Ceglia v. Zuckerberg et al
DECLARATION signed by Alexander H. Southwell re 185 Reply to Response to Motion filed by Mark Elliot Zuckerberg, Facebook, Inc. filed by Mark Elliot Zuckerberg, Facebook, Inc.. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A)(Snyder, Orin)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
PAUL D. CEGLIA,
MARK ELLIOT ZUCKERBERG and
Civil Action No. 1:10-cv-00569-RJA
ALEXANDER H. SOUTHWELL
I, ALEXANDER H. SOUTHWELL, hereby declare under penalty of perjury that the
following is true and correct:
I am an attorney licensed to practice law in the State of New York and admitted to
practice before this Court. I am a partner in the law firm of Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher LLP
("Gibson Dunn"), counsel of record for Mark Elliot Zuckerberg and Facebook, Inc. ("Facebook")
in the above-captioned matter. I make this declaration, based on personal knowledge, in support
of Defendants' Third Motion to Compel and for Other Relief.
Plaintiff was required, by August 29, 2011, to comply with the discovery
obligations imposed by this Court's Order, dated August 18, 2011 (Doc. No. 117) (the "Order").
On October 14, 2011, Defendants filed their Third Motion to Compel and for
Other Relief (Doc. No. 154). The filing of that motion followed a meet-and-confer with
Plaintiff's counsel lasting more than one week, which I described in my declaration, dated
October 14, 2011 (Doc. No. 156).
One aspect of this motion concerns Plaintiff's failure to comply with the
provisions of the Order requiring the identification and production of all electronic copies or
images of any contract by and among Defendant Zuckerberg, Plaintiff and/or other persons
associated with StreetFax in the possession, custody, or control of Plaintiff's experts, including but
not limited to the experts John Paul Osborn and Valery Aginsky.
On October 21, 2011, Dean Boland, Esq., noticed his appearance on Plaintiff's
behalf, and substituted for Plaintiff's former counsel Jeffrey Lake, Esq.
On October 25, 2011, Plaintiff made a partial production of outstanding
documents called for by the Order and Defendants' Third Motion to Compel. Included in this
production were electronic documents that purportedly came from Mr. Osborn.
Later that day, I spoke to Mr. Boland on the telephone to discuss Plaintiff's partial
production, as well as aspects of Plaintiff's continuing non-compliance with the Order. I asked
Mr. Boland specifically whether Defendants had received all documents to be produced by Mr.
Osborn pursuant to the Order.
Mr. Boland stated that he had asked Mr. Osborn to send his scans directly to my
firm, and so he had not reviewed what was produced or confirmed that Osborn had, in fact,
produced all of his scans. Mr. Boland indicated that he was therefore not able to represent that
Osborn had produced all scans in his possession.
On October 28, 2011, I received an email from Mr. Boland. A true and correct
copy of that email, with Mr. Boland's non-sequential responses highlighted in red, is attached
hereto as Exhibit A.