The case seems to hang in some sort of limbo as a federal judge leaves both warring casinos to rack up legal bills while waiting to see who will take up the cost of hiring a forensic examiner.
Due to the development Borgata has filed: “Plaintiff’s Reply In Support Of Its Motion For Leave To File Redacted Supplemental Declarations … In Support Of Plaintiff’s Motion For Temporary Restraining Order And Preliminary Injunctive Relief” in the previous week.
This submission came in just one week after “Defendants’ Reply In Support Of Defendants’ Cross-Motion To Plaintiff’s Motion To Compel Compliance With Preliminary Injunction.”
Borgata is hell-bent on protecting valuable customer information that could fall into the wrong hands, which in this case, is Ocean Casino. In the 10-page filing by Borgata, they explained that the information in Mr. Callahan’s cell phone was extremely valuable, and competitors could use it to target high-value gaming customers which are critical to its financial success. By losing such information to the competition, it could cause irreparable financial damage considering the ongoing Covid-19 pandemic that has reduced land-based casinos’ revenues due to the strict operating regulations.
Borgata believes that while Callahan may seem to play the role of the innocent victim, he is far from that. According to their statement, Mr. Callahan has put up a façade which he presents in each email and every telephone conference to ensure he looks like the victim in the ongoing legal battle, however, he plays a different role during negotiations revealing his true self and his intentions towards the information in his possession.
Ocean Casino replied back, trading words in a battle that has dragged too long. It is not surprising that they claim no wrongdoing. Ocean seems to be protecting its new executive which is expected for a casino looking to compete in a ruthless industry.
According to the casino, Mr. Callahan had not in any way tried to reveal the trade secrets of the Plaintiff (Borgata) and the accusations were nothing but folly.
The casino also buttressed its point by stating that they and Mr. Callahan were ready for any cross-examination that would be required by the court. Ocean went ahead to state that Borgata must follow the legal process in requesting information from the cell phone in question in a way that would not trample on the rights of the executive.
Borgata claims that Callahan has refused to turn over his device and Ocean personnel had contacted at least one high roller. Both casinos remain defiant trading blames and accusations. While Borgata holds on to the fact that Ocean had intended to use the trade secrets to boost their market base, Ocean maintains its stance on no misconduct.
It has been several months since any ruling on the case but things seem to be playing in Borgata’s favor with the casino questioning whether Callahan had the right to take the company’s cellphone in question when he departed the company.
