillance cameras
for the Austin Independent School District “with another large IT integrator that
we are working with on other opportunities.” This large IT integrator was Ciber,
with whom Meffert had already funneled business to the MOT Employees’
Privately Held Companies. In June of 2005, Meffert will unilaterally direct
millions of dollars in additional business to Ciber pursuant to the June 23, 2004
Executive Order CRN 04-02.
129. In a string of emails between Dell officials dated April 21, 2005 through April
27, 2005, Renecker and Ridge attempt to persuade Patti Lara of Dell to add
46
Imagine Consulting as a Dell DISP. Ridge noted regarding wireless video
surveillance, “We definitely want to be in the business as these deals are driving
a tremendous amount of hardware business referrals for servers and storage.”
Ridge further wrote, “Imagine is the premier vendor for this work because of the
# of systems they have designed and deployed. We will need to be the prime
because of our [state] contracts however we need Imagine to help us win and
deliver the business.” Lara asked for Ridge to value the business opportunities
he is currently working with Imagine. Ridge wrote, “Dept. of Transp. &
Development - Crescent City Connection – Video Surveillance for bridge, toll
booths & admin bldg. $100K 2) Dept. of Transp. & Development – Ferry Boat
Project - $1 million grant to do video surveillance on the 6 ferry boats. 3) City of
New Orleans – Regional Transit Authority - $1 million grant to do video
surveillance on light rail system.” When Lara attempted to steer the business to
an existing services provider, CompuTrac, Ridge wrote, “They are not in the
video surveillance market. Imagine has the largest municipal deployment in the
US. Others are working to model what has been done in the City of New Orleans.
We need someone with strong references and capabilities.” Renecker also
emailed Patti Lara and wrote, “Video Surveillance is an emerging Public Safety
solution for Dell…We plan to add Sony IP cameras into S&P soon, leaving
installation, software and integration as the only pieces of the solution we do not
offer…I estimate the addressable market at $250M per year ($100M likely from
Dell) with a current market share of less than 1% from Dell. Imagine would be a
great start to growing this new segment.”
47
130. On April 27, 2005, St. Pierre organized Method Investments, LLC. Method
Investments was created for the specific purpose of purchasing a yacht
purportedly worth approximately $300,000, the “Silicon Bayou,” for the benefit
of both St. Pierre, Meffert and the other MOT Employees. Meffert did publicly
proclaim his ownership interest in the yacht. In emails, Meffert wrote, “had the
decorators doing up the boat…should be pretty killer by this weekend. No more
crappy furniture!” In another email, Zella May, governmental business
consultant, asked, “Did your offer for the boat go through? It would be a great
stress relief for you.” Meffert replied, “Yes dear it did. It’s mine baby!” This
yacht was allegedly purchased with proceeds received from the illegal reciprocal
dealing and tying arrangements with Ciber, which fleeced millions of dollars
from the City of New Orleans’ coffers.
131. On or about May 12, 2005, Meffert approved payment to Ciber, which money
was used to pay either NetMethods or Imagine Consulting.
132. Switching back to the July 19, 2004 Contract deployment, in an April 28,
2005 email, Perrin wrote Charbonnet and Drake, “FYI, I was reviewing things for
our end of year and noticed that we only have 35 cameras deployed under the
original contract with the city. In order to hit 120 cameras in the 1st year, we will
need to ramp up deployment very quickly to get an additional 85 cameras
deployed by September.” At this point, CamSoft had designed, configured and
installed the wireless network for all 35 of these cameras. Moreover, CamSoft
was consistently called upon to maintain and service these cameras after
deployment, and in conformity with the parties’ joint venture agreement.
48
CamSoft further alleges that reduced camera orders and slow payments were
intentionally caused by Meffert to interrupt fulfillment of the July 19, 2004
Contract.
133. Eventually, the MOT Employees, through their Privately Held Companies,
conspired with Dell to even remove Active Solutions and Southern Electronics as
Dell Alliance Members. Again, it was Meffert’s intention to terminate the July 19,
2004 Contract dating back to at least November of 2004.
134. In furtherance of CamSoft’s attempt to deploy a governmental wi-fi system
and crime camera system for Baton Rouge, on May 20, 2005, CamSoft emailed
Barry Rider, a Baton Rouge city official, CamSoft’s cost estimate for an
“interoperability project” that would wireless connect multiple parishes in an
around East Baton Rouge Parish via a wi-fi system. Ultimately, Baton Rouge
officials paid NetMethods a $9,000 consultant fee to develop an “interoperability
project” design and also awarded the interoperability project to NetMethods.
135. After working with Ciber on the Austin ISD video surveillance project,
Meffert unilaterally signed Contract 05-MYR-022 on June 2, 2005 worth
$5,500,000. Meffert had sole discretion to award this contract to Ciber
according to Executive Order CRN 04-02. This contract furthered the reciprocal
dealing and tying arrangements already in place; whereby, Ciber would hire the
MOT Employees’ Privately Held Companies as subcontractors. Ciber agreed to
invoice the City of New Orleans for the work of the MOT Employees’ Privately
Held Companies. The City of New Orleans would in turn pay Ciber, who would
then pay the Privately Held Companies. In exchange for the reciprocal dealing
49
and tying arrangements, St. Pierre allowed Meffert to spend hundreds of
thousands of dollars on the NetMethods credit card in Meffert’s name.
136. An email dated June 27, 2005 from Meffert to Drake, St. Pierre and Hodges
further evidences Meffert’s role as a silent, supervising partner in the Privatly
Held Companies’ video surveillance business development. Meffert wrote Drake
and requested that Drake give him feedback on an email that Meffert intended to
send to “Chris” regarding Chicago’s planned wireless video surveillance project.
Meffert wrote, “As you already know, the city of New Orleans has worked very
hard and gone very far in terms of different camera solutions to address inner
city crime. In that time, we have learned much of what does and doesn’t work in
the long run.” Meffert wrote this email for the purpose of negotiating contracts
with Chicago’s technology department. Ultimately, NetMethods would perform
work for the City of Chicago through the subcontracting agreement with
NetMethods. This email is further significant because it shows that the MOT
Employees were also working with Cathy Adduci of Unisys, a very large, national
IT Services provider. As will be shown below, Drake eventually worked to
develop for Unisys a wireless video surveillance system design based upon the
trade secret and proprietary information learned from CamSoft.
137. On or about June 30, 2005, Meffert approved payment to Ciber in the amount
of $162,186.45, which money was used to pay either NetMethods or Imagine
Consulting.
138. In an email dated July 13, 2005 from Drake to St. Pierre and Hodges, Drake
wrote, “I am getting a flood of opportunities from Dell. We need to decide how
50
to handle them. I told Steve Renecker what we are mainly interested in is the
type of deal where someone asks Dell for help with a camera solution and they
can get us in as the solution in a no-bid/state contract/WSCA type situation.”
139. On or about July 28, 2005, Meffert approved payment to Ciber in the amount
of $161,186.45, which money was used to pay either NetMethods or Imagine
Consulting.
140. In order to evidence the work performed by CamSoft’s employees in
designing, installing and maintaining the crime camera wireless network, and to
contrast Meffert’s claims that MOT Employees had learned what “does works
and doesn’t work,” on August 4, 2005 Perrin wrote to Michael Carambat, an
employee within NOPD, “We dispatched Verge [CamSoft] yesterday. They are
instructed to do what it take (including replace antennas) to get this group of
cameras fully operational.” This clearly shows that CamSoft, and its wholly
owned subsidiary company, Verge, were primarily responsible for keeping the
New Orleans wireless video surveillance systems up and running, and all MOT
Employees knew this fact.
141. On or about August 11, 2005, Meffert approved payment to Ciber in the
amount of $174,818.70, which money was used to pay either NetMethods or
Imagine Consulting.
142. On August 31, 2005, Hurricane Katrina devastated parts of New Orleans.
Despite the lack of dependable electricity and downed phone lines, CamSoft’s
MESH Technology provided a source of communication to the outside world for
Mayor Nagin and his staff. The communication offered by the MESH Technology
51
made world news. Tropos quickly mobilized its media forces to gain national
media attention and legislative support for governmental wi-fi deployments. In
its zeal to capitalize on New Orleans’ horrific situation, Tropos offered gratuities
to Drake and Meffert in an effort to gain their testimonial support before media
and Congress.
143. Immediately after Hurricane Katrina landed, MacDonald and CamSoft
employee’s spent countless hours and sleepless nights trying to restore
communications to New Orleans and emergency personnel. In an email dated
September 7, 2005, MacDonald wrote, “MCI/SKYTEL has completed the 54meg
wireless base station on top of the Entergy building. They can now pipe Internet
to most areas of New Orleans as needed. US Wireless Online/Verge &
MCI/SKYTEL have finished planning a TROPOS deployment in and around the
LAMAR/DIXON center in Gonzales, LA…This system will be used by FEMA to
gather peoples names staying at the center and so they can begin assisting them
in financial and other basic needs.” Following Hurricane Katrina, local and
federal officials turned to MacDonald, CamSoft and Verge given their prior
experience in working with wi-fi communications systems.
144. In a September 7, 2005 email, Sege, CEO of Tropos, wrote in regards to
MacDonald’s email, “A good summary of what is happening with Tropos gear NO,
etc. Let’s see if any of the cameras claimed to be operating are on the Tropos
mesh. If so, this is the *best* endorsement of the value of mesh in an emergency
every (sic) and should be publicized…Coordinate the press and DC activity, too.
Allen, can you get Vonage WiFi phones to Chris Drake ASAP?”
52
145. The following day, Carr wrote Ellen Kirk (“Kirk”) and Sege, “Chris [Drake] has
been tasked by Greg [Meffert] to set up the EOC for the reconstruction effort. He
is leading the building of a communication center to house Federal, State,
surrounding parishes and the City’s communications center…He has set up a
focal point for materials request at LA State Police. Whatever he needs, the
request will flow to State Police who will complete the procurement. Chris has
asked me to determine who should be listed as ‘trusted vendor sources’ and to
get that information to the State Police Coordinator. Basically, he [Drake]
handed us the oppty to influence who can deliver wireless broadband mesh
as a part of the NO effort.” (Emphasis added)
146. In an email dated September 7, 2005, Jeff Turner (“Turner”), a lobbyist with
Patton Boggs in Washington, D.C., wrote several Tropos executives and a third
party venture capital funds supporting Tropos. Turner advised that Senator
Mary Landrieu was working on legislation that would provide $19 million in
funding. Turner lobbied for the word “mesh” in the bill as opposed to “wireless.”
Turner asked whether Tropos had any prior relationship with Baton Rouge
officials. Carr replied, “I only have relationship with admin level in the Police
dept….carlo mcdonald (sic) lives in and is very active in the BR community,
headed the chamber of commerce, leadership role in the high tech community,
knows the mayor and all other city officials as well…use him as needed. Very
strong tropos supporter, has a tropos network running downtown which is
planning to expand with some of the tropos donated equipment.”
53
147. On September 14, 2005, Kirk wrote in an email, “Tropos is partnering with
several companies, including Intel, MCI/SKYTEL, Motorola, US Wireless Online,
and CamSoft Data, to provide broadband to several sites in downtown New
Orleans, the New Orleans airport, the Mobile refinery in Chalmette, Shreveport,
Baton Rouge, the Houston Astrodome, and the safe haven community in
Gonzales, LA.”
148. On September 14, 2005, Ed Taulbee, an employee of Tropos, wrote,
“Carlo…Do you know if the Tropos Nodes/Surveillance Cameras survived? Are
they live?” MacDonald replied, “We are going into the city tomorrow to do some
reviews of the network and get some of the nodes back online. I don’t know
where the camera project is yet, but will shortly…I don’t know if you guys are
doing something on your end, but CNBC is requesting an interview tonight…if I
can get a hold of them, I will let you know.”
149. On September 16, 2005, Gordon Cook of Cook Report reported on a summary
of the wi-fi activity occurring in New Orleans following Hurricane Katrina that
was prepared by MacDonald. MacDonald wrote, “Anyway you look at it, wireless
must be a key part of a cities infrastructure, either as a backup to the wired
connections or an instant network during disasters.” Sege replied, “Guys, get
this story to the guys on the Hill with the money….Look what technology is
delivering the goods after Katrina.” (Emphasis added)
150. In a September 19, 2005 email from Turner of Patton Boggs to various Senate
officials, Turner wrote, “I understand from one of my colleagues that you may
still be looking for potential witnesses for Thursday’s hearing. As it happens,
54
Ron Sege, the CEO of Tropos Networks, will be in Washington on Thursday…As a
brief overview, Tropos has the following underway in the Gulf area now:…2)
Experience partners with deep local knowledge include MCI/Skytel, Intel,
Motorola Canopy, US Wireless Online, and CamSoft Data.”
151. However, in another email dated Friday, September 9, 2005, Carr wrote
Drake and Kirk, “Chris…nice write up by greg [Meffert] in wall street journal
today.” Drake replied, “We need to discuss data communications needs short
and long term. Please limit the call to a Tropos representative (one of you) at
this point…I need to get a heads up on the status for IACP. I can still go, Greg
can’t. I think they might be interested in seeing half-and-half cameras and
Katrina recovery at this point. I need to get a copy of my presentation the
Tropos marketing contractor edited…” “IACP” stands for International
Association for Chiefs of Police.
152. In a September 20, 2005 email from Sege to Devabhaktuni “Sri” Srikrishna,
Tropos’ founding engineer and a primary share holder, Sege wrote, “Sri, You can
get a sense of what is happening with MCI/Skytel on the attached. Carlo
[MacDonald] at Verge is doing more. Use for background but do not distribute.”
153. These internal Tropos emails indicate two things: (1) the hard work of
CamSoft’s employees and MacDonald in fighting to restore communications to a
devastated Gulf South Region; and (2) Tropos intentionally playing both
MacDonald and Drake for maximum media and political exposure, despite the
fact that MacDonald had no idea that the Dell Alliance Members were conspiring
to directly compete against CamSoft across all of South Louisiana.
55
154. In an email dated September 26, 2005, Ken Belson with the New York Times
wrote to Sege, “Can you send me any contacts for the guys from US Wireless who
were at ‘ground zero’?” Sege replied, “Call Allen on this…Carlo [MacDonald]
would be best.”
155. While MacDonald and CamSoft were leaders in the effort to restore
communications following Hurricane Katrina, on September 30, 2005, Drake, on
behalf of NetMethods, provided a price quote to Hampton Grunewald, executive
assistant to Mayor Kip Holden of Baton Rouge. The quotation was for “a 50
Camera Pilot Surveillance System.” Drake wrote, “This system is based on the
very successful New Orleans system that we designed and manage…Along with
just the product, you get our years of experience in making these systems work.”
156. This quotation was initially intended to benefit the Dell Alliance Members,
including Active Solutions and Southern Electronics. And despite the accolades
bestowed upon MacDonald by Sege for his hard work during the post-Hurricane
Katrina recovery efforts, NetMethod’s September 30, 2005 quotation, which
included Tropos products, clearly establishes that Tropos, Sege and Carr knew
full well that the MOT Employees were intending to misappropriate CamSoft’s
wireless video surveillance application as originally designed, developed and
built and deployed by CamSoft in the Pilot Project and July 19, 2004 Contract
deployment.
157. After MacDonald learned that Tropos nodes were being installed in New
Orleans, and also believing that CamSoft was the sole licensed reseller and
installer of Tropos nodes in the New Orleans area, in an October 7, 2005 email,
56
MacDonald wrote Carr. Carr replied, “Tropos supplied Chris [Drake] directly
with 25 units…that is what you saw in the EOC…he is adamant that City staff be
used to deploy the network…driving a larger point to FEMA and TELCO’s (sic)….”
158. Tropos at all times maintained that Tropos donated these nodes to help
expedite the Hurricane Recovery effort. As later discussed, the free equipment,
and more specifically those gratuities paid to Drake and Meffert, were primarily
intended to prevent the deployment of a competing MESH Technology offered by
Tropos’ primary competitor, Cisco. In fact, Cisco donated its MESH Technology
to the City of New Orleans, and Drake and Meffert intentionally did not deploy
the Cisco products due to Tropos’ gratuities and status as a Dell Alliance
Member.
159. Entirely unaware of NetMethod’s quotation to Baton Rouge officials for the
50 Camera Pilot Surveillance System, MacDonald continued to reach out to his
BRPD contacts regarding possible future MESH Technology deployments. In
response to an email sent by MacDonald to Mike Murphy on July 19, 2005, Mike
Murphy eventually replied months later on October 6, 2005, and wrote, “Sorry it
took so long to get back with you. As you can imagine, things have been a little
crazy here. We are still trying to get off square one with this…Give me a call and
let’s see if we can set something up, if you are not to (sic) busy trying to rebuild
you (sic) sites in New Orleans.”
160. Although Baton Rouge officials and BRPD officials were well aware of
CamSoft’s post-Katrina recovery efforts, CamSoft demonstration deployment at
BRPD headquarters, CamSoft’s free deployment of a wi-fi network in downtown
57
Baton Rouge, and also CamSoft efforts to market the MESH Technology as
reflected in emails dating back to mid-2003, no Baton Rouge official or BRPD
official ever notified CamSoft of NetMethods’ crime camera quotation; never
asked for a competing bid; nor was MacDonald ever notified that NetMethods
was owned, controlled and operated by MOT Employees.
161. In an October 5, 2005 email from Michael Calabrese of New America to Sege
and Turner of Patton Boggs, Calabrese asked if the two men could put him in
touch with Drake for testimony in Congress before Senator McCain. Calabrese
wrote, “I’m open to whoever has the most compelling, hands-on story about the
local public safety benefits of a wireless mesh.” Kirk wrote, “Allen, Ron Can you
each check with, respectively, Chris [Drake], Carlo [MacDonald] and Tony about
their availability to speak at this even in D.C.? We only need one, but we can
figure out how to deal with an embarrassment of riches if we need to.”
162. In response to this request, Sege and Carr chose Meffert and Drake to testify
before Congress. Sege wrote in an October 8, 2005 email:
“Cathleen is having a tough time getting detailed answers on units for NO…I need
the additional 50 units down there next week to continue with the Centeral
Business district deployment…the goal is to create a large thin layer of
coverage with the donated equipment minimizing the possibility of a
[competing] vendor (CISCO/Motorola) unseating us as incombent (sic)…our
window on this deal is very small, competition very tough, the customer is doing
all that they can to assist us and I am asking our team to step up and out of the
box a little. (Emphasis added; Cisco/Motorola comment was not added)
Chris [Drake] and Greg Meffert have agreed to travel to DC the week of the 18th
to support a request from us to testify for Sen. McCain on mesh and 700 Mhz…I
have requested we set other meetings with Sen. Staff for them to stress the
importance of city wide mesh deployment for their reconstruction/repopulation
effort…very powerful if they can say the CBD was built out by the City staff,
providing government and business services with broadband capability in a
matter of weeks when the Telco’s are claiming a year or more to restore
58
services…(thus the reason Chris [Drake] is not accepting offers of help from
MCI and other on this deployment, and has asked us to supply professional
svcs [services] direct for supporting City staff…time for us to help the City
shine and we need radios to get r done…thanks, ac (Emphasis added)
163. On October 10, 2005, Kirk asked Patton Boggs to provide, “[A] seemless
hosting experience for Chris [Drake] and Greg [Meffert] while they’re in D.C.”
Kirk also asked another employee at Tropos, Taryn Peck, to coordinate travel
arrangements for Drake and Meffert. An internal Tropos Market Status Report
dated October 10, 2005 further evidenced Tropos’ payment of hotel rooms for
Drake and Meffert, “Secured hotel rooms for Chris and Greg; this may not seem
like a big deal, but it may actually be the accomplishment of the week….”
164. Regarding Tropos’ intimate knowledge and involvement as a Dell Alliance
Member, Carr wrote in an October 14, 2005 email:
I can tell you the City’s vision…The City of NO would like to build a city wide
Tropos Mesh using some type of Wi Max wireless backhaul to distribute
bandwidth across the city to feed the mesh. The City nor NetMethods, the City’s
outsource IT consulting firm, (Chris Drake is NetMethods, he is not a City
employee, but manages all of the Mayor’s Office f (sic) Technology on an
outsource contract) has the engineering expertise to design this type of
wireless system. They would like to subcontract this design effort.
NetMethods will do the deployment, setup and configuration using local New
Orleans contractors…they will manage the infrastructure as an extension of the
City’s network…I was with Greg and Chris this week in NO…they are pumped
about the visit. ac" (Emphasis added)
165. According to plan, on March 17 and 18, 2005, Meffert and Drake testified
before Congress and Senator McCain regarding the benefits of the Tropos MESH
Technology during the Hurricane Katrina relief efforts.
166. On October 18, 2005, Carr wrote Kirk, “Usually not a conference [APCO Intl.
3rd Annual Winter Summit] we attend…but given the focus, thought we may
want to capture a few speaking spots…Tropos, MCI, Chris Drake (he has a 5 year
59
old would love Disney in Feb)….” This email reflects Tropos’ actions relative to
keeping Drake and Meffert busy on the legislative and technology conference
touring circuits.
167. While Tropos was busy using gratuities to land deals with Drake and Meffert,
MacDonald was desperately trying to get paid for his work on the July 19, 2004
Contract. On October 26, 2005, Michael Goldsmith, an employee of CamSoft,
wrote, “Iggie [Perrin], Here are the outstanding invoices we discussed
yesterday…Also, I need to know that these invoices are taken care of before I can
commit any of my engineers time to these projects.”
168. In another email dated November 12, 2005, MacDonald wrote Perrin, “I can’t
reach you…we dropped everything to help you out a few weeks ago…I am now at
risk of losing two projects because we didn’t do them during the week you
needed us to help you. Please let me know when I can expect some payments
and when I can get paid for some of the $70,000 you already received from the
city.”
169. On or about November 17, 2005, St. Pierre paid Meffert’s membership dues
for a New Orleans Mardi Gras parade in the amount of $700. In fact, between
November 2005 through March 2007 St. Pierre directed the payment of more
than $35,000.00 for certain household expenses at the residence owned by
Meffert and Linda Meffert.
170. On December 1, 2005, Drake forwarded a media article to Meffert, St. Pierre
and Charbonnet which praised “a connectivity network that will provide
complimentary online access in the central business district as well as the
60
celebrated French Quarter.” Meffert forwarded the message to Carr of Tropos.
Carr replied, “Ouch! (it hurts so good!)” (Emphasis added) This email further
evidences the close working relationship between Meffert and Tropos.
171. Given that Southern Electronics was not forwarding payments to CamSoft,
and that Meffert had all but stopped the camera deployment under the July 19,
2004 Contract, on December 27, 2005, MacDonald wrote to Perrin, “We need to
talk about the camera project and other work with the city moving forward. Let
me know what your thoughts are and how you want to move forward. I never
received a response on my email to you and Brian [Fitzpatrick] regarding who is
doing the work now. I have heard that Chris [Drake] hired some wireless guys
under this own company name, rumor on the street is he is using them to
manage the wifi network in new orleans.” Perrin replied, “Imagine or the
Mayor’s Office of Technology is doing the wifi system in the city. The camera
system is at a standstill until we see further payments. I will keep you posted
when the camera system proceeds.” This email further evidences that CamSoft
and MacDonald still had no idea of Drake’s association with Imagine Consulting
or NetMethods.
172. On January 9, 2006, Meffert approved payment to Ciber in the amount of
$171,575.60, which money was used to pay either NetMethods or Imagine
Consluting.
173. On January 10, 2006, Carr forwarded a news article written after Drake gave
a presentation at the APCO Intl. 3rd Annual Winter Summit in Orlando, FL.
Internal Tropos documents indicate that Tropos paid for Drake’s flight to this
61
conference. After MacDonald independently read the news article, MacDonald
wrote Drake, Meffert, Perrin and Carr, wherein he corrected certain
misstatements regarding the wi-fi deployment following Hurricane Katrina:
The camera system has nothing to do with the free wifi network built nor was it
ever a part of it. The city took the knowledge and guidance from a vendor
[CamSoft] over the past 3 years and deployed its own network without
compensating that vendor for their knowledge or time…I am curious if the
mayor knows that the network you deployed was the exact thing Verge Wireless
presented to him 3 years ago in his office on my laptop and spent three years
teaching Economic development departments, countless city officials, and travel
and tourism departments of your city, so that when the time is right you would
get complete buy in…I am under the assumption at this point that the city DID
NOT spend any money on the wifi network, as is the public and the
broadband council of Louisiana…[I]f there are dollars being spent on this
network, we would have appreciated an opportunity to assist…I am going to
support TROPOS, because I believe in their model. Their product works and it’s
the best solution for New Orleans, but you already know that. I wont do
anything to harm them or their business, but I am speaking at W2i and Esme’s
conference and New Orleans will come up and I want to make sure what you are
saying is actually what is going on. We don’t need different stories coming out of
New Orleans at this time, we have had plenty of those over the past few
months…I am however disappointed in you, Greg, and the city in the lack of
support for local vendors and the effort of Verge Wireless. From the get go, we
have not been included in any presentations you or your ‘private’ company has
presented, yet other vendors have been included, AKA power points, etc. I am
glad to have helped the city because its good for Louisiana…It is however
with great disappointed (sic), that I would like to let the City of New Orleans
and Southern Electronics know that we will no longer be involved in the
camera project for the city of New Orleans and that all TROPOS purchases
should be directed to another vendor or through TROPOS directly.
(Emphasis added)
174. On January 10, 2006, St. Pierre formed Veracent, LLC. After Veracent was
formed, Kurt, one of the former owners of Imagine Consulting, began his direct
employment with Veracent. Moreover, Veracent now also employed Drake and
other MOT Employees.
62
175. Still unpaid by Southern Electronics, on January 13, 2006, MacDonald wrote
Perrin, “We need to get our invoices that we all agreed upon paid…You already
got paid, now please pay me.”
176. Following Hurricane Katrina and the media storm regarding governmental
communications capabilities, there existed major legislative battles in both
Congress and the Louisiana state legislature regarding: (1) a municipality’s right
to independently pay for and build out wireless broadband networks for its
constituents: or (2) a municipality’s right to enter into “franchise agreements”
with Internet Service Providers (“ISP”), whereby ISPs could build out the
network and pay for access to the city’s electricity, light poles, etc.
177. Seeing another lucrative business opportunity for Meffert and the MOT
Employees’ Privately Held Companies, Meffert used his influence as MOT CTO to
advocate a New Orleans city council ordinance that would grant an ISP a
franchise agreement with the city. Initially, Microsoft, Yahoo and Google were
the main ISPs interested in the deal.
178. Meffert and the MOT Employees then used their power and influence
through MOT to negotiate lucrative reciprocal dealing and tying arrangements
with whomever Meffert chose to advocate for the franchise agreement. A city
email from Drake stated, “Basically only main difference is Yahoo wants
NetMethods running the show, Google wants to give it to a WFI or Motorola and
let them sub some pieces of it to NM [NetMethods]. Pluses and minuses both
ways.”
63
179. On January 31, 2006, Meffert sent an email to Sege, Carr, Drake, Dave Hanna
(“Hanna”), a significant investor and shareholder of Tropos, and St. Pierre.
Meffert wrote:
Guys, I have worked out the last details and we no longer have to go out for
any competitive bid for this (even for formality like we already told the feds
we were doing). Got everyone from mayor, to fema signed off on this. To help
more, I just got off today with the governor’s chief of staff and even got
additional legislation pushed on the current legislative call for this special
session that even gives more rights to whoever gets this gig…In that spirit, I have
decided to go with Google over the other competitors. Please drop any other
traffic that feeds competitive feeling here out, cut out any noise outside that
could interfere, and we should prepare to send out official appropriate
documents to all when we get the google proposal to move forward in the next
48 hours. Ok guys got the work set over here, let’s rock. Greg.
(Emphasis added) This email is important for a couple of reasons. First, the
email clearly represents Meffert’s continued efforts to circumvent state public
bid laws.
180. Eventually, Tropos would advocate to Meffert and Drake that the deal go to
Earthlink because internal corporate documents show that as much as 45% of
Tropos’ future income was dependent on similar Earthlink deployments in other
cities. Eventually, Google, Yahoo and Microsoft dropped their plans for building
out the New Orleans’ wi-fi system. Meffert would eventually negotiate through
Tropos the reciprocal dealing and tying arrangements in landing Earthlink the
franchise agreement.
181. Again, switching back to Baton Rouge, on or about February 20, 2006,
NetMethods provided a “Time and Materials” document to Hampton Grunewald,
Executive Assistant to Mayor Holden. The document more clearly laid out the
pricing structure for the initial 58 surveillance camera deployment in Baton
64
Rouge. This initial deployment ultimately became known as the “Phase I”
deployment. NetMethods further provided an “Acceptance and authorization”
with a total sales price of $811,739.51. CamSoft duly notes that nowhere does
the list of equipment in either the “Time and Materials” or “Acceptance and
authorization” section state the word “camera” or identify the Tropos wireless
networking equipment. CamSoft alleges that this was to specifically circumvent
WSCA Contract restrictions and other LANBMPC restrictions. Knowing full well
that Dell could not legally sell “camera” equipment through its WSCA contract, or
that the sale of Tropos’ equipment was permitted under the OSP LANBMPC, the
Dell Alliance Members did knowingly agree, conspire and act to circumvent the
state public bid laws by knowingly, willfully and illegally selling the Phase 1
surveillance camera equipment through Dell’s December 20, 2004 Contract to
the City of Baton Rouge.
182. A second sign-in sheet entitled “Security Canopy Meeting” dated February 23,
2006, identified the following prior mentioned individual participants:
Stevenson, Drake, Ridge, Mike Murphy, Evans and Hampton Grunewald.
183. After CamSoft had already left the July 19, 2004 Contract, in an email dated
February 21, 2006, Meffert and Drake discussed with New Orleans city attorneys
whether the July 19, 2004 Contract could be unilaterally assigned to another
company. The MOT Employees further drafted an entirely new request for
proposal. These strategies to destroy the deployment of crime cameras under
the July 19, 2004 Contract were abandoned. Ultimately, Meffert decided to
circumvent the July 19, 2004 Contract entirely by simply purchasing the bundled
65
surveillance camera equipment through Dell’s December 20, 2004 Contract.
Meffert then conspired with Ciber to install the camera equipment by running
the installation charges through Ciber’s contract with the City of New Orleans.
The installation work was ultimately performed by the MOT Employees’
Privately Held Companies with technical assistance provided by Tropos’
employees. Those prior emails to Sege and Carr clearly indicate that Tropos was
a willing participant in the Dell Alliance Members’ conspiracy to circumvent the
state public bid laws.
184. Still waiting for an opportunity to respond to a request for proposal issued by
New Orleans for deployment of a large scale multi-use (i.e. public and private)
municipal wi-fi system, MacDonald wrote Meffert in an March 22, 2006 email, “I
am starting a new company with some new individuals and our goal is to build
the very network you are attempting not only in new orleans, but other areas of
the country by assisting cities in obtaining the funding or coordinating the deal
between the googles and earthlinks of the world…New Orleans has to get an RFP
out asap on this network and see who answers…I don’t know how much you
know about me, but Marx suggests you may not know to (sic) much as my
dealings have been with Chris [Drake]…I was upset about all the work we did on
the TROPOS and Intel Deals as well as the camera project only to be pushed
aside…But again, you may not know anything about it as Chris was the one
working that issue.” MacDonald’s comments further evidence his entire lack of
knowledge regarding the business relationship between Drake and Meffert.
66
185. Meffert self-servingly replied, “Carlo, I do not think its ok, when anyone,
much less someone who helped on wifi, are ‘pushed aside.’” I will ask Nicole to
set something up, but I still would like Chris [Drake] and Michael [Charbonnet]
there as I do not see how they would do anyone wrong. BTW, you are about to
see a huge announcement relative to what you discussed but I wills et (sic, set)
something up to see if we can do something together.” (Emphasis added) The
“huge announcement” Meffert referred to would be a deal he struck with
Earthlink to deploy the very municipal wi-fi system that MacDonald was waiting
to go out for RFP.
186. On March 28, 2006, Meffert wrote MacDonald and St. Pierre, “Mark, with
things accelerating on this stuff, can you get Chris [Drake] and Michael
[Charbonnet] together with Carlo to see if we have a fit here in what we are
doing? Then we can have meaningful meeting after that?” St. Pierre never
contacted MacDonald. This email further evidences Meffert’s control over the
MOT Employees and Privately Held Companies.
187. In an email dated March 21, 2006 from Don Berryman (“Berryman”), former
President of Earthlink’s municipal wi-fi deployments, Berryman wrote, “Greg,
couple of quick questions so we can finish the Term Sheet…Would you be okay
with the city buying a dedicated portion of the network, (say 20%)…so we can
use our current vendors and a known quicker solution with dedicated nodes in
police cars, fire trucks other city vehicles (Tropos 4210’s) that the city would
own.” Meffert replied, “Makes total sense to do this your normal
Earthlink/Motorola way…Btw, an additional idea or option if it fits…We are
67
sunsetted with our pre-K [Katrina] crime camera network contract, but only
50% done building out the crime camera network. It is a signature show piece of
this administration, as I get asked, even internationally, about it and mayor
wants to finish it. It seems it might make things even easier for me to allocate
whatever existing budget money I have for that and FEMA reimbursement
money as part of in kind package and build that at same time.” This email
also evidences Meffert’s control as MOT CTO to interrupt the deployment of the
July 19, 2004 Contract, which Meffert will soon use as a tool to negotiate a
reciprocal dealing and tying arrangement with Earthlink and Motorola for the
MOT Employees’ Privately Held Companies.
188. In a later reply email dated March 23, 2006, Bill Tolpegin (“Tolpegin”) of
Earthlink wrote Meffert and Berryman, “Hello Greg: We’ve spoken to our legal
team (including a local attorney in New Orleans) and they are convinced that the
camera/public safety aspect of our discussions with have to go out to RFP.”
189. Berryman forwarded this email to Sege of Tropos and wrote, “Ron I’m on a
plane headed to Pasadena but wanted to get this to you…I’ll know more
tomorrow, but we don’t want to (sic)[do] anything stupid. We will keep
pushing.” (Emphasis added)
190. Sege forwarded the email to Carr and Kirk, “Lawyers… Do not forward.”
(Emphasis added) In reply, Carr wrote, “The camera system has already been
bid and is separate from this agreement. Not sure why these are being
connected.” (Emphasis added) The reason for Meffert connecting the Earthlink
deal and the camera deal is clear. Subsequent emails show that Meffert was
68
using the July 19, 2004 Contract’s camera deployment as leverage to strike a
later deal with Earthlink and Motorola.
191. On or about March 29, 2006, MacDonald learned of Meffert’s deal to let
Earthlink unilaterally take over the wireless networking equipment and assets
owned by the City of New Orleans. MacDonald wrote, “[H]ow can EarthLink take
over equipment and assets owned by the public without putting out an RFP? I
think EarthLink is a great partner, but are you running into a risk that someone
is going to put a thumb on this without proper procedure and protocal? Aka
Bellsouth.”
192. Meffert replied on March 20, 2006, “Man, what the hell are you talking about?
Earthlink offered to help fund the cameras as favor, but it immediately got
spooked by all the demands we got back from contractor. The contract will stay
as is for the most part, but will be hard to fund otherwise. Check your info,
before you start wagging your fingers at someone man…”
193. In response to Meffert’s email, MacDonald replied, “Greg, who is talking
about cameras? I have no information on Earthlink and cameras and I think
that’s great that they offered, whoever take over the Wi-Fi should try to tie in
some cameras as well…Without an RFP, the other “guys” may try to stop
it…Greg, I don’t care about the cameras other then they are important to the
city, that was never my bag, except for the wireless part. I am a muniwireless
person and I believe everyone should have broadband and I believe it is an
economic issue for any city. Just like I did 4 years ago.” (Emphasis added)
69
194. Regarding MacDonald’s comment regarding his lack of “care” about the
cameras, CamSoft would note that it was perfectly willing to purchase crime
cameras from Active Solutions and Southern Electronics. Notably, CamSoft
wanted to protect its wireless network designs used to connect the crime
cameras. CamSoft fully expected Active Solutions and Southern Electronics to
fully keep this information confidential. CamSoft believed that other vendors
could expend their own time, money and resources to learn what would and
would not work when connecting surveillance cameras to MESH Technologies,
just as CamSoft had previously learned during the Pilot Project.
195. Furthermore, MacDonald was entirely unaware that Fitzpatrick, Burkhardt
and Perrin had surreptitiously filed a patent application relative to the design of
the surveillance camera, and had claimed sole credit therein for designing not
only the power connections, but also the wireless component parts of the
camera system that MacDonald clearly directed the development of in emails
dating back to late-2003. This patent application, if granted, would preclude any
other camera manufacturer from selling or deploying a surveillance camera
designed for an outdoor environment, even a crime camera put together by
CamSoft with knowledge that it had already obtained.
196. Moreover, CamSoft further alleges that Perrin, Fitzpatrick and Burkhardt
knowingly and intentionally withheld necessary information relative to the
nature and scope to the New Orleans litigation as it related to the crime cameras.
For example, Perrin, Fitzpatrick and Burkhardt did knowingly and willfully do
the following: 1) falsely stated that the New Orleans litigation was for loss of
70
profits relative to the New Orleans July 19, 2004 Contract only; 2) withheld their
participation in the July 8, 2004 Meeting; 3) withheld their agreement to
participate as a Dell Alliance Member; 4) withheld knowledge that they knew of
and actively intended to profit from Dell Alliance Members’ business dealings
with the City of Baton Rouge; 5) withheld the fact that Active Solutions and
Southern Electronics were claiming damages in excess of $500 million in
compensatory damages and nearly $2 billion in punitive damages in the New
Orleans litigation, which CamSoft and MacDonald did not learn about until these
damage claims surfaced in media reports just days prior to the scheduled New
Orleans trial in October of 2009. CamSoft maintains that these reasons clearly
explain why Active Solutions and Southern Electronics so vehemently opposed
CamSoft’s motion to intervene in the New Orleans litigation.
197. An email from St. Pierre to Perrin dated March 30, 2006, and relative to a
Dallas Police Department’s request for proposals for a 40 camera system in
downtown Dallas, shows that St. Pierre and Perrin were still working together
relative to their Dell Alliance Member agreement. Considering the context of
prior emails, Active Solutions and Southern Electronics were obviously unaware
of the MOT Employees’ true intent to fully disrupt the July 19, 2004 Contract and
eventually remove Active Solutions and Southern Electronics as Dell Alliance
Members. Notably, the email further evidences the Dell Alliance Members’
intent, including that of Active Solutions and Southern Electronics, to circumvent
the WSCA Contract “camera” limitations. In this email, Emily Dollacker,
associated with a technology consulting firm, expressly called the video
71
surveillance cameras a “pod” (“Chris/Iggie As we finalize the components of the
DPD bid with Securenet I would like to get specifics on the pods for the job…I
would like Active Solutions to provide the pods (same design as City of N.O.) for
the Tropos mesh…Please let me know how you would like to handle the pods
etc.” (Emphasis added)
198. In a change of events, on April 6, 2006, Dollacker wrote Perrin, Fitzpatrick
and Burkhardt, “Iggie, Brian, Brad – NetMethods just pulled out of DPD. Can you
provide the wireless portion (Tropos, etc.) and pods before the April 14th
proposed deadline for SecureNet?” Again, Active Solutions and Southern
Electronics clearly knew of the plan to change the name of the wireless video
surveillance cameras to “pods.”
199. Around this same time, Tropos continued to actively market Drake’s
testimonials by flying him across the country to present at various speaking
engagements. On April 6, 2006, Tropos coordinated with Drake for the GovSec
conference in Washington, D.C. Tropos even hired a third party consultant to
draft Drake’s presentation. In reviewing Tropos’ proposed presentation, Drake
wrote, “Bert That looks great…MCI/Skytel hung out at the airport and said city
seemed too dangerous. They and US Wireless [MacDonald] came in later when it
was ‘safe.’ And half the apps [applications] you list on ‘their’ network are not
there (sic), they are ours. Video surveillance in particular.” This illustrates that
Tropos personnel clearly knew that MacDonald and CamSoft had developed the
video surveillance solutions, but that Drake was now taking credit for the
application in order to further the reputation of the MOT Employees’ Privately
72
Held Companies. Internal documents further show that Tropos paid for Drake’s
flight to the April 26-27, 2006 GovSec conference.
200. Ultimately, Kirk of Tropos jointly presented with Drake at the GovSec
presentation in Washington, D.C. While there, Kirk and Drake began having a
extramarital affair that would ultimately lead to Drake, Kirk and Meffert joining
Meffert’s company, Logistix, LLC after Meffert resigned as MOT CTO in July of
2006.
201. In an ongoing effort to provide Ciber with a source of money from the City of
New Orleans to pay the MOT Employees’ Privately Held Companies, on April 16,
2006, Meffert executed two additional contract extensions with Ciber: Contract
K07-428 and Contract K07-429. Each contract provided an additional source of
operating income to Ciber in the amount of $5,650,000 and $9,748,579,
respectively.
202. Around the same time, Meffert was also negotiating a reciprocal dealing and
contractual tying arrangement with Motorola and Earthink on behalf of the MOT
Employees’ Privately Held Companies. Meffert used his influence to negotiate
deals on behalf of the MOT Employees’ Privately Held Companies, with which he
had a financial interest therein. The New Orleans council’s vote was scheduled
for May 25, 2006.
203. Four days before the vote, on May 21, 2006, Drake wrote Sege, Kirk and Carr,
“The feeling is really electric in the City right now. Everyone is calling wanting to
help, etc. We really need to work on EL [Earthlink] and nail down whatever
issues they are having…Also, Allen, I have not heard back from Motorola
73
after we submitted our pricing proposal to them for the EL NO job last week.”
(Emphasis added) These emails clearly indicate that Tropos, Sege and Carr, who
had already paid gratuities to Meffert and Drake, were now engaging in the
negotiations for the reciprocal dealing and tying arrangements between
Earthlink, Motorola, Meffert, Drake and on behalf of the MOT Employees’
Privately Held Companies.
204. On May 25, 2006, the New Orleans city council voted unanimously for the
Earthlink municipal wi-fi franchise agreement. On May 25, 2006, Kirk wrote
Drake regarding the council vote, “I’m sure you know, but…” Drake replied, “Yes,
I knew. Now comes the bitching. Everyone has their deal lined up except the
guys who put it all together. I’m gonna come unglued here at some point
really soon. I can’t pimp Tropos and Earthlink the rest of my freakin life, and
neither can other folks (Darth Vader) [Meffert] without some ROI [return on
investment]. This is getting out of hand. Allen [Carr] said he would call
Tolpegin back when he gets off the plane to Altanta and let him know that we
will be the holdup on this if EL can’t get a deal done with us and get their
panties out of a wad over the fact that we have worked for the City like right
now… Scuse (sic) me if I don’t join the celebration just yet… C”. (Emphasis
added)
205. In another email, Drake wrote Kirk, “And you can tell Steve Lowe, Ron Sege
and Dave [Hanna] ‘I’m duck hunting in Argentina’ Freaking Hannah I said so.
This is not how one takes care of one of one’s best partners who can hand
deliver something like this. There are bigger networks to be built, but there are
74
NO BETTER press opportunities on a GLOBAL SCALE than New Orleans right
now. Sorry, not directed at you, but I am REALLY frustrated.” (Emphasis added)
206. When Kirk asked whether Earthlink or Tropos was the problem, Drake
wrote, “Both. EL is mired in bureaucracy and we seem to be putting the
Minneapolis gig in jeopardy because the (sic) [they] are fritzing around over
our work at CNO. We have every lawyer in the world saying there is no conflict
of interest and they can’t seem to let go. The other issue is the deal with
Motorola. We of course don’t mind being a sub to them, but saying that we
have to get the deal landed before they will work out our piece of it, and then
sending us that awful suggested pricing thing just reeks. As a group, we
almost pulled out and believe me if we pulled out (yes even now) the little
light would go read on the go/no-go board…I don’t take credit for much, but
this one thing I know: EL/New Orleans does not happen without NetMethods,
and it does not even become the seed of a possibility without a LOT of work
on my part. FYI, Tropos is now officially “my boy”. As in Chris, your boy Tropos
never responded on the Mayor’s campaign event. Chris, your boy Tropos does
not seem to have a clue what we are doing for them. See how none of these are
Chris, your boy Tropos finally came through? I like Tropos a lot and because
they have the superior product and by far the best marketing machine around
we stay. But one sided relationships don’t work forever, or usually even very
long. And right now it would not take much to get us to roll something else. I
have a dozen donated Cisco radios sitting on our office floor that we stood in
the gap and refused to deploy even when Greg kind of wanted to see them go
75
up….Whew, I think I’m a little bitter! But it will all get better if Moto
[Motorola] gives us a good rate on CNO rollout and EL [Earthlink] give us the
Minneapolis pilot pretty soon here.” (All emphasis added) Basically, this email
says it all. Drake’s emails clearly indicate that Drake and Meffert were using
their political power and influence within MOT to position and land more
lucrative deals for themselves and the MOT Employees’ Privately Held
Companies.
207. These emails further show that Motorola and Earthlink were clearly
discussing the use of illegal bribes and kickback arrangements for political
influence (i.e. future reciprocal dealing and contractual tying arrangements) in
order to secure the MOT Employees’ favorable recommendation before the New
Orleans city council. An Earthlink spokesperson, Deisha Galberth, has admitted
to news agencies that Earthlink contracted with Motorola to build out the
municipal wi-fi network in New Orleans. Motorola, as the primary installer,
subcontracted its work to NetMethods. Earthlink claims to have spent $15
million building out the municipal wi-fi network for the City of New Orleans.
Upon information and belief, Earthlink did not shut down its New Orleans wi-fi
operation until approximately September or October of 2008.
208. On May 25, 2005, the New Orleans city council also approved the payment to
Ciber of $1,850,000 for GoalView school related software. Meffert unilaterally
handed this contract to Ciber. As per investigations by the Louisiana Legislative
Auditor, the software manufacturer valued the value of the software at only
$100,000 to $200,000. However, Ciber never delivered this software to the City
76
of New Orleans. Ciber claims that New Orleans did not get approval for the
charter schools for which the software was purchased. Rather than return the
money, Ciber claims it gave a “credit” to the City of New Orleans for Ciber’s work
on future initiatives. CamSoft alleges that the missing $1,850,000 “credit” was,
in part, used to pay the MOT Employees’ Privately Held Companies. Ciber’s
reconciliation records justifying the offset of the $1,850,000 further identified
“gift cards,” “client gifts,” and “golf memberships” to New Orleans city
employees.
209. The Louisiana Legislative Auditor noted that these gratuities, reciprocal
dealings and tying arrangements may have violated Section 14 of the Louisiana
Constitution (prohibiting payments by a municipality for services not provided)
and La. R.S. 42:1115 (prohibiting public servants from soliciting or accepting,
directly or indirectly, anything of economic value as a gift or gratuity from any
person or employee of any person who has or is seeking to obtain contractual or
other business or financial relationships with the public servant’s agency.)
210. Regarding the Dell Alliance Members’ deployment of crime cameras in New
Orleans, on May 27, 2006, Kim Fury wrote Ridge, “In speaking w/Greg [Meffert]-
they need a bunch of the cameras. They don’t want to use the last vendor [i.e.
Active Solutions and Southern Electronics].” Ridge replied, “So talk to St. Pierre
or Chris Drake?” Fury replied, “He [Meffert] said mark st”. Ridge replied, “Will
do.” This email marks the official moment when the MOT Employees and Dell
chose to remove Active Solutions and Southern Electronics as Dell Alliance
Members.
77
211. As evidence of Meffert’s arbitrary and capricious effort to interrupt the
deployment of surveillance cameras deployed pursuant to the July 19, 2004
Contract, Fitzpatrick noted in a June 13, 2006 email that the City of New Orleans
is now $400,000 behind on its payments.
212. In an email dated June 15, 2006, Ridge of Dell noted that a video surveillance
project for the Louisiana State Police Headquarters was not yet completed.
Therefore, it appears that as the Dell Alliance Members did sell a video
surveillance system via Dell’s December 20, 2004 Contract prior to June 15,
2006.
213. On June 27, 2006, Drake wrote Kirk and asked whether Kirk knew Sheila
Fortinberry, an employee of Motorola. Drake wrote, “Moto is ramping up on us
a bit to do some kind of lock up on wireless ip camera stuff and she is now
assigned to us.” (Emphasis added) In another email, Drake wrote, “Probably
just seeing an opportunity. I am clear (sic) they [Motorola] will screw us as soon
as it makes sense for them to.” Ironically, Drake was concerned that Motorola
would “screw” them; yet, Drake had not problem “screwing” CamSoft or
MacDonald. In fact, Drake will later use the valuable knowledge he gained from
CamSoft’s Pilot Project and July 19, 2004 Contract camera deployments to
structure high paying consulting deals for wireless video surveillance design
solutions to large IT Services companies, including Motorola and Unisys. The
fact that such large IT Services companies are turning to Drake’s “expertise” in
wireless video surveillance is further evidence of the overall lack of industry
knowledge regarding the proper design for such wireless (i.e. IP) camera
78
systems, as well as the potential value of these wireless video surveillance
designs.
214. On or about June 30, 2006, Meffert ordered no less than 25 surveillance
cameras through Dell’s December 20, 2004 Contract.
215. Just before leaving his position as MOT CIO, on July 6, 2006, Meffert approved
payment to Ciber in the amount of $1,596,497.76.
216. Only nine (9) days later, on or about July 15, 2006, Meffert left his position as
acting MOT CTO. The day Meffert left his employment Meffert approved
payment to Ciber in the amount of $836,132.20. CamSoft alleges that this money
was then used to pay NetMethods and/or Veracent, both controlled by St. Pierre.
CamSoft further alleges that these extraordinarily large payments to Ciber on
July 6, 2006 and July 15, 2006 may have been designed to, in part, fund Meffert’s
exorbitant $67,000 per month consulting fee arrangement between Logistix and
NetMethods after he left his position as MOT CTO.
217. Prior to leaving office, Meffert also appointed as MOT CTO, Kurt, an employee
of Veracent with full knowledge of the contractual tie-in arrangements between
Ciber and the MOT Employees’ Privately Held Companies, Imagine Consulting,
Veracent and NetMethods, specifically. Kurt was also an owner and managing
member of Imagine Consulting.
218. Like Meffert, Kurt continued to deny or delay the crime camera deployments
pursuant to the July 19, 2004 Contract. Instead, Kurt continued to purchase the
surveillance camera equipment via Dell’s LANBMPC December 20, 2004
Contract. Kurt continued also to pay his former employer and co-business
79
partner, St. Pierre, through Veracent for camera installations made through
Ciber’s contract. Like Meffert, Kurt also approved payment to Ciber without ever
properly adjusting the contract deliverables.
219. CamSoft further alleges that an examination of Dell’s invoices to the City of
New Orleans shows that Dell continued to intentionally not use the word
“camera” in its product descriptions during Kurt’s tenure as MOT CTO. Dell
intentionally withheld the true nature of the surveillance “cameras” and Tropos
wireless networking equipment not otherwise permitted for sale under its
LANBMPC. This evidences the Dell Alliance Members’ knowledge and intent to
illegally sell the bundled wireless video surveillance equipment through Dell’s
December 20, 2004 Contract, except that Southern Electronics and Active
Solutions have now been kicked out of the club. Drake testified during the New
Orleans trial proceedings that Hodges, a MOT Employee, advocated that the
group not use Active Solutions and Southern Electronics so that the MOT
Employees’ Privately Held Companies could make more money.
220. On the same date, July 18, 2006, Walter Monsour of Baton Rouge replied to a
prior email with a subject entitled, “RE: SECURITY CANOPY IS A GO!” On July 20,
2006, Drake wrote Walter Monsour, “Walter We currently have approximately
30 cameras deployed and operational…out of the 58 contracted under this initial
batch…We will keep Hamp, Don and JoAnne updated on progress as we
complete this initial 58 cameras deployment.”
80
221. Despite MacDonald’s continued contact with BRPD officials, particularly Mike
Murphy, not a single person advised CamSoft or MacDonald that Baton Rouge
had begun purchasing these cameras from NetMethods.
222. On July 24, 2006, Ed Long, an employee of Dell wrote, “Ziad, this account, City
of New Orleans, needs to have the credit hold lifted. Can you approve and
forward to the correct parties in order to get this order processed? There is also
more to come, as discussed in the past meetings regarding City of New Orleans.”
Considering Meffert’s resignation from as MOT CTO on July 18, 2006, this
internal Dell email clearly evidences that Dell and the MOT Employees,
particularly Kurt, would continue to knowingly and illegally purchase bundled
surveillance camera equipment from Dell’s December 20, 2004 Contract.
Ultimately, during Meffert’s and Kurt’s tenure as MOT CTO, the City of New
Orleans would order a total of $770,624.52 worth of equipment under Dell’s
December 20, 2004 Contract.
223. On July 27, 2006, Meffert formed Logistix. Initially, Logistix was supposed to
employ both Drake and Kirk after they left their respective positions within MOT
and Tropos, respectively. Logistix was formed to create a municipal wi-fi
consulting company, with particular expertise in wireless video camera
surveillance design. After Logistix was formed, St. Pierre, through NetMethods,
agreed to pay Meffert a consulting fee of $67,000.00 per month. St. Pierre paid
this “consulting fee” and other American Express credit card charges in exchange
for the business Meffert referred to the MOT Employees’ Privately Held
Companies. Upon information and belief, Logistix received approximately
81
$647,426.25 in regular contractual payments from NetMethods. This amount
does not include other expenses paid by NetMethods for Logistix, such as
Meffert’s health insurance, office rent, car lease and legal fees, totaling
approximately $58,000.
224. Still trying unsuccessfully to deploy cameras under the July 19, 2004
Contract, Perrin and Fitzpatrick began direct talks with Kurt, now acting CTO of
MOT. On August 22, 2006 Perrin wrote Charbonnet, “What about Mark Kurt?
Any word on where he wants to go with the project? Should I just tally up all
fees and charges and do a final billing to you guys? Everyone in NOPD seem to
want to attempt to move things forward, however, if the city just can’t afford to
move forward, maybe we should bill everything now and go into a holding
pattern.”
225. As further proof that Dell did knowingly and willfully alter its invoices for the
sale of wireless crime camera surveillance systems through its December 20,
2004 Contract, on September 24, 2006, Ridge of Dell wrote, “We are not allowed
to sell cameras under the WSCA contract so you will have to quote it without the
contract number.”
226. Upon information and belief, on November 16, 2006, Ridge of Dell forwarded
to Brent Lajaunie a faxed order for video surveillance equipment from the City of
Baton Rouge. Lajuanie forwarded same to St. Pierre and Hodges. St. Pierre
replied to Hodges, “Got it. This is for (redacted) [presumably “BR”] to dell, which
means it will be (redacted) [presumably “BR”] to us. I thought this was for
(redacted) [presumably “NO”].
82
227. On or about November 21, 2006, Denise Lea, Director of OSP, learned that
Dell was improperly selling surveillance camera equipment off of its December
20, 2004 Contract. Denise Lea issued a OSP Memorandum 07-03 stating that
wireless networking equipment (LAN/WAN switches, network routers, network
hubs, network bridges, wireless access points, firewalls and wiring and cabling),
and other equipment used for video surveillance solutions, was improperly
being sold under the states LABNMPC. Moreover, Ms. Lea further stated that
pricing for installation of this equipment could only be used at the time of the
purchase of the component from state contract; thereby, excluding ongoing
maintenance under the hardware equipment purchasing $250,000 threshold.
Despite Ms. Lea’s November 21, 2006 Memorandum, Dell knowingly and illegally
continued to sell the wireless video surveillance equipment off its state contract.
228. In an email dated December 14, 2006, Kurt wrote Perrin an email advising
Perrin that Kurt did not intend to purchase all originally quoted 1,000 cameras
from the July 19, 2004 Contract. Rather, Kurt was only intending to purchase a
total of 300 cameras.
229. Notwithstanding Kurt’s assertions to Perrin, Charbonnet emailed Kurt from
Charbonnet’s NetMethods’ email account a quote for 25 cameras under Dell’s
LANBMPC totaling $332,120.56. Notably, Perrin had just wrote to Charbonnet
as a MOT employee on August 22, 2006, wherein Perrin asked Charbonnet for
Kurt’s intentions on moving the July 19, 2004 Contract deployment forward.
Now, Charbonnet is sending emails to Kurt from his NetMethods’ account for
video camera price quotes.
83
230. Sometime around January 1, 2007, Kurt even went so far as to request that
Perrin not provide the surveillance camera equipment, but simply install the
cameras. In an email dated January 2, 2007, Perrin wrote Kurt advising that they
would not simply install the cameras as it would constitute a material change in
their July 19, 2004 Contract.
231. Another invoice from Dell to the City of New Orleans dated January 11, 2007
invoiced another 26 surveillance cameras totaling $404,240.52. Notably, the
Dell invoice does not use the word “camera.” In all, New Orleans’ city records
indicate that 53 cameras were purchased from Dell through Dell’s December 20,
2004 Contract. In a later email to Mayor Nagin, Kurt admitted to approving the
camera installation charges through the billing mechanism with Ciber,
NetMethods and Veracent.
232. CamSoft alleges that, despite Ms. Lea’s November 21, 2006 Memorandum 07-
03 forbidding the sale of wireless networking equipment on the OSP LANBMPC,
Dell continued to knowingly and illegally sell the wireless video surveillance
solution in direct detriment to those other competitive vendors appropriately
following the applicable rules.
233. As further evidence of Meffert’s abuse of power as MOT CTO, and apparently
unhappy with the contract rate Motorola agreed to pay to NetMethods in order
to land the Earthlink franchise agreement, Meffert recounted his understanding
of his role regarding the Earthlink franchise deal:
I do not want this VCC-based deal and only reason I have been answering trying
to help here is that it confirms my main reason of where I have believed we can
truly help them [Earthlink]. Not as some two-bit “vote fixer”, but rather as a
long term partner in relating their services to city and state governments,
84
and help them address a gaping hole in their approach I saw the first day I met
them…But they obviously think they got governments figured out as something
you just throw a few bucks at to get them to stay out of your way, and nowhere is
this need more clearly shown than how they handle this situation, and continued
sophomoric approach to politics here. I can handle that they still have no clue
how/why New Orleans really happened, gave us zero credit, and that they did
not understand how much we did internally to make the franchise happen in
new orleans. They think it was a couple of city council attorney deals, buying the
old-school pitch all the way…All said, I was ok even when they politely told us to
go to hell hours after they got their franchise …It was their money they wasted
on ‘access guys’ and they didn’t realize I had already worked the deal for
different reasons. They got suckered and paid, but I didn’t care, but we never
pushed a pass-through firm, legal counsel, a donation, never got a damn thing
but grief out of that deal. I did it because the city needed it, and yes I would
even do it again. Man I know you guys worked this, but on this, I think I give up.
I just see they don’t feel they have any real need here, and just want to buy off
a board and be done with us again. They still think that’s how it worked with
the city council here, and now even want me to play part of cheap rent-a-
thug for them here and even commit to targets. Yes, I know all those people
on VCC very well, and helped allot of them in various ways through the years.
Yes, I have gotten every vote I ever asked for from all the boards and
commissions. And what’s worse, I would probably help for free if they chose to
be a REAL long term partner of ours and the city, and would go further to
actually help unlock things nationally with all the other CTOs call me asking my
help in how to work with them (you know which ones I am talking about)…So
please tell them they got the wrong partner if board votes in new orleans is
all they think we are about…better yet, I will copy and do it myself.
(Emphasis added) After this email, Earthlink rescinded all negotiations between
Logistix.
234. On or about February 5, 2007, Perrin wrote Fitzpatrick, “I think he [Kurt]
hasn’t put a bid out and really wants to work with us. I really do.” Fitzpatrick
replied, “Why would he need to? They have obviously figured our how to direct
the business directly to Imagine/NetMethods without a bid. A new bid
winner/contractor would only serve to take money out of their pocket.”
235. On February 12, 2007, Kurt quit as MOT CTO. Anthony Jones, who was also
an employee of MOT during Meffert’s tenure, took over as acting CTO. On or
85
about May of 2007, Kurt began his employment with Ciber, the company with
whom he directed hundred of thousands, if not millions of dollars, in New
Orleans IT Services. CamSoft alleges that Kurt’s offer and subsequent
employment with Ciber was simply repayment for the millions of dollars in IT
Services Kurt directed to Ciber and the MOT Employees’ Privately Held
Company.
236. On February 14, 2007, Dell issued an invoice for wireless video surveillance
cameras under its December 20, 2004 Contract to the City of Gretna. Again, the
invoice did not mention the word “camera.” Upon information and belief,
NetMethods installed these wireless surveillance cameras.
237. Although AMI Consulting was legally filed with the Secretary of State’s office
on May 15, 2007, Drake continued to use CamSoft’s trade secrets in selling his
“expertise” in the area of wireless video surveillance systems. In February of
2007, Drake submitted a proposal to Motorola. The Motorola proposal expressly
included a provision for the design of wireless video surveillance systems.
238. On February 27, 2007, Drake attempted to establish another consulting
contract for AMI Consulting with British Telecom, the United Kingdom’s largest
telecommunications carrier. Drake wrote, “Rob We have done freebies. We are
in this as consultants as have a very valuable asset and knowledge base…The
access, information, and analysis we can provide is in demand these days.”
239. On March 2, 2007, AMI Consulting entered into a teaming agreement with
Unisys for a long-term relationship for wireless video surveillance network
design. Eventually, AMI Consulting, Kirk and Drake provided Unisys with
86
CamSoft’s valuable trade secret information relative to the design of wireless
networking surveillance systems, which Unisys utilized in a large scale camera
deployment in the City of Philadelphia.
240. On March 2, 2007, and in response to press inquiries regarding the sale of
video surveillance by NetMethods and Veracent through Dell’s LANBMPC, Denise
Lea, Director of OSP, responded to press inquiries, “Veracent and/or NetMethods
have never been authorized to provide service on the Dell contract. We have
discussed this…They do not hold and never have (to my knowledge) held any
state contracts for products with our office.”
241. In a follow-up email, Lea wrote, “I have asked Dell to hold up selling products
related to the Video Surveillance Cameras systems, while I get with my
information technology group and we can determine how the state will proceed
with these type (sic) of items. This action has to do with the requests coming in
from agencies wishing to buy these types of systems…In the meantime, public
entities wishing to buy this type of equipment (Video Surveillance Solutions)
should utilize other procurement methods available to them rather than
satisfying their needs from any state contract.”
242. On March 8, 2007, Denise Lea issued a follow-up Memorandum. In that
Memorandum, she stated, “On November 21, 2006, this office issued a
memorandum clarifying the nature of peripheral equipment as it applies to the
state’s brand name microcomputer contracts…At this time our procedures for
procuring networking equipment and equipment used to configure wireless
87
surveillance camera systems are being revised. You should refrain from selling
or installing such equipment and systems at this time.”
243. On June 7, 2007, the Baton Rouge city council allocated $3.5 million from a
$19 million surplus to install video surveillance cameras across a large area of
Baton Rouge. This deployment of cameras became known as the “Phase II
Security Canopy System.” The Baton Rouge Purchasing Department identified a
single P.O. number (i.e. 71491) for all purchases made for the Phase II Security
Canopy System.
244. On June 18, 2007, Anthony Jones, then acting MOT CTO, advised Perrin that
the City of New Orleans was not extending the July 19, 2004 Contract.
245. Now knowing that the Dell Alliance Members could not sell the $3.5 million
Phase II Security Canopy System via Dell’s LANBMPC, on July 27, 2007,
NetMethods was granted a LANBMPC specifically for the purpose of selling video
surveillance products (“July 17, 2007 Contract”). In the months leading up to the
July 27, 2007 Contract, Ridge of Dell pushed for NetMethods to be included as a
licensed reseller of Dell products under its “S&P” program. By this time internal
Dell documents were noting that the video surveillance industry could be worth
approximately $7 billion dollars.
246. NetMethods directly sold its wireless video surveillance system via its July
27, 2007 Contract between approximately October 9, 2007 through
approximately January 25, 2010. NetMethods continued using the Dell Alliance
Members’ products and services in its bundled system. In addition to hardware
equipment sales and installation costs, NetMethods also invoiced hundreds of
88
thousands of dollars in annual hardware maintenance costs. Basically,
NetMethods enjoyed the very financial successes that CamSoft and MacDonald
had worked so hard to achieve in its efforts dating back four years prior in the
Pilot Project and July 19, 2004 Contract deployments.
247. Despite NetMethods’ July 27, 2007 Contract, CamSoft further alleges that
NetMethods did continue to knowingly circumvent the state public bid laws.
Specifically, LANBMPC has a threshold limit of $250,000 in hardware equipment
and installation costs. Moreover, the “Procedures for the Establishment and
Continuance of a Brand Name Microcomputer Contract” provide, “Individual line
items shall not exceed $25,000. Total release/purchase order amount shall not
exceed $250,000. Procurements shall not be artificially divided to circumvent
the $250,000 threshold.” (Emphasis added)
248. Notwithstanding, the City of Baton Rouge allocated and spent nearly all of the
$3.5 million allocated by city council under a single purchase order, PO. 71491,
for all Phase II Security Canopy System purchases. City records indicate that
multiple purchase orders were delivered to NetMethods, but artificially divided
into segments (i.e. PO 71491.1, PO 71491.2, etc.) When combined, these
artificially divided purchase orders subtotal the entire $3.5 million allocated by
the city council for the Phase II Security Canopy System.
249. CamSoft alleges that NetMethods and the City of Baton Rouge artificially
divided procurements to that otherwise circumvented the state law competitive
bid requirements for an RFP or closed bid process for orders exceeding the
$250,000 threshold. CamSoft duly notes that total threshold amount was
89
increased to $500,000 in Memorandum 10-10 dated June 16, 2010, but this still
would have not affected the otherwise circumvention of state public bid laws.
250. Moreover, the City of Baton Rouge’s purchase of NetMethods’ bundled
equipment further violates the Purchasing Rules and Regulations of the Office of
State Purchasing, specifically Chapter 17, Section 1709(B)(3)(c) relative to state
Brand Name contracts. (“Purchases shall not be artificially divided to avoid the
requirements of this section when recurring requirements for the same products
are shown.”)
251. The fact that Baton Rouge officials rewarded NetMethods, and consequently
the Dell Alliance Members, with a $3.5 million surveillance camera contract that
otherwise circumvents the applicable state public bid laws is further
questionable considering purported gratuities paid by NetMethods to Donald
Evans, Baton Rouge’s CTO. The Times-Picayune reported that a leaked, internal
NetMethod’s email from Drake indicated that NetMethods paid for a hotel room
stay for Evans at Le Cirque Hotel in New Orleans in approximately January of
2007. This hotel stay came just months before the Baton Rouge city council
appropriated the $3.5 million, and thereafter police and information services
officials unilaterally allocated these funds to NetMethods. CamSoft alleges that
such gratuities had an obvious anticompetitive effect that prevented any
meaningful consideration of other vendors, including CamSoft.
252. In New Orleans, Ciber continued to install wireless crime cameras under
Anthony Jones’ tenure at MOT CTO. Jones continued to pay Ciber under its
original contract and contract extensions, even though no change in contract
90
deliverables was ever authorized. In fact, Ciber was awarded three additional
contract extensions: K08-509 for $15,500,000; K09-879 for $592,889; and K09-
664 for $9,800,000. All told, Ciber’s total contract extensions, with no change in
contract deliverables, total approximately $46 million. Upon information and
belief, Veracent and/or NetMethods employees through the Ciber contract
continued to install wireless surveillance cameras. Records indicate that Ciber
billed the City of New Orleans $977,195.93 in total charges related to crime
camera deployments.
253. Eventually, the New Orleans crime camera deployment was declared
complete on July 31, 2007, but only after Anthony Jones stepped down as MOT
CTO for accepting illegal gratuities from Ciber in the form of airplane tickets to a
conference speaking engagement.
254. In June of 2009, and just prior to the New Orleans trial against NetMethods
scheduled for October of 2009, individual employees from NetMethods began to
transition their employment to MMR Constructors, Inc. Upon transfer, MMR
Constructors, Inc. created a d/b/a called MMR Communications. Upon
information and belief, MMR Communications contracted with St. Pierre.
Moreover, the following former MOT Employees and/or NetMethods employees
did transition their employment to MMR Communications: Hodges, Charbonnet,
Stevenson, Brent Lajaunie and Michael Merritt (“Merrit”). CamSoft further
notes that Ridge of Dell did terminate his employment with Dell at some
presently unknown time, and started to work for either NetMethods or MMR
Communications, where Ridge now currently works.
91
255. CamSoft alleges that St. Pierre did knowingly enter into an agreement to
secretly transfer NetMethods’ business, assets and employees to NetMethods in
order to protect these individuals from the effects of the New Orleans litigation,
which ultimately ended with a multi-million dollar judgment against
NetMethods. MMR Communications even took over NetMethods’ former
Petroleum Drive office space in Baton Rouge. Mr. Rody Rispone, counsel for
MMR Communications, has denied any connection with NetMethods in written
correspondence with The Advocate, Baton Rouge’s daily newspaper. Mr.
Risponse even threatened to take legal action if there was any mention of a
connection between NetMethods and MMR Communications by the newspaper.
256. MMR Communications was granted a state contract to sell video surveillance
solutions on October 1, 2009. In an effort to continue steering the surveillance
camera equipment, installation and maintenance business to MMR
Communications, MMR Communications officials met with Captain Roger Tully
and other BRPD officials on January 25, 2010. From his NetMethods email
account, Brent Lajaunie wrote Captain Tully, “Roger, I know you are meeting
with MMR today. Is there anything you need to go over with me prior?”
257. During this meeting, January 25, 2010 meeting, MMR Communications
officials, presumably former employees of NetMethods, notified BRPD officials
MMR Communications was acquiring NetMethods’ business or that NetMethods
would be a division of MMR Communications. MMR Communications further
assured BRPD officials that the personnel working on the crime camera project
would remain the same, and that MMR Communications would simply pick-up
92
billing the City of Baton Rouge for hardware equipment maintenance on its
LANBMPC where NetMethods left off.
258. Having just met with BRPD officials on January 25, 2010, not seven (7) days
later, on February 2, 2010, MMR Communications issued an Invoice to the City of
Baton Rouge for “Phase 2 Maintenance – Cameras” for the period January 1,
2010 through March 31, 2010 in the amount of $29,144.03. Notably, this invoice
may violate Section 14 of the Louisiana Constitution because it bills a municipal
agency for a service not already performed (i.e. invoice dated February 2, 2010
for work to be performed through March 31, 2010).
259. On a BRPD “Departmental Route Slip” Captain Tully and Chief of Police Jeff
LeDuff both signed off on the Phase 2 camera maintenance costs totaling
$97,793.12 payable to MMR Constructors. The route slip states, “This is the
invoice for maintenancing (sic) the CAMERAS, INFRASTRUCTURE & MESH for
the City Parish Camera Canopy System (including 47 remaining Phase 1 cameras
purchased with a Homeland Security grant through EOC) for the first 90 days of
2010…5 invoices are attached from MMR who have assumed this part of Net
Methods business. Attached is MMR’s W-9 if needed.” (Emphasis added)
260. On March 9, 2010, Simon Kwan, a city employee charged with BRPD
purchases, wrote Captain Tully, “Roger Just got off the phone with Cliff. He told
me after he looked into the state contract and called around the contact person
with no avail and you haven’t returned his call. He finally got hold of someone in
MMR. But after he finished greeting some information from that person, he
basically told MMR to discontinue doing anything regarding the maintenance;
93
because they have no existing insurance coverage, the two accounts MMR used
to have with the City had to be closed down. In particular there were too many
loose ends and details that he has no information to go by. So this is the status of
maintenance.” Roger Tully then forwarded this email to Evans, who allegedly
accepted the gratuities from NetMethods in January of 2007. In reply, Evans
asked Captain Tully to forward the email to Ridge, the former employee of Dell
who now works for MMR Communications. Captain Tully replied to Donald
Evans, “Chuck [Fairburn] says Billy [Ridge] is working it out.”
261. CamSoft alleges that MMR Communications is now financially profiting from
the trade secrets learned by the MOT Employees in the course of their
employment as MOT Employees. CamSoft further maintains that MMR
Communications is continuing to receive preferential treatment from Evans and
Baton Rouge city officials given their prior business dealings with NetMethods,
and the other MOT Employees.
262. The most recent information obtained to date indicates that as of June 29,
2010, BRPD officials issued another “Departmental Routing Slip” granting MMR
Communications an additional $95,948.12 in maintenance work for both Phase 2
and Phase 1 wireless surveillance cameras. Although the exact time frame
covered by the $95,948.12 is unclear, CamSoft alleges that this amount is but a
small fraction of the maintenance costs paid by the City of Baton Rouge for total
annual hardware maintenance. For example, the 2009 Annual Operating Budget
alone allocated $450,000 per year to NetMethods.
94
263. CamSoft further alleges that NetMethods, and now MMR Communications,
has violated, and continues to violate, respectively, the state public bid laws on
hardware maintenance in connection with the crime camera system in Baton
Rouge. On November 4, 2009, Denise Lea issued Memorandum OSP 10-04
regarding “Guidelines for Procurement of Software, Software Maintenance,
Hardware Maintenance and Software Support Services.” The Memorandum’s
attached flow-chart suggests that hardware maintenance, like that performed on
the video surveillance system in Baton Rouge, costing less than $100,000 may be
purchased under a state brand name contract. However, Memorandum OSP 10-
04 further noted that hardware maintenance costs may not be artificially
divided to circumvent the $100,000 threshold.
264. CamSoft alleges that the City of Baton Rouge is allocating more than the
$100,000 threshold for annual hardware maintenance costs. Accordingly, this
type of recurring hardware maintenance should be issued according to the RFP
or sealed competitive bid process. Moreover, individual invoices for work
performed exceeds the single line item list threshold of $25,000.00. See
Memorandum OSP 10-02 dated August 31, 2009 reducing line item limit from
$50,000 to $25,000.
265. CamSoft alleges that Evans’ continued direct influence and involvement in
the immediate transfer of hardware maintenance costs from NetMethods to
MMR Communications indicated by the above referenced emails further
illustrates that the gratuities paid to Evans by NetMethods continues to promote
95
the steering of wireless video surveillance business to a preferred vendor, MMR
Communications.
FEDERAL CAUSES OF ACTION
VIOLATIONS OF SECTION 1 OF THE SHERMAN ACT, 15 U.S.C. §1, AND

SECTION 4 OF THE CLAYTON ACT, 15 U.S.C §15
266. As a private party, CamSoft has standing to enforce the Sherman Act through
Section 4 of the Clayton Act, 15 U.S.C. §15(a). CamSoft is a juridical entity injured
in both its municipal wi-fi systems and wireless video surveillance systems
business by reason of the actions forbidden in the antitrust laws. CamSoft seeks
recovery of treble damages, cost of suit and reasonable attorney fees. CamSoft’s
federal antitrust claims are governed by a four year statute of limitations.
267. CamSoft alleges Sherman Act violations against the following defendants:
MOT Employees, including Meffert, St. Pierre, Kurt, Domke, Hastings, Drake,
Charbonnet, Hodges and Stevenson, their Privately Held Companies, including
Imagine Consulting, NetMethods, Veracent, Logistix and AMI Consulting, Dell
Marketing, Dell, including its employees, Renecker, Ridge and Smith, Active
Solutions, and its owners, Fitzpatrick and Burkhardt, Southern Electronics, and
its owner, Perrin, Ciber, Evans, Tolpegin, Berryman, Earthlink, Motorola and
MMR Communications (collectively referred to as the “Antitrust Defendants”).
268. The relevant product market is municipal wi-fi systems and accompanying
applications, which include but are not necessarily limited to wireless video
surveillance systems and emergency personnel communication systems running
on said municipal wi-fi systems.
96
269. The relevant geographical market is all state and local governmental
agencies within the State of Louisiana.
270. Following the Dell Alliance Members’ July 8, 2004 Meeting, the Dell Alliance
Members did expressly determine and learn that the sale of the Sony
surveillance cameras were expressly excluded from sale under the applicable
WSCA Contract made a part and parcel of Dell Marketing’s December 20, 2004
Contract under the OSP’s LABNMPC. Moreover, the limitations of the LABNMPC
did not expressly permit the sale of the Tropos wireless networking equipment
at the time of Dell’s sales. See November 21, 2006 OSP Memorandum 07-03.
271. Notwithstanding, the Antitrust Defendants did contract, combine and
conspire to product an anticompetitive effect by: (1) bundling their respective
equipment otherwise violating both the WSCA Contract and the LABNMPC; (2)
knowingly marketing said bundled system to state and local governmental
officials; (3) fraudulently advising said local governmental officials that no
request for proposal or competitive bid process was required; (4) knowingly,
illegally selling said bundled equipment under Dell and Dell Marketing’s
December 20, 2004 Contract through the LABNMPC process; (5) knowingly,
illegally disguising said sale through intentionally misleading Dell and Dell
Marketing invoices that intentionally did not identify the word “camera,” nor
properly identified the wireless nature of the Tropos equipment bundled
therein; (6) knowingly, improperly paying for the installation said bundled
equipment in New Orleans through Ciber’s un-amended contract of deliverables;
and (7) knowingly, illegally and artificially dividing the sale of said bundled
97
hardware equipment and hardware maintenance under the $250,000 and
$100,000 limitations applicable to NetMethods’ LABNMPC July 27, 2007
Contract. These actions were committed with the specific intent to circumvent
the applicable state public bid laws; thereby, producing an anticompetitive effect
for the applicable product market in the relevant geographical market place.
272. While Active Solutions and Southern Electronics were removed as Dell
Alliance Members prior to the actual sale of said bundled equipment to the cities
of New Orleans, Gretna, Lafayette and Baton Rouge, Active Solutions and
Southern Electronics remain proper Antitrust Defendants. Active Solutions and
Southern Electronics knowingly agreed, combined and conspired to sell said
bundled equipment through Dell Marketing’s December 20, 2004 Contract in
conformity with the parties July 8, 2004 Meeting discussions. In fact, Active
Solutions and Southern Electronics brought suit in New Orleans for their loss of
profits associated with these antitrust sales opportunities.
273. Furthermore, in order to receive preferential political influence for the New
Orleans franchise agreement, Meffert, the MOT Employees, their Privately Held
Companies, Tolpegin, Berryman, Earthlink, Sege, Carr, Kirk, Tropos and
Motorola, did contract, combine and conspire to product an anticompetitive
effect by: (1) knowingly negotiating reciprocal dealing and tying arrangements
to the benefit of the MOT Employees’ Privately Held Companies; (2) executed
reciprocal dealing and tying arrangements with NetMethods following the award
of the franchise agreement to NetMethods. These actions were taken with the
express purpose and intent to circumvent the state public bid laws and
98
otherwise produced an anticompetitive effect to those other municipal wi-fi
systems suppliers seeking to provide said system to the City of New Orleans.
274. These agreements, combinations and conspiracies produced an
anticompetitive effect within the entire relevant product market and
geographical marketplace because state and local government officials did not
otherwise negotiate with competing vendors, or appropriately issue requests for
proposals or competitive sealed bids in compliance with state law. CamSoft
further alleges that said agreements, combinations and conspiracies further
produced an anticompetitive effect within the relevant product market and
geographical market because public officials and persons with apparent public
authority, including Meffert, Drake, Evans, MOT Employees, and other presently
unknown employees within the City of New Orleans (as per Ciber’s
reconciliation statements), allegedly received unlawful gratuities or exclusive
dealing arrangements that financially benefitted those persons. These
payments, gratuities, kickbacks, reciprocal dealing and tying arrangements
produced a patently apparent anticompetitive effect. The object of said
agreements, combinations and conspiracies was illegal due to the intentional
nature of those concerted actions to otherwise circumvent Louisiana’s public
bids laws. (“Concerted action to eliminate competitive bidding violates the
Sherman Act.”) See Harkins Amusement Enters., Inc. v. General Cinema Corp., 850
F.2d 477, 487 (9th Cir. 1988); see also Larry R. George Sales So. V. Cool Attic Corp.,
587 F.2d 266 (5th Cir. 1979).
99
275. CamSoft further alleges that it sustained a direct economic, antitrust injury as
a result of the Antitrust Defendants’ alleged agreement, combination and
conspiracy to violate the federal anti-trust laws. CamSoft clearly alleged facts
demonstrating its years of good faith efforts to market its municipal wi-fi system
and wireless video surveillance systems to both the City of New Orleans and the
City of Baton Rouge, as well as across various parts of South Louisiana. CamSoft
further alleged facts showing that the Antitrust Defendants were initially
competing, or potentially competing for business, in places as far away as West
Hollywood, CA. Moreover, the Antitrust Defendants’ inducement of state and
local governments to illegally circumvent Louisiana’s public bid laws not only
disrupted CamSoft’s good faith sales and marketing efforts, but had a wide
spread anticompetitive effect on the entire product market within the
geographical marketplace. Accordingly, CamSoft’s associated injury is the
product of both competitive injury and antitrust injury.
276. CamSoft’s economic injury is further the type of which the antitrust laws
were intended to prevent, and that which flows from the Antitrust Defendants’
unlawful acts. CamSoft is well within the boundaries of the target product
market subject of this dispute and falls within the class of individuals whom the
laws were intended to protect. CamSoft was a direct competitor for sales of
municipal wi-fi systems and wireless video surveillance systems, and did further
take active good faith measures to make such sales. CamSoft’s injury is exactly
the type of loss that the claimed antitrust violations would likely cause.
100
277. CamSoft further alleges that the Antitrust Defendants’ agreement,
combination and conspiracy constitutes a per se violation of Section 1 of the
Sherman Act. Said actions constitute per se violations due to the horizontal
anticompetitive nature of the agreements, combinations and conspiracies
against competitors. Horizontal combinations are agreements among
competitors that restrain competition among enterprises at the same market
level of distribution. These are generally considered facially unreasonable and
are therefore illegal per se.
278. As CamSoft and the Antitrust Defendants were at the same market level of
distribution, the Antitrust Defendants’ horizontal agreement, combination and
conspiracy had a clear pernicious effect on competition at the same level of
distribution. Moreover, said agreement, combination and conspiracy was utterly
lacking any redeeming virtue, and, therefore, should be conclusively presumed
to be unreasonable and illegal without any elaborate inquiry as to the precise
harm that it has caused or any business excuse for such reprehensible behavior.
279. CamSoft further alleges that the clear objective intent of the Antitrust
Defendants’ agreement, combination and conspiracy was to effect a group
boycott of not only CamSoft, but all other vendors, including Google, Yahoo and
Microsoft, who were also seeking to provide the same or similar market product
in the defined geographical marketplace. The Antitrust Defendants’ fraudulent
representation that procurement of the product market from Dell’s LANBMPC
December 20, 2004 Contract was legal and appropriate both improperly
influenced or persuaded or coerced state and local governments to deny
101
relationships the other competitors needed in the competitive struggle to
provide the same or similar systems and applications. This influence, persuasion
or coercion was further enhanced by the illegal gratuities mentioned above.
280. CamSoft further alleges that the Antitrust Defendants’ engaged in reciprocal
dealing or tying arrangements, which are also per se violations of Section 1 of the
Sherman Act. See Northern Pacific Railway Co. v. United States, 356 U.S. 1 (1958);
Spartan Grain & Mill Co. v. Ayers, 581 F.2d 419 (5th Cir. 1978). Specifically,
Meffert used his power and authority as MOT CTO to require Ciber to use the
MOT Employees’ Privately Held Companies, including Imagine Consulting,
NetMethods and Veracent, and ultimately for his own personal financial benefit
through Logistix. AMI Consulting further benefited as it received all the benefits
of the information Drake learned while employed as a MOT Employee employed
by same. These reciprocal agreements and tying arrangements had an
anticompetitive effect because they were ultimately used as means to disrupt the
joint venture agreement between CamSoft, Active Solutions and Southern
Electronics for Baton Rouge business and the fulfillment of the July 19, 2004
Contract. For example, Meffert and Kurt used the reciprocal dealing and tying
arrangements with Ciber to otherwise fund the installation of the New Orleans
crime cameras, which were knowingly, illegally purchased via Dell’s December
20, 2004 Contract. Furthermore, Meffert’s reciprocal dealing and tying
arrangement negotiated between Tropos, Earthlink and Motorola ended all
potential competition for the municipal wi-fi system deployment in New Orleans.
102
281. CamSoft further notes that if its factual allegations create an inference that
the Antitrust Defendants’ activities were per se unlawful, the requirement to
plead a relevant market is lifted, as the anticompetitive effects of the Antitrust
Defendants’ activities are considered facially apparent.
282. In the event that said agreements, combinations or conspiracies do not
constitute per se violations of Section 1 of the Sherman Act, CamSoft alleges that
the aforementioned anti-competitive effects violate the “rule of reason,” in that
there is no precompetitive justification for the Antitrust Defendants’ unlawful
and anticompetitive activities.
283. CamSoft further alleges that the alleged Sherman Act violations involve
interstate commerce as the Antitrust Defendants who financially rewarded in
said transactions included out of state actors, involved out of state products and
the said sales proceeds flowed outside the State of Louisiana.
VIOLATION OF SECTION 2(C) OF THE ROBINSON-PATMAN ACT,

15 U.S.C. §13(C)
284. CamSoft alleges that the Antitrust Defendants, except Active Solutions and
Southern Electronics, and owners of same, due to their May 17, 2006 exclusion
as Dell Alliance Members before the sale of crime cameras to the City of New
Orleans and City of Baton Rouge, violated Section 2(c) of the Robinson-Patman
Act, 15 U.S.C. §13(c). CamSoft alleges that Evans, Meffert, Drake and the other
MOT Employees received bribes, gratuities, kickbacks, reciprocal dealings and
tying arrangements that otherwise influenced their respective decision making
authority and influence for sales of goods and services with the City of Baton
Rouge and City of New Orleans. Such “commercial bribery” constitutes a per se
103
violation of Section 2(c) of the Robinson-Patman Act, which is inherently
anticompetitive to competitors. Section 2(c) of the Robinson-Patman Act has a
four (4) year statute of limitations.
285. CamSoft alleges that Section 2(c) of the Robinson-Patman Act was violated
due to improper and unearned gratuities paid to Evans, a public servant with
significant influence over the decision making authority for the municipal wi-fi
systems and wireless surveillance system deployments in Baton Rouge. Upon
information and belief, and as reported by the Times Picayune in New Orleans, a
leaked NetMethods’ email indicates that NetMethods paid for a hotel stay for
Evans at the New Orleans hotel, Le Cirque, on or about January of 2007.
286. CamSoft further alleges that Section 2(c) of the Robinson-Patman Act was
violated due to improper and unearned gratuities paid to Meffert, a public
servant with significant influence over the decision making authority for the
municipal wi-fi systems and wireless video surveillance system deployments in
New Orleans. Meffert received approximately $130,954.70 in gratuities paid
through the use of a NetMethods’ credit card; received a $35,000 payment to
Meffert’s wife; and also received approximately $647,426.25 as per the $67,000
per month consulting fee agreement between NetMethods and Logistix. Troops
also paid for Meffert’s flights to speaking engagements. And Earthlink and
Motorola promised future reciprocal dealing and tying arrangements with the
MOT Employees’ Privately Held Companies if Meffert and the MOT Employees
landed the New Orleans franchise agreement through the city council vote.
104
287. CamSoft further alleges that Section 2(c) of the Robinson-Patman Act was
violated due to the improper gratuities paid to Drake, who also constitutes a
person with apparent public authority. Drake was intimately involved with
negotiations for both the wireless video surveillance system and municipal wi-fi
systems deployments with the City of New Orleans. Specifically, Tropos paid for
Drake’s flights to and from technology conferences and Congressional hearings,
and, upon information and belief, hotel accommodations also.
288. The gratuities paid to Evans, Meffert and Drake financially benefitted the
Antitrust Defendants and went to the financial detriment of CamSoft. These
gratuities continue to benefit such defendants as MMR Communications through
their “acquiring” of NetMethods’ employees and products, including the
immediate benefit of ongoing hardware maintenance services for the City of
Baton Rouge. As the primary persons and agents charged with making and
recommending sound computer and technical services decisions, Evans, Meffert,
Drake and the other MOT Employees owed fiduciary relationships as agents,
representatives or other intermediaries involving the sales transactions of
municipal wi-fi systems and wireless video surveillance systems between the
Antitrust Defendants and the City of Baton Rouge and the City of New Orleans.
289. CamSoft further maintains that the alleged violations of the Robinson-
Patman Act involve interstate commerce as the Antitrust Defendants financially
rewarded in said transactions included out of state actors, involved out of state
products and the said sales proceeds flowed outside the State of Louisiana.
105
290. CamSoft alleges that the Section 2(c) violation caused a direct economic, anti-
trust injury. CamSoft alleges an antitrust injury directly related to the alleged
commercial bribery of Donald Evans. CamSoft clearly alleged facts showing that
as early as mid-2003 CamSoft was seeking meetings with Baton Rouge city
officials, including Evans, to market and sell the same municipal wi-fi system and
wireless video surveillance system. CamSoft even installed demonstration
Tropos equipment free of charge at BRPD headquarters, and conducted
meetings with BRPD officials in October of 2004 for the express purpose of
marketing its municipal wi-fi systems and wireless video surveillance systems.
Moreover, CamSoft’s sales and marketing efforts to Baton Rouge officials were
conducted well before NetMethods or Veracent were even formed in August of
2004 and January of 2006, respectively. CamSoft alleges that these gratuities to
Evans directly resulted in Baton Rouge’s $3.5 million sale of said equipment to
NetMethods, which financially benefited the Antitrust Defendants. Moreover,
this gratuity further caused Baton Rouge officials to artificially break-up the $3.5
million sale in increments of less than $250,000 in order to intentionally
circumvent the LANBMPC thresholds.
291. CamSoft further alleges an antitrust injury directly related to the gratuities
paid to Drake and Meffert. These gratuities resulted in an interruption of the
July 19, 2004 Contract through arbitrary and capricious delays for camera
deployments and payments, including an illegal circumvention of the July 19,
2004 Contract through direct sales of said wireless video surveillance system via
Dell Marketing’s December 20, 2004 Contract. The non-deployment of the July
106
19, 2004 Contract directly, financially harmed CamSoft. The gratuities further
resulted in CamSoft’s inability to compete for the municipal wi-fi system
ultimately deployed by Earthlink. CamSoft was clearly discussing issuance of an
RFP for this deployment before the franchise agreement was awarded to
Earthlink.
292. CamSoft seeks treble damages in order to curtail such purely pernicious
business practices in the marketplace. Finally, CamSoft alleges that injury to
overall competition (i.e. competitive injury) is not required as commercial
bribery under Section 2(c) of the Robinson-Patman Acts constitutes an absolute,
per se antitrust violation.
VIOLATION OF SECTION 1962(C) OF THE RACKETEER INFLUENCED AND

CORRUPT ORGANIZATIONS ACT, 18 U.S.C. §§1962(c)
293. As a private party, CamSoft has standing to enforce violations of the
Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act, 18 U.S.C. §§1961-1968
(“RICO”), as a person injured in his business and property by reasons of a
violation of Section 1962(c). CamSoft seeks recovery of treble damages, costs of
suit and reasonable attorney fees. 18 U.S.C. §1964(c). CamSoft’s civil RICO
claims are governed by a four (4) year statute of limitations.
294. CamSoft alleges that the following persons constitute “RICO Persons” who
engaged in a pattern of racketeering activity connected to the acquisition,
establishment, conduct or participation in a RICO enterprise: Meffert, Linda
Meffert, St. Pierre, Kurt, Domke, Hastings, Drake, Charbonnet, Hodges and
Stevenson, the MOT Employees’ Privately Held Companies, including Imagine
Consulting, NetMethods, Veracent, Logistix and AMI Consulting, Dell, Dell
107
Marketing, and its employee, Ridge, Ciber, Sege, Carr, Tropos, Tolpegin,
Berryman, Earthlink and Motorola. CamSoft may have RICO claims against a
municipal officer in his individual capacity, but not against the municipality
itself. See United States v. Emond, 935 F.2d 1511, 1512 (7th Cir. 1991).
295. CamSoft alleges that the RICO Persons engaged in a three and one-half (3
1/2) year pattern of racketeering activity by conducting and/or participating in
an enterprise and scheme involving public bribery chargeable under Louisiana
state law and punishable by imprisonment for more than one year. 18 U.S.C.
§1961(1)(A) (prohibiting conduct intended, at least by the alleged briber, as an
assault on the integrity of a public office or an official action). Specifically, La.
R.S. 14:118 prohibits public bribery (i.e. the giving or offering to give, directly or
indirectly, anything of apparent present or prospective value to any of the
following persons, with the intent to influence his conduct in relation to his
position, employment or duty). This includes public officers, public employees
or persons in a position of public authority, or as defined by La. R.S. 14:2(9).
296. From at least November of 2004 through July of 2006, Meffert, a public
employee, made approximately $130,954.70 in personal charges on the
NetMethods’ AMEX credit card in his name. These credit card privileges were
granted to Meffert in exchange for his directing of millions of dollars in IT
Services work to Ciber, which include but is not limited to the purchase and
installation of crime cameras, through the City of New Orleans. In turn, Ciber
then agreed to funnel the money to the MOT Employees’ Privately Held
Companies, Imagine Consulting, NetMethods, Veracent and Logistix. In exchange
108
for the directing of millions of dollars in IT Services work through reciprocal
dealing and tying arrangements, after his resignation in July of 2007, Meffert,
through his company Logistix, signed a contract with St. Pierre’s company,
NetMethods. NetMethods agreed to pay Meffert $67,000 per month for
consulting services. From August 4, 2006 through May 14, 2007, Meffert
received approximately $647,426.25 under this agreement. Meffert also
received significant gratuities in the form of a silent ownership interest and use
in a yacht called the “Silicon Bayou”, which was owned by St. Pierre’s company,
Method Investments, LLC (“Method Investments”). Linda Meffert, on behalf of
herself and Meffert, also received a $38,000 bribe through her company, The
Bottom Line Company: Strategic Financial Consulting, LLC. Linda Meffert, on
behalf of herself and Meffert, also received bribes in the form of $35,000 in
household expenses.
297. CamSoft further maintains that all MOT Employees were intimately familiar
with Meffert’s direct control and silent ownership over Imagine Consulting,
NetMethods and Veracent. For example, St. Pierre, Kurt, Domke and Hastings
were all co-owners of Imagine Consulting, who understood that Meffert was
steering them “no-bid” business; emails indicate that Domke even asked for
Meffert’s preference for NetMethods’ website after its creation; Drake began
working for Meffert’s company, Logistix, following Meffert’s resignation; Drake’s
father, an attorney, helped to structure the deal between Logistix and
NetMethods; in emails from Meffert’s Logistix account, Domke was directed to
perform activities for Logistix; Charbonnet directly communicated with Perrin
109
via emails as a MOT employee, and then later submitted emails to Kurt for
bundled equipment price quotes as an employee of NetMethods; Stevenson and
Drake attended meetings with Baton Rouge officials through NetMethods; and
Hodges made executive decisions for NetMethods, including the expulsion of
Active Solutions and Southern Electronics as Dell Alliance Members. Thus, all
MOT Employees were active participants in the pubic bribery schemes with
Meffert and financially benefited from same.
298. Meffert, Drake and the MOT Employees, and for the benefit of their Privately
Held Companies, also negotiated with Tropos, Earthlink and Motorola, including
its respective defendant representatives, for prospective value in reciprocal
dealings and tying arrangements. Drake’s email even indicates that Motorola
stated that they would negotiate a contract with the MOT Employees’ Privately
Held Company, NetMethods, once the city council approved the franchise
agreements. CamSoft further alleges that these arrangements were eventually
executed through an agreement with Motorola to work as a subcontractor
during Earthlink’s deployment of the Tropos equipment, although the total
amount of money exchanged is currently unknown.
299. Meffert further directed the purchase through Ciber of the GoalView
educational software system. The City of New Orleans paid $1,850,000 for this
system. Notwithstanding, Ciber never provided the software system. Instead,
Ciber claims that it used these proceeds to pay for New Orleans’ new initiatives.
This is in addition to the strikingly large amounts of those invoices submitted by
Ciber to the City of New Orleans in July of 2006 alone (i.e. $1,596,497.76 and
110
$836,132.20). Moreover, Ciber used these proceeds to pay subcontracting
invoices submitted from the MOT Employees’ Privately Held Companies. Even
Ciber’s own reconciliation statements indicate the payment of gratuities to City
of New Orleans employees.
300. Mark Kurt immediately replaced Meffert as MOT CTO in July of 2006. Kurt
continued to illegally purchase the crime camera systems through Dell’s
December 20, 2004 Contract. Kurt also continued to pay for installation of the
crime camera systems via the illegal reciprocal dealing and tying arrangements
with Ciber. Kurt knowingly continued to use his power as MOT CTO to direct
payment of Ciber’s invoices for the subcontract invoices submitted by the MOT
Employees’ Privately Held Companies, including Imagine Consulting,
NetMethods and/or Veracent. Kurt was intimately familiar with the contractual
arrangements between NetMethods, Veracent and/or Imagine Consulting as he
was a co-owner of Imagine Consulting and an employee of Veracent immediately
prior to becoming MOT CTO. Kurt’s continued to steer millions of dollars in IT
Services work to Ciber, despite no appropriate change in contract deliverables.
CamSoft alleges that Kurt was offered and rewarded for his continued steering of
business to Ciber with the offer of a lucrative employment position with Ciber
before his resignation as MOT CTO in February of 2007. See United States v.
Perkins, 596 F.Supp. 528 (E.D.Pa. 1984) (offers of future employment sufficient
to uphold RICO bribery charges).
301. Following Kurt’s resignation, another employee of MOT, Anthony Jones,
continued steering millions of dollars to Ciber in IT Services work and related
111
wireless video surveillance installations. Ciber continued receiving this IT
Services work under its original contract and amendments through at least July
31, 2008. Jones ultimately resigned after it was discovered that Ciber paid
improper gratuities for flights to speaking engagements.
302. Tropos also paid gratuities to Drake and Meffert up to and through July 18,
2005, Meffert’s resignation date. Tropos paid for flights, and upon information
and belief, hotel accommodations for several speaking engagements in Orlando,
FL and Washington D.C. Although Drake was technically a contracted employee
to the City of New Orleans, Drake constitutes a person in position of public
authority as defined by La. R.S. 14:118 and 14:(2)9, particularly considering his
affirmative statements, actions, business cards and emails address indicating
that he was a direct employee within the City of New Orleans.
303. CamSoft further shows that these predicate acts of various public bribery and
gratuity offerings to Meffert, Kurt and Jones spanned a period of over 3 ½ years,
from at least November of 2004 through July 31, 2008. In United States v.
Dischner, 974 F.2d 1502, 1510-11 (9th Cir. 1992), the Ninth Circuit found three
years to be a substantial period of time for a bribery scheme; thus, satisfying the
United States Supreme Court’s “closed-ended continuity” concept discussed in
H.J. Inc. v. Northwestern Bell Telephone Company, 492 U.S. 229, 109 S.Ct. 2893,
106 L.Ed.2d 195 (1989). CamSoft further alleges that the enterprise continues to
pose a continuing threat under the Northwestern Court’s “open-ended
continuity” concept, as the alleged bribery scheme still results in income to
certain RICO Persons contracted through or employed by MMR Communications.
112
304. CamSoft alleges that the RICO enterprise operated by the RICO Persons was
City of New Orleans. Municipalities may be considered RICO enterprises. The
City of New Orleans functions as municipal entity organized for the purpose of
legally governing and operating the city. Thus, the City of New Orleans is a
formal organization made up of multiple elected officials and departmental
agencies all functioning as a continuing unit over time through a hierachical or
consensual decision-making structure. Moreover, outsiders who exert control
over an enterprise may also be liable, such as an outsider who exerts control
through bribery. See Reves v. Ernst & Young, 507 U.S. 170, 184, 113 S.Ct. 1163,
122 L.Ed.2d 525 (1993).
305. In the alternative, CamSoft alleges a RICO enterprise consisting of an
association-in-fact of those aforementioned RICO Persons. CamSoft maintains
that the RICO Persons existed separate and apart from the pattern of activity
through which it conducted. Dell and Dell Marketing were in the legitimate
business of selling computer hardware and software related equipment. Ciber
was in the legitimate business of providing IT Services. Tropos was in the
legitimate business of selling wireless networking equipment. Earthlink was in
the legitimate ISP business. And the MOT Employees, and their Privately Held
Companies, were also in the business of providing IT Services. The alleged
enterprise associated for the common goal and purpose of selling and installing
municipal wi-fi systems and wireless video surveillance systems. Thus, the
alleged enterprise could have legally existed absent the predicate acts described
above.
113
306. CamSoft further maintains that the association-in-fact enterprise functioned
as a continuing unit shown by a hierarchical or consensual making structure. To
carry out their common goal and purpose, Dell and Dell Marketing knowingly
bundled their computer hardware equipment with Tropos’ MESH Technology
and Veracent’s and NetMethods’ crime camera system. Dell and Dell Marketing,
and specifically Ridge, who attended meetings with Baton Rouge officials and
was intimately familiar with the MOT Employees’ Privately Held Companies,
directly conducted and participated in the enterprise’s operation by directing
the sale of the bundled equipment through Dell Marketing’s LANBMPC
December 20, 2004 Contract, and corresponding distribution of said proceeds to
the MOT Employees’ Privately Held Companies. Ciber directly conducted and
participated in the enterprise’s operation by using its IT Services contract with
the City of New Orleans as a billing mechanism for the installation of said crime
cameras, and corresponding distribution of said proceeds to the MOT
Employees’ Privately Held Companies. Tropos participated in the enterprise by
supplying the MESH Technology sold to the City of New Orleans. Earthlink and
Motorola also participated in the enterprise by selling its goods and services to
the City of New Orleans through the franchise agreement. The MOT Employees,
and their Privately Held Companies, conducted and participated in the
enterprise’s operations by using their decision making authority and purchasing
agent power within the City of New Orleans to unilaterally purchase the bundled
equipment through Dell’s contract, and further by participating in the
installation of the bundled equipment through Ciber’s subcontracting
114
agreements with the Privately Held Companies. Thus, there existed a definite
organizational pattern and system of authority that provided a direct
mechanism for directing the groups’ ongoing and continuous affairs with the
City of New Orleans.
307. CamSoft alleges that the RICO Persons violated Section 1962(c), which was
intended to prevent the operation of a legitimate businesses or unions through a
pattern of racketeering activity. Section 1962(c) imposes liability on those who
conduct or participate, directly or indirectly, in the conduct of such enterprise’s
affairs through a pattern of racketeering activity. Conduct is defined as
individuals who participate in the operation or management of the enterprise
itself. CamSoft has previously explained how all parties conducted and
participated in the conduct of the enterprise’s affairs otherwise operated
through a pattern of racketeering activity.
308. CamSoft further notes that Dell, Dell Marketing and Ridge did not simply
provide goods and services to the enterprise. Dell, Dell Marketing and Ridge did
willingly conduct and participate in the operation by knowingly, illegally
marketing and selling the bundled equipment via Dell’s LANBMPC to the City of
New Orleans. Ridge even left his employment with Dell to continue his conduct
and participation through direct his employment with either NetMethods or
MMR Communications, with whom he now works. CamSoft also notes that
Tropos, Earthlink and Motorola also did not simply provide goods and services.
Each party and their respective representatives did knowingly engage in actions
that constitute public bribery. Furthermore, Ciber did not simply provide goods
115
and services to the enterprise either, but rather voluntarily entered into the
reciprocal dealing and tying arrangements described above. Ciber knowingly
billed the City of New Orleans for crime camera installation charges falling
outside its contract of deliverables, and directly funneled this money to the MOT
Employees’ Privately Held Companies. Ciber did further use $1,850,000 without
proper authority from the City of New Orleans. Finally, the MOT Employees and
their Privately Held Companies conducted and participated in the intimate
business operations of both the City of New Orleans and the association-in-fact
enterprise as described above.
309. CamSoft reincorporates the above analysis and further alleges that certain
RICO Persons did also violate Section 1962(a). CamSoft alleges that the MOT
Employees, and their Privately Held Companies, Dell, Dell Marketing and Ridge,
derived significant revenue from the unlawful bribery scheme committed
through the City of New Orleans, or, in the alternative, association-in-fact
enterprise described above. The RICO Persons did otherwise use this income to
finance the operation of NetMethods, Dell, Dell Marketing and Veracent.
NetMethods then used this income to pay for those alleged gratuities to Evans,
Baton Rouge’s CTO, in January of 2007. NetMethods’ corresponding award of
the $3.5 million for the Phase II Security Canopy Project in June of 2007
produced, in part, the income stream used to pay Meffert’s exorbitant $67,000
per month consulting fee. Thus, the income derived from the RICO enterprise
was used to further its business dealings with the City of Baton Rouge.
Consequently, these RICO Persons received and continue to receive income from
116
the Baton Rouge crime camera installation, with the more recent income derived
from their new association with MMR Communications, which was created as a
means to transfer over NetMethods’ existing and on-going business. Thus,
CamSoft’s loss of associated business opportunity with the City of Baton Rouge
was proximately caused from the use and investment of the racketeering income
derived and received from the City of New Orleans RICO enterprise or
association-in-fact enterprise.
310. CamSoft reincorporates the above analysis and further alleges that the RICO
Persons did also violate Section 1962(d) by conspiring to violate Section 1962(c)
and 1962(a). CamSoft alleges that the RICO Persons were all part of a conspiracy
to generate millions of dollars in municipal wi-fi and wireless video surveillance
system sales through the City of New Orleans. The RICO Persons did generate
this income by and through the improperly influencing and causing of public
officials to circumvent the state public bids laws. Through a course of public
bribery, gratuities and kickbacks, the RICO Persons did actively further their
goals. Each RICO Person adopted, furthered and facilitated this common goal.
Through their intimate knowledge of the multi-faceted operations and mutual
employment relations, CamSoft alleges that each RICO Person knew or should
have known of the essential nature and scope of the enterprise, and that each
RICO Person did intend to participate and receive financial compensation from
it. (All conspirators are liable for the acts of their co-conspirators.) See Ducote
Jax Holdings, LLC v. Bradley, 2007 WL 2008505 (E.D.La. 2007); citing Oki
117
Semiconductor Co. v. Wells Fargo Bank Nat. Ass’n, 298 F.3d 768, 774-75 (9th Cir.
2002).
311. CamSoft alleges standing to pursue its RICO claims as a direct competitor in
the same product market and geographical marketplace with the RICO Persons.
CamSoft maintains that this pattern of racketeering not only proximately caused
the arbitrary and capricious interruption of the July 19, 2004 Contract, but
further illegally foreclosed CamSoft’s good faith attempts to compete for the
municipal wi-fi franchise agreement. Thus, CamSoft’s alleged damages were the
direct, foreseeable and intentional consequence of the alleged predicate acts
involving the payment of bribes and gratuities and directing of lucrative
contracts, which in turn paid more bribes. Such activities were directly intended
to circumvent the state’s public bidding statutes; thereby, denying CamSoft and
other vendors the opportunity to bid on deployments for municipal wi-fi
systems and accompanying applications, including the very wireless video
surveillance system CamSoft designed. See Astech-Marmon, Inc. v. Lenoci, 349
F.Supp.2d 265 (D.Ct. 2004).
312. Finally, CamSoft alleges that the above named RICO enterprises engaged in,
or the activities of which, affect, interstate commerce. The City of New Orleans
engaged in the purchase of goods and services from interstate commerce,
including those interstate RICO Persons. Moreover, the association-in-fact
enterprise was comprised of interstate RICO persons, and monies derived from
the enterprise’s operation did flow interstate.
118
LOUSIANA STATE LAW CAUSES OF ACTION
DECLARATION OF OWNERSHIP RIGHTS
313. On April 24, 2007, Active Solutions and Southern Electronics filed a lawsuit
against Dell and Dell corporate officials claiming breach of contract, unfair trade
practices, unjust enrichment and tortious interference. Active Solutions and
Southern Electronics claims were based, in part, on the July 8, 2004 Meeting and
subsequent non-disclosure agreements signed between the July 8, 2004 Meeting
participants. Until September 16, 2009, CamSoft and MacDonald remained
entirely unaware of the July 8, 2004 Meeting and the non-disclosure agreements.
In fact, MacDonald and CamSoft did not fully appreciate the extent of the
agreement, combination or conspiracy as described in CamSoft’s antitrust
allegations until it reviewed recently obtained discovery.
314. In the New Orleans litigation, Active Solutions and Southern Electronics
sought damages for their alleged, sole extensive research and testing of the
wireless video surveillance system. Active Solutions and Southern Electronics
claimed to have constructed a self-contained camera system, networking and
wireless gear and software with communications capabilities. Active Solutions
and Southern Electronics further claimed that they alone set up the six cameras
during the Pilot Project, which enabled wireless video communications to be
sent to police stations.
315. During Fitzpatrick’s deposition taken on Friday, June 27, 2008, Fitzpatrick
claimed that MacDonald and CamSoft played no role in the development of the
“box” housing the wireless electrical component parts. Fitzpatrick even went so
119
far as to testify that MacDonald had never seen the inside of Fitzpatrick’s prized
“box.” See Fitzpatrick Depo., pp. 356-357.
316. Despite having never worked with the Tropos equipment prior to the Pilot
Project, Fitzpatrick further refused to acknowledge that his understanding of the
MESH Technology resulted from his involvement with CamSoft and the Pilot
Project. See Fitzpatrick Depo., pp. 547:24-549:6.
317. CamSoft files the instant suit seeking a judicial declaration of CamSoft’s state
law ownership rights to the wireless video surveillance system that CamSoft
designed, constructed, tested and deployed in both the Pilot Project and the July
19, 2004 Contract deployment. CamSoft alleges ownership rights under
Louisiana’s codal provisions, specifically including the accession of movables
articles. See La. C.C. arts. 482, 507, 513 and 514.
318. CamSoft further claims entitlement to any and all of the future fruits derived
from CamSoft’s ownership rights connected with the wireless video surveillance
system, including CamSoft’s right to any monetary proceeds either derived from
settlement or judgment in the matter of Active Solutions, et al v. Dell, Inc., Docket
No. 2007-3665, Div. “B”, Orleans Civil District Court, State of Louisiana. CamSoft
seeks entitlement to same under Louisiana’s codal provisions, specifically
including 797, 798, 803 and 818.
319. CamSoft further claims an ownership interest in the wireless video
surveillance system by virtue of its status as an alleged co-joint venturer, which
also presents another form of ownership. The wireless video surveillance
system was initially designed during the Pilot Project. Moreover, the wireless
120
video surveillance system’s design changed during the course of the deployment
under the July 19, 2004 Contract and those meetings with the BRPD officials in
October of 2004.
320. CamSoft further notes that Active Solutions and Southern Electronics, and its
defendants owners, never once notified CamSoft of their filing of a patent
application for the said wireless crime camera system. Whereas the question of
inventorship involving a pending patent application is properly before Director
of the United States Patent and Trademark Office, CamSoft does allege the
existence of a state law constructive trust of ownership over any future patent
that might otherwise accrue from the patent application. Active Solutions and
Southern Electronics owe this duty of constructive trust by virtue of the United
States Supreme Court’s decision of Becher v. Contour Laboratories, Inc., 279 U.S.
388 (1929).
321. CamSoft prays that the Court enter an order defining the use and
management of the wireless video surveillance system, including a division of all
fruits derived therefrom, in accordance with the trier of facts factual
determination of the proportionate ownership share between CamSoft, Southern
Electronics and Active Solutions. See La. C.C. arts. 803 and 818. CamSoft further
prays that the Court further order a division of all fruits derived therefrom in
accordance with the laws of partnership as they apply to joint ventures. Active
Solutions, et al v. Dell, Inc., Docket No. 2007-3665, Div. “B”, Orleans Civil District
Court, State of Louisiana.
121
LOUISIANA ANTI-TRUST STATUTE, LA R.S. 51:122
322. CamSoft alleges that the Antitrust Defendants violated Louisiana’s antitrust
statute, La. R.S. 51:122.
323. As Louisiana’s antitrust statute is nearly identical to Section 1 of the Sherman
Antitrust Act, 15 U.S.C. §1, supra, CamSoft incorporates, re-alleges and re-avers
the entirety of its allegations regarding same, supra.
LOUISIANA UNFAIR TRADE PRACTICES ACT, LA R.S. 51:1401
324. CamSoft alleges that it suffered direct economic loss as a result or proximate
cause of the following unfair and deceptive trade practices as described below.
325. Active Solutions and Southern Electronics, and respective owners, conspired
to commit and did participate in the following unfair and deceptive trade
practices with the specific intent to harm business competition: (1) knowingly
breaching their implied duty of confidence and fiduciary duty as joint venturers
in permitting the use and disclosure of CamSoft’s wireless video surveillance
network designs to Dell and the MOT Employees, and their respective Privately
Held Companies, more specifically Imagine Consulting, NetMethods and
Veracent, during their surreptitious July 8, 2004 Meeting; (2) knowingly
breaching their fiduciary duty of loyalty by entering into and failing to advise of
an agreement, combination or conspiracy with the MOT Employees and their
respective Privately Held Companies; (3) knowingly providing Dell and the MOT
Employees proprietary information relative to the wireless video surveillance
systems network designs; (4) knowingly participating in the sale of a wireless
video surveillance system to the City of Baton Rouge, while simultaneously
122
pretending to represent themselves as joint venturers with CamSoft while giving
a presentation to Baton Rouge city officials on or about October 15, 2004; (5)
filing a patent application for a wireless video surveillance camera knowing full
well that CamSoft participated in the wireless designs of said camera system; (6)
knowingly providing false information to CamSoft regarding the scope and
nature of the claims involved in the New Orleans litigation, and more specifically,
the amount of monetary damages that Active Solutions and Southern Electronics
were seeking at trial; and (7) any other unfair and deceptive act as described in
the detailed Factual Background.
326. The MOT Employees, and their Privately Held Companies, including
Imagine Consulting, NetMethods, Veracent, Logistix, AMI Consulting, and now
MMR Communications, conspired to commit and did participate in the following
unfair and deceptive trade practices with the specific intent to harm business
competition: (1) intentionally misrepresented the MOT Employees as direct
employees with the City of New Orleans; (2) intentionally misrepresented the
MOT Employees’ ownership, control and supervision of privately held and
competing IT Services provider companies; (3) unfairly and deceptively
misappropriated CamSoft’s proprietary network designs for the wireless video
surveillance system first developed during the Pilot Project and July 19, 2004
Contract deployment; (4) engaged in the bribery of public officials or persons
with apparent public authority, including Meffert, Drake and Evans; (5) attended
CamSoft’s October 15, 2004 Meeting with Baton Rouge city officials under the
guise of presenting positive testimonial for CamSoft’s design of the New Orleans
123
wireless video surveillance system’s network, but then secretly meeting with
Baton Rouge city officials on January 17, 2004 as representatives of NetMethods
and the purported designers of the New Orleans wireless crime camera system;
(6) conspired to interrupt the July 19 2004 Contract with false claims of
overcharging, intellectual property rights, unilateral changing of project
management duties, or 30 day no fault clause; (7) interrupted the July 19, 2004
Contract through arbitrary and capricious delayed camera deployments and
delayed payments; (8) fraudulently told MacDonald of CamSoft that the failure to
include his logo with the other partners involved in the New Orleans crime
camera deployment was purely unintentional; (9) accepted gratuities from
Tropos for promotional consideration of Tropos’ equipment in exchange for
Tropos’ coordination and silence regarding NetMethods’ negotiations with Baton
Rouge officials; (10) participated with Tropos employees in direct discussions
regarding those subcontract reciprocal dealing and tying arrangements with
Earthlink and Motorola; (11) conspired with Tropos to circumvent Louisiana’s
public bid laws as reflected in Meffert’s January 31, 2006 email; (10) conspired
with Ciber and Dell to knowingly continue the illegal sale and installation of
crime cameras to the City of New Orleans through Kurt after Meffert’s
resignation as MOT CTO; (12) fraudulently advised state and local officials that
purchase of the Dell Alliance Members’ wireless video surveillance solution was
proper and legal under Dell’s December 20, 2004 Contract; (13) fraudulently
advised state and local officials that they could properly circumvent the state
public bid laws by purchasing said system through Dell’s December 20, 2004
124
Contract; (14) fraudulently provided unfair and deceptive invoices to state and
local officials in order to promote the illegal circumvention the WSCA Contract
and LABNMPC restrictions on cameras and wireless networking equipment
sales; (15) knowingly engaged in an agreement and conspiracy to affect
competition through the illegal use of the OSP LANBMPC; (16) illegally
continued the sale of the wireless video surveillance system through Dell’s
December 10, 2004 Contract, and despite the November 21, 2006 OSP
Memorandum 07-03 express prohibition of the sale of Tropos’ wireless
networking equipment; (17) participated in the artificial division and sale of
wireless video surveillance equipment to Baton Rouge through NetMethods’
LABNMPC contract, particularly the division of hardware costs and annual
maintenance costs, to circumvent the respective $250,000 and $100,000
thresholds pursuant to the state public bid laws; (18) orchestrated an otherwise
inappropriate group boycott of all competing vendors in the market to sell state
and local governmental agencies municipal wi-fi systems, including but not
limited to wireless video surveillance systems, through the aforementioned
fraudulent statements to state and local governmental officials; and (19)
fraudulently told Baton Rouge city officials that NetMethods is now a division of
MMR Communications, or that NetMethods’ business and employees were
acquired by MMR Communications, in order to continue the uninterrupted flow
of money to former NetMethods’ owners, supervisors and employees, and
through the artificial division of hardware maintenance costs under the
$100,000 threshold level.
125
327. Dell, and its employees, Ridge, Renecker and Smith, conspired to commit and
did participate in the following unfair and deceptive trade practices with the
specific intent to harm business competition: (1) unfairly and deceptively
misappropriated, or conspired to misappropriate, CamSoft’s proprietary
network designs for the wireless video surveillance system first developed
during the Pilot Project and July 19, 2004 Contract deployment; (2) conspired
with Ciber and the MOT Employees, through their Privately Held Companies, to
knowingly circumvent, and did in fact circumvent, that state’s public bid laws by
illegally selling the wireless video surveillance equipment through Dell
Marketing’s LANBMPC December 10, 2004 Contract; (3) continued the illegal
sale of crime cameras to the City of New Orleans through Kurt following
Meffert’s resignation as MOT CTO; (4) fraudulently advised state and local
officials that purchase of the Dell Alliance Members’ wireless video surveillance
solution was proper and legal under Dell’s December 20, 2004 Contract; (5)
fraudulently advised state and local officials that they could properly circumvent
the state public bid laws by purchasing said system through Dell’s December 20,
2004 Contract; (6) fraudulently provided unfair and deceptive invoices to state
and local officials in order to promote the illegal circumvention the WSCA
Contract and LABNMPC restrictions on cameras and wireless networking
equipment sales; (7) illegally continued the sale and installation of the wireless
video surveillance system through Dell’s December 10, 2004 Contract, and
despite the November 21, 2006 OSP Memorandum 07-03 express prohibition of
the sale of Tropos’ wireless networking equipment; (8) conspired to participate
126
in the artificial division and sale of wireless video surveillance equipment to
Baton Rouge through NetMethods’ LABNMPC contract, particularly the division
of hardware costs and annual maintenance costs, to circumvent the respective
$250,000 and $100,000 thresholds pursuant to the state public bid laws; and (9)
orchestrated an otherwise inappropriate group boycott of all competing vendors
in the market to sell state and local governmental agencies municipal wi-fi
systems, including but not limited to wireless video surveillance systems,
through the aforementioned fraudulent statements to state and local
governmental officials.
328. Ciber conspired to commit and did participate in the following unfair and
deceptive trade practices with the specific intent to harm business competition:
(1) accepted a contract of employment, Contract 05-MYR-022, for the City of
New Orleans through Meffert with the express understanding that Ciber would
have to agree to subcontract its work to the MOT Employees’ Privately Held
Companies; (2) conspired to and knowingly participated in the interruption of
the July 19, 2004 Contract deployment as an active member of the Dell Alliance
Member agreement; (3) conspired to and knowingly participated in the
agreement to illegally bundle and sell the wireless video surveillance system to
the City of New Orleans, and then charged the City of New Orleans for the
installation work through Ciber’s aforementioned contract and contract
extensions, without the necessary adjustment of contractual deliverables; (4)
knowingly using $1,850,000 in money spent by the City of New Orleans for a
educational software program Ciber never delivered, which money was
127
ultimately spent on payments to the MOT Employees’ Privately Held Companies
and gratuities to New Orleans city employees; (5) conspired with and did in fact
continue with Kurt to continue the illegal purchase of crime cameras through the
Dell’s December 10, 2004 Contract after Meffert’s resignation as MOT CTO,
which in turn intentionally continued the illegal flow of money to Ciber the MOT
Employees’ Privately Held Companies; and (6) conspired with and did in fact
continue with Anthony Jones the installation of the crime cameras through
Ciber’s contract of employment, while giving Jones corresponding gratuities that
eventually led to his resignation.
329. Earthlink, Motorola, Tolpegin and Berryman conspired to commit and did
participate in the following unfair and deceptive trade practices with the specific
intent to harm business competition: (1) committed public bribery by offering to
give valuable subcontracting agreements to the MOT Employees’ Privately Held
Companies with the intent to influence Meffert, Drake and the other MOT
Employees’ conduct in recommending an exclusive franchise agreement to
Earthlink; and (2) committed public bribery by in fact giving a valuable
subcontracting agreement to the MOT Employees’ Privately Held Companies,
more specifically NetMethods, after the New Orleans city council approved the
franchise agreement.
BREACH OF FIDUCIARY DUTY
330. CamSoft reincorporates herein each and every allegation of unfair and
deceptive practice committed by Active Solutions and Southern Electronics, and
their respective owners.
128
331. CamSoft further alleges that the Active Solutions and Southern Electronics
entered into a joint venture agreement for the sale of wireless video surveillance
systems to the City of Baton Rouge and City of New Orleans. Prior to even the
Pilot Project, the parties agreed to form a joint venture for the design and sale of
the wireless video surveillance to the City of New Orleans. As part of the Pilot
Project, all parties shared in the potential financial losses. Specifically, CamSoft
paid for the Tropos MESH Technology from its own proceeds, and without any
guarantee of a future contract with the City of New Orleans. CamSoft’s
allegations, particularly its emails on January 30, 2004 and February 9, 2004,
evidence CamSoft’s proprietary interest in the outcome of the joint venture, and
furthermore CamSoft’s exercise of control over the business operations.
332. Even after the parties’ jointly submitted their proposal to the City of New
Orleans, the parties then made future plans to market and sell the wireless video
surveillance system through the contacts MacDonald and CamSoft had
established with Baton Rouge city and BRPD officials. Perrin and Fitzpatrick
even went so far as to give a joint presentation with MacDonald to BRPD official
on October 15, 2004, well after they had already struck their agreement,
combination and conspiracy as Dell Alliance Members following the July 8, 2004
Meeting.
333. CamSoft maintains that Active Solutions and Southern Electronics, and
respective owners, did knowingly, unfairly, deceptively and maliciously breach
their fiduciary duties owed to CamSoft for their own private financial benefit.
Active Solutions and Southern Electronics breached their duty to render a full
129
and fair disclosure to CamSoft of all facts that might materially affect CamSoft’s
rights and interests in both the New Orleans and Baton Rouge crime camera
deployment efforts.
334. CamSoft maintains that each allegation of unfair and deceptive practice act,
including those acts of antitrust, committed by Active Solutions and Southern
Electronics, and respective owners, further constitutes a violation of their
fiduciary duty. CamSoft alleges that Active Solutions, Southern Electronics,
Perrin, Fitzpatrick and Burkhardt are liable as obligors in bad faith pursuant to
La. C.C. art. 1997 for all damages, foreseeable or not, that are a direct
consequence of their failure to perform.
VIOLATION OF LOUISIANA’S TRADE SECRETS ACT
335. CamSoft alleges a violation of Louisiana’s Trade Secrets Act, La. R.S. 51:1431,
against the following defendants: Active Solutions and Southern Electronics, and
respective owners, the MOT Employees, and their Privately Held Companies,
Imagine Consulting, NetMethods, Veracent, Logistix and AMI Consulting, Dell,
Dell Marketing, Ciber and MMR Communications.
336. CamSoft seeks damages associated with the loss of business opportunities
associated with the inappropriate dissemination of the trade secret information
to such large companies as Unisys and Motorola; damages associated with the
loss of business opportunities associated with the loss of reputation as the
developer of the wireless video surveillance system; payment of royalties and
commissions for contracts of sale, contracts of maintenance and other contracts
or teaming agreements otherwise compensating the defendants for the use of
130
those trade secrets in the design of similar wireless video surveillance systems
sold; recovery for unjust enrichment caused by the alleged misappropriation
that is not taking into account in computing damages for actual loss; and further
seeks an injunction precluding the MOT Employees, their Privately Held
Companies, Dell, Ciber and MMR Communications from marketing, selling,
installing or otherwise working with or disclosing any wireless video
surveillance systems similar in design, construction and purpose to the wireless
video surveillance system developed by CamSoft.
337. CamSoft alleges that, both before and during the Pilot Project, and in
furtherance of the parties’ intentions to develop a wireless video surveillance
solution, CamSoft did reveal trade secrets to Tropos, Active Solutions and
Southern Electronics, including their respective owners, in confidence, and
under both implied and express restrictions of nondisclosure and nonuse,
respectively. CamSoft alleges that these limited disclosures were made to
further CamSoft’s economic interest in the successful deployment of the Pilot
Project and July 19, 2004 Contract deployment, and otherwise constituted a
limited disclosure that does not destroy the requisite secrecy. CamSoft alleges
that it took the following reasonable precautions to maintain its secrecy.
338. Most notably, CamSoft never once disseminated the special design
characteristics of its wireless video surveillance system network in any public
announcements, but rather only divulged the technology to its purported
business partners, Active Solutions and Southern Electronics, and the equipment
manufacturer, Tropos. In fact, CamSoft only revealed parts of its wireless video
131
system’s network design in an effort to help Tropos identify the technical
limitations of their equipment that the Pilot Project had demonstrated.
Moreover, these limited disclosures were only made in an effort to further
CamSoft’s direct economic interest, not to reveal any wireless video surveillance
networking designs to the public. See E.I. duPont deNemours & Co. v. Christopher,
431 F.2d 1012 (5th Cir. 1970); see also Metallurgical Ind., Inc. v. Fourtek, Inc., 790
F.2d 1195 (1986).
339. As examples of the alleged implied and express duties of confidentiality
imposed on Tropos, CamSoft entered into an express restriction of
nondisclosure and nonuse, an otherwise overall protection of proprietary
information, with Tropos, as contained within the parties’ Evaluation
Agreement. Moreover, MacDonald communicated with Tropos employees via
emails expressly containing confidentiality provisions regarding the technical
nature of its communications.
340. Southern Electronics and Active Solutions owed implied duties of
nondisclosure as the parties were clearly joint venturers both before and during
the deployment of the Pilot Project. Southern Electronics and Active Solutions
further owed a duty of nondisclosure to CamSoft after MacDonald expressly put
them on notice of his intentions to protect the knowledge relative to the Tropos
equipment, as contained within MacDonald’s email directed to Fitzpatrick and
Perrin dated January 30, 2004. MacDonald’s January 30, 2004 email clearly
stated that he did not want the other vendors associated with the Pilot Project to
learn how the Tropos equipment worked with the crime camera system; that he
132
had spent years on learning about the MESH Technology; and went so far as to
state that he fully expected to actively compete against the other vendors
associated in the Pilot Project. This email explicitly showed that MacDonald
considered the methods and use of the Tropos equipment for wireless video
surveillance system designs as a trade secret, which conforms with the law that
one’s subjective belief of a secret’s existence suggests that the secret exists.
(“One’s subjective belief of a secret’s existence suggests that the secret exists.”)
See Metallurgical Ind., Inc. v. Fourtek, Inc., 790 F.2d 1195, 1199 (5th Cir. 1986).
Moreover, CamSoft employees communicated with Southern Electronics and
Active Solutions with emails containing confidentiality provisions. Finally,
CamSoft exchanged non-disclosure agreements with Southern Electronics
during their subcontractor contractor negotiations, which confidentiality
provisions were also included in both parties’ proposed subcontractor
agreements. While CamSoft understood that Southern Electronics and Active
Solutions were manufacturing and marketing a wireless video surveillance
system, CamSoft did not otherwise permit Southern Electronics and Active
Solutions to disclose CamSoft’s trade secrets relative to the wireless networking
designs it used to construct the overall wireless video surveillance system using
the Tropos MESH Technology, of which CamSoft was the licensed reseller in the
group.
341. Despite these express and implied duties of confidentiality, Active Solutions
and Southern Electronics have judicially admitted to providing intimate details
of the wireless video surveillance system’s design to the MOT Employees and
133
Dell representatives during their July 8, 2004 Meeting. This is in contrast to the
parties’ agreement to include a confidentiality clause relative to the wireless
video surveillance systems’ design in the July 19, 2004 Contract. CamSoft alleges
that Active Solutions and Southern Electronics did knowingly provide these
intimate working details in order to financially benefit themselves and their
respective companies, while never once advising CamSoft of the July 8, 2004
Meeting, nor the dissemination of this information.
342. After providing the Dell Alliance Members with intimate working details of
the wireless video surveillance systems network designs, formulas and device
compositions, CamSoft alleges that the MOT Employees did use their respective
status, not only as a client of CamSoft, but as employees of a governmental
agency acting within the color of law, to further learn about the network’s
changing design features after deployment of the July 19, 2004 Contract
commenced in or around August of 2004. From the initial camera deployment in
August of 2004, and up to Hurricane Katrina, MOT Employees intentionally took
secret steps to learn CamSoft’s valuable proprietary knowledge after CamSoft’s
employees constructed same. CamSoft alleges that the MOT Employees actions
specifically violated the confidentiality provision as contained within the July 19,
2004 Contract. CamSoft further alleges that the MOT Employees’ use of
surreptitious and improper means to gain access to the wireless video network
surveillance designs constituted no less than industrial espionage. The MOT
Employees knowing misrepresentations of their true identities as City of New
Orleans employees to induce disclosure, or otherwise purposely learn these
134
valuable wireless video surveillance network designs, constitutes a
misappropriation of trade secrets under the law.
343. CamSoft further alleges that Active Solutions and Southern Electronics
continued to feed sensitive information to the MOT Employees and their
Privately Held Companies in an effort to further the objectives of the Dell
Alliance Members well after the July 8, 2004 Meeting.
344. CamSoft further alleges that the MOT Employees, Active Solutions and
Southern Electronics did knowingly violate their aforementioned express and/or
implied duties of confidence by transferring CamSoft’s valuable trade secrets
relative to the design of its wireless video surveillance system to Dell, Ciber, the
MOT Employees Privately Held Companies, Unisys, Motorola and MMR
Communications.
345. CamSoft also alleges that Dell either knew or should have known of
CamSoft’s development of these trade secrets during the Pilot Project and
deployment of the July 19, 2004 Contract. Dell knew that the “Tropos guy”
associated with of the New Orleans Pilot Project was purposefully excluded from
the July 8, 2004 Meeting. Dell also fully understood that the purpose of the Pilot
Project was to develop a unique, first-of-its-kind outdoor crime camera solution
heavily dependent on newly developed MESH Technology. Dell was also aware
that the July 19, 2004 Contract was being deployed in New Orleans, and,
consequently, knew or should have known of the “Tropos guy’s” participation in
said deployment.
135
346. CamSoft further alleges that Ciber either knew or should have known of
CamSoft’s development of these trade secrets during the Pilot Project and
deployment of the July 19, 2004 Contract. Ciber directly participated in the
proposal to the Austin ISD, along with Active Solutions, Southern Electronics, the
MOT Employees and their Privately Held Companies. Accordingly, Ciber
obtained access to this valuable technical information. Moreover, Ciber was
intimately involved in City of New Orleans IT Services in 2004, when the crime
camera deployment began. Accordingly, Ciber knew or should have known of
the vital role CamSoft played in deploying and developing this widely publicized
project for the City of New Orleans. CamSoft further alleges that Ciber is further
imported with the MOT Employees’ knowledge of these wireless video
surveillance network designs given their employment as subcontractors to Ciber
347. CamSoft further alleges that MMR Communications is now imputed with the
MOT Employees knowledge given its specific intent to take over and “acquire”
NetMethods’ prior governmental sales, installation and maintenance
agreements. MMR Communications is run, in part, by Ridge and former MOT
Employees, who misappropriated CamSoft’s trade secrets.
348. CamSoft further alleges that Motorola knew or should have known of the
vital role that CamSoft played in deploying and developing the wireless video
surveillance system technology. Even before the July 19, 2004 Contract
deployment began, MacDonald was contacted by Michael Dorman, Southeast
Regional Sales Manager for Motorola on July 29, 2004. Dorman, a high ranking
Motorola official, knew that MacDonald was responsible for building out the
136
wireless video surveillance network and even attempted to steer MacDonald
towards using Motorola’s line of “Canopy” products during the July 19, 2004
Contract deployment.
349. CamSoft further alleges that the MOT Employees, their Privately Held
Companies, Dell, Dell Marketing, Ciber, Motorola and MMR Communications
took no legally acceptable steps to independently discover these wireless video
surveillance solutions. Rather, each defendant merely obtained the knowledge
relative to wireless video surveillance network designs through the MOT
Employees, who spent no time or money to discover it independently. Rather,
the MOT Employees simply violated the confidentiality provision in the July 19,
2004 Contract, and used their status as MOT Employees to “piggy back” off
CamSoft’s continuing design efforts.
350. CamSoft’s allegations demonstrate the considerable time, money, effort and
resources spent to develop the wireless video surveillance system used in the
Pilot Project. Considering that the Pilot Project was the first large scale wireless
video surveillance system of its kind, CamSoft naturally developed trade secrets
relative to the most efficient wi-fi network system design for handling the large
amounts of camera data transferred through the MESH Technology. CamSoft’s
allegations further demonstrate the continued technological improvements it
learned during the July 19, 2004 Contract deployment towards constructing a
practical and successful large scale wireless video surveillance solution running,
in part, on MESH Technology. This application development initially gave
CamSoft a huge jump-start over it competition. CamSoft maintains that it should
137
be able to keep and enjoy the fruits of its labor without the misappropriation of
its proprietary technology. CamSoft took risks to gain an advantage over its
competitors, only to have them inappropriately taken away by its purported
business partners and city employees.
VIOLATION OF LOUISIANA’S CAUSE OF ACTION FOR FRAUD
351. CamSoft maintains that the MOT Employees, independently, and on behalf of
their Privately Held Companies, Active Solutions and Southern Electronics, and
their defendant owners, did misrepresent, or conspire to misrepresent, material
facts with the specific intent to deceive CamSoft and MacDonald, and which
caused CamSoft’s justifiable reliance with resultant injury.
352. CamSoft alleges that Fitzpatrick and Perrin committed the following acts
constituting delictual fraud and intentional misrepresentation: (1)
surreptitiously met with MOT Employees and Dell officials during the July 8,
2004 Meeting while fully engaged in a joint venture with CamSoft relative to the
business opportunities in Baton Rouge and New Orleans; (2) purposefully
misrepresented their interest in the purported joint venture for the Baton Rouge
business opportunity while attending a joint presentation with CamSoft during a
meeting with Baton Rouge officials on October 15, 2004; and (3) purposefully
withheld their knowledge of the MOT Employees’ agreement with Tropos
through their Privately Held Companies during CamSoft’s fulfillment of the July
19, 2004 Contract.
353. CamSoft alleges that the MOT Employees committed the following acts
constituting delictual fraud and intentional misrepresentation: (1) intentionally
138
deceived MacDonald and CamSoft as to their status as direct employees with the
City of New Orleans; (2) intentionally deceived MacDonald and CamSoft as to
their status as owners, employees or controlling agents of the MOT Employees’
competing Privately Held Companies; (3) intentionally deceived MacDonald and
CamSoft as to their intentions to steal CamSoft’s proprietary information for
their own economic benefit and direct competition with CamSoft, up until
CamSoft’s exit from the July 19, 2004 Contract on January 10, 2006; (4)
intentionally deceived MacDonald and CamSoft as to Drake’s reason for
attending CamSoft’s presentation to Baton Rouge officials on October 15, 2004;
and (5) intentionally deceived MacDonald through Drake’s November 22, 2004
email as to Drake’s failure to include MacDonald’s company logo on a
presentation presented during the PTI Municipal Summit Meeting, specifically
considering Drake and Stevenson’s January 17, 2004 Meeting with Baton Rouge
officials.
354. CamSoft further alleges that Dell and its employees, specifically Renecker and
Ridge, either knew or should have known that there was an additional member
of the Pilot Project prior to the July 8, 2004 Meeting. Drake wrote Renecker and
expressly advised that the “Tropos guy” was purposefully left out of the July 8,
2004 Meeting. Moreover, Ridge, along with Drake, personally attended meetings
with Baton Rouge city officials. CamSoft alleges that Ridge, during his
employment with Dell, either knew or should have known of CamSoft’s role in
designing the wireless video surveillance system and contemporaneous effort to
market and sell CamSoft’s wireless video surveillance solution to Baton Rouge
139
city officials. CamSoft duly admits that neither it nor MacDonald were aware of
Dell’s true role in the alleged antitrust allegations until its attempted
intervention in the New Orleans litigation in September of 2009. CamSoft
further duly admits that no employee made any affirmative material
misrepresentation to either MacDonald or CamSoft. Notwithstanding, CamSoft
alleges that Dell either knew or should have known of CamSoft, and accordingly
conspired with the MOT Employees, Active Solutions and Southern Electronics,
who did in fact make delictual and fraudulent misrepresentations, for the
purpose of benefiting all Dell Alliance Members. Consequently, Dell, Dell
Marketing, Renecker and Ridge did financially benefit from these delictual and
fraudulent misrepresentations, and, therefore, is liable for these alleged
fraudulent activities under Louisiana law.
355. CamSoft admits that no direct Ciber employee made any affirmative material
misrepresentations to either MacDonald or CamSoft. Notwithstanding, the Ciber
was performing work for MOT in 2004, during the crime camera deployment.
Ciber knew or should have known of CamSoft’s work in developing and
designing the wireless video surveillance system. Furthermore, MOT
Employees, through their Privately Held Companies, were working within the
course and scope of their employment with Ciber. Accordingly, Ciber is
vicariously liable for the MOT Employees’ fraudulent misrepresentations.
CamSoft further alleges that Ciber either knew or should have known of CamSoft,
and accordingly conspired with the MOT Employees, Active Solutions and
Southern Electronics, who did in fact make delictual and fraudulent
140
misrepresentations, for the purpose of benefiting all Dell Alliance Members.
Consequently, Ciber did also financially benefit from the MOT Employees’
delictual and fraudulent misrepresentations, and, therefore, is liable for these
alleged fraudulent activities under Louisiana law.
356. CamSoft further alleges that MMR Communications is also now liable unto
CamSoft pursuant to the doctrine of respondeat superior. MMR Communications
did knowingly hire St. Pierre as a contractor, and furthermore, hired a former
Dell employee, Ridge, and other MOT Employees, as described above, with the
sole specific intent to continue profiting from NetMethods’ prior business
arrangements with the City of Baton Rouge and other governmental authorities.
As MMR Communications has knowingly advised Baton Rouge city officials and
other vendors of NetMethods technology that it “acquired” NetMethods
business, and did in fact take over the business for the purpose of directly
transferring and profiting from the hardware and software maintenance
contracts, MMR Communications now stands liable unto CamSoft for the MOT
Employees’ and NetMethods’ prior actions.
VIOLATION OF TORTIOUS INTERFERENCE WITH BUSINESS RELATIONS
357. CamSoft maintains that the MOT Employees, independently, and on behalf of
their Privately Held Companies, Active Solutions and Southern Electronics, and
their defendant owners, did improperly influence, or conspire to improperly
influence, others not to deal with CamSoft.
358. CamSoft reincorporates those allegations against Fitzpatrick and Perrin
constituting delictual fraud and intentional misrepresentation. CamSoft further
141
alleges that Fitzpatrick and Perrin committed these deceptive, fraudulent and
malicious acts with the specific intent to disrupt CamSoft’s ongoing business
relationship with Baton Rouge officials.
359. CamSoft reincorporates those allegations against the MOT Employees, and
their Privately Held Companies, constituting delictual fraud and intentional
misrepresentation. CamSoft further alleges that the MOT Employees, and their
Privately Held Companies, committed these deceptive, fraudulent and malicious
acts with the specific intent to disrupt CamSoft ongoing business relationships
with Baton Rouge officials. In addition, CamSoft further alleges that the MOT
Employees, through Drake’s email dated November 22, 2004 to Charbonnet and
St. Pierre, clearly outlays a plan to intentionally and maliciously disrupt
fulfillment of the July 19, 2004 Contract. This email further evidences that it was
written for Meffert’s consideration and use in forcing substantive changes to the
July 19, 2004. The MOT Employees actions were designed to disrupt CamSoft’s
business relationship not only with its joint venture business partners, Active
Solutions and Southern Electronics, but also with its ongoing business
relationships with other departmental officials within the City of New Orleans.
Moreover, Drake’s November 22, 2004 email wherein he outright lied about his
failure to include CamSoft’s logo further evidence the malicious intent to
otherwise interfere with CamSoft’s business relations.
BREACH OF DUTY OF CONFIDENTIAL RELATIONS
360. CamSoft reincorporates herein all such allegations against Active Solutions
and Southern Electronics, and respective owners, relative to the duties of
142
confidentiality discussed in the misappropriation of trade secrets and those
other fiduciary duties discussed above. CamSoft would further show that those
applicable actions by Active Solutions and Southern Electronics did further
constitute a breach of both implied and express duties of confidential relations.
CamSoft alleges that Active Solutions not only negligently breached its duty of
confidential relations under Louisiana’s duty/risk analysis, but in fact breached
same intentionally and with malice aforethought. Such breach proximately
caused CamSoft injuries as described above. But for said breach CamSoft’s
injuries would not have occurred, and CamSoft’s damages were the foreseeable
consequence of said breach.
PROMISSORY ESTOPPEL/DETRIMENTAL RELIANCE
361. CamSoft reincorporates herein all factual allegations against Active Solutions,
and Southern Electronics, and respective owners, concerning their activities
relative to the joint venture business opportunities in Baton Rouge and New
Orleans. CamSoft justifiably and reasonably relied upon Active Solutions and
Southern Electronics to, and in good faith, perform its respectively asserted
duties relative to the Baton Rouge and New Orleans joint ventures. Relying on
same, CamSoft continued to operate under the belief that Active Solutions and
Southern Electronics were jointly working together towards a mutually
beneficial financial goal, entirely unaware of their antitrust agreement,
combination and conspiracy as a Dell Alliance Member. Without knowledge of
the behind the scenes agreement, CamSoft changed its position to its detriment
because of its reliance thereon.
143
362. CamSoft further reincorporates herein all factual allegations against the MOT
Employees concerning their material misrepresentations as to their true identity
as direct City of New Orleans employees, their interest in CamSoft’s work
regarding municipal wi-fi deployments and their true interests in Drake’s
attending the October 15, 2004 Meeting with Baton Rouge city officials. The
MOT Employees did knowingly misrepresent their identities and intentions for
the sole purpose of gaining CamSoft’s valuable knowledge and proprietary
wireless video surveillance network designs. CamSoft justifiably and reasonably
relied upon the representations by word and conduct, and otherwise changed its
position to its detriment regarding their access to such information as a client of
CamSoft.
BREACH OF CONTRACT
363. In the alternative, and only in the alternative, should the trier-of-fact
conclude that CamSoft entered into a subcontract agreement with Southern
Electronics, CamSoft maintains that Southern Electronics knowingly violated the
terms of the confidentiality clause contained therein.
UNJUST ENRICHMENT
364. To the extent that CamSoft has no valid cause of action against any one of the
defendants cited herein, CamSoft alleges a cause of action for unjust enrichment.
CamSoft would show that any one of the defendants’ actions impoverished
CamSoft’s municipal wi-fi system and wireless video surveillance system
opportunities. There is a clear and proximate relation between the defendants’
144
actions and CamSoft’s alleged injuries and more fully described above.
Moreover, there was no lawful justification for the defendants’ enrichment.
NON-APPLICABILITY OF THE NOERR-PENNINGTON IMMUNITY DOCTRINE
365. CamSoft recognizes that the Noerr-Penington Immunity Doctrine precludes
antitrust liability when lawfully petitioning certain elected governmental
officials in certain circumstances. However, CamSoft maintains that the Noerr-
Pennington doctrine is not applicable for the following reasons: (1) due to the
unlawful activity of public bribery in landing multi-million dollar contracts for
municipal wi-fi systems and wireless video surveillance systems in both New
Orleans and Baton Rouge; (2) due to knowingly fraudulent and material
misrepresentations made to state and local governmental officials, as opposed to
elected officials, (a) that the purchase of the wireless video surveillance system
through Dell’s LANBMPC December 20, 2004 Contract was legal, (b) a
corresponding circumvention of the Louisiana public bid laws was legal, and (c)
an artificial division of crime camera hardware and maintenance purchases
below the respective $250,000 and $100,000 thresholds was legal.
366. CamSoft alleges that the bribing of governmental officials within the City of
New Orleans and the City of Baton Rouge precludes the applicability of the
Noerr-Pennington Immunity Doctrine relative to CamSoft’s alleged state and
federal antitrust allegations. See Astoria Entertainment, Inc. v. DeBartolo, 2008-
1690 (La. 5/22/09), 2 So.3d 956.
367. CamSoft further alleges that the Antitrust Defendants’ fraudulent and
material misrepresentations were made to government decision makers outside
145
of the political arena (i.e. non-elected officials), and furthermore do not involve
policy decisions themselves, but rather implementations of those policy
decisions. Consequently, these actions are not protected by the Noerr-
Pennington doctrine.
368. CamSoft alleged facts establishing that the Antitrust Defendants’ met with
non-elected governmental decision makers in both New Orleans and Baton
Rouge, including officials within the respective police departments, departments
of Homeland Security and mayors’ administrative offices. See Woods Exploration
& Producing Co. v. Aluminum Co. of America, 438 F.2d 1286 (5th Cir. 1971), cert.
denied, 404 U.S. 1047, 92 S.Ct. 701, 30 L.Ed.3d 736 (1972); see also Oberndorf v.
City & County of Denver, 900 F.2d 1434, 1440 (10th Cir. 1990). CamSoft alleges
that the Antitrust Defendants’ fraudulent and material misrepresentations were
conducted in behind closed-door meetings, involved no open process, provided
no opportunity for error correction, and ultimately infected the core decision
making authority of state and local governmental agencies by directly
circumventing and undermining the appropriate procedural mechanisms
relative to the state’s public bid laws. See also George R. Whitten, Jr., Inc. v.
Paddock Pool Builders, Inc., 424 F.2d 24 (1st Cir. 1970), defining the Noerr-
Pennington exemption boundaries (“[A defendant’s] dealings with public officials
who administer the bid statute should be subject to the same limitations as its
dealings with private consumer. Indeed, to hold otherwise might impair the
effectiveness of competitive bidding.”)
146
CONSPIRACY
369. CamSoft alleges that at those various times discussed herein there existed a
conspiracy to violate those aforementioned federal and state causes of actions
between the MOT Employees, including Meffert, St. Pierre, Kurt, Domke,
Hastings, Drake, Charbonnet, Hodges and Stevenson, their Privately Held
Companies, including Imagine Consulting, NetMethods, Veracent, Logistix and
AMI Consulting, Dell Marketing, Dell, including its employees, Renecker, Ridge
and Smith, Active Solutions, and its owners, Fitzpatrick and Burkhardt, Southern
Electronics, and its owner, Perrin, Ciber, Evans, Kirk, Tolpegin, Berryman,
Earthlink, Motorola and MMR Communications, as more specifically described
above.
370. The United States Supreme Court has recognized that, “In cases such as this,
plaintiffs should be given the full benefit of their proof without tightly
compartmentalizing the various factual components and wiping the slate clean
after scrutiny of each. The character and effect of a conspiracy are not to be
judged by dismembering it and viewing its separate parts, but only by looking at
it as a whole.” See Cont. Ore Cor. v. Union Carbide & Carbon Corp., 370 U.S. 690,
699, 82 S.Ct. 1404, 8 L.Ed.2d 777 (1962). “Thus, where a plaintiff is injured by
one facet of a multi-faceted conspiracy he is entitled to damages regardless of
where the other facets of the defendants’ collusion had any economic impact on
him.” Knevelbaard Dairies v. Kraft Foods, Inc., 232 F.3d 979 (9th Cir. 2000); citing
Washington State Bowling Proprietors Ass’n v. Pacific Lanes, Inc., 356 F.2d 371
(9th Cir. 1966).
147
371. Accordingly, it is of no moment whether or not any individual alleged
conspirator had direct discussions or involvement with MacDonald or CamSoft.
Each alleged conspirator is charged with the violations of the other co-
conspirators, and is equally liable unto CamSoft for all damages associated
therewith.
FRAUDULENT CONCEALMENT
372. To the extent that any defendant raises the defense of statute of limitations
or prescription, respectively, CamSoft pleads the doctrine of fraudulent
concealment. CamSoft alleges that the Defendants’ collective actions constituted
a wrongful concealment that caused or contributed to CamSoft’s not discovering
the operative facts or basis of his causes of action within any given limitations
period. CamSoft further notes that its exercised due diligence in its business
operations until discovery of those facts. CamSoft alleges that the defendants’
conspiracy was self-concealing of the facts; thus, denying CamSoft an
opportunity to fully appreciate the circumstances to bring a claim, much less a
full appreciation of all facts that would otherwise support each alleged cause of
action, supra. A self-concealing conspiracy is thus the logical equivalent of
affirmative acts, which conceal a plaintiff’s claim.
373. CamSoft further notes that knowledge of the Active Solutions and Southern
Electronics suit in New Orleans alone is not sufficient knowledge of a plaintiff’s
claim. The Fifth Circuit noted, “The plaintiffs’ knowledge of the [other]
complaint, however, is not as a matter of law tantamount to actual or
constructive knowledge of their claim…. The mere filing of a similar lawsuit,
148
without more, does not necessarily give ‘good ground’ because this suit might
well be frivolous or baseless.” In re Beef Antitrust Litigation, 600 F.2d 1148 (5th
Cir. 1979). This is particularly true where CamSoft alleged distinct
misrepresentations by Active Solutions and Southern Electronics regarding the
scope and nature of their New Orleans suit’s claims and damages.
DOCTRINE OF RESPONDEAT SUPERIOR
374. CamSoft alleges that each defendant corporation is liable unto CamSoft for
those alleged acts as committed by their respective officers, agents and
employees described above. CamSoft alleges that at all times herein the each
defendant employee did act within the course and scope of his respective
employment with each defendant employer. This does not apply to any
allegations relative to any official, agent or employee associated with either the
City of Baton Rouge or the City of New Orleans.
DOCTRINE OF CONTINUING TORT THEORY
375. Dell, Dell Marketing, Ridge, a former Dell employee, and certain MOT
Employees, either currently contracted or employed by MMR Communications,
continue to monetarily profit from the sale, installation and maintenance of the
wireless video surveillance solution designed by CamSoft to the City of Baton
Rouge, and other local governmental agencies, including the Parish of St. John
the Baptist, which recently purchased a wireless video surveillance system from
MMR Communications immediately after its creation. Dell continues to provide
its component parts as part in parcel of wireless video surveillance systems now
sold by MMR Communications to other state and local governmental agencies.
149
Upon information and belief, Ciber continues to monetarily profit from its
“digital surveillance” maintenance agreements for those crime cameras installed
in New Orleans.
DOCTRINE OF CONTRA NON VALENTEM
376. To the extent that any cause of action may be otherwise barred by an
applicable statute of limitations or prescriptive period, CamSoft pleads the
Doctrine of Contra Non Valentem to those causes of action to which it applies.
CamSoft reincorporates all factual allegations tending to show the surreptitious
and secretive nature of the business arrangements between the respective
parties. For those reasons expressed in CamSoft’s doctrine of fraudulent
concealment, CamSoft maintains that the secretive actions of the Dell Alliance
Members, Ciber and MMR Communications did otherwise operate to knowingly
preclude CamSoft from fully appreciating those facts necessary for an
appropriate determination of its cause of action. Much of what was pled herein
was either learned during CamSoft’s brief attempt to intervene in the New
Orleans litigation in September of 2009, or was learned through documents
produced in response to subpoenas served since removal to this Honorable
Court.
CAMSOFT’S DAMAGE IDENTIFICATION
377. CamSoft seeks damages for the following list of damages, and reserves its
right to amend this list as discovery progresses: (1) reasonable compensatory
damages for loss of gross proceeds or profits as permitted by law; (2) treble
damages as permitted by law; (3) reasonable royalties; (4) damages for unjust
150
enrichment caused by trade secret misappropriations not taking into account
computing damages for actual loss; (5) disgorgement of those gross proceeds
derived through the illegal sale of wireless video surveillance cameras in
circumvention of the state public bid laws; (6) disgorgement of those gross
proceeds received through illegal hardware maintenance contracts in
circumvention of the state public bid laws; (7) disgorgement of technology
consulting fees derived from contracts or other teaming agreements involving
the design of wireless video surveillance networks; (8) loss of gross market
share due to the improper dissemination of proprietary information to large,
competing IT Services providers, such as Unisys and Motorola; (9) loss of market
share due to injury to business reputations as the designer of wireless video
surveillance networks; (10) and all other equitable damages as permitted by
law.
WHEREFORE, CamSoft prays for the following:
A. Declaration CamSoft’s proportionate ownership interest and share in the
wireless video surveillance system in accordance with La. C.C. arts. 513, 514
and 526;
B. Declaration of CamSoft’s entitlement to share in the fruits derived from the
wireless video surveillance system in proportion to CamSoft’s ownership
interest and share pursuant to La. C.C. art. 798, including a proportionate
amount of any settlement or judgment rendered in favor of Active Solutions,
LLC and Southern Electronics Supply Company, Inc. in the matter entitled
151
Active Solutions, et al v. Dell, Inc., Docket No., 2007-3665, Div. “B”, Orleans
Civil District Court, State of Louisiana;
C. Ordering Active Solutions, LLC and Southern Electronics Supply, Inc. to
deposit into the registry of the Clerk of Court for the Middle District of
Louisiana any monetary proceeds from any settlement or judgment rendered
in favor of Active Solutions, et al. v. Dell, Inc., Docket No. Docket No. 2007-
3665 Div.: “B”, Orleans Civil District Court, State of Louisiana, and after the
filing of the appropriate motions;
D. Declaration of the use and management of the wireless video surveillance
system between CamSoft Data Systems, Inc., Active Solutions, LLC and
Southern Electronics Supply, Inc. pursuant to La. C.C. art. 803;
E. Order disbursement of any monetary proceeds from any settlement or
judgment rendered in favor of Active Solutions, et al. v. Dell, Inc., Docket No.
Docket No. 2007-3665, Div.: “B”, Orleans Civil District Court, State of
Louisiana in the proportionate share of ownership, whether via accession or
partnership laws, between CamSoft Data Systems, Inc., Active Solutions, LLC
and Southern Electronics Supply, Inc. as to be determined by the trier-of-fact;
and
F. Issue permanent injunctive relief forever ordering Mark St. Pierre, Mark
Kurt, Scott Domke, Paul Hastings, Christopher Drake, Dwayne Hodges,
Michael Charbonnet, Jonathan Stevenson, Imagine Software, LLC d/b/a
Imagine Consulting, NetMethods, LLC, Veracent, LLC, Logistix, LLC, Ellen Kirk,
AMI Consulting, LLC, Billy Ridge, Steve Renecker, Heather Smith, Dell, Inc.,
152
Dell Marketing, L.P., Ciber, Inc., Earthlink, Inc., Motorola, Inc. and MMR
Constructors, Inc. d/b/a MMR Communications to immediately cease and
desist all further marketing, sales, installation or other activities involving
wireless video surveillance systems by their respective companies,
subsidiary companies, future companies, or in conjunction or participation
with any other individual or company, and forever ordering defendants to
cease and desist from marketing, disclosing, utilizing, selling or otherwise
using the intellectual property associated with the wireless video
surveillance system in any manner whatsoever with any future company
formed by any defendant or any defendant employed by any other company.
PLAINTIFF FURTHER PRAYS that there be judgment herein rendered in
favor of Camsoft Data Systems, Inc. and against Ignace Perrin, Southern Electronics
Supply Company, Inc., Brian Fitzpatrick, Jeff Burkhardt, Active Solutions, LLC,
Gregory Meffert, Linda Meffert, Mark St. Pierre, Mark Kurt, Scott Domke, Paul
Hastings, Christopher Drake, Dwayne Hodges, Michael Charbonnet, Jonathan
Stevenson, Imagine Software, LLC d/b/a Imagine Consulting, NetMethods, LLC,
Veracent, LLC, Logistix, LLC, Ellen Kirk, AMI Consulting, LLC, Billy Ridge, Steve
Renecker, Heather Smith, Dell, Inc., Dell Marketing, L.P., Ciber, Inc., Donald Evans,
Bill Tolpegin, Donald Berryman, Earthlink, Inc., Motorola, Inc. and MMR
Constructors, Inc. d/b/a MMR Communications, for all damages, either foreseeable
or unforeseeable, to be trebled as permitted by law, together with legal interest
thereon from the date of judicial demand until paid, for all costs of these
proceedings and for reasonable attorney fees.
153
PLAINTIFF FURTHER PRAYS for this Honorable Court to fix the fee for each
and every expert witness they may be required to call or use to establish the cause,
nature or extent of their losses or damages and to tax same as cost herein.
PLAINTIFF FURTHER PRAYS for a trial by jury.
PLAINTIFF FURTHER PRAYS for all orders and decrees necessary and
proper in the premises which law, equity or the nature of the case may permit.
___s/ Jason L. Melancon____________ ___s/ Marx D. Sterbcow___________

Jason L. Melancon, La. Bar No. 28152 Marx D. Sterbcow, La. Bar No. 28425
Robert C. Rimes, La. Bar No. 28740 Sterbcow Law Group, LLC
Melancon | Rimes 1734 Prytania Street
8706 Jefferson Hwy., Ste. B New Orleans, Louisiana 70130
Baton Rouge, LA 70809 Telephone: (504) 523-4930
Telephone: (225) 303-0455 Fax: (888) 241-6248
Fax: (225) 303-0456 Email: marx@sterbcowlaw.com
Email: jason@melanconrimes.com
___s/ Frank Tomeny III____________

Frank Tomeny III, La. Bar No. 18031
Tomeny & Fisher
8706 Jefferson Hwy., Ste. B
Baton Rouge, LA 70808
Telephone: (225) 767-8333
Fax: (225) 767-5947
Email: frank@tomenyandfisher.com
154

Camsoft Suit

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Camsoft Suit

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

MIDDLE DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA

CAMSOFT DATA SYSTEMS, INC.

SECOND SUPPLEMENTAL AND AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR

NOW INTO COURT, through undersigned counsel, comes Plaintiff, CAMSOFT

DATA SYSTEMS, INC. (“CamSoft”), a Louisiana corporation domiciled in East Baton

Amended Complaint for Declaratory Judgment and Damages. CamSoft hereby

1. Ignace Perrin is an individual domiciled in the State of Louisiana, and a named

individual defendant herein.

2. Southern Electronics Supply Company, Inc. is a corporation incorporated under

Orleans, Louisiana, and a named corporate defendant herein.

3. Brian Fitzpatrick is an individual domiciled in the State of Louisiana, and a

named individual defendant herein.

4. Jeff Burkhardt is an individual domiciled in the State of Louisiana, and a named

individual defendant herein.

and a named corporate defendant herein.

6. Gregory Meffert is an individual domiciled in the State of Louisiana, and a named

individual defendant herein.

7. Linda Meffert is an individual domiciled in the State of Louisiana, and a named

individual defendant herein.

individual defendant herein.

9. Mark Kurt is an individual domiciled in the State of Louisiana, and a named

individual defendant herein.

individual defendant herein.

individual defendant herein.

12. Christopher Drake is an individual domiciled in the State of Louisiana, and a

named individual defendant herein.

individual defendant herein.

14. Michael Charbonnet is an individual domiciled in the State of Louisiana, and a

named individual defendant herein.

15. Jonathan Stevenson is an individual domiciled in the State of Louisiana, and a

named individual defendant herein.

business in Slidell, LA, and a named corporate defendant herein.

named corporate defendant herein.

and a named corporate defendant herein.

named corporate defendant herein.

corporate defendant herein.

individual defendant herein.

named corporate defendant herein.

individual defendant herein.

individual defendant herein.

individual defendant herein.

corporate defendant herein.

individual defendant herein.

individual defendant herein.

31. Donald Berryman is an individual domiciled in the State of Tennessee, and a

named individual defendant herein.

corporate defendant herein.

corporate defendant herein.

34. MMR Constructors, Inc. d/b/a MMR Communications is a corporation

business in Baton Rouge, LA, and a named corporate defendant herein.

New Orleans for any alleged violations as further described herein.

to 28 U.S.C. §1331 and §1338(a).

37. CamSoft maintains that venue is proper pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §1391 as a

within the Middle District of Louisiana.

modernizing the city through the use of advanced computer information

1,000 surveillance cameras around New Orleans to deter criminal activity.

liability company, Imagine Software, LLC d/b/a Imagine Consulting. Imagine

Consulting was to provide IT Services to the City of New Orleans. Also

employed by Imagine Consulting were defendant employees, Christopher Drake

(“Drake”), Dwayne Hodges (“Hodges”), Michael Charbonnet (“Charbonnet”) and

Jonathan Stevenson (“Stevenson”). CamSoft will occasionally refer to Meffert, St.