UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURTWESTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -PAUL D. CEGLIA,Plaintiff,v.MARK ELLIOT ZUCKERBERG andFACEBOOK, INC.,Defendants.- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -x::::::::::xCivil Action No. 1:10-cv-00569-RJA
DEFENDANTS’ REPLY MEMORANDUM OF LAW IN SUPPORT OF THEIR MOTION TO STAY DISCOVERY PENDING A RULING ON THEIR DISPOSITIVEMOTIONS
Thomas H. Dupree, Jr. Orin Snyder GIBSON, DUNN & CRUTCHER LLP Alexander H. Southwell1050 Connecticut Avenue, NW GIBSON, DUNN & CRUTCHER LLPWashington, DC 20036 200 Park Avenue, 47th Floor (202) 955-8500 New York, NY 10166-0193(212) 351-4000Terrance P. FlynnHARRIS BEACH PLLC726 Exchange StreetSuite 1000Buffalo, NY 14210(716) 200-5120April 3, 2012
Case 1:10-cv-00569-RJA -LGF Document 346 Filed 04/03/12 Page 1 of 13
TABLE OF CONTENTSPage
PRELIMINARY STATEMENT .................................................................................................... 1
ARGUMENT .................................................................................................................................. 3
I.
A Stay Of Plenary Discovery Is Warranted. ........................................................... 3
II.
If Any Additional Discovery Is Allowed, It Must Be Structured ToAddress Only The Dispositive Authenticity Issues Raised In Defendants’Motion To Dismiss. ................................................................................................ 9
CONCLUSION ............................................................................................................................. 10
Case 1:10-cv-00569-RJA -LGF Document 346 Filed 04/03/12 Page 2 of 13
PRELIMINARY STATEMENT
Plaintiff Paul Ceglia’s opposition to Defendants’ stay motion confirms three critical points, each of which establishes that Ceglia is not entitled to plenary discovery.
First
, this is the second
time that Ceglia has asked this Court to authorize wide-rangingdiscovery in the face of Defendants’ showing that the entire lawsuit is a fraud. In June 2011,Defendants sought expedited discovery based on a good-cause showing that the Work for HireDocument attached to Ceglia’s amended complaint and the alleged emails quoted within it werecomplete fabrications. (Doc. No. 45.) Ceglia objected to Defendants’ request and sought broaddiscovery of his own on an array of collateral issues. (Doc. No. 57.) This Court correctlyrejected Ceglia’s objections, ordering the limited discovery Defendants sought concerningCeglia’s fraud based on the substantial showing they made. It also properly confined thediscovery Ceglia could obtain to handwriting samples from Zuckerberg and (upon compliancewith Ceglia’s own obligations) the Harvard emails — each relevant to the authenticity of theWork for Hire Document and alleged emails quoted in Ceglia’s complaint. (Doc. No. 83.)In requesting expedited discovery last year, Defendants assured the Court that if Cegliacomplied, the discovery would reveal additional, irrefutable evidence of Ceglia’s fraud thatwould warrant immediate dismissal of the entire lawsuit under the Court’s inherent power. (Doc. No. 45 at 19-21; Doc. No. 94 at 29:19-30:1.) The discovery that Defendants sought is nowsubstantially complete — despite Ceglia’s ongoing obstructionist tactics, necessitating fiveseparate, successful motions to compel. And, just as Defendants represented to the Court,discovery has revealed conclusive proof that both the Work for Hire Document and the allegedemails are forgeries. (Doc. No. 319.) If the so-called “reciprocal” discovery Ceglia sought fromDefendants was unwarranted in July 2011, based only on Defendants’ good-cause showing of fraud, such discovery is certainly unjustified now in light of the overwhelming evidence of fraud
Case 1:10-cv-00569-RJA -LGF Document 346 Filed 04/03/12 Page 3 of 13
Search History:
Result 00 of 00
00 results for result for
p.
More From This User
Notes
Load more
