Welcome to Scribd, the world's digital library. Read, publish, and share books and documents. See more
Download
Standard view
Full view
of .
Look up keyword
Like this
3Activity
0 of .
Results for:
No results containing your search query
P. 1
Https Ecf Nywd Uscourts Gov Cgi-bin Show Temp Pl File2147297-0--29417

Https Ecf Nywd Uscourts Gov Cgi-bin Show Temp Pl File2147297-0--29417

Ratings: (0)|Views: 2,346 |Likes:
Published by webnewser

More info:

Published by: webnewser on Apr 04, 2012
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

04/04/2012

pdf

text

original

 
 
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURTWESTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK 
 PAUL D. CEGLIA,Plaintiff,v.MARK ELLIOT ZUCKERBERG andFACEBOOK, INC.Defendants.
PLAINTIFF’S OPPOSITION TODEFENDANTS’ MOTION TOSTAY DISCOVERY PENDING ARULING ON THEIR DISPOSITIVE MOTIONS
1:10-cv-00569-RJA
Case 1:10-cv-00569-RJA -LGF Document 345 Filed 04/01/12 Page 1 of 21
 
TABLE OF CONTENTSI.
 
PRELIMINARY STATEMENT
.........................................................................................1
II.
 
FACTS
...............................................................................................................................2
A.
 
Defendants’ Motion To Dismiss Raises Disputed Issues of Fact Outside thePleadings
....................................................................................................................................2
B.
 
The Motion to Dismiss Relies on Conclusions Contradicted by Plaintiff’s Experts
...4
C.
 
The Court Previously Noted that Plaintiff Would Be Entitled to Discovery
...............5
III.
 
ARGUMENT
.....................................................................................................................6
A.
 
Plaintiff Is Entitled to Discovery Necessary to Respond to Defendants’ Motion toDismiss
.......................................................................................................................................6
B.
 
Defendants Have Not Established “Good Cause” For a Stay
.....................................11
C.
 
Defendants’ Laches and Statute of Limitations Arguments Do Not Provide “GoodCause” For a Stay
...................................................................................................................13
IV.
 
CONCLUSION
...............................................................................................................15
Case 1:10-cv-00569-RJA -LGF Document 345 Filed 04/01/12 Page 2 of 21
 
 
TABLE OF AUTHORITIESCases
 
237 Park Investors LLC v. Royal and Son Alliance
, 03-cv-63024, 2004 WL 385067 (S.D.N.Y.March 1, 2004)............................................................................................................................7
 Anti-Monopoly, Inc. v. Hasbro, Inc.
, No. 94-2120, 1996 WL 10127 (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 7, 1996)...12
 Anwar v. Fairfield Greenwich Ltd.
, 728 F. Supp. 2d 372 (S.D.N.Y. 2010).................................10
 Burns v. Imagine Films Entertainment, Inc.
, 164 F.R.D. 589 (W.D.N.Y. 1996).........................12
California Sportfishing Protection Alliance v. Chico Scrap Metal, Inc.
,
 
 No. 10-1207, 2011 WL130228 (E.D. Cal. Jan. 14, 2011)..............................................................................................11
Golden Budha Corp. v. Canadian Land Co. of Am
., 931 F.2d 196 (2d Cir. 1991)......................14
 Inland American (LIP) Sub, LLC, v. Lauth
, No. 09-00893, 2010 WL 670546 (S.D. Ind. Feb.19, 2010).................................................................................................................................8, 9
 Janese v. Fay
, 751 F. Supp. 2d 469 (W.D.N.Y. 2010).................................................................13
 Novick v. Metropolitan Life Ins. Co.
, 764 F. Supp. 2d. 653 (S.D.N.Y. 2011)................................7
 Paymaster Corp. v. American Bankers Ins. Co. of Florida
, 91 F.3d 154, 1996 WL 368753 (9thCir. 1996)....................................................................................................................................7
 Pendergest-Holt v. Cetain Underwriters at Llyod's of London and Arch Specialty Insurance Co.
, No. 09-3712, 2011 WL 3199355 (S.D. Tex. Aug. 11, 2010)...................................................11
 Richards v. North Shore Long Island Jewish Health System
, No. 10-4544, 2011 WL 4407518(E.D.N.Y. Sept. 21, 2011).........................................................................................................14
Simcuski v. Saeli
, 44 N.Y.2d 442 (1978)......................................................................................14
Southern New England Telephone Co. v. Global Naps Inc.
, 624 F.3d 123 (2d Cir. 2010)............7
St. Johns’s Univ. v. Bolton
, 757 F. Supp. 2d 144 (E.D.N.Y. 2010)..............................................15
Steuben Foods, Inc. v. Country Gourmet Foods, LLC,
No. 08-561, 2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 91219(W.D.N.Y. Sept. 30, 2009).......................................................................................................10
Vargas v. Deltz 
, 901 F. Supp. 1572 (S.D. Fla. 1995)...................................................................11
Rules
 Fed. R. Civ. P. 12........................................................................................................................1, 6Fed. R. Civ. P. 26......................................................................................................................3, 12
Case 1:10-cv-00569-RJA -LGF Document 345 Filed 04/01/12 Page 3 of 21

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)//-->