eBay Inc. v. Digital Point Solutions, Inc. et al

Filing 124

Declaration of Colleen M. Kennedy in Support of 123 MOTION to Compel eBay Inc.'s Notice of Motion and Motion to Compel Responses to Requests for Production, Interrogatories and Requests for Admission; Memorandum of Points and Authorities in Support Thereof filed byeBay Inc.. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1, # 2 Exhibit 2, # 3 Exhibit 3, # 4 Exhibit 4, # 5 Exhibit 5, # 6 Exhibit 6, # 7 Exhibit 7, # 8 Exhibit 8, # 9 Exhibit 9, # 10 Exhibit 10, # 11 Exhibit 11, # 12 Exhibit 12, # 13 Exhibit 13, # 14 Exhibit 14, # 15 Exhibit 15, # 16 Exhibit 16, # 17 Exhibit 17, # 18 Exhibit 18, # 19 Exhibit 19, # 20 Exhibit 20, # 21 Exhibit 21, # 22 Exhibit 22, # 23 Exhibit 23)(Related document(s) 123 ) (Kennedy, Colleen) (Filed on 9/22/2009)

eBay Inc. v. Digital Point Solutions, Inc. et al

Doc. 124 Att. 6

Case5:08-cv-04052-JF Document124-7

Filed09/22/09 Page1 of 14

EXHIBIT 7

Dockets.Justia.com

Case5:08-cv-04052-JF Document124-7

Filed09/22/09 Page2 of 14

Stewart H. Foreman (CSB #61149) Daniel T. Bernhard (CSB #104229) FREELAND COOPER & FOREMAN LLP 150 Spear Street, Suite 1800 San Francisco, California 94105 Telephone: [phone] Facsimile: [phone] Email: [e-mail] [e-mail] Attorneys for Defendants Todd Dunning and Dunning Enterprise, Inc. UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA SAN JOSE DIVISION EBAY, INC., Plaintiff, CASE NO.: CV-08-4052 JF
DEFENDANT DUNNING ENTERPRISE, INC.'S RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFF'S REQUESTS FOR ADMISSIONS

DIGITAL POINT SOLUTIONS, INC., SHAWN HOGAN, KESSLEKS FLYING CIRCUS, THUNDERWOOD HOLDINGS, INC., TODD DUNNING, DUNNING ENTERPRISE, INC., BRIAN DUNNING, BRIANDUNNING.COM, AND DOES 1-20, Defendants.

I
PLAINTIFF EBAY INC. DEFENDANT DUNNING ENTERPRISE, INC. ONE

PROPOUNDING PARTY: RESPONDING PARTY: SET NUMBER:

Defendant Dunning Enterprise, Inc. ("Defendant") hereby submits the following objections and responses to the Request for Admissions Set One propounded by Plaintiff Ebay, Inc. ("Plaintiff").

DEFENDANT DUNNING ENTERPRISE, INC.'S RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFF'S REQUESTS FOR ADMISSIONS, CASE NO.: CV-08-4052 JF

1

Case5:08-cv-04052-JF Document124-7

Filed09/22/09 Page3 of 14

GENERAL STATEMENT Todd Dunning has invoked his privilege against self-incrimination pursuant to the Fifth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, Lefiowitz v. Turley, 414 U.S. 70, 77 (1973), Federal Rules of Evidence Rule 50 1, Article 1, Section 15 of the California Constitution, and California Evidence Code section 940. Since Mr. Dunning is the sole shareholder and sole authorized representative of

Defendant, and the only person who can verify discovery responses on behalf of Defendant, Defendant cannot provide any verified responses without compromising Mr. Dunning's right against self-incrimination Should Mr. Dunning determine that there is no longer the threat of potential criminal prosecution and elect to withdraw his privilege against self-incrimination in the future, Defendant expressly reserves the right to supplement its responses. Furthermore, the Federal Bureau of Investigation has seized all documents and computers, disk drives, hard drives, cell phones and servers containing information potentially related to this matter. Assistant United States Attorney Kyle F. Waldinger in charge of this investigation has refused all requests to provide defendants with a copy of the material seized by the FBI. Those items and records may contain information responsive to the requests below, but those items and records are not in the possession, custody or control of defendants. This Defendant does not admit any of these requests and holds Plaintiff to its burden of proof related to each and every one of them. REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 1: Admit that Dunning Enterprise conducted business with eBay prior to May 14,2007. RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 1: Defendant objects to this request on the grounds that it violates Mr. Dunning's privilege against self-incrimination pursuant to the Fifth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, Lefkawitz v. Turley, 414 U.S. 70, 77 (1973), Federal Rules of Evidence Rule 501, Article 1, Section 15 of the California Constitution, and California Evidence Code section 940. Defendant M h e r objects on the ground that this request is vague and ambiguous.
I//
DEFENDANT DUNNING ENTERPRISE, INC.'S RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFF'S REQUESTS FOR ADMISSIONS, CASE NO.: CV-08-4052 JF
(00123688-1)

2

Case5:08-cv-04052-JF Document124-7

Filed09/22/09 Page4 of 14

REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 2: Admit that Dunning Enterprise conducted business with eBay during at least some portion of 2006. RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 2: Defendant objects to this request on the grounds that it violates Mr. Dunning's privilege against self-incrimination pursuant to the Fifth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, Lefkowitz v. Turley, 414 U.S. 70, 77 (1973), Federal Rules of Evidence Rule 501, Article 1, Section 15 of the California Constitution, and California Evidence Code section 940. Defendant further objects on the ground that this request is vague and ambiguous. REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 3: Admit that Dunning Enterprise conducted business with eBay during at least some portion of 2005. RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR ADMISSlON NO. 3: Defendant objects to this request on the grounds that it violates Mr. Dunning's privilege against self-incrimination pursuant to the Fifth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, Lefkowitz v. Turley, 414 U.S. 70, 77 (1973), Federal Rules of Evidence Rule 501, Article 1, Section 15 of the California Constitution, and California Evidence Code section 940. Defendant further objects on the ground that this request is vague and ambiguous. REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 4: Admit that Dunning Enterprise conducted business with eBay during at least some portion of 2004. RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 4: Defendant objects to this request on the grounds that it violates Mr. Dunning's privilege against self-incrimination pursuant to the Fifth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, Lefkowitz v. Turley, 414 U.S. 70, 77 (1973), Federal Rules of Evidence Rule 501, Article 1, Section 15 of the California Constitution, and California Evidence Code section 940. Defendant further objects on the ground that this request is vague and ambiguous. REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 5:
DEFENDANT DUNNING ENTERPRISE, INC.'S RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFF'S REQUESTS FOR ADMISSIONS, CASE NO.: CV-08-4052 JF
(00123688-1)

3

Case5:08-cv-04052-JF Document124-7

Filed09/22/09 Page5 of 14

Admit that Dunning Enterprise conducted business with eBay during at least some portion of 2003. E S P O N S E TO REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 5: Defendant objects to this request on the grounds that it violates Mr. Dunning's privilege against self-incrimination pursuant to the Fifth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, LeJkowitz v. Turley, 414 U.S. 70, 77 (1973), Federal Rules of Evidence Rule 501, Article 1, Section 15 of the California Constitution, and California Evidence Code section 940. Defendant further objects on the ground that this request is vague and ambiguous. E Q U E S T FOR ADMISSION NO. 6: Admit that Dunning Enterprise participated in an eBay Affiliate Marketing Program or programs. RESPONSE TO WQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 6: Defendant objects to this request on the grounds that it violates Mr. Dunning's privilege against self-incrimination pursuant to the Fifth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, Lefkowitz v. Turley, 414 U.S. 70, 77 (1973), Federal Rules of Evidence Rule 501, Article 1, Section 15 of the California Constitution, and California Evidence Code section 940. Defendant further objects on the ground that this request is vague and ambiguous. REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 7: Admit that, while participating in an eBay Affiliate Marketing Program or programs, Dunning Enterprise utilized software programs and/or code that caused some Users' computers to access an eBay website without the User's knowledge. RESPONSE TO E Q U E S T FOR ADMISSION NO. 7: Defendant objects to this request on the grounds that it violates Mr. Dunning's privilege against self-incrimination pursuant to the Fifth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, LeJkowitz v. Turley, 414 U.S. 70, 77 (1973), Federal Rules of Evidence Rule 501, Article 1, Section 15 of the California Constitution, and California Evidence Code section 940. Defendant further objects on the ground that this request is vague and ambiguous. REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 8:
DEFENDANT DUNNING ENTERPRISE, INC.'S RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFF'S REQUESTS FOR ADMISSIONS, CASE NO.: CV-08-4052 JF
f00123688-1)

4

Case5:08-cv-04052-JF Document124-7

Filed09/22/09 Page6 of 14

Admit that, while participating in an eBay Affiliate Marketing Program or programs, Dunning Enterprise utilized software programs and/or code that caused some Users' computers to access an eBay web server without the User's knowledge. RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 8: Defendant objects to this request on the grounds that it violates Mr. Dunning's privilege against self-incrimination pursuant to the Fifth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, Lefkowitz v. Turley, 414 U.S. 70, 77 (1973), Federal Rules of Evidence Rule 501, Article 1, Section 15 of the California Constitution, and California Evidence Code section 940. Defendant further objects on the ground that this request is vague and ambiguous. REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 9: Admit that, while participating in an eBay Affiliate Marketing Program or programs, Dunning Enterprise utilized software programs and/or code that redirected a User to an eBay website without the User knowingly clicking on an Advertisement Link. RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 9: Defendant objects to this request on the grounds that it violates Mr. Dunning's privilege against self-incrimination pursuant to the Fifth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, Lefkowitz v. Turley, 414 U.S. 70, 77 (1973), Federal Rules of Evidence Rule 501, Article 1, Section 15 of the California Constitution, and California Evidence Code section 940. Defendant further objects on the ground that this request is vague and ambiguous. REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 10: Admit that, while participating in an eBay Affiliate Marketing Program or programs, Dunning Enterprise utilized software programs and/or code that redirected a User to an eBay web server without the User knowingly clicking on an Advertisement Link. RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 10: Defendant objects to this request on the grounds that it violates Mr. Dunning's privilege against self-incrimination pursuant to the Fifth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, Lefkowitz v. Turley, 414 U.S. 70, 77 (1973), Federal Rules of Evidence Rule 501, Article 1, Section 15 of the California Constitution, and California Evidence Code section 940. Defendant further objects on the
DEFENDANT DUNNING ENTERPRISE, NC.'S RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFF'S REQUESTS FOR ADMISSIONS, CASE NO.: CV-08-4052 JF
(00123688-1)

5

Case5:08-cv-04052-JF Document124-7

Filed09/22/09 Page7 of 14

ground that this request is vague and ambiguous. REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 11: Admit that, while participating in an eBay Affiliate Marketing Program or programs, Dunning Enterprise utilized software programs and/or code that performed Cookie Stuffing. RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 11: Defendant objects to this request on the grounds that it violates Mr. Dunning's privilege against self-incrimination pursuant to the Fifth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, Lefkowitz v. Turley, 414 U.S. 70, 77 (1973), Federal Rules of Evidence Rule 501, Article 1, Section 15 of the California Constitution, and California Evidence Code section 940. Defendant further objects on the ground that this request is vague and ambiguous. REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 12: Admit that Dunning Enterprise used methods, techniques and/or technological measures to avoid detection by eBay of certain aspects of how Dunning Enterprise interacted with eBay's Affiliate Marketing Program or programs. RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 12: Defendant objects to this request on the grounds that it violates Mr. Dunning's privilege against self-incrimination pursuant to the Fifth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, Lefkowitz v. Turley, 414 U.S. 70, 77 (1973), Federal Rules of Evidence Rule 501, Article 1, Section 15 of the California Constitution, and California Evidence Code section 940. Defendant further objects on the ground that this request is vague and ambiguous. REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 13: Admit that Dunning Enterprise used methods, techniques andlor technological measures to avoid detection by Commission Junction of certain aspects of how Dunning Enterprise interacted with eBay's Affiliate Marketing Program or programs. RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 13: Defendant objects to this request on the grounds that it violates Mr. Dunning's privilege against self-incrimination pursuant to the Fifth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, Lefkowitz v. Turley, 414 U.S. 70, 77 (1973), Federal Rules of Evidence Rule 501, Article 1, Section 15 of the
DEFENDANT DUNNING ENTERPRISE, n\rC.'S RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFF'S REQUESTS FOR ADMISSIONS, CASE NO.: CV-08-4052 JF
(00123688-1)

6

Case5:08-cv-04052-JF Document124-7

Filed09/22/09 Page8 of 14

California Constitution, and California Evidence Code section 940. Defendant further objects on the ground that this request is vague and ambiguous. REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 14: Admit that Dunning Enterprise utilized methods, techniques and/or technological measures to avoid detection by eBay of Cookie Stuffing caused by Dunning Enterprise. RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 14: Defendant objects to this request on the grounds that it violates Mr. Dunning's privilege against self-incrimination pursuant to the Fifth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, Lejkowitz v. Turley, 414 U.S. 70, 77 (1973), Federal Rules of Evidence Rule 501, Article 1, Section 15 of the California Constitution, and California Evidence Code section 940. Defendant further objects on the ground that this request is vague and ambiguous. REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 15: Admit that Dunning Enterprise utilized methods, techniques andor technological measures to avoid detection by Commission Junction of Cookie Stuffing caused by Dunning Enterprise. RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 15: Defendant objects to this request on the grounds that it violates Mr. Dunning's privilege against self-incrimination pursuant to the Fifth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, Lejkowitz v. Turley, 414 U.S. 70, 77 (1973), Federal Rules of Evidence Rule 501, Article 1, Section 15 of the California Constitution, and California Evidence Code section 940. Defendant further objects on the ground that this request is vague and ambiguous. REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 16: Admit that, while participating in an eBay Affiliate Marketing Program or programs, Dunning Enterprise utilized software and/or code to determine the geographic location of a User. RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 16: Defendant objects to this request on the grounds that it violates Mr. Dunning's privilege against self-incrimination pursuant to the Fifth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, Lejkowitz v. Turley, 414 U.S. 70, 77 (1973), Federal Rules of Evidence Rule 501, Article 1, Section 15 of the California Constitution, and California Evidence Code section 940. Defendant further objects on the
DEFENDANT DUNNING ENTERPRISE, INC.'S RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFF'S REQUESTS FOR ADMISSIONS, CASE NO.: CV-Q8-4052 JF
(00123688-1}

7

Case5:08-cv-04052-JF Document124-7

Filed09/22/09 Page9 of 14

ground that this request is vague and ambiguous. REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 17: Admit that, while participating in an eBay Affiliate Marketing Program or programs, Dunning Enterprise utilized software andlor code to determine whether a User was located in San Jose, CA. RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 17: Defendant objects to this request on the grounds that it violates Mr. Dunning's privilege against self-incrimination pursuant to the Fifth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, Lefkowitz v. Turley, 414 U.S. 70, 77 (1973), Federal Rules of Evidence Rule 501, Article 1, Section 15 of the California Constitution, and California Evidence Code section 940. Defendant further objects on the ground that this request is vague and ambiguous. REOUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 18: Admit that, while participating in an eBay Affiliate Marketing Program or programs, Dunning Enterprise utilized software andlor code to determine whether a User was located in Santa Barbara, CA. RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 18: Defendant objects to this request on the grounds that it violates Mr. Dunning's privilege against self-incrimination pursuant to the Fifth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, Lefkowitz v. Turley, 414 U.S. 70, 77 (1973), Federal Rules of Evidence Rule 501, Article 1, Section 15 of the California Constitution, and California Evidence Code section 940. Defendant further objects on the ground that this request is vague and ambiguous. REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 19: Admit that, while participating in an eBay Affiliate Marketing Program or programs, Dunning Enterprise utilized software and/or code that would disable or not engage Dunning Enterprise's Cookie Stuffing technology if a User's computer was located in San Jose, CA. RESPONSE TO REOUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 19: Defendant objects to this request on the grounds that it violates Mr. Dunning's privilege against self-incrimination pursuant to the Fifth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, LeJkowitz v. Turley, 414 U.S. 70, 77 (1973), Federal Rules of Evidence Rule 501, Article 1, Section 15 of the
DEFENDANT DUNNING ENTERPRISE, INC.'S RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFF'S REQUESTS FOR ADMISSIONS, CASE NO.: CV-08-4052 JF

8

Case5:08-cv-04052-JF Document124-7

Filed09/22/09 Page10 of 14

California Constitution, and California Evidence Code section 940. Defendant further objects on the ground that this request is vague and ambiguous. REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 20: Admit that, while participating in an eBay Affiliate Marketing Program or programs, Dunning Enterprise utilized software and/or code that would disable or not engage Dunning Enterprise's Cookie Stuffing technology if a User's computer was located in Santa Barbara, CA. RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 20: Defendant objects to this request on the grounds that it violates Mr. Dunning's privilege against self-incrimination pursuant to the Fifth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, Lejkowitz v. Turley, 414 U.S. 70, 77 (1973), Federal Rules of Evidence Rule 501, Article 1, Section 15 of the California Constitution, and California Evidence Code section 940. Defendant further objects on the ground that this request is vague and ambiguous. REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 2 1: Admit that Dunning Enterprise received commissions from eBay, whether directly or through Commission Junction, that were based, in whole or in part, on Users whose computers were directed to eBay's website without the User's knowledge. RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 21: Defendant objects to this request on the grounds that it violates Mr. Dunning's privilege against self-incrimination pursuant to the Fifth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, Lefkowitz v. Turley, 414 U.S. 70, 77 (1973), Federal Rules of Evidence Rule 50 1, Article 1, Section 15 of the California Constitution, and California Evidence Code section 940. Defendant further objects on the ground that this request is vague and ambiguous. REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 22: Admit that Dunning Enterprise received commissions from eBay, whether directly or through Commission Junction, that were based, in whole or in part, on Users who had never actually clicked on a Dunning Enterprise-sponsored eBay advertisement link. RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 22:
///
DEFENDANT DUNNING ENTERPRISE, INC.'S RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFF'S REQUESTS FOR ADMISSIONS, CASE NO.: CV-08-4052 JF
(00123688-1 }

9

Case5:08-cv-04052-JF Document124-7

Filed09/22/09 Page11 of 14

Defendant objects to this request on the grounds that it violates Mr. Dunning's privilege against self-incrimination pursuant to the Fifth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, Lefkowitz v. Turley, 414 U.S. 70, 77 (1973), Federal Rules of Evidence Rule 501, Article 1, Section 15 of the California Constitution, and California Evidence Code section 940. Defendant further objects on the ground that this request is vague and ambiguous. REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 23: Admit that Dunning Enterprise received commissions from eBay, whether directly or through Commission Junction, that were based, in whole or in part, Cookie Stuffing caused by Dunning Enterprise. RESPONSE TO REOUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 23: Defendant objects to this request on the grounds that it violates Mr. Dunning's privilege against self-incrimination pursuant to the Fifth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, LeJkowitz v. Turley, 414 U.S. 70, 77 (1973), Federal Rules of Evidence Rule 501, Article 1, Section 15 of the California Constitution, and California Evidence Code section 940. Defendant further objects on the ground that this request is vague and ambiguous. REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 24: Admit that Dunning Enterprise engaged in Cookie Stuffing with the intent to defraud eBay. RESPONSE TO REOUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 24: Defendant objects to this request on the grounds that it violates Mr. Dunning's privilege

2o 21
22

1111

against self-incrimination pursuant to the Fifth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, LeJkowitz v. Turley, 414 U.S. 70, 77 (1973), Federal Rules of Evidence Rule 501, Article 1, Section 15 of the California Constitution, and California Evidence Code section 940. Defendant further objects on the ground that this request is vague, ambiguous, and constitutes a legal conclusion. REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 25: Admit that Dunning Enterprise defrauded eBay.

I II

26

RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 25: Defendant objects to this request on the grounds that it violates Mr. Dunning's privilege against self-incrimination pursuant to the Fifth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, LeJkowitz v.
DEFENDANT DUNNING ENTERPRISE, INC.'S RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFF'S REQUESTS FOR ADMISSIONS, CASE NO.: CV-08-4052 JF

27

28

11 I1

10

Case5:08-cv-04052-JF Document124-7

Filed09/22/09 Page12 of 14

Turley, 414 U.S. 70, 77 (1973), Federal Rules of Evidence Rule 50 1, Article 1, Section 15 of the California Constitution, and California Evidence Code section 940. Defendant further objects on the ground that this request is vague, ambiguous, and constitutes a legal conclusion. Dated: February ,2009 FREELAND COOPER & FOREMAN LLP

By: sewart H. Foreman Attorneys for Defendants Todd Dunning and Dunning Enterprise, Inc.

DEFENDANT DUNNING ENTERPRISE, INC.'S RESPONSES TO PLAINTIFF'S REQUESTS FOR ADMISSIONS, CASE NO.: CV-08-4052 JF

11

Case5:08-cv-04052-JF Document124-7

Filed09/22/09 Page13 of 14

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I am employed in the City and County of San Francisco, State of California. I am over the age of eighteen and not a party to the within action; my business address is 150 Spear Street, Suite 1800, San Francisco, California 94 105.
On February 26,2009, I served the foregoing document described as follows:

Defendant Dunning Enterprise, Inc.'s Responses to Plaintiffs Requests for Admissions
by placing a true and correct copy thereof enclosed in a sealed envelope addressed to the party(ies) of record whose name(s) and address(es) appear below:

SEE ATTACHED SERVICE LIST X - [BY MAIL - CCP I caused such sealed envelope with postage thereon fully prepaid to be placed in the United States mail at San Francisco, California, for collection and mailing to the office of addressee(s) on the date shown herein following ordinary business practice.

5 1013al

[HAND-DELIVERY/Personal/Messenger - CCP 5 10111 I caused such envelope to be hand-delivered by a courier, who personally delivered such envelope to the office of the addressee(s) on the date herein.
- [BY FACSIMILE - CCP

5 1013(e)] - I caused such document(s) to be transmitted via facsimile electronic equipment transmission on the party(ies), whose name(s), address(es) and fax number(s) are listed above, on the date stated herein and at the time set forth on the attached transmission reported indicating that the facsimile transmission was complete and without error.

- [BY FEDEX (Overnight Delivery) - CCP

5 1013(c)] I caused such envelope to be delivered to the Federal Express Office in San Francisco, California, with whom we have a direct billing account, to be delivered on the next business day.

- [BY E-MAIL or ELECTRONIC TRANSMISSION] . Based on a court order or agreement of

the parties to accept service by e-mail or electronic transmission, I caused the documents to be sent to the persons at the ernail addresses listed above. I did not receive within a reasonable time after the transmission, any electronic message or other indication that the transmission was unsuccessful. [STATE] I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the above is true and correct.

X - [FEDERAL] Service was made under the direction of a member of the bar of this Court who is admitted to practice and is not a party to this cause. Executed on February 26,2009, at San Fr
p

L
'c"

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE, CASE NO. 08-4052 (JF)
(00120756-1)

Case5:08-cv-04052-JF Document124-7

Filed09/22/09 Page14 of 14

ATTACHED SERVICE LIST Leo Presiado RUS, MILIBAND & SMITH Von Karrnan Towers 22 11 Michelson Drive, 7th Floor Irvine, CA 926 12 Telephone: [phone] Facsimile: (949) 252-1 5 14 Attorneys for Defendants Brian Dunning and Thunderwood Holdings, Inc. David Eberhart O'MELVENY & MYERS LLP Embarcadero Center West 2 Embarcadero Center, 28th Floor San Francisco, CA 941 11 Attorneys for Plaintiff eBay, Inc. Telephone: [phone] Facsimile: 41 5-984-8701 Seyamack Kouretchian COAST LAW GROUP 169 Saxony Road, Suite 204 Encinitas, CA 92024 Attorneys for Defendants Shawn Hogan and Digital Point Solutions, Inc.

Patrick K. McClellan Von Karman Towers 221 1 Michelson Drive, 7th Floor Irvine, CA 926 12 Attorney for Kessler's Flying Circus

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE, CASE NO. 08-4052 (JF)
(00120756-1)