Connectu, Inc. v. Facebook, Inc. et al
MOTION to Compel Response to Interrogatory No. 1 by Dustin Moskovitz, Andrew McCollum, Christopher Hughes, Thefacebook LLC, Facebook, Inc., Mark Zuckerberg. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Cooper, Monte)
Connectu, Inc. v. Facebook, Inc. et al
Page 1 of 4
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS CONNECTU, INC., CAMERON WINKLEVOSS, TYLER WINKLEVOSS, AND DIVYA NARENDRA, Plaint iff, v. FACEBOOK, INC., MARK ZUCKERBERG, EDUARDO SAVERIN, DUSTIN MOSKOVITZ, ANDREW MCCOLLUM, and FACEBOOK, LLC, Defendants.
Civil Action No. 1:07-CV-10593-DPW
THE FACEBOOK DEFENDANTS' MOTION TO COMPEL RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NO. 1
Page 2 of 4
Defendants Facebook, Inc., Mark Zuckerberg, Dustin Moskovitz, Andrew McCollum, and TheFacebook, LLC (collectively, the "Facebook Defendants") request that the Court order plaintiffs ConnectU, Inc., Cameron Winklevoss, Tyler Winklevoss and Divya Narendra (collectively, "Plaintiffs") to supplement ConnectU's response to Interrogatory No. 1 to set forth all facts supporting their copyright infringement claim. The Court should order Plaintiffs to include in their response a specific identification (by reference to document production number, software version, file and line) of any Harvard Connection source code that Plaintiffs allege was copied and an identification (by document production number, version, file and line) of www.thefacebook.com source code that allegedly corresponds thereto. The Court should similarly order Plaintiffs to identify with specificity any non-literal element(s) of the Harvard Connection website that they allege was infringed, the allegedly corresponding element(s) of www.thefacebook.com website, and an identification (by document production number, version, file and line) of Harvard Connection and www.thefacebook.com source code corresponding to each such non-literal element. Finally, the Court should also order Plaintiffs to include in their response an explanation of how each allegedly copied literal and/or non-literal element comprises original, protectable expression, and how the element allegedly supports their claim that there is "substantial similarity" between the Harvard Connection and www.thefacebook.com websites. CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO LOCAL RULE 7.1(a)(2) AND FRCP 37(a)(2) Counsel for the Facebook Defendants certifies that, pursuant to Local Rule 7.1(a)(2) and FRCP 37(a)(2), they met and conferred with counsel for Plaintiffs and Defendant Eduardo Saverin regarding this motion on August 15, 2007, via telephone conference. Monte M.F. Cooper, Theresa Sutton and Chester Day participated on behalf of the Facebook Defendants, Daniel Hampton on behalf of Defendant Eduardo Saverin, and Meredith Schoenfeld and Daniel
Page 3 of 4
Kaufman on behalf of Plaintiffs. The length of the teleconference was approximately one and one-half hours. REQUEST FOR ORAL ARGUMENT The Facebook Defendants request a hearing on this motion.
Dated: November 14, 2007.
Respect fully submitted, /s/ Monte M.F. Cooper /s/ G. Hopkins Guy, III* I. Neel Chatterjee* Monte M.F. Cooper* Theresa A. Sutton* ORRICK, HERRINGTON & SUTCLIFFE LLP 1000 Marsh Road Menlo Park, California 94025 Telephone: (650) 614-7400 Facsimile: (650) 614-7401 email@example.com m firstname.lastname@example.org email@example.com m firstname.lastname@example.org Steven M. Bauer Jeremy P. Oczek PROSKAUER ROSE, LLP One International Plaza, 14th Floor Boston, MA 02110-2600 Telephone: (617) 526-9600 Facsimile: (617) 526-9899 email@example.com firstname.lastname@example.org * Admitted Pro Hac Vice
Page 4 of 4
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that this document(s) filed through the ECF system will be sent electronically to the registered participants as identified on the Notice of Electronic Filing (NEF) and paper copies will be sent to those indicated as non registered participants on November 14, 2007. Dated: November 14, 2007. Respect fully submitted, /s/ Monte M.F. Cooper /s/ Monte M.F. Cooper
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?