Citations
- 277 F. Supp. 3d 750
Full opinion text
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Matthew W. Brann, United States District Judge
“In all literature, there is perhaps no more vivid example of a man wrestling with the knowledge of his own guilt than that of Raskolnikov in [Fyodor] Dostoyevsky’s Crime and Punishment.” “Throughout Crime and Punishment, Dostoyevsky provides examples of physical actions and reactions that demonstrate Raskolnikov’s consciousness of his guilt...such as-Raskol-nikov’s psychosomatic illness and his internal monologue.” After murdering a pawnbroker for her money, Raskolnikov convinces himself that he could perform good deeds to offset the crime. When questioned by the police about an unrelated matter, Rasknolnikov finds himself forced to fabricate an alibi, “attempting to convince law enforcement that he was somewhere else, doing something other than murdering and stealing.”
Here, there is no murder. But there was stealing. Although the matter turns on the undisputed facts of this case, Defendant Heidi Criswell’s pro se representations, written in the third person as if to distance herself from her own actions, are an admixture of consciousness of guilt and an attempt to convince the Court of her unbelievable naivety, leading me to the ineluctable conclusion based on the record of this matter that, despite her vociferous protestations to the contrary, there is a distinct absence of mistake here.
I. BACKGROUND
The procedural history and a brief background of this action are as follows. Plaintiff Mifflinburg Telegraph, Ine. filed a complaint on March 31, 2014, against Defendants Heidi Criswell, Dale E. Criswell, and Wildcat Publications, LLC. Hereinafter “Mifflinburg Telegraph,” “Heidi Cris-well,” “Dale Criswell,” and “Wildcat” respectively. The complaint began as a fifty-four page, two-hundred twenty paragraph, eighteen count complaint against six defendants. Jurisdiction is based on two federal causes of action: alleged violations of the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act, 18 U.S.C. § 1030, and the Lanham Act 15 U.S.C. § 1125. The Court is exercising supplemental jurisdiction over the pendant state claims.
Mifflinburg Telegraph is a small business located in Mifflinburg, Union County, Pennsylvania, that operated, previously, as both a print shop and a newspaper publisher, and as of 2014, only a print shop. Heidi and Dale Criswell are spouses who had been two of only five employees of Mifflinburg Telegraph until their February 3,2014 resignation from the business.
Heidi Criswell had been a long time employee of Mifflinburg Telegraph when its owner, John Stamm, died in 2013. Hereinafter “Stamm.” Heidi Criswell’s title was ‘primary designer and printer,’ but it is widely acknowledged that in the years preceding Stamm’s death, while he was ill, she ran the business in his stead. Dale Criswell worked for Mifflinburg Telegraph intermittently as a “delivery guy.”
After Stamm’s death, Heidi Criswell entered into negotiations with the Stamm Estate to purchase the business for $225,000. Negotiations ultimately failed, and in the autumn of 2013, unbeknownst to the estate or Mifflinburg Telegraph, Heidi Criswell started a competing business, Wiidcat Publications, LLC.
Prior to her February 2014 departure from Mifflinburg Telegraph, she began providing customers with re-order forms listing Wildcat’s contact information where Mifflinburg Telegraph’s information had previously appeared. She also misappropriated from Mifflinburg Telegraph’s customer lists and data files, and then subsequently and secretly deleted her computer identity from Mifflinburg Telegraph’s computers. This deletion included any order history, so that if a customer returned to Mifflinburg Telegraph with a repeat order, the company could not simply reprint a prior order, but would have to start from scratch and recreate the customer’s logo and any other information. Additionally, Heidi Criswell misappropriated a Ricoh commercial printer from Mifflinburg Telegraph for Wildcat’s use.
The day after filing the complaint, Plaintiff filed for injunctive relief, and on April 17, 2014, I entered an order enjoining Defendants
1. From directly or indirectly processing reorders procured from placing re-order forms in Mifflinburg Telegraph’s customers’ orders;
2. From directly or indirectly processing orders placed with the Mifflinburg Telegraph;
3. From directly or indirectly processing orders with confidential and proprietary information taken, procured, or received from the Mifflinburg Telegraph;
4. From directly or indirectly processing orders with information, files, or images taken, procured or received from the Mifflinburg Telegraph, a Mifflinburg Telegraph computer or email, or received from clients while employed at the Mifflinburg Telegraph;
5. From directly or indirectly using Mifflinburg Telegraph templates, distribution lists, confidential or proprietary information or machinery in order to publish the Mifflinburg Free Press;
6. From directly or indirectly accessing or attempting to access Mifflin-burg Telegraph computers or email;
7. From directly or indirectly using the RICOH C720S printer, serial number C40026787; and
8. From purposefully misleading customers and vendors into believing the Mifflinburg Telegraph is now Wildcat Publications, LLC, Heritage Printers or any other division or fictitious name of Wildcat Publications, LLC.
On September 7, 2017, default judgment was entered as to Wildcat.
Heidi and Dale Criswell initially were represented by counsel, including at the time of their depositions. Counsel filed an answer to the complaint on behalf of these Defendants. After a fashion, however, there was a breakdown in the relationship between counsel and Defendants. I eventually granted counsels’ motion to withdraw. In so Ordering, I provided these Defendants with two months, until July 28, 2015, to find replacement counsel. When no counsel entered an appearance, I entered a second Order extending the time one additional month. However, I warned in that Order that:
if the Wildcat defendants do not find counsel by August 28, 2015, approximately ninety days after their original counsel withdrew, no further continuances will be granted to find new counsel. The individual Wildcat defendants, Dale E. Criswell, Heidi Criswell, and Darlene Sharp may proceed pro se, that is to say they will represent themselves. If Wildcat Publications, LLC. does not find counsel by August 28, 2015, entry of default will be made against it. See, e.g., Galtieri-Carlson v. Victoria M. Morton Enterprises, Inc., No. 2:08-CV-01777, 2010 WL 3386473, at *1 (E.D. Cal. Aug. 26, 2010).
Nearly two years later, these defendants still have not retained counsel and are currently proceeding pro se.
Presently pending before the Court are Motions for Partial Summary Judgment against Heidi Criswell and against Dale E. Criswell. The motion for summary judgment as to Dale Criswell will be denied, but final judgment is deferred for thirty days for additional response if the parties choose to file a response, but only as to those counts directed in this memorandum opinion. The motion for summary judgment as to Heidi Criswell is granted in part, denied in part, and final judgment deferred for thirty days if the parties choose to file an additional response, but only as to those counts directed in this opinion. I will enter final judgment in accordance with this opinion by October 31, 2017, barring any further responsive filings.
II. DISCUSSION
A. Motion for Summary Judgment Standard
“One of the principal purposes of the summary judgment rule is to isolate and dispose of factually unsupported claims or defenses, and we think it should be interpreted in a way that allows it to accomplish this purpose.” Summary judgment is appropriate where “the movant shows that there is no genuine dispute as to any material fact and the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.” “Facts that could alter the outcome are ‘material facts,’ and disputes are ‘genuine’ if evidence exists from which a rational person could conclude that the position of the person with the burden of proof on the disputed issue is correct.”
“A defendant meets this standard when there is an absence of evidence that rationally supports the plaintiffs case.” “A plaintiff, on the other hand, must point to admissible evidence that would be sufficient to show all elements of a prima facie case under applicable substantive law.”
“[T]he inquiry involved in a ruling on a motion for summary judgment or for a directed verdict necessarily implicates the substantive evidentiary standard of proof that would apply at the trial on the merits.” Thus, “[i]f the defendant in a run-of-the-mill civil case moves for summary judgment or for a directed verdict based on the lack of proof of a material fact, the judge must ask himself not whether he thinks the evidence unmistakably favors one side or the other but whether a fair-minded jury could return a verdict for the plaintiff on the evidence presented.” “The mere existence of a scintilla of evidence in support of the plaintiffs position will be insufficient; there must be evidence on which the jury could reasonably find for the plaintiff.” “The judge’s inquiry, therefore, unavoidably asks... ‘whether there is [evidence] upon which a jury can properly proceed to find a verdict for the party producing it, upon whom the onus of proof is imposed.’ ” Summary judgment therefore is “where the rubber meets the road” for a plaintiff, as the evidentiary record at trial, by rule, will typically never surpass that which was compiled during the course of discovery. “In this respect, summary judgment is essentially ‘put up or shut up’ time for the non-moving party.”
“[A] party seeking summary judgment always bears the initial responsibility of informing the district court of the basis for its motion, and identifying those portions of the pleadings, depositions, answers to interrogatories, and admissions on file, together with the affidavits, if any, which it believes demonstrate the absence of a genuine issue of material fact.” “[Rjegardless of whether the moving party accompanies its summary judgment motion with affidavits, the motion may, and should, be granted so long as whatever is before the district court demonstrates that the standard for the entry of summary judgment, as set forth in Rule 56(c), is satisfied.”
Where the movant properly supports his motion, the nonmoving party, to avoid summary judgment, must answer by setting forth “genuine factual issues that properly can be resolved only by a finder of fact because they may reasonably be resolved in favor of either party.” For movants and nonmovants alike, the assertion “that a fact cannot be or is genuinely disputed” must be supported by: (i) “citing to particular parts of materials in the record” that go beyond “mere allegations”; (ii) “showing that the materials cited do not establish the absence or presence of a genuine dispute”; or (iii) “showing... that an adverse party cannot produce admissible evidence to support the fact.”
“When opposing summary judgment, the non-movant may not rest upon mere allegations, but rather must ‘identify those facts of record which would contradict the facts identified by the movant.’ ” Moreover, “[i]f a party fails to properly support an assertion of fact or fails to properly address another party’s assertion of fact as required by Rule 56(c), the court may.. .consider the fact undisputed for purposes of the motion.” On motion for summary judgment, “[t]he court need consider only the cited materials, but it may consider other materials in the record.”
“[A]t the summary judgment stage the judge’s function is not himself to weigh the evidence and determine the truth of the matter but to determine whether there is a genuine issue for trial.” “[TJhere is no issue for trial unless there is sufficient evidence favoring the nonmoving party for a jury to return a verdict for that party.” “If the evidence is merely colorable... or is not significantly probative, summary judgment may be granted.”
B. Undisputed Facts
The Court is reminded of the old adage, if you tell the truth, you never have anything to remember. Discussed above, as an introductory matter, was a brief distillation of the procedural history of this matter. I have attempted to discern the undisputed facts, as I must do on a Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56 motion, to the best of my ability. However, the Criswells’ pro se responses are, as evidenced below, full of rambling explanations that, while detailed, do not dispute the actual facts at issue. When they have attempted to create a dispute, for the most part it has not been supported by the record.
The ‘sham affidavit’ doctrine has a long, history - in this Circuit. “The trial judge’s role in [summary judgment is] sorting the genuine from the fallacious.” “It is this determination that permits trial judges to disregard contradictory affidavits.” “A sham affidavit is a eontradicto-ry affidavit that indicates only that the affiant cannot maintain a consistent story or is willing to offer a statement solely for the purpose of defeating summary judgment.” “A sham affidavit cannot raise a genuine issue of fact because it is merely a variance from earlier deposition testimony, and therefore no reasonable jury could rely on it to find for the nonmovant.” “Therefore, if it is clear that an affidavit is offered solely for the purpose of defeating summary judgment, it is proper for the trial judge to conclude that no reasonable jury could accord that affidavit evidentiary weight and that summary judgment is appropriate.”
Additionally, as I will explain later in this opinion, Rule 56(h) states, “(h) Affidavit or Declaration Submitted in Bad Faith. If satisfied that an affidavit or declaration under this rule is submitted in bad faith or solely for delay, the court—after notice and a reasonable time to respond—may order the submitting party to pay the other party the reasonable expenses, including attorney’s fees, it incurred as a result. An offending party or attorney may also be held in contempt or subjected to other appropriate sanctions.”
Heidi Criswell’s statement of facts is not in accordance with her own written letter of resignation, her deposition testimony, and other evidence of record. Middle District Local Rule 56.1 requires parties to cite to the record, and, “all material facts set forth in the statement required to be served by the moving part will be deemed to be admitted unless controverted by the statement required to be served by the opposing party.” Therefore, as to paragraphs where she has attempted to create a dispute, I have not relied on her unsupported and uncited, assertions, but instead on the record, as required by Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56, which states “a party asserting that a fact.. .is genuinely disputed must support the assertion by citing to particular parts of materials in the record, including depositions, documents, electronically store information, affidavits or declarations, stipulations, admissions, interrogatory answers, or other materials.” The undisputed facts are as follows, with attempts at dispute by the Criswells noted.
As noted, Mifflinburg Telegraph is an incorporated print shop located in Mifflin-burg, Union County, Pennsylvania. It operates as a print shop printing brochures, booklets, letterhead, business cards, invitations and announcements. Mifflinburg Telegraph has been in business since 1992, when its sole shareholder, John R. Stamm, began the business. Stamm died on January 9, 2013. When Stamm died, the shares of Mifflinburg Telegraph passed to his estate. The executor of the still open Stamm estate is Angelo Mark Papalia. Hereinafter “Papalia.”
Heidi Criswell and Dale E. Criswell are former employees of Mifflinburg Telegraph. Heidi Criswell had been a twelve-year employee of Mifflinburg Telegraph and was its primary designer. During her tenure with Mifflinburg Telegraph, Heidi Criswell earned between $10.75 and $11.75 per hour. She was never an officer of Mifflinburg Telegraph. She was not on the Board of Directors of Mifflinburg Telegraph. According to his wife’s affidavit, Dale Criswell was employed by Mifflin-burg Telegraph doing “odd jobs such as making deliveries and taking out the trash, for $9/hour.”
Soon after Stamm’s death, his estate, through Papalia, entered into negotiations with Heidi Criswell for the purchase and sale of Mifflinburg Telegraph. The negotiations resulted in an initial agreement, one that was ultimately never consummated, for Heidi Criswell to purchase the Mifflinburg Telegraph for a total of $225,000. The offer was comprised of $80,000 for accounts receivable, $61,000 for assets (excluding real property), and $84,000 for the goodwill of the business, including the business name, “Mifflinburg Telegraph.” At the time of Stamm’s January 2013 death she did not know that the business had a $46,000 loss in tax year 2012. However, by December 9, 2013, she was aware of the this loss.
By October 2013, negotiations between the parties broke down and no agreement reached. On October 7, 2013, the attorney for Heidi-Criswell notified her that their written offer was not accepted as Papalia made a counteroffer. On October 25, 2013, unbeknownst to Papalia or the Stamm estate, Heidi Criswell formed a competing business,. Wildcat Publications, LLC. She was free to do so, as she was not subject to non-competition, non-solicitation, or non-disparagement agreements.
Her husband, Dale Criswell, testified at his deposition that he was not involved in the negotiations to purchase Mifflinburg Telegraph nor in the decision to start Wildcat. However, he did testify that the purchase agreement ultimately “wasn’t signed because my wife and I didn’t agree with it.” ‘It’ being the counteroffer from Papalia.
Dale Criswell continued, “It was all—it all boiled own to the stock sale. We didn’t want the stock. I mean, that was a sticking point in the sale.” He further testified that the Criswell’s decision not to purchase Mifflinburg Telegraph was made “before Halloween.”
As late as November 6, 2013, Heidi Cris-well sent an email to Papalia temporizing the situation. The email lead him to believe that she was still planning to proceed with the purchase and was merely awaiting financing, as she wrote in the email, “Holding on to bank information until after veteran’s day, banks are closed Monday and won’t hear until Tuesday.” Yet, that very same date, November 6, 2013, is the date of her Wildcat Publications Business Plan, copied in full herein:
The November 6, 2013, Wildcat business plan lists as employees all the employees of Mifflinburg Telegraph at the time: Heidi Criswell, Dale Criswell, Darlene Sharp, hereinafter “Sharp,” and Jane Boop. Thus, it is clear that the very same day Heidi Criswell emailed Papalia leading him to believe that she is still attempting to obtain financing to purchase Mifflinburg Telegraph, she was doing no such thing; she had instead already formed a competing business using all Mifflinburg Telegraph employees and a large part of its customer base.
On January 13, 2014, Papalia appointed a new president of Mifflinburg Telegraph, John Helwig. Three weeks later, during the weekend of January 31, 2014 through February 2, 2014, all employees ceased employment with Mifflinburg Telegraph, Heidi Criswell through a written letter of resignation, Dale E. Criswell, without notice. Helwig was surprised with the en masse resignation of all employees, but him.
Heidi Criswell is currently the president of Wildcat, a competing print shop and newspaper she formed as a limited liability company and also based in Mifflinburg, Pennsylvania. She is the only member of the LLC. Heidi Criswell earned her Bachelor of Arts degree with a concentration in graphic design from the Pennsylvania State University in 1990.
Dale Criswell is currently the publisher of Wildcat. He testified at his deposition:
Really I’m the guy that delivers stuff and takes the garbage out, just like I was at the Telegraph you know. Pretty mueh my duties as publisher just include writing a letter to the public, you know. I don’t—I give full creative control to my people, because that’s why they’re there. I don’t—I honestly—it’s just the name I drew out of the hat, you know. I never really picked it; it picked me. As far as—Like I said, it was a job somebody needed to fill.
Dale Criswell appears to have only an opaque understanding about Wildcat’s ownership. When asked at his deposition, “Do you own Wildcat publications,” he responded equivocally, “I guess I do. Do I? Yeah, with my wife.” He continued,
I’m not sure how—honestly, I was just—I mean, as far as all that goes, I don’t know a lot of the innerworking of how things are set up. I don’t. I just—I was just the guy who said, Here, you know, I’ll give you my credit.
Dale Criswell is also unsure about Wildcat’s financing. When questioned during his deposition about whether or not Wildcat had a business loan he responded:
A: Yeah, I did [sign the .loan]; but I’m not sure if it’s an actual business loan, you know, come to think of it.
Q: Okay. So then please explain to me. What do you recall signing, what type of loan?
A: It was a remortgage on my wife’s grandmother’s house.
Q: Okay. And you cosigned that or signed it?
A: Yes. Yes.
Q: Do you remember what you used as collateral?
A: The house itself.
A: Yeah, we borrowed on the house to start the business.
Q: Okay.
A: I mean, whatever that is, that’s what we did.
Q: Okay. Do you own the building where Wildcat Publications is located? A: Personally, no. Or wait. I’m not sure. I’m honestly not sure who owns the building.
Darlene Sharp, was deposed as well. She had been the office manager of Mifflinburg Telegraph for thirty-four years before she left with the Criswells to take a position with Wildcat. As office manager for Miff-linburg Telegraph she “paid the bills; [] took care of cash receipts and all receipts; took care of the subscriptions; waited on customers; answered the phone” and prepared invoices.
Heidi Criswell’s resignation letter
Because her resignation letter is instructive as to the issues at hand, I copy Heidi Criswell’s resignation letter in its entirety.
February 1,2014
Dear John [Helwig]:
Thirteen months ago my life was forever changed when John [Stamm] called me here at the shop on a Monday morning and told me that he had decided to sell the Telegraph. He had talked to Dennis at Printed Page but he wasn’t interested in spending that much money on another business at the time. He told me that he did not want Jake [Stamm’s son] to have it and that Jake’s time as a pressman was over, it wasn’t his calling whether he realized it yet or not. He then asked me to please consider buying it from him. John told me that he was worried about the future of the business—he told me that no one but me would give a shit about the newspaper and that I was the only logical candidate to buy it.
John knew I wasn’t loaded, he knew what I made (or didn’t make), but he knew he could trust me. He told me that day that if I wanted it, it was mine. That he would sit down with me later that week and show me the books, and we’d work out a number suitable and that I could pay him (or the estate after he passed) for as long as I wanted to. He told me that he’d make sure that Wanda would also hold on to it, until we could make arrangements.
That Thursday meeting never happened, he died two days later. And a few days after that, we found out that Wanda didn’t even own it, that it was in another’s hands.
We also didn’t know until a few weeks later, just how much financial trouble the Telegraph was in.
Mark [Papalia] came in and told us to run business as usual, that he needed to sell it and that he would like to honor John’s request but he immediately started talking ridiculous numbers that made no sense when you looked at the books and the building. I did what everyone told me to do—I sought council [sic] and tried to do everything by the book. I researched machinery, combed the books, talked to my accountant and we valued the business at barely $150,000 but I was still willing to go much higher because I knew Mark would never agree. Well—he did agree that there was about $150,000 in the business but then started tossing out ridiculous principles like EBIDTA and again valued the business at some ridiculous amount.
I offered a fair and reasonable price, I was told it was summarily accepted. We drafted agreements based on what was affordable based on what this business brought in a month. I was laughed at, I was made a fool of, I was told that I’d run the place into the ground. I was told I’d have to pay much more a month, I’d have to secure ridiculous amounts of collateral (which should tell you -that even Mark knew this business wasn’t worth squat), I was told they’d prefer to sell me worthless stock than assets, I was told if I got those assets—they were also tied as collateral. I’d have no cash flow, no way of making building improvements, no way of promote the business. I should have known the real game was to prevent me from even attempting to buy it anymore.
I went back to my attorney and to my accountant and to my bank and the solution was clear—start over. Start new— turn my collateral into something that worked for me, not Mark Papalia. So we did—the bank happily financed us and off we went on our new adventure.
Now, that day has come—we are ready for business and myself and Darlene, Dale and Jane are leaving the Telegraph with heavy hearts but also with great excitement for the future. OUR future...
We bear no ill will against you John,—you’ve made the past few weeks really hard because we all really like you but we simply can’t stay. Mark will never sell this to me, he never intended to. He couldn’t even thank me for what I’ve done, he had to toss it in my face that he needed to make sure we didn’t go under. Well, if he was so damn worried about that, where was he the past 13 months. He never stopped by, never called, never-asked how it was going, if we needed anything, if the building was falling down, if it was bee infested, etc.... His sudden concern is a bit odd, don’t you think?
I didn’t lie to you about the equipment—it’s all good. The Ricoh is the best machine out there for the money. The presses all function in some capacity but haven’t been used since Jake left. You honestly, have all the tools to continue to operate—you’ll just need to find new people to helm the ship. And you’ll have us to contend with, because we will be out there securing our customers and getting those jobs that I was told that I didn’t know how to get or how to properly market.
Remember this too, the Telegraph has no contracts with clients—there is not one client under any kind of obligation for any extended period of time to print with the company.
This isn’t easy for me—losing the newspaper is killing me. It means so much to me and I hope one day to buy it back from the estate. Hopefully, someone will come to their senses and allow me to buy it for a reasonable price—if not, we will be publishing our own newspaper soon enough.
I have given 300% to this business the past year—I have worked 60 hours weeks, i have been out there talking to people and securing our old clients and not one word of thank you from anyone in the family or the estate. That’s fine— I’m finally getting my reward—something that can’t be taken away from me.
Again, I wish you well and will not bad mouth you to anyone—you are a good man. can see that. Under different circumstances, we could have been a good team.
Darlene has left passwords and the safe combination. I have done the same.
Things to know:
1. Call Peggy Shields about online newspaper updating information.
2. Paper ordered through Linden-myer-Monroe-Jason Butler contact.
3. Daily Item prints Telegraph—Bob Kutz is your contact.
4. I switched you as the official contact with Ricoh—Margaret Wolfe is your contact, whom you’ve already met. She can set up training for you. They are changing the online supply order as well—once they get it updated and contact you, password is-[redacted].
5. My computer is set to log in as Mifflinburg Telegraph—log in is-[redacted].
6. Time capsule has my current backups and the CO’s to the right are older files.
7. Xante envelope printer is not under Ricoh. The files should have contact information if you have problems.
8. D&L is our contact for the big machinery.
I think that’s it.
Heidi Criswell
Tellingly, the copy of the resignation letter that the Criswells attached as an exhibit to their opposing brief is slightly different than the copy Mifflinburg Telegraph attached. The phrase “Remember this too” has been cut from the eleventh paragraph. The first six line items under “things to know” are identical, but then they continue:
7. Risograph contact is Pat from GE Richards
8. Xante envelope printer is not under Ricoh. The files should have contact information if you have problems. Also— we ordered needed supplies last week, the ordering information for that is also in file.
9. D&L is our contact for the big machinery—I think service number is in rolodex—Bonnie is secretary, Terry is the service man you [sic] usually comes up here.
The most damnning difference, one of several indicators of ‘consciousness of guilt,’ is that the letter the Criswells’ attached as an exhibit contain a different sign off. As opposed to “I think that’s it. Heidi.” in the copy Mifflinburg Telegraph attached, the Criswell’s purported letter includes an additional, phrase:
Misleading Mifflinburg Telegraph’s clients
Reorder forms
Prior to resigning, Heidi Criswell provided reorder forms to Mifflinburg Telegraph clients. She testified the reorder forms contained the phone number, fax number, email address, and mailing address, not of Mifflinburg Telegraph, but of her new business, Wildcat. The front and back of a reorder form given to a client on January 30, 2014, immediately prior to her resignation, is copied herein:
In her counseled deposition testimony, when asked when this reorder form was used, she responsively testified that
We had two schools of thought here: One, what was happening to the Mifflin-burg Telegraph before January 9th when Mark walked in the büsiness, and one that happened after that. We seriously, stupidly, thought that the customers were our responsibility, that if we walked out the door and the shop closed down on February 3rd or whatever day we were thinking we were going to be able to get out of there, that the customers were going to be left hanging.
It was a stupid attempt to try to reach out to them to find us, to find anybody to print. When—I think I printed maybe 20 of these, I don’t know, just a couple of sheets. And I was under the impression that—the day that John walked into the building or Mark Papalia walked into the building and said that things— he was going to—there was no danger of the Telegraph closing, I was under the impression that all these cards were pitched.
I honestly do not know how this card got out on January 30th. It was, honestly, the last job that was done before we walked out of the building for the last time as printers—the last time that she walked out of the building, on January 30th. She, meaning Jane [Boop another employee], who would have filled this out.
Mifflinburg Telegraph’s counsel continued the line of questioning asking
Q: “And who instructed Jane to fill this out?”
A: “I did.”
Q: “When did you instruct Jane to first start putting them in the jobs?”
A: “Oh, gosh, probably the very end of December. I’m not honestly sure. It would have been somewhere around Christmas, somewhere in that period of time. As I said, I don’t think I printed more than 20 of them, 20 or 25 of them; and I did think they were gone.”
Q: “So you printed them, the 20, 25 of them, for the specific pursue of taking care of Mifflinburg Telegraph customers?”
A: “Yes.”
Darlene Sharp testified at her deposition that she had seen the reorder card prior to the litigation “back in the finishing department of Mifflinburg Telegraph; She affirmed that Wildcat Publications’ reorder cards were put in Mifflinburg Telegraph jobs when completed. She was aware of this practice since sometime in early January 2014, but never told John Helwig.
Helwig discovered the reorder' form shortly after the collective resignation. He attested in an affidavit: “On February 6, 2014, I noticed a customer order that was ready for pick up by the customer. When I opened the order to make sure it was correct, I found a reorder form for Wildcat Publications, LLC,”
Accessing Mifflinburg Telegraph Emails after resigning and responding with a sign off containing the Mifflinburg Telegraph name
In addition to providing customers misleading reorder forms directing them to Wildcat, Heidi Criswell also accessed, after she resigned and without authority, her former Mifflinburg Telegraph email account from her personal iPad. She did not delete her Mifflinburg Telegraph email account until the weekend of February 6 and 7, 2014, a week after her voluntary resignation. She continued to send emails from that account during the week after she handed in her formal resignation letter, leading customers to believe that she was both still with the Mifflinburg Telegraph and now running it. On February 4th and 5th 2014, Heidi Criswell engaged in an email exchange with Christina Lee regarding a print job for Mifflinburg Midget football and cheerleading. She did so from her Mifflinburg Telegraph email address, Heidi@mifflinburgtelegraph.com with the following picture attached to the bottom of her email:
The picture was also attached to her January 31, 2014-February 3, 2014 email exchange with Andrew Klose from her Mifflinburg Telegraph email address, Heidi@mifflinburgtelegraph.com.
"When questioned at her counseled deposition, Heidi Criswell testified that “new management” referred to “Darlene and I started managing the place with Mark’s blessing.” She continued by saying “Competitive pricing meant exactly what it says. It was very important. There was a lot of concern after John passed away that the place was closing, and we got phone calls every day; so we wanted to make it very clear that the place was not closing.”
Fulfilling Mifflinburg Telegraph orders though Wildcat
In addition to sending these emails after she had resigned, Heidi Criswell conceded at her deposition that she had fulfilled a Mifflinburg Telegraph order through Wildcat. The weekend she resigned, she took Andrew Klose’s business card order from Mifflinburg Telegraph. She testified that,
A: So on Sunday when I went in and had my last walk through the building, I grabbed them [the business cards] quick and took them with me. And I contacted him immediately to tell him, as that email says, that I had his cards and where they were located, and I knew he was in a hurry for them, so to come get them.
Q: When did he pick them up?
A: First thing Monday morning.
Q: So he could have picked them up from the Telegraph?
A: Yes, he could have. We never did any—I mean, I never heard from him again, you know. There was a mention of receipt books here. We never printed them or did anything for him after that, so—
The email exchange between Andrew Klose and Heidi Criswell confirms that she took the business cards from Mifflinburg Telegraph and told Klose to pick them up from her at Wildcat. The salient portion of this email exchange is copied herein:
For his part, Dale Criswell testified that although he did recall taking a package to UPS on January 23, 2014, he did not recall the intended recipient. Additionally, John Helwig professed that at least one “Mifflinburg Telegraph customer entered the Mifflinburg Telegraph to pick up his order. He then indicated that he had ordered it from Heidi Criswell and was at the wrong place.”
However, one Mifflinburg Telegraph customer was not misled—Conagra. Credit for honesty should be given to Darlene Sharp, however, not Heidi Criswell. This email is copied herein:
Absconding with Mifflinburg Telegraph’s customer list
Prior to their official departure from Mifflinburg Telegraph, Sharp sent an email to Heidi Criswell’s personal email address, bluebari89@mac.com, attached was an excel spreadsheet, containing the Mifflinburg Telegraph “mailing list.” Sharp testified at her deposition that she maintained an electronic mailing list on her computer listing subscribers. She farther testified that her January 24, 2014 email reflected sending the Mifflinburg Telegraph customer list/mailing list' to Heidi Criswell. She stated as a deponent:
Q: I’m going to hand you what we’re marking as Sharp 7. Do you recognize this e-mail?
A: I have seen it before, yes.
Q: And where have you seen it before?
A: On documents.
Q: Okay. Did you send an e-mail from your computer to bluebari89@mac.com?
A: I tried to, yes.
Q: Okay. And what were you sending?
A: A mailing list.
Q: And whose mailing list was it?
A: From the Telegraph.
Q: And where did you get this mailing list?
A: From my computer.
Q: Is a copy of this mailing list still on your computer?
A: Yes.
Q: Okay. And what would it be called? A: I don’t remember. Customer list.
Q: You said you tried to send this mailing list. And who is bluebari89@mac. com?
A: That is Heidi’s address.
Q: Okay. Did you delete this e-mail after you tried to send it?
A: I probably did, yes.
Q: And why were you sending this to Heidi?
A: Because she asked me to.
Q: And what did you think it was going to be used for?
A: A postcard mailing.
Q: For?
A: Wildcat Publications.
Q: Okay. And where did you get the mailing list?
A: Off my computer.
Q: So it was a Mifflinburg Telegraph mailing list?
A: Yes.
There are two separate lists attached as sealed exhibits. Approximately 300 customers are noted on the mailing list. There are approximately 200 customers named on the November 26, 2013 ‘customer and job list.’
In preparing her business plan for the new Wildcat business, Heidi Criswell included a “laundry list” of confirmed clients. Heidi Criswell had spoked to “all but two or three” of those listed prior to writing her business plan. Heidi Criswell testified that “a lot of them were friends that had been with me since January and saw me struggling to buy the business and saw my choices and felt that—and wanted to assure me that if I would decide to branch out on my own that they would definitely consider—strongly consider or definitely stay with me.”She had been speaking to these clients ■ “for a long time.”
Heidi Criswell further testified that she “went around with the business agreement as to the people that said they would definitely continue to use my services. I did not contact people that I did not know, didn’t have personal encounters with, which was probably 95 percent of customers.” She continued, “Darlene talked to ConAgra sometime in November... I know the only one we made a formal—any kind of formal letter to was ConAgra.” “Lew-isburg School District, we did not call until February 3rd.”
Although Heidi Criswell only admitted to two clients, her business plan, dated November 6, 2013, lists the following clients. “Confirmed Clients: Heritage Printers confirmed clients Include: Country Farm & Home, Mifflinburg Heritage & Revitalization Association, Artist Valerie Moyer, Martin & Lobes Attorneys, Tournament of Bands/National Judges Association, BandVideos.com, Milton Band Boosters & Theatre Department, Hoffman Advertising, Mifflinburg Christkindl Inc., Max Media, Mifflinburg Theatre & Arts Department, Raspberry Creative Design, Hoffman Advertising, Hometown Eatery.” “Clients in negotiation include: Con-Agra, Boy Scouts, Country Cupboard, Central Susquehanna Builders Association, Landmark Tours, Mifflinburg School District, Lewisburg School District to name a few.”
An email chain between Heidi Criswell and Stacey Reich at ConAgra Foods dated January 10, 2014 through January 13, 2014 confirmed Con-Agra as a client of Wildcat. This particular email was not misleading. Heidi Criswell made it clear that “The new name is Wildcat Publications LLC” and that “all of the employees are moving.” Of the above listed clients Heidi Criswell included in her business plan, one-third were existing Mifflinburg Telegraph customers.
In deleting files, it appears that Heidi Criswell may have also deleted the customer list from the Mifflinburg Telegraph computers. John Helwig attested that “I am unable to locate the Mifflinburg Telegraph newspaper distribution list which indicates the subscription end dates.”
Closing Mifflinburg Telegraph’s account with its paper supplier
On December 20, 2013, Heidi Criswell and Sharp received an email from Linden-meyr Munroe, Mifflinburg Telegraph’s paper supplier, that indicated that based on a verbal representation from Heidi Criswell, Lindenmeyr Munroe would close the Miff-linburg Telegraph account at the end of January 2014. This email exhibit appears to be an exhibit that, tellingly, Mifflinburg Telegraph apparently wasn’t aware of, because Mifflinburg Telegraph didn’t attach the exhibit to its papers; the Criswells, however, did. The Criswells attached this email despite it clearly inculpating Heidi Criswell as the individual who closed Miff-linburg Telegraph’s account with its paper supplier. That email is copied herein,
Heidi Criswell could have advised Mark Papalia in the interim that Mifflinburg Telegraph’s account with its paper supplier would be closed. Instead, on January 3, 2014, Heidi Criswell sent a responsive letter to Lindenmeyer Munroe stating, in relevant part,
You have requested some information from me about the current situation at the Mifflinburg Telegraph...and how'it pertains to my new business—Wildcat Publications, LLC.
*****
We already have verbal confirmations from about 85% of our major clients that they have no intention of leaving us regardless of where we are located or what we call ourselves.
Lindenmeyer Munroe then closed Mifflin-burg Telegraph’s account “as a result of being told that the Mifflinburg Telegraph would be out of business at the end of January.” As a result, Helwig had to subsequently reapply for credit with this vendor.
Work performed by Mifflinburg Telegraph and invoiced for payment by Wildcat
Heidi Criswell testified at her deposition that a client, Brett Hosterman, emailed her on January 21, 2014 to place an order for 160 posters for Mount Carmel Area High School. She processed the order on January 23, 2014 while still working at Mifflinburg Telegraph using Mifflinburg Telegraph machines and supplies, but later billed the order from Wildcat. The bill is copied herein:
She did not forward to her employer the money received by Wildcat from the Tournament of Bands work performed by Miff-linburg Telegraph. At her deposition, Heidi Criswell conceded that yet another bill for work that was completed by Miff-linburg Telegraph was ultimately billed from Wildcat. *
The uninformed or inobservant Dale Criswell testified that he was not aware of any “Wildcat Publications orders [ ] processed through the Telegraph.”
Deleted data files from Mifflinburg Telegraph’s computer
After the clandestine resignation of all employees, Helwig attempted to access Heidi Criswell’s computer and discovered that in addition to her resignation, she had also deleted all Mifflinburg Telegraph work product and customer files from the Mifflinburg Telegraph owned computer. Mifflinburg Telegraph was forced to retain a computer recovery service to attempt to recover the files. The first computer technical support personnel retained was unable to' recover the files. Mifflinburg Telegraph later hired a forensic computer expert who did recover some deleted emails, but most of what was found were ‘corrupt,’ unusable files. In total, Mifflin-burg Telegraph paid $9,204.57 for the computer recovery services.
In her counterstatement of facts, Heidi • Criswell asserts “emphatically [that] all job flies were on her computer on February 2, 2014.” Yet an email she sent to Cheri Ross of the Main Street program part of the Mifflinburg Heritage & Revitalization Association (“MHRA”), shows that as early as January 22, 2014, Heidi Criswell was aware that she had deleted all MHRA files. This email is copied herein.
Moreover, in her statement of facts Heidi Criswell admitted that she deleted her entire computer identity on January 31, 2014. She testified at her deposition that she understood ‘identities’ on Macs. She further testified that she removed her identity from the computer, explaining “I removed myself from the computer: my name, my personal identity; and that’s what I did. I removed my identity from the computer.”
Darlene Sharp testified at her deposition that the job files were all stored on Heidi Criswell’s computer. If a customer asked for a reorder, no one else could go on Heidi Criswell’s computer; Heidi “would have to send it directly to the [printing] press from her computer.”
Heidi Criswell does not dispute that Mifflinburg Telegraph spent almost ten-thousand dollars attempting to recover flies. What she appears to dispute is the timeline of events, as she poses the question in her counterstatement of facts “Cris-well asks what date Kinn Computers was called to investigate it?” Heidi Criswell asserts that Mifflinburg Telegraph should have been able to access all files on her computer. However, the inability of the forensic computer recovery service to recover the files belies her contention. Her narration of undisputed facts is as follows:
¶ 17 Criswell states that Mifflinburg’s customer job files were saved on her computer. In addition back-ups were on her Apple Time Capsule and on CD’s as stated in her resignation letter.
¶ 18 Criswell would have no first hand knowledge of this but assumes it to be true that David Kinn was hired to examine the computer. Criswell states emphatically all job files were on her computer on February 2, 2014. Helwig made no inquires directly to Criswell about the computer when he asked for a voice-mail password—it seems that missing files would have been the larger priority. Criswell asks what date Kinn Computers was called to investigate it? It seems as if it was working immediately after Criswell leaving as at least two repeat jobs were printed b the Telegraph.
¶ 19 As stated, Criswell admits to removing her identity from her work computer on Friday, January 31, 2014. As stated in her directions to Helwig in her resignation letter, the computer was set to log in as “Mifflinburg Telegraph” not “Mifflinburg” as she provided the password to access it.
¶ 20 Mr. Kinn is correct, identities allow the use with the access to the files the administrator allows. However, “Mifflin-burg Telegraph” was also set as the administrator, which allowed it to access and edit ALL files on the computer,
¶21 The sole identity on the computer was not “Telegraph.” It was “Mifflin-burg Telegraph.” It was also the sole administrator. Again, Criswell asks if the computer was ever attempted to be logged in as she instructed.
¶22 Criswell strong disputes that the files were not accessible. While Criswell does not dispute what Mr. Kinn found, she disputes how the computer arrived to him in that condition.
¶ 23 Again, while Criswell’s identity was deleted from her computer, the “Mifflin-burg Telegraph” identity as well as the assignment of administer allowed access to all files on the computer. Criswell assigned it as such and disputed Mr, Kinn’s claims.
However, the Criswells’ 2016 recitation of facts is not in entirely in accord with what the Heidi Criswell’s February 2014 resignation letter actually says. In her letter, her only references to the computers were to say “Darlene has left passwords and the safe combination;” “I have done the same;” “My computer is set to log in as Mifflinburg Telegraph—log in is [redacted]; and “Time capsule has my current backups” Her contrary statements in paragraphs nineteen and twenty noted above are examples of multiple discrepancies in the Criswells written work that cause me to question their forthrightness. Heidi Criswell admits that she deleted her files and identity from the computer, but in the same breath attempts to shift the blame back to Plaintiff for its inability to access those deleted flies through its administrator identity.
The undisputed fact is, that despite Heidi Criswell’s purported hope that the files would remain after she deleted them, they somehow did not. The owner, president, lead computer technician, computer consultant, technical advisor, tech support, and the on-side field technician of Kinn Computers, David Kinn, was unable to recover her files. Kinn is far from a novice, as he has more than 25 years of experience. The computer at issue is a MAC , an Apple, Inc. brand. Kinn attested as follows in his declaration:
4. On or about February 3, 2016, I was contacted by Mark Papalia to go to the Mifflinburg Telegraph to assist in locating files on a MAC computer which was formerly used by Heidi Criswell while she was employed by Mifflinburg Telegraph.
5. Mifflinburg Telegraph computers were set such that a person logged into the computer under an identity. The person then had access to all files created under that identity and no other identity. Therefore, if one were to log in under the identity of Mifflinburg Telegraph, they would not have access to the customer files created under Heidi Cris-well’s identity.
6. The only identity that existed on February 3, 2016 was the identity of Mifflin-burg Telegraph. Logging in as Heidi Criswell as an identity was not an option.
7. When we logged in as Mifflinburg Telegraph, none of Mifflinburg Telegraph’s customer files were- accessible.
8. When an identity is deleted on a computer, this action deletes all files associated with that identity and login. Therefore, when Heidi Criswell deleted her identity, she deleted all Mifflinburg Telegraph files that were created under her identity, in essence all Mifflinburg Telegraph files.
9.1 was unable to restore Ms. Criswell’s identity and unable to recover the deleted files.
10. As I was unable to recover the deleted files, I recommended to Mark Papalia that he hire a forensic computer expert to work with me, which he did.
11. The forensic computer expert recovered deleted emails.
12. The forensic computer expert also did recover a minimum amount of customer files; however, those files were not able to be used as they were corrupt.
13. At that time it was determined that the customer files were not able to be recovered in a usable manner, so we stopped attempting to recover them.
Continued unauthorized use of Mifflin-burg Telegraph’s data files
Lest one believe Heidi Criswell’s vacillating responses are confined solely to her written statements, I note her deposition was laden with equivocal responses, as well. When asked “Are you using Mifflin-burg Telegraph designs at Wildcat Publications?” She responded “1 am doing my best not to, if I feel it’s something that’s in conflict. At this point, yes—I mean, no, I am not using anything.” When pressed, she continued, “I mean, I’m not saying I have not accidentally used one. If it was done, it was not done with intent.”
She admitted in her statement of facts that she was using designs that were on the Mifflinburg Telegraph computers, but argues that the customer ‘owns’ the design. Specifically, she admitted she reproduced the menu for Carriage. Corner restaurant. Interestingly, Sharp testified that she believed that if a customer wanted to purchase something through Wildcat that is duplicative of work from Mifflin-burg Telegraph that “Heidi had to start from scratch and redo it.”
Use of Mifflinburg Telegraph’s pricing list
Until just before his death, John Stamm was responsible for determining pricing for the products and services Mifflinburg Telegraph provided. Mifflinburg Telegraph asserts that Heidi Criswell used this pricing book to solicit Mifflinburg Telegraph customers to Wildcat, telling customers that she would charge less than John Stamm. Heidi Criswell disputes this, but again, her emphatic statement of facts contradicts her own prior testimony. She wrote:
¶ 33 Stamm had a pricing book that he kept with him at all times. The book was turned over to Sharp and Criswell approximately one week before his death and was used to price orders. UNDISPUTED.
¶ 34 Criswell used pricing information obtained from Stamm’s book to solicit Telegraph customers for the Telegraph NOT Wildcat. UNDISPUTED.
In her 2014 deposition, however, Heidi Criswell testified that Stamm gave the pricing book to his wife Wanda, not to her. Additionally, prior to leaving Miff-linburg Telegraph, she attempted to undercut Mifflinburg Telegraph by telling a client that she would charge them less at Wildcat. She wrote in a January 28, 2014 email to Carol Pierson
Worked on the pricing for the bridal book—With the reduced page count, I can do you more programs—do you want to do about 300-350 and put the rest toward the nascar book and get more there? I’m not getting anything near what John was charging you.
Unauthorized transfer of Mifflinburg Telegraph’s printer to Wildcat
Sometime between October 7, 2013, when she was notified that the negotiations to purchase Mifflinburg Telegraph had failed, and October 25, 2013, when she formed the Wildcat business, Heidi Cris-well contacted Ricoh, USA, Inc., hereinafter “Ricoh,” to ask them “if equipment that I [Heidi Criswell] thought was mine that I had signed for, could be switched— the contracts could be switched; and they said yes.” Curiously, on September 22, 2013, without Papalia’s knowledge, Heidi Criswell signed a lease with Ricoh for a ‘651’ printer for Mifflinburg Telegraph for a cost of $1,704 per month. She signed a revised lease, dated November 14, 2013, to ‘buy out’ Mifflinburg Telegraphs’ existing ‘720’ printer to bring the lease up to $1,986 per month. The change in lease price was “what it would cost to add the 720 on to the 651 lease.” She never discussed the lease, nor the subsequent revision, with Papalia prior to signing. The lease itself, including the price change from $1,704 to $1,986, is billed to Mifflinburg Telegraph.
Although Heidi Criswell asserts in her statement of facts that Wildcat signed a service contract for the increased payment to be removed from Mifflinburg Telegraph’s account and placed on Wildcat’s, her only evidentiary support for this is-to cite, ipsie dixit, to her resignation letter. The price change and billing information on the lease have been copied herein:
Heidi Criswell asserts she believed she was personally responsible for the machines. The lease does contain a ‘personal guaranty* section, but it is unexecuted by anyone:
In a December 2, 2013 email exchange with Margaret Wolfe, a Senior Account Executive with Ricoh USA, hereinafter “Wolfe,” Heidi Criswell wrote:
So to re-iterate—please make sure all billing goes to the Mifflinburg [sic] Telegraph Inc...not me. Something going down (not bad) and Iwant [sic] to make sure that the present trustee pays for all that the business is responsible for. So for now, let’s just forget that we talked about moving them until this is all set-tied.
In a January 3, 2014 email to Wolfe, Heidi Criswell wrote, As I said, if there is ANYTHING I can do to help, please let me know.
Things seems to be progressing according to plan .but the silence on the part of the Stamm estate is deafening and I’m worried we may hear from them soon. I gotta get these machines moved out of here soon.
In a January 6, 2014 email exchange between Wolfe and Heidi Criswell, Cris-well wrote:
It is in the mail...
As far as the world is concerned the Telegraph is now Wildcat Publications, LLC. It is closing Feb. 3, and unless the executor would like to find a buyer at sometime and try to reopen it—which is 99% doubtful, it will stay shuttered. He doesn’t know equipment was ever here, we have contracts, we are continuing to pay our commitment to Ricoh.
Can we simply tell them that yes, we are the Telegraph and yes, we are rebrand-ing and starting over simply because of the ‘bad karma' associated with the Telegraph name. We have to move because the current location is about to be condemned by the county (this is the truth).
Are we just trying to be too damn honest about this? Can you just be ‘misinformed' or just didn’t quite understand what I wanted done.
We are under the exact same corporate structure.
It is interesting to note that Linden-myer—Munroe is cancelling the credit line with the current Telegraph on Jan. 30 because John is dead and we are gone. If someone else opens this, they must re-apply and will have to prove credit worthiness even though the business itself has been here since 1862. They have no problem with allowing us to take our credit to the new location.
I need a beer!
Heidi Criswell
Wolfe responded to Heidi Criswell:
I’m down with the beer!
OK..., lets do this.. .1 will process paperwork as Telegraph, moving to “telegraph” at new location. The invoice will be created as ‘telegraph’. Then once the assumption is done.. .provided its done, we can issue a new invoice as wildcat and credit it. Or you can just pay the ‘telegraph’ invoice. We don’t care where the.check comes from.
On January 8, 2014, Heidi Criswell wrote in an email to Wolfe: “do whatever you need to do to get these machines out of here asap!!” In a January 9, 2014 email exchange between Wolfe and Heidi Criswell, Wolfe wrote:
Heidi,
Our coordinator got wind of the conversation I had with the big boss (Ramzi). She was trying to get the Mifflinburg Telegraph lease straightened out so the you [sic] could start making the payments.
NOW there is a total barrage of questions. They want to know who the contact will be if not you,
I am afraid they are not going to be OK with this. After all it is rather apparent that you are more or less sticking the Executor (what’s his name?) with this lease. If he doesn’t want to pay it, we are going to have to re-posess [sic] the unit and take a loss.
Now maybe they will let you just assume the lease with the marketplace funding it.
I’m not sure what to tell them. You’re thoughts?
Margaret Wolfe
Heidi Criswell replied,
If the skew can be fixed a little better btw, which I can just say “hey it’s fixed!” He will keep the machine with no problem. I told him about the skewing issue and that it still wasn’t great and he asked if they planned on fixing it—I couldn’t say—yeah, when it moves. So— if a tech comes in and ‘fixes' ⅛—or tries to make it better again, I will say “this is great!!” and he will say yeah!! and pay all the money Ricoh wants, cause he is all about spending the cash!!
In a January 9-10 email exchange between Heidi Criswell and Wolfe, Criswell wrote:
how do we get these out of here post haste?
He wants to bring in a manager to help us make more money and he’s willing to look at new printers (I told him one of these was on trial and the other broken) and they were scheduled for removal soon.
Wolfe replied “I’ve asked to have them scheduled ASAP. I will check with the warehouse and get back to you.” Heidi Criswell replied, “Any idea when the 720 is physically leaving the building. In a January 10, 2014 email from Wolfe to Heidi Criswell, Wolfe wrote:
Heidi,
The payment for the 720 has to be in it. We bought it out with the 651 lease. You are correct that it doesn’t appear on the lease document, so he won’t know that. All he will' know is that the C651 costs $1986 a month.
We can move it because according to our records it is “owned by the Telegraph now. And he told you to get it out of there.
Margaret Wolfe.
In a January 15, 2014 email exchange to Wolfe, Heidi Criswell wrote:
Someone from ricoh is calling HERE to find out about the new machine—something about delivery Darlene thinks. I have no idea who it is because I am never here. It’s so important that no one calls the