Ceglia v. Zuckerberg et al
DECLARATION signed by Dean Boland 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
MARK ELLIOT ZUCKERBERG, Individually, and
OF DEAN BOLAND IN SUPPORT
OF REPLY TO DEFENDANTS’
RESPONSE TO MOTION FOR
SANCTIONS FOR FRAUD
DEAN BOLAND, submits this declaration in support of Plaintiff’s Motion for
Sanctions for Spoliation by Defendants and hereby declares under penalty of
perjury and pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1746 and under the laws of the United States of
America that the following is true and correct:
I make this declaration upon personal knowledge.
I am counsel for Paul D. Ceglia in this matter.
I participated in a phone conference with Attorney Snyder, Southwell and the
court on November 23, 2011.
I made contemporaneous notes of that phone conference.
At the start of that phone conference, I was invited by the court to explain to
Mr. Snyder precisely the purpose for the phone conference.
I described to Mr. Snyder the type, location and number of the Electronic
Assets currently in the possession of Parmet and Associates related to the
The court inquired of Mr. Snyder as to whether he would agree to preserve
these Electronic Assets.
Mr. Snyder responded, “I can’t do that your Honor, I don’t know what these
Assets are. I don’t know what Mr. Boland is talking about.”
The phone conference lasted approximately 20 minutes and at no time during
that phone conference did Mr. Snyder or Mr. Southwell claim to know
anything about the Electronic Assets I had described to them in sufficient
10. At the conclusion of the phone conference, the court directed Mr. Snyder to
confer with co-counsel from the Orrick Law Firm to learn about the Electronic
Assets and provide assurance to Plaintiff they would be preserved.
11. I participated in a phone conference with Mr. Snyder, Southwell and this court
on November 28, 2011.
12. I made contemporaneous notes of that phone conference.
13. During that phone conference Mr. Snyder said that “Facebook was seeking
destruction of the copies [of evidence] and would have been derelict for not
seeking compliance with that order.”
14. Mr. Snyder, in response to questions from the court about the integrity of the
so-called originals, responded that he did not know if the originals had been
15. The court then asked Mr. Snyder, “Mr. Boland is focusing on the copies for the
TRO. Is there no way to accommodate him on that?”
16. Mr. Snyder responded, “No, we are concerned about copies being out and about
in third party’s hands.”
17. Mr. Snyder then added that he knew “with precision about those assets in the
ConnectU order [and has known] for many months before that order.”
described those assets as “Mark Zuckerberg’s computers he used as a
Freshman at Harvard to send emails, instant messages and run (sic) one of
them as a server for Facebook initially.”
18. As of this writing, Defendants have failed to provide any proof that the so
called originals have hash values that match the so-called copies of the
Electronic Assets in Parmet’s possession.
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 of America that the above
declaration is true and correct:
DATED: December 30, 2011.
/s/ Dean Boland
Dean Boland, Declarant
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets were retrieved from PACER, and should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.