Ceglia v. Zuckerberg et al
DECLARATION signed by Paul Argentieri re 279 Reply to Response to Motion, filed by Paul D. Ceglia. (Boland, Dean)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
PAUL D. CEGLIA,
Civil Action No. : 1:10-cv-00569-RJA
OF PAUL ARGENTIERI
MARK ELLIOT ZUCKERBERG, Individually, and
DECLARANT, submits this declaration and hereby declares under penalty of
perjury and pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1746 and under the laws of the United States
that the following is true and correct:
I make this declaration upon personal knowledge.
I have been counsel for Mr. Ceglia since the filing of the original complaint in
Original counsel for Defendants, Lisa Simpson, stated her uncertainty
regarding the validity of the Ceglia-Zuckerberg Facebook contract.
Defendants and their current counsel, Mr. Snyder, Southwell, Flynn, Benjamin
and Ms. Aycock made statements from their first moments on this case, in
pleadings and oral arguments up to and including December 13, 2011
regarding the claimed fraud of the contract and emails at issue in Plaintiff’s
pending fraud motion.
Those statements have consistently been that the Ceglia-Zuckerberg Facebook
contract was a fraud and the Ceglia-Zuckerberg email exchanges were also
Defendants and their counsel made statements implying that counsel for Mr.
Ceglia were promoting those frauds or could not be maintaining this case in
As a trial lawyer for 33 years I take such allegations of fraud and bad faith
conduct seriously as should any lawyer.
Before the June 30, 2011 oral argument, Defendants and their counsel
withheld the following discoverable evidence from the court, myself and my cocounsel:
That Defendant Zuckerberg had destroyed, lost or otherwise disposed of his
copy of the written contract between the parties; and
That Electronic Assets existed, used by Defendant Zuckerberg and others
involved in Facebook in 2003-2004, that Defendants did not search those
Electronic Assets for either evidence of the validity of the CegliaZuckerberg Facebook contract or the Ceglia-Zuckerberg email exchanges.
The existence of those Electronic Assets was not disclosed to the court, myself
or my co-counsel during or after the June 30, 2011 hearing.
10. Defendants’ now discredited claims of fraud juxtaposed with those omissions
were used to persuade this court to grant Defendants’ expedited discovery
11. The prejudice against Plaintiff arising from the granting of that motion based
upon Defendants manipulation and intentional omissions has never ended.
12. I worked with co-counsel and Mr. Ceglia throughout this time having
conversations, analyzing Defendants’ claims of fraud, discussing with experts
responses to those claims and expending an enormous amount of time and
financial resources rebutting Defendants’ now dismembered claims.
13. That time and those resources were therefore unavailable to expend in
legitimate areas of preparing Mr. Ceglia’s case.
14. I was never made aware of the existence of the now discovered Electronic
Assets in the ConnectU case until Mr. Boland found those Electronic Assets
and communicated that fact to me just before Thanksgiving Day of 2011.
15. Had I been made aware of the existence of those Electronic Assets at any time
before this Court granted the motion for expedited discovery, I and my cocounsel would have performed legal research and filed arguments relevant to
those Electronic Assets seeking to have the motion for expedited discovery
16. When provided the professional opportunity to purge their manipulation,
Defendants and their counsel have remained silent, not filing declarations in
explanation of their fraudulent conduct.
17. Defendants have rejected Plaintiff’s offer to eliminate an examination of their
conduct by simply depositing a forensically sound copy of all the Parmet
Electronic Assets with the court.
18. An evidentiary hearing has been requested on this fraud against the court
motion to enable the court to determine, at the least, the following:
Why were the Electronic Assets not disclosed initially?
Why have Defendants declined to search those Electronic Assets for
information relevant to their claims of fraud?
Why were the Electronic Assets not disclosed once Defendants made
arguments in support of their motion for expedited discovery?
Did Defendants instruct their lawyers to not disclose the Electronic Assets
Did Defense counsel decide on their own to not disclose these Electronic
Did Defendants instruct their counsel to solicit the destruction of these
Did Defense counsel decide on their own to solicit the destruction of these
What did Defense counsel do to now preserve these Electronic Assets once
their existence was brought to the attention of the court as no pleadings or
orders were needed to be filed in the ConnectU case to preserve them?
What relevant evidence exists on these Electronic Assets that motivates
Defendants and their counsel to refuse to even trust this court with a copy
of those Electronic Assets during the pendency of this case?
19. As an anticipated Motion to Dismiss for fraud to be filed by Defendants looms
in all of our futures, the prejudice on Mr. Ceglia continues even in his inability
to effectively respond to that motion with these and so many other questions
unanswered and these Electronic Assets and perhaps others wholly or only
20. I, Mr. Ceglia, co-counsel and experts are continuing to have discussions in
preparation for our response to Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss knowing that
an examination of the Electronic Assets at issue here and perhaps other yet
undisclosed evidence could have benefited that response.
I hereby and hereby declare under penalty of perjury and pursuant to 28
U.S.C. 1746 and under the laws of the United States that the following is true and
DATED: December 30, 2011.
/s/ Paul Argentieri