Ceglia v. Zuckerberg et al

Filing 260

REPLY to Response to Motion re 223 MOTION Order re 41 Text Order Referring Case to Magistrate Judge,,,,, Notice of Motion for Order Prohibiting Defendants from Reliance on Argument that Ceglia Zuckerberg email exchanges in Amended Complaint are Frauds in any dispositive motion MOTION Order re 41 Text Order Referring Case to Magistrate Judge,,,,, Notice of Motion for Order Prohibiting Defendants from Reliance on Argument that Ceglia Zuckerberg email exchanges in Amended Complaint are Frauds in any dispositive motion filed by Paul D. Ceglia. (Attachments: # 1 Certificate of Service)(Boland, Dean)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
PAUL D. CEGLIA,

Civil Action No. : 1:10-cv-00569-RJA

Plaintiff,
v.
MARK ELLIOT ZUCKERBERG, Individually, and
FACEBOOK, INC.

REPLY TO DEFENDANTS’
RESPONSE TO MOTION
PROHIBITING RELIANCE ON
CLAIM CEGLIA’S EMAILS ARE
FRAUDS

Defendants.

MEMORANDUM
This reply is related to, but distinct from, the underlying fraud that now
permeates everything Defendants and their counsel Mr. Snyder assert in this case.
From its outset, Snyder has placed incredible importance on the showing of fraud
related to Ceglia’s emails.
Snyder’s primary argument is that the absence of Ceglia’s emails in
Defendant Zuckerberg’s Harvard email account record “proves” they are frauds. In
fact, the fake emails claim “will be one of the many reasons supporting Defendants’
forthcoming motion to dismiss.” Doc. No. 237 at 9. In urging the court to grant
expedited discovery, the court asked, “[i]s that the only reason to not grant mutual
discovery, expedited discovery, is the potential for him to engage in a further fraud
to rebut the Harvard email?”

Snyder replied, “There are two or three other

reasons.” Doc. No. 94 at 50.

1

Snyder makes the fraudulent argument, yet again, that “the fact that
Zuckerberg’s Harvard account does not contain a single one of Ceglia’s purported
emails confirms they are fakes.”

Doc. No. 237 at 9.

He makes this argument

knowing that five of Defendant Zuckerberg’s computers, “used while he was a
freshman at Harvard” as Snyder as admitted, have not been searched at all for
electronic communication evidence. Snyder cannot maintain this position in good
faith that the absence of Ceglia’s emails in Zuckerberg’s Harvard email account
record means they are fakes. Even Stroz will not walk to the end of that plank by
submitting a declaration supporting this claim.
Ceglia in his motion has established via forensic expert Jerry Grant that the
documents containing the email exchanges with Defendant Zuckerberg were, in
fact, created by copying and pasting authentic emails back in 2003 and 2004.
Defendants offer no expert rebuttal to this claim.
“Rather, all he is willing to say is that he conducted some tests on the disks
themselves, none of which could confirm Ceglia’s fraud.” Id. at 10. The court can
confirm for itself that Mr. Grant is a qualified computer forensics expert in this very
court. He does not merely perform “some tests” but, instead, examines nearly 20
forensically relevant features of the documents confirming that there is no
indication of the fraud that Snyder so desperately wants to conjure up.
This quote underlines the arrogance of defendants and their position. “To the
extent Ceglia wishes to challenge the findings of Defendants’ experts concerning the
genuine emails they found on the Harvard server, the proper time to do that would
2

be once the expedited discovery phase is complete and Defendants have produced
the genuine Harvard emails, if this case is still ongoing at that point.” Id. at 10.
In Defendants’ world if Plaintiff can survive expedited discovery while the
defendants commit fraud on the court, he wins the right to to the Harvard server.
Snyder does not concede Plaintiff would have the right to access the formerly
suppressed and nearly destroyed Electronic Assets from the ConnectU case.
Perhaps Defendants and their counsel will consider a polite request from the court
to engage in regular discovery at some point, but even that is not certain.
CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons, Mr. Ceglia respectfully requests this court grant
Plaintiff’s motion and deny Defendants the right to argue Ceglia’s email evidence is
fake in any dispositive motion filed during or just after Expedited Discovery in light
of the evidence Ceglia has presented and the fraud committed by Defendants and
Defense Counsel Snyder and the Orrick Law Firm.
Respectfully submitted,
/s/Dean Boland
Paul A. Argentieri
188 Main Street
Hornell, NY 14843
607-324-3232 phone
607-324-6188
[e-mail]

Dean Boland
18123 Sloane Avenue
Lakewood, Ohio 44107
216-236-8080 phone
866-455-1267 fax
[e-mail]

3