Venable Accused of Helping to Destroy Evidence
The law firm Venable has been accused of willfully taking part in the destruction of evidence in a trade secrets case.
November 17, 2017 at 01:33 PM
4 minute read
The original version of this story was published on Connecticut Law Tribune
Thomas Wallerstein of Venable
In court papers filed Thursday, Brunswick Rail Management accused its former CEO and the prominent law firm Venable of altering and deleting evidence in a trade secrets dispute.
Brunswick filed a contempt of court motion and a motion for spoliation sanctions in the U.S. District Court for the District of Connecticut against former CEO and New Canaan resident Paul Ostling.
The underlying case claims Ostling relayed confidential information and trade secrets to creditors who could use the information to hurt Brunswick's bargaining position in a $600 million debt restructuring.
Brunswick claims Ostling and Venable ignored a February preliminary injunction from U.S. District Judge Alfred Covello of the District of Connecticut barring destruction of evidence in the case.
“Venable disregarded the PI order and hired an e-discovery vendor to access the Brunswick-owed devices and, in doing so, altered and/or deleted critical forensic evidence of Mr. Ostling's spoliation in the process,” according to the motion.
The contempt of court motion claims that by March, Venable had learned Ostling—a former attorney with Chadbourne & Parke—had taken drastic measures to destroy information. The motion cites testimony from Richard Sultanov, Ostling's former assistant.
The measures Ostling allegedly took include “frantically deleting emails from his personal email account and device, drowning Mr. Sultanov's Brunswick-issued phone in soap and water to delete all data from the phone, instructing Mr. Sultanov to throw the device into the Moscow River in Russia, and hiring an IT firm to professionally delete all data on Mr. Sultanov's Brunswick-owned laptop,” according to the motion.
Brunswick is a Moscow-based company that leases a fleet of 25,000 railcars to corporate clients in Russia.
In a declaration signed Nov. 1, Sultanov, who lives in Moscow, claimed Venable knew about the destruction of evidence.
“Venable was aware of this deletion of information from my company-issued devices from the outset,” wrote Sultanov, who filed a whistleblower complaint with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission in December 2016. “Venable knew of this deletion, at a minimum, by March 2017, when they were informed of these facts by me during a phone call with Mr. [Thomas] Wallerstein, a partner at Venable.”
Sultanov also wrote that the law firm had “full knowledge of the deletion of data and the circumstances under which the deletion took place and was the reason they repeatedly requested that I agree to retain a separate U.S. counsel.”
Wallerstein, who works out of Venable's San Francisco office, did not respond to a request for comment Friday. The firm has a marketing department in Los Angeles run by Leo Marquardt. Marquardt also did not respond to a request for comment.
In court filings earlier this year, Wallerstein argued that Ostling and Sultanov made only “limited disclosures” to board members, shareholders and creditors that were consistent with their legal and ethical duties. At the time, Wallerstein also said the two men were “unpopular with those who were trying to improve the financial positions of certain shareholders at the expense of the creditors.”
In an emailed statement Brunswick's attorney, Michael Tu, a partner with Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe, wrote, “This was not a motion that Brunswick brought lightly. Venable was given multiple opportunities to return the company-owned devices without reprisals, but they continued to refuse. Once the extent and severity of the spoliation became known, it was important to inform the court.”
Brunswick originally sued in the Northern District of California under the Defend Trade Secrets Act on the theory that Ostling and Sultanov used personal Gmail accounts to misappropriate confidential information, with Google supplying the connection to California. The case was transferred to Connecticut in January.
Assisting Tu in the case are his colleague Jacob Heath and Alfred Pavlis, of Finn Dixon & Herling in Stamford.
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2024 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View AllUK-Based Legal Entity Management Startup Kuberno Announces £9.5 Million Series A Investment
Legaltech Rundown: Uptime Legal Systems Acquires LexCloud, Spellbook Integrates With Practical Law, and More
3 minute readIn-House Gurus Say Inattention to Human Side of Tech Adoption Can Derail Best-Laid Plans
5 minute readTrending Stories
- 1Infant Formula Judge Sanctions Kirkland's Jim Hurst: 'Overtly Crossed the Lines'
- 2Abbott, Mead Johnson Win Defense Verdict Over Preemie Infant Formula
- 3Preparing Your Law Firm for 2025: Smart Ways to Embrace AI & Other Technologies
- 4Meet the Lawyers on Kamala Harris' Transition Team
- 5Trump Files $10B Suit Against CBS in Amarillo Federal Court
Who Got The Work
Michael G. Bongiorno, Andrew Scott Dulberg and Elizabeth E. Driscoll from Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr have stepped in to represent Symbotic Inc., an A.I.-enabled technology platform that focuses on increasing supply chain efficiency, and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The case, filed Oct. 2 in Massachusetts District Court by the Brown Law Firm on behalf of Stephen Austen, accuses certain officers and directors of misleading investors in regard to Symbotic's potential for margin growth by failing to disclose that the company was not equipped to timely deploy its systems or manage expenses through project delays. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton, is 1:24-cv-12522, Austen v. Cohen et al.
Who Got The Work
Edmund Polubinski and Marie Killmond of Davis Polk & Wardwell have entered appearances for data platform software development company MongoDB and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The action, filed Oct. 7 in New York Southern District Court by the Brown Law Firm, accuses the company's directors and/or officers of falsely expressing confidence in the company’s restructuring of its sales incentive plan and downplaying the severity of decreases in its upfront commitments. The case is 1:24-cv-07594, Roy v. Ittycheria et al.
Who Got The Work
Amy O. Bruchs and Kurt F. Ellison of Michael Best & Friedrich have entered appearances for Epic Systems Corp. in a pending employment discrimination lawsuit. The suit was filed Sept. 7 in Wisconsin Western District Court by Levine Eisberner LLC and Siri & Glimstad on behalf of a project manager who claims that he was wrongfully terminated after applying for a religious exemption to the defendant's COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The case, assigned to U.S. Magistrate Judge Anita Marie Boor, is 3:24-cv-00630, Secker, Nathan v. Epic Systems Corporation.
Who Got The Work
David X. Sullivan, Thomas J. Finn and Gregory A. Hall from McCarter & English have entered appearances for Sunrun Installation Services in a pending civil rights lawsuit. The complaint was filed Sept. 4 in Connecticut District Court by attorney Robert M. Berke on behalf of former employee George Edward Steins, who was arrested and charged with employing an unregistered home improvement salesperson. The complaint alleges that had Sunrun informed the Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection that the plaintiff's employment had ended in 2017 and that he no longer held Sunrun's home improvement contractor license, he would not have been hit with charges, which were dismissed in May 2024. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer, is 3:24-cv-01423, Steins v. Sunrun, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Greenberg Traurig shareholder Joshua L. Raskin has entered an appearance for boohoo.com UK Ltd. in a pending patent infringement lawsuit. The suit, filed Sept. 3 in Texas Eastern District Court by Rozier Hardt McDonough on behalf of Alto Dynamics, asserts five patents related to an online shopping platform. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap, is 2:24-cv-00719, Alto Dynamics, LLC v. boohoo.com UK Limited.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250