Connectu, Inc. v. Facebook, Inc. et al

Filing 377

DECLARATION re #376 Opposition to Motion, Originally filed as Dkt 367 by Facebook, Inc., Christopher Hughes, Andrew McCollum, Dustin Moskovitz, Eduardo Saverin, Thefacebook LLC, Mark Zuckerberg. (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)(Chatterjee, I.)

Case 1:07-cv-10593-DPW Document 367-12

Filed 09/02/11 Page 1 of 2

EXHIBIT 11

Case 1:07-cv-10593-DPW Document 367-12

Filed 09/02/11 Page 2 of 2

Dalton, Amy
From:
Sent:
To:
Cc:
Subject:

Cooper, Monte
Monday, February 04, 2008 3:15 PM
David Azar; Renee Bea; 'Adam Wolfson'
Sutton, Theresa A.; Robert Hawk; Chatterjee, I. Neel; Lincoln, Sean; Dalton, Amy; Sbauer;
Joczek
Follow-Up to Meet-and-Confer

David:
During today's meet-and-confer, you requested the bates-numbers of examples of Instant Messages from the principals or
employees of ConnectU to assist in determining whether plaintiffs can produce further electronic communications in the
Massachusetts case. Here are the bates-numbers of such examples:
CO10478 (Cameron describes his having sent IMs to Winston Williams with instructions on work he wanted completed for
ConnectU)
GUCWA0002 -- GUCWA0005 (examples of actual AOL Instant Messenger messages of Cameron Winklevoss)
GUCWA0152 -- GUCWA0155 (examples of actual AOL Instant Messenger messages of Tyler Winklevoss)
PNS00460 -- PNS00465 (examples of actual AOL Instant Messenger messages of Tyler Winklevoss)
Additionally, several witnesses have confirmed in depositions that they communicated with Cameron, Tyler and Divya via
IMs regarding Harvard Connection and ConnectU- - e.g. 9/27/07 Joe Jackson depo. at 65:2-66:17; 10/5/07 iMarc depo.
at 112:7-13. In that regard, iMarc also confirmed instant message communications were among the data that should have
been preserved when they transferred the data from the ConnectU website to cihost.com and/or Pacific Northwest
Software. 10/5/07 iMarc depo. at 164:12-166:25.
Also, you asked me to inquire of Neel whether we would agree to allow the supplementation of the existing briefing on the
Motion for Summary Judgment concerning the contract claims. I inquired what documents you wish to cite for purposes
of supplementation. While I realize you tried to describe the substance of the communication, in order to provide a
response we would request precisely which documents to which you are referring and, if at all possible, a short
explanation why you believe they somehow contradict the statements previously made by ConnectU at its Rule 30(b)(6)
deposition (which largely form the basis of the motion).
We appreciate the time you took to discuss these matters with us earlier today. Thank you,
Monte

1