Welcome to Scribd, the world's digital library. Read, publish, and share books and documents. See more
Download
Standard view
Full view
of .
Save to My Library
Look up keyword
Like this
2Activity
0 of .
Results for:
No results containing your search query
P. 1
Ceglia.memo.58

Ceglia.memo.58

Ratings: (0)|Views: 272 |Likes:
Published by joemullin

More info:

Published by: joemullin on Jun 18, 2011
Copyright:Attribution Non-commercial

Availability:

Read on Scribd mobile: iPhone, iPad and Android.
download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
See more
See less

06/18/2011

pdf

text

original

 
UNITEDSTATESDISTRICTCOURTWESTERNDISTRICTOFNEWYORK ---------------------------------------------------------XPAULD.CEGLIA,Plaintiff,-against-MARKELLIOTZUCKERBERGandFACEBOOK,INC.,Defendants.:::::::::::::CIVILACTIONNO.10-CV-00569(RJA)---------------------------------------------------------X
MEMORANDUM OF LAW IN OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANTS’ MOTIONFOR ONE-SIDED EXPEDITED DISCOVERY AND IN SUPPORT OFPLAINTIFF’S CROSS-MOTION FOR MUTUAL EXPEDITED DISCOVERY
DLAP
IPER 
LLP(US)ChristopherP.(Kip)HallCarrieS.ParikhMichaelP.McMahan1251AvenueoftheAmericas NewYork,NewYork10020(212)355-4500kip.hall@dlapiper.comcarrie.parikh@dlapiper.commike.mcmahan@dlapiper.comDLAP
IPER 
LLP(US)RobertW.BrownlieGerardA.Trippitelli401BStreetSuite1700SanDiego,CA92101-4297(619)699-2700robert.brownlie@dlapiper.com jerry.trippitelli@dlapiper.comL
IPPES
M
ATHIAS
W
EXLER 
F
RIEDMAN
LLPDennisC.VaccoKevinJ.CrossRichardM.Scherer,Jr.665MainStreet,Suite300Buffalo,NY14203(716)853-5100dvacco@lippes.comkcross@lippes.comrscherer@lippes.comPaulArgentieri188MainSt.Hornell,NY14843(607)324-3232 paul.argentieri@gmail.com
 AttorneysforPlaintiff 
 
Case 1:10-cv-00569-RJA -LGF Document 58 Filed 06/17/11 Page 1 of 24
 
i-i-
TABLE OF CONTENTS
PR ELIMINARY STATEMENT.....................................................................................................1STATEMENT OF FACTS..............................................................................................................2A.Plaintiff’s Evidence is Authentic............................................................................2B.Plaintiff Denies Zuckerberg’s Allegations.............................................................9PR OCEDURAL HISTORY..........................................................................................................10AR GUMENT................................................................................................................................11I.DISCOVERY SHOULD COMMENCE IMMEDIATELY.................................11A.Plaintiff is Eager to Prove the Validity of the Agreement........................11B.There is No Reason to Delay Discovery..................................................11II.PLAINTIFF SEEKS LIMITED DISCOVERY TO PROVE THEAUTHENTICITY OF THE AGREEMENT........................................................12A.Additional Evidence Demonstrating the Authenticity of the Work for Hire Agreement is Likely to be Within Defendants’ Possession........12B.Defendants Refuse To Participate in Mutual Expedited Discovery.........13C.Simultaneous Discovery is Appropriate Here..........................................14D.Defendants’ Own Submissions Demonstrate DocumentDestruction...............................................................................................15III.ONE-SIDED EXPEDITED DISCOVERY OF PLAINTIFF SHOULD NOT BE GRANTED............................................................................................16 A.Defendants Have Not Met the Burden for One-Sided ExpeditedDiscovery..................................................................................................16B.One-Sided Expedited Discovery Is Neither Necessary NoAppropriate...............................................................................................17 1.One-sided expedited discovery is typically granted to a plaintiff seeking a temporary restraining order or a preliminary injunction...................................................................17 2.Defendants have admitted document destruction, butcannot demonstrate immediate harm to their case byPlaintiff..........................................................................................183.Authenticity is a low burden in the Second Circuit;remaining questions of credibility are left for the finder of fact.................................................................................................19CO NCLUSION.............................................................................................................................20
Case 1:10-cv-00569-RJA -LGF Document 58 Filed 06/17/11 Page 2 of 24
 
ii-ii-
TABLE OF AUTHORITIESPage(s)F
EDERAL
C
ASES
 Amari v. Spillan
, No. 2:08-cv-829, 2008 WL 5378339 (S.D. Ohio Dec. 19, 2008)...........................................18
 Ayyash v. Bank al-Madina
,233 F.R.D. 325 (S.D.N.Y. 2005).............................................................................................17
 Brown v. Junction Pool Commons, Inc.
,301 Fed. Appx. 24 (2d Cir. 2008)............................................................................................19
ConnectU, Inc. v. Facebook, Inc.
,Case No. 1:07-cv-10593 (DPW) (D. Mass. Sept. 13, 2007)...................................................17
 Delphine Software Intern. v. Elec. Arts, Inc.
, No. 99 Civ. 4454 AGAS, 1999 WL 627413 (S.D.N.Y. Aug. 18, 1999).................................16
 Essenter v. Cumberland Farms, Inc.
, No. 1:09-CV-0539, 2011 WL 124505 (N.D.N.Y. Jan. 14, 2011)...........................................15
 Hemans v. Long Island Jewish Med. Ctr.
, No. 10-CV-1158, 2010 WL 4386692 (E.D.N.Y. Oct. 28, 2010)............................................14
 Hickman v. Taylor 
,329 U.S. 495 (1947)................................................................................................................15
 Humphrey v. Landers
,344 Fed. Appx. 686 (2d Cir. 2009).........................................................................................19
 Jacobson v. Empire Elec. Agreementors, Inc.
,339 Fed. Appx. 51 (2d Cir. 2009)............................................................................................19
McKenzie v. Nicholson
, No. 08-CV-0773, 2009 WL 179253 (E.D.N.Y. Jan. 26, 2009)...............................................14
 N.Y. State Elec. & Gas Corp. v. U.S. Gas & Elec., Inc.
,697 F. Supp. 2d 415 (W.D.N.Y. 2010)....................................................................................11
 Notaro v. Koch
,95 F.R.D. 403 (S.D.N.Y. 1982)...............................................................................................16
OMG Fidelity, Inc v. Sirius Technologies, Inc.
,239 F.R.D. 300 (N.D.N.Y. 2006)......................................................................................12,18
 Pension Comm. of Univ. of Montreal Pension Plan v. Banc of America Sec., LLC 
,685 F. Supp. 2d 456 (S.D.N.Y. 2010).....................................................................................15
Case 1:10-cv-00569-RJA -LGF Document 58 Filed 06/17/11 Page 3 of 24

Activity (2)

You've already reviewed this. Edit your review.
1 thousand reads
1 hundred reads

You're Reading a Free Preview

Download
/*********** DO NOT ALTER ANYTHING BELOW THIS LINE ! ************/ var s_code=s.t();if(s_code)document.write(s_code)//-->