Sie sind auf Seite 1von 154

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

individual defendant herein.

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

individual defendant herein.

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

individual defendant herein.

8. Mark St. Pierre is an individual domiciled in the State of Louisiana, and a named

individual defendant herein.

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

individual defendant herein.

2
Case 3:09-cv-01047-JJB -SCR Document 123 09/29/10 Page 2 of 154
10. Scott Domke is an individual domiciled in the State of Louisiana, and a named

individual defendant herein.

11. Paul Hastings is an individual domiciled in the State of Louisiana, and a named

individual defendant herein.

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

named individual defendant herein.

13. Dwayne Hodges is an individual domiciled in the State of Louisiana, and a named

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.

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
Case 3:09-cv-01047-JJB -SCR Document 123 09/29/10 Page 3 of 154
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

named corporate defendant herein.

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

individual defendant herein.

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

named corporate defendant herein.

23. Billy Ridge is an individual domiciled in the State of Louisiana, and a named

individual defendant herein.

24. Steve Renecker is an individual domiciled in the State of California, and a named

individual defendant herein.

25. Heather Smith is an individual domiciled in the State of Texas, and a named

individual defendant herein.

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
Case 3:09-cv-01047-JJB -SCR Document 123 09/29/10 Page 4 of 154
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

corporate defendant herein.

29. Donald Evans is an individual domiciled in the State of Louisiana, and a named

individual defendant herein.

30. Bill Tolpegin is an individual domiciled in the State of Georgia, and a named

individual defendant herein.

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

named individual defendant herein.

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

corporate defendant herein.

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

corporate defendant herein.

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
Case 3:09-cv-01047-JJB -SCR Document 123 09/29/10 Page 5 of 154
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
Case 3:09-cv-01047-JJB -SCR Document 123 09/29/10 Page 6 of 154
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
Case 3:09-cv-01047-JJB -SCR Document 123 09/29/10 Page 7 of 154
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
Case 3:09-cv-01047-JJB -SCR Document 123 09/29/10 Page 8 of 154
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
Case 3:09-cv-01047-JJB -SCR Document 123 09/29/10 Page 9 of 154
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
Case 3:09-cv-01047-JJB -SCR Document 123 09/29/10 Page 10 of 154
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
Case 3:09-cv-01047-JJB -SCR Document 123 09/29/10 Page 11 of 154
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
Case 3:09-cv-01047-JJB -SCR Document 123 09/29/10 Page 12 of 154
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
Case 3:09-cv-01047-JJB -SCR Document 123 09/29/10 Page 13 of 154
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
Case 3:09-cv-01047-JJB -SCR Document 123 09/29/10 Page 14 of 154
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
Case 3:09-cv-01047-JJB -SCR Document 123 09/29/10 Page 15 of 154
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
Case 3:09-cv-01047-JJB -SCR Document 123 09/29/10 Page 16 of 154
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
Case 3:09-cv-01047-JJB -SCR Document 123 09/29/10 Page 17 of 154
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
Case 3:09-cv-01047-JJB -SCR Document 123 09/29/10 Page 18 of 154
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
Case 3:09-cv-01047-JJB -SCR Document 123 09/29/10 Page 19 of 154
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
Case 3:09-cv-01047-JJB -SCR Document 123 09/29/10 Page 20 of 154
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
Case 3:09-cv-01047-JJB -SCR Document 123 09/29/10 Page 21 of 154
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
Case 3:09-cv-01047-JJB -SCR Document 123 09/29/10 Page 22 of 154
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
Case 3:09-cv-01047-JJB -SCR Document 123 09/29/10 Page 23 of 154
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
Case 3:09-cv-01047-JJB -SCR Document 123 09/29/10 Page 24 of 154
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
Case 3:09-cv-01047-JJB -SCR Document 123 09/29/10 Page 25 of 154
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
Case 3:09-cv-01047-JJB -SCR Document 123 09/29/10 Page 26 of 154
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
Case 3:09-cv-01047-JJB -SCR Document 123 09/29/10 Page 27 of 154
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
Case 3:09-cv-01047-JJB -SCR Document 123 09/29/10 Page 28 of 154
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
Case 3:09-cv-01047-JJB -SCR Document 123 09/29/10 Page 29 of 154
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
Case 3:09-cv-01047-JJB -SCR Document 123 09/29/10 Page 30 of 154
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
Case 3:09-cv-01047-JJB -SCR Document 123 09/29/10 Page 31 of 154
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
Case 3:09-cv-01047-JJB -SCR Document 123 09/29/10 Page 32 of 154
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
Case 3:09-cv-01047-JJB -SCR Document 123 09/29/10 Page 33 of 154
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
Case 3:09-cv-01047-JJB -SCR Document 123 09/29/10 Page 34 of 154
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
Case 3:09-cv-01047-JJB -SCR Document 123 09/29/10 Page 35 of 154
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
Case 3:09-cv-01047-JJB -SCR Document 123 09/29/10 Page 36 of 154
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
Case 3:09-cv-01047-JJB -SCR Document 123 09/29/10 Page 37 of 154
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
Case 3:09-cv-01047-JJB -SCR Document 123 09/29/10 Page 38 of 154
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
Case 3:09-cv-01047-JJB -SCR Document 123 09/29/10 Page 39 of 154
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
Case 3:09-cv-01047-JJB -SCR Document 123 09/29/10 Page 40 of 154
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
Case 3:09-cv-01047-JJB -SCR Document 123 09/29/10 Page 41 of 154
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
Case 3:09-cv-01047-JJB -SCR Document 123 09/29/10 Page 42 of 154
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
Case 3:09-cv-01047-JJB -SCR Document 123 09/29/10 Page 43 of 154
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
Case 3:09-cv-01047-JJB -SCR Document 123 09/29/10 Page 44 of 154
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
Case 3:09-cv-01047-JJB -SCR Document 123 09/29/10 Page 45 of 154
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
Case 3:09-cv-01047-JJB -SCR Document 123 09/29/10 Page 46 of 154
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
Case 3:09-cv-01047-JJB -SCR Document 123 09/29/10 Page 47 of 154
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
Case 3:09-cv-01047-JJB -SCR Document 123 09/29/10 Page 48 of 154
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
Case 3:09-cv-01047-JJB -SCR Document 123 09/29/10 Page 49 of 154
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
Case 3:09-cv-01047-JJB -SCR Document 123 09/29/10 Page 50 of 154
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
Case 3:09-cv-01047-JJB -SCR Document 123 09/29/10 Page 51 of 154
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
Case 3:09-cv-01047-JJB -SCR Document 123 09/29/10 Page 52 of 154
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
Case 3:09-cv-01047-JJB -SCR Document 123 09/29/10 Page 53 of 154
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
Case 3:09-cv-01047-JJB -SCR Document 123 09/29/10 Page 54 of 154
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
Case 3:09-cv-01047-JJB -SCR Document 123 09/29/10 Page 55 of 154
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
Case 3:09-cv-01047-JJB -SCR Document 123 09/29/10 Page 56 of 154
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
Case 3:09-cv-01047-JJB -SCR Document 123 09/29/10 Page 57 of 154
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
Case 3:09-cv-01047-JJB -SCR Document 123 09/29/10 Page 58 of 154
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
Case 3:09-cv-01047-JJB -SCR Document 123 09/29/10 Page 59 of 154
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
Case 3:09-cv-01047-JJB -SCR Document 123 09/29/10 Page 60 of 154
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
Case 3:09-cv-01047-JJB -SCR Document 123 09/29/10 Page 61 of 154
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
Case 3:09-cv-01047-JJB -SCR Document 123 09/29/10 Page 62 of 154
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
Case 3:09-cv-01047-JJB -SCR Document 123 09/29/10 Page 63 of 154
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
Case 3:09-cv-01047-JJB -SCR Document 123 09/29/10 Page 64 of 154
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
Case 3:09-cv-01047-JJB -SCR Document 123 09/29/10 Page 65 of 154
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
Case 3:09-cv-01047-JJB -SCR Document 123 09/29/10 Page 66 of 154
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
Case 3:09-cv-01047-JJB -SCR Document 123 09/29/10 Page 67 of 154
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
Case 3:09-cv-01047-JJB -SCR Document 123 09/29/10 Page 68 of 154
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
Case 3:09-cv-01047-JJB -SCR Document 123 09/29/10 Page 69 of 154
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
Case 3:09-cv-01047-JJB -SCR Document 123 09/29/10 Page 70 of 154
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
Case 3:09-cv-01047-JJB -SCR Document 123 09/29/10 Page 71 of 154
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
Case 3:09-cv-01047-JJB -SCR Document 123 09/29/10 Page 72 of 154
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
Case 3:09-cv-01047-JJB -SCR Document 123 09/29/10 Page 73 of 154
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
Case 3:09-cv-01047-JJB -SCR Document 123 09/29/10 Page 74 of 154
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
Case 3:09-cv-01047-JJB -SCR Document 123 09/29/10 Page 75 of 154
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
Case 3:09-cv-01047-JJB -SCR Document 123 09/29/10 Page 76 of 154
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
Case 3:09-cv-01047-JJB -SCR Document 123 09/29/10 Page 77 of 154
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
Case 3:09-cv-01047-JJB -SCR Document 123 09/29/10 Page 78 of 154
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
Case 3:09-cv-01047-JJB -SCR Document 123 09/29/10 Page 79 of 154
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
Case 3:09-cv-01047-JJB -SCR Document 123 09/29/10 Page 80 of 154
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
Case 3:09-cv-01047-JJB -SCR Document 123 09/29/10 Page 81 of 154
$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
Case 3:09-cv-01047-JJB -SCR Document 123 09/29/10 Page 82 of 154
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
Case 3:09-cv-01047-JJB -SCR Document 123 09/29/10 Page 83 of 154
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
Case 3:09-cv-01047-JJB -SCR Document 123 09/29/10 Page 84 of 154
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
Case 3:09-cv-01047-JJB -SCR Document 123 09/29/10 Page 85 of 154
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
Case 3:09-cv-01047-JJB -SCR Document 123 09/29/10 Page 86 of 154
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
Case 3:09-cv-01047-JJB -SCR Document 123 09/29/10 Page 87 of 154
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
Case 3:09-cv-01047-JJB -SCR Document 123 09/29/10 Page 88 of 154
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
Case 3:09-cv-01047-JJB -SCR Document 123 09/29/10 Page 89 of 154
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
Case 3:09-cv-01047-JJB -SCR Document 123 09/29/10 Page 90 of 154
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
Case 3:09-cv-01047-JJB -SCR Document 123 09/29/10 Page 91 of 154
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
Case 3:09-cv-01047-JJB -SCR Document 123 09/29/10 Page 92 of 154
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
Case 3:09-cv-01047-JJB -SCR Document 123 09/29/10 Page 93 of 154
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
Case 3:09-cv-01047-JJB -SCR Document 123 09/29/10 Page 94 of 154
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
Case 3:09-cv-01047-JJB -SCR Document 123 09/29/10 Page 95 of 154
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
Case 3:09-cv-01047-JJB -SCR Document 123 09/29/10 Page 96 of 154
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
Case 3:09-cv-01047-JJB -SCR Document 123 09/29/10 Page 97 of 154
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
Case 3:09-cv-01047-JJB -SCR Document 123 09/29/10 Page 98 of 154
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
Case 3:09-cv-01047-JJB -SCR Document 123 09/29/10 Page 99 of 154
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
Case 3:09-cv-01047-JJB -SCR Document 123 09/29/10 Page 100 of 154
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
Case 3:09-cv-01047-JJB -SCR Document 123 09/29/10 Page 101 of 154
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
Case 3:09-cv-01047-JJB -SCR Document 123 09/29/10 Page 102 of 154
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
Case 3:09-cv-01047-JJB -SCR Document 123 09/29/10 Page 103 of 154
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
Case 3:09-cv-01047-JJB -SCR Document 123 09/29/10 Page 104 of 154
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
Case 3:09-cv-01047-JJB -SCR Document 123 09/29/10 Page 105 of 154
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
Case 3:09-cv-01047-JJB -SCR Document 123 09/29/10 Page 106 of 154
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
Case 3:09-cv-01047-JJB -SCR Document 123 09/29/10 Page 107 of 154
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
Case 3:09-cv-01047-JJB -SCR Document 123 09/29/10 Page 108 of 154
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
Case 3:09-cv-01047-JJB -SCR Document 123 09/29/10 Page 109 of 154
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
Case 3:09-cv-01047-JJB -SCR Document 123 09/29/10 Page 110 of 154
$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
Case 3:09-cv-01047-JJB -SCR Document 123 09/29/10 Page 111 of 154
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
Case 3:09-cv-01047-JJB -SCR Document 123 09/29/10 Page 112 of 154
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
Case 3:09-cv-01047-JJB -SCR Document 123 09/29/10 Page 113 of 154
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
Case 3:09-cv-01047-JJB -SCR Document 123 09/29/10 Page 114 of 154
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
Case 3:09-cv-01047-JJB -SCR Document 123 09/29/10 Page 115 of 154
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
Case 3:09-cv-01047-JJB -SCR Document 123 09/29/10 Page 116 of 154
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
Case 3:09-cv-01047-JJB -SCR Document 123 09/29/10 Page 117 of 154
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
Case 3:09-cv-01047-JJB -SCR Document 123 09/29/10 Page 118 of 154
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
Case 3:09-cv-01047-JJB -SCR Document 123 09/29/10 Page 119 of 154
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
Case 3:09-cv-01047-JJB -SCR Document 123 09/29/10 Page 120 of 154
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
Case 3:09-cv-01047-JJB -SCR Document 123 09/29/10 Page 121 of 154
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
Case 3:09-cv-01047-JJB -SCR Document 123 09/29/10 Page 122 of 154
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
Case 3:09-cv-01047-JJB -SCR Document 123 09/29/10 Page 123 of 154
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
Case 3:09-cv-01047-JJB -SCR Document 123 09/29/10 Page 124 of 154
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
Case 3:09-cv-01047-JJB -SCR Document 123 09/29/10 Page 125 of 154
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
Case 3:09-cv-01047-JJB -SCR Document 123 09/29/10 Page 126 of 154
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
Case 3:09-cv-01047-JJB -SCR Document 123 09/29/10 Page 127 of 154
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
Case 3:09-cv-01047-JJB -SCR Document 123 09/29/10 Page 128 of 154
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
Case 3:09-cv-01047-JJB -SCR Document 123 09/29/10 Page 129 of 154
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
Case 3:09-cv-01047-JJB -SCR Document 123 09/29/10 Page 130 of 154
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
Case 3:09-cv-01047-JJB -SCR Document 123 09/29/10 Page 131 of 154
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
Case 3:09-cv-01047-JJB -SCR Document 123 09/29/10 Page 132 of 154
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
Case 3:09-cv-01047-JJB -SCR Document 123 09/29/10 Page 133 of 154
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
Case 3:09-cv-01047-JJB -SCR Document 123 09/29/10 Page 134 of 154
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
Case 3:09-cv-01047-JJB -SCR Document 123 09/29/10 Page 135 of 154
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
Case 3:09-cv-01047-JJB -SCR Document 123 09/29/10 Page 136 of 154
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
Case 3:09-cv-01047-JJB -SCR Document 123 09/29/10 Page 137 of 154
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
Case 3:09-cv-01047-JJB -SCR Document 123 09/29/10 Page 138 of 154
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
Case 3:09-cv-01047-JJB -SCR Document 123 09/29/10 Page 139 of 154
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
Case 3:09-cv-01047-JJB -SCR Document 123 09/29/10 Page 140 of 154
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
Case 3:09-cv-01047-JJB -SCR Document 123 09/29/10 Page 141 of 154
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
Case 3:09-cv-01047-JJB -SCR Document 123 09/29/10 Page 142 of 154
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
Case 3:09-cv-01047-JJB -SCR Document 123 09/29/10 Page 143 of 154
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
Case 3:09-cv-01047-JJB -SCR Document 123 09/29/10 Page 144 of 154
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
Case 3:09-cv-01047-JJB -SCR Document 123 09/29/10 Page 145 of 154
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
Case 3:09-cv-01047-JJB -SCR Document 123 09/29/10 Page 146 of 154
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
Case 3:09-cv-01047-JJB -SCR Document 123 09/29/10 Page 147 of 154
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
Case 3:09-cv-01047-JJB -SCR Document 123 09/29/10 Page 148 of 154
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
Case 3:09-cv-01047-JJB -SCR Document 123 09/29/10 Page 149 of 154
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
Case 3:09-cv-01047-JJB -SCR Document 123 09/29/10 Page 150 of 154
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
Case 3:09-cv-01047-JJB -SCR Document 123 09/29/10 Page 151 of 154
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
Case 3:09-cv-01047-JJB -SCR Document 123 09/29/10 Page 152 of 154
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
Case 3:09-cv-01047-JJB -SCR Document 123 09/29/10 Page 153 of 154
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
Case 3:09-cv-01047-JJB -SCR Document 123 09/29/10 Page 154 of 154