#Secrets costa rica lawsuit trial

Sutherland claims that the company lost a juicy contract with a major, longtime customer due to the information allegedly acquired by Sengupta and Small for the benefit of Sitel. While Sutherland has ample evidence on the interactions between Sengupta and Small, the matter of monetary compensation is still in the air, according to legal sources. Sitel issued a ‘no comment’ email several weeks ago when asked about the suit. Efforts were made to reach both Small and Sengupta via Linkedin, but neither replied. Nevertheless, they agreed that these materials will add pressure on the defense. Lawyers consulted by NSAM stressed that documented exchanges between Sengupta and Small by themselves don’t prove that both men conspired to steal corporate information from Sutherland in order to benefit Sitel. “Statistically speaking, in trade secrets cases that get to a verdict stage, about 70% of the time the verdict is in favor of a plaintiff”-Elisaveta Dolghih, Founder at Dolghih Law GroupĪlthough the defendants deny that any trade secrets were stolen, they admit that Small and Sengupta verbally agreed to the latter’s employment by Sitel in mid-2020 that both remained in contact and discussed work-related matters for months while Sengupta still worked for Sutherland and that Sengupta left the company without disclosing that he would be working almost immediately for Sitel, a direct competitor of his former employer. According to the plaintiff, this resulted in Sitel acquiring business with a major customer, which according to sources is the large mobile operator, T-Mobile. In its complaint to the court, Sutherland alleges that a former employee of theirs ( Ratul Sengupta) and a then executive of Sitel ( Mike Small) conspired to steal Sutherland’s pricing strategies and other confidential company information to win more clients for Sitel.

#Secrets costa rica lawsuit trial

In a bench trial, though, it all comes down to the facts available and also to the quality of the experts summoned by the plaintiff and the defendants to help their case.Įven before a trial was scheduled, expert lawyers consulted by NSAM saw Sitel’s defense as a “tough sell” and found little hope in the defendants attempts to prevent the case from going to trial. Legal sources told NSAM that, under a normal trial, success would be determined in part by the perceived credibility of both parties. “Statistically speaking, in trade secrets cases that get to a verdict stage, about 70% of the time the verdict is in favor of a plaintiff”, said Elisaveta Dolghih, a Texas attorney that handles commercial, employment, non-competition and trade secrets litigation. Nevertheless, experts say the format might make the battle more difficult for Sitel and the rest of the defendants. Elisaveta Dolghih, Founder at Dolghih Law Group Given that Sutherland’s lawsuit against Sitel et al involves the alleged stealing of “trade secrets” and the supposed violation of non-compete and confidentiality agreements, having a jury present might prove counterproductive to the process, say legal experts. Senior US District Judge David Ezra, in this case. In a bench trial, the responsibility of evaluating evidence and giving a verdict falls solely under the appointed judge. The trial –scheduled for April 23, 2023, in Austin, Texas– will be held without a jury, a format known as a “bench trial”. The odds might not favor Sitel Group in the next chapter of its legal battle with Sutherland Global Services, which accused the former of allegedly stealing confidential company information and using it to obtain business with at least one major customer.Īfter more than a year of investigations, court hearings and legal paperwork, the two giants of the business process outsourcing (BPO) industry will meet in court.