Facebook, Inc. v. John Does 1-10

Filing 43

Facebook, Inc. v. John Does 1-10

Doc. 43

1 Paul S. Rosenlund (SBN 87660) Gregory G. Iskander (SBN 200215) 2 DUANE MORRIS LLP One Market, Spear Tower 3 San Francisco, CA 94105-1104 Telephone: [phone] Facsimile: 415-957-3001 [e-mail] 5 [e-mail] 6 Attorneys for Defendants 7 Brian Fabian, Josh Raskin, Ming Wu, Istra Holdings Inc., 1564476 Ontario Limited, and Slickcash.com 8 9 10 11 12 13 FACEBOOK, INC., 14 15 16 17 BRIAN FABIAN, JOSH RASKIN, MING WU, and JOHN DOES 4-10, individuals; and ISTRA 18 HOLDINGS INC., SLICKCASH.COM, 1564476 ONTARIO LIMITED, and JOHN DOES 14-20, 19 corporations, 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
________________________________________________________________________________________

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA SAN JOSE DIVISION Case No. C-07-03404 HRL JOINT CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE STATEMENT

Plaintiff, v.

Date: Time: Ctrm: Judge:

March 4, 2008 1:30 p.m. 2, 5th Fl. Magistrate Judge Howard R. Lloyd

Defendants.

First Amended Complaint Filed: December 12, 2007

JOINT CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE STATEMENT; Case No. C-07-03404 HRL

Dockets.Justia.com

1

Plaintiff FaceBook, Inc. and Defendants Brian Fabian, Ming Wu, Josh Raskin, Istra Holdings

2 Inc., 1564476 Ontario Limited, and Slickcash.com (collectively "Defendants"), jointly submit this 3 Case Management Conference Statement. 4 5 A. Jurisdiction and Service

Plaintiff submits that jurisdiction is proper in this Court, under 28 U.S.C. § 1331, because the

6 action alleges violations of the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act, 18 U.S.C. § 1030, and that venue is 7 proper under 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b)(2) and (d), or in the alternative § 1391(b)(1) or (3). 8 Defendants believe that there may be a lack of both subject matter jurisdiction and/or

9 personal jurisdiction and do not concede jurisdiction. Defendants reserved the right to challenge 10 jurisdiction in their Answer and will promptly do so upon completion of initial discovery and 11 investigation. 12 All defendants have been served (in December 2007 and January 2008) and answered the

13 Complaint on February 1, 2008. 14 15 B. Factual Background

Plaintiff alleges that sometime between or before June 1, 2007 and June 15, 2007, the

16 Defendants, acting individually and in concert, used a remote server to access Facebook's Web site 17 hundreds of thousands of times, and using an unauthorized automated script designed to circumvent 18 Facebook's normal security defenses, directed Facebook's computers to verify and obtain 19 information about Facebook's users, and to profit from that information. The Defendants continued 20 to adapt their approach to accessing Facebook's Web site in the manner described above despite the 21 efforts of Facebook's security staff to block the Defendants' actions. 22 Defendants are Canadian residents and entities who deny generally the allegations of

23 improper conduct alleged by Plaintiff. 24 25 C. Legal Issues

Whether Defendants' conduct violated the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act; the California

26 Comprehensive Computer Data Access and Fraud Act; or FaceBook's Terms and Conditions. 27 28 /// 1
________________________________________________________________________________________

Whether Defendants intentionally accessed FaceBook's Web site without authorization.

JOINT CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE STATEMENT; Case No. C-07-03404 HRL

1

Whether Defendants' conduct caused damage in excess of the statutory minimum or any

2 damages at all as defined by the relevant statutes. 3 The content of FaceBook's terms and conditions and whether FaceBook's terms and

4 conditions are valid and enforceable. 5 6 7 Whether Defendants are subject to the personal jurisdiction of this Court. D. Motions

The Defendants intend to evaluate whether the Court has personal jurisdiction over these

8 defendants, and may potentially move to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction. Further, 9 Defendants may move to compel arbitration pursuant to the terms of the contract upon which 10 Plaintiff sues. 11 12 13 14 15 Other motions are uncertain at this time. E. Amendment of Pleadings

No amendments to the pleadings are presently contemplated. F. Evidence Preservation

Plaintiffs, Defendants, and third party Accretive Technology Group have been advised by

16 their counsel to preserve all relevant evidence, including electronically stored evidence, if any. The 17 parties have agreed to postpone detailed discussion of discovery-related issues, including electronic 18 discovery, pending the results of their ongoing settlement discussions. See section G, below. 19 20 G. Disclosures

The parties have not yet made their initial disclosures. The parties are in extensive

21 negotiations for settlement of this matter and thus desire to refrain from the expense and burden of 22 initial disclosures and discovery at this time. The parties agree that if no agreement is reached, the 23 parties shall make initial disclosures pursuant to Rule 26 on or before April 4, 2008. 24 25 H. Discovery

The parties see no reason to deviate from the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure with respect to

26 discovery. See also section G, supra. 27 28 I. None. 2
________________________________________________________________________________________

Related Cases

JOINT CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE STATEMENT; Case No. C-07-03404 HRL

1 2

J.

Relief

Injunctive and monetary relief is sought in the Complaint. Plaintiff's investigation regarding

3 monetary damages is ongoing, and the amount of such damages will be proven at trial. 4 Defendants do not believe that Plaintiff is entitled to relief and require additional discovery

5 and investigation to determine the scope of damages, if any. 6 7 K. Settlement and ADR

The parties are in extensive negotiations to settle this matter, including potential cooperation

8 from the Defendants with Plaintiff's investigation of this matter. Therefore the parties desire to 9 continue the deadline for the required ADR flings until April 25, 2008. 10 11 12 13 14 15 L. Consent to Magistrate Judge For All Purposes

The Parties consent to the Magistrate Judge for all purposes. M. Other References

Not applicable. N. Narrowing of Issues

At this time, it is too early to evaluate and determine all the issues and/or any narrowing of

16 the issues. 17 18 O. Expedited Schedule

The parties do not believe that the Court should impose an expedited schedule for this action.

19 Defendants were served in December 2007 and January 2008, and have only responded to the First 20 Amended Complaint on February 1, 2008. No discovery has taken place and the parties are in 21 extended negotiations. 22 23 P. Scheduling

In the event that the parties are unable to reach settlement, the parties recommend that the

24 Court set the following schedule: 25 26 27 28 Fact Discovery Cut-Off: June 27, 2008 Expert Reports: August 1, 2008 Expert Rebuttal Reports: August 29, 2008 Expert Discovery Cut-off: September 26, 2008 3
________________________________________________________________________________________

JOINT CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE STATEMENT; Case No. C-07-03404 HRL

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

Last day for hearings on dispositive motions: November 25, 2008 Pre-Trial Conference: December 22, 2008 Trial: January 12, 2009 Q. Trial

The parties have each requested a Jury Trial. The expected length of trial is 5-7 days. R. Disclosures of Non-Party Interested Entities or Persons

Defendants have filed a "Certificate of Interested Entities or Persons," pursuant to Civil L.R.

8 3-16, stating that other than the named parties, there is no such interest to report. 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Dated: February 26, 2008 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 4
________________________________________________________________________________________ DM1\1294592.2

S.

Other Matters

None at the present time. Dated: February 26, 2008 DUANE MORRIS LLP By:__/s/ Gregory G. Iskander______ Gregory G. Iskander Attorneys for Defendants PERKINS COIE LLP By:__/s/ David Chiappetta______ David Chiappetta Attorneys for Plaintiff

JOINT CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE STATEMENT; Case No. C-07-03404 HRL