TCT responds to Campbells motion

Last Wednesday, the Tri-County Telephone Association, Inc. (TCT) filed a response to a motion to disqualify counsel and a motion to dismiss filed by Joe and Barbara Campbell.

The motion filed by the Campbells is the latest request for action in a case that began in December of 2015, after the couple filed a suit against the company claiming board members, as well as the purchaser of TCT, robbed owners of the TCT co-operative of the value of their ownership after the co-op was sold.

In May of this year, TCT filed its own complaint in U.S. Cheyenne District Court, alleging Joe Campbell, a former TCT board member, maintained control of a company-issued laptop he was required to return. The complaint goes on to allege Campbell took advantage of trade secrets on the laptop, shared the information with others and caused fiduciary damage to TCT, and that he violated the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act.

The Campbells responded in June to TCT’s complaint with the motion to disqualify counsel and dismiss. In that motion, as well as a support memorandum, the Campbells state they obtained legal advice from Chris Edwards, who was in the law firm of Burg, Simpson, Eldredge, Hersh & Jardine, P.C. when the advice was provided. That same firm is representing TCT.

The memo also states the complaint from TCT against the Campbells is defective, as it never states what trade secrets are at issue and fails to state and claim action taken by the Campbells was taken as interstate commerce. Without this, there is failure to invoke federal jurisdiction.

The memo further states the TCT complaint fails to invoke protection under the Defend Trade Secrets Act which became effective on May 12, 2016, as any of the alleged disclosure of trade secrets — assuming the complaint is referring to the Campbells’ suit against TCT filed Dec. 28,2015 — predate the effective date of the Act.

In the recent filing of the response to the Campbells’ motion to disqualify counsel, TCT states Edwards represented TCT between 2003 and 2011 as a corporate client, and did represent the Campbells individually for purposes of estate planning in 2009. Edwards terminated her relationship with TCT in 2011.

The argument presented by TCT against the disqualification of counsel states the Campbells’ arguments fail because “Burg Simpson, and its current and former attorneys, (including Chris Edwards), do not currently represent the [Campbells] in any form and they have not previously represented the [Campbells] in the same or substantially related matter.”

TCT further argues the defense counsel’s arguments are problematic, as a 19-page affidavit from Joe doesn’t provide citations to support assertions, instead making a generic reference to support their argument and requiring counsel and the court to search the affidavit. Additionally, the affidavit is “conclusory in nature and lacking in specific detail as to claimed facts.”

TCT also states that, following Edwards’ assisting with the Campbells’ estate planning, there is nothing to establish any continuing obligation from Edwards to act on behalf of the couple, as nothing remained to be done. Though the Campbells’ asserted that confidential information could potentially be used by the law firm to their detriment, the memo states this argument is “merely a suggestion that such will happen.”

As to Edwards’ relationship with TCT, it’s argued by the company that Joe’s affidavit appears to rely on matters that came up while Edwards still worked for TCT and he was a board member. As Edwards terminated her representation of TCT in 2011, and was not counsel for any specific person associated with TCT, “there is no current or former attorney-client relationship between herself and Joe Campbell arising out of her professional involvement with TCT.”

Though Joe’s affidavit asserts he entered an attorney-client relationship with Edwards concerning TCT, after Edwards terminated her relationship with the business, Edwards’ affidavit explicitly refutes those assertions, and the Campbells have not carried their burden to establish an attorney-client relationship between themselves and Edwards.

In her affidavit dated June 30, 2017, Edwards states she was counsel for TCT, ending that representation in late April, 2011. She further states the Campbells engaged her services in late 2009 to prepare their Last Wills and Testaments. This was completed in September, 2009, she states, “and since that date I have provided no further services to Joe and Barbara Campbell with respect to their estates.”

Edwards also states she met with Joe on several occasions and the Campbells together possibly twice after terminating her relationship with TCT, when Joe had concerns about activities related to TCT, as a constituent of the company, and how those activities affected members of TCT.

“During those meetings,” Edwards states, “I made it clear to Joe Campbell that I could not represent him against Tri County and that I could not represent him with respect to matter pertaining to Tri County. At practically all of our meetings, if not all of our meetings, I told him he needed to get an attorney to represent him personally.”

She also noted she was contacted by Drake Hill, one of the attorneys for the Campbells, and he wanted to discuss various documents, meetings and conversations. However, she informed him she would not discuss anything or talk to either side until the attorney/client privilege issues were either agreed upon by parties or the judge entered an order requiring her deposition and to answer all questions.

As to the motion to dismiss, TCT argues the multitude of exhibits presented by the Campbells in their memorandum were improperly presented to the court and should be dismissed. An alternative presented would be for the court to convert the motion to a motion for summary judgment and allow TCT a reasonable opportunity to present material pertinent to the motion.

TCT also argues they have demonstrated what each of their claims are in their complaint and provided facts to support those claims. The complaint outlines how TCT took measures to keep information secret, how trade secrets derive value for the company, how Joe obtained the secrets and disclosed them without consent, how the Campbells and John and Jane Does knew the secrets were derived from someone who had a duty to maintain secrecy, and how TCT suffered losses as a result of these actions.

“[TCT] has provided more than bare allegations in its complaint, and [the Campbells] have been put on fair notice of what the claims alleged against them are and the grounds by which [TCT] came to each of the claims alleged. The facts in the complaint are not on a speculative level.”

With regard to federal jurisdiction, TCT noted the complaint alleged Joe kept the laptop and the trade secrets it contained, and those secrets are “related to TCT’s products and services, which are used in and intended for use in interstate commerce.”

As to the assertions made by the Campbells that the actions alleged in the complaint happen prior to the effective date of the Defend Trade Secrets Act, TCT argues it was not made aware Joe refused to return the laptop he was ordered to until the Dec. 28, 2015 lawsuit was filed. “The disclosure took place after that date and has continued through the current date, as Defendant Joe Campbell continues to not return the laptop. Therefore, the Defend Trade Secrets Act is applicable to the facts of this case.”

TCT further submitted its allegations related to the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act and the Campbells’ actions are sufficient and the motion to dismiss should be denied.

As to the Campbells’ argument that dismissal of federal claims deprives the court of continuing jurisdiction, requiring dismissal of remaining claims, TCT argues the federal claims stand, so the argument is of no import. Should the court choose to dismiss the federal claim, TCT noted a statute allows the court to “retain supplemental jurisdiction of the remaining claims.”