Ceglia v. Zuckerberg et al

Filing 34

NOTICE OF FILING OF OFFICIAL TRANSCRIPT of Proceedings held on October 13, 2010, before Judge Richard J. Arcara. Court Reporter/Transcriber Yvonne M. Garrison, Telephone number 716-847-2477. Transcript may be viewed at the court public terminal or purchased through the Court Reporter/Transcriber before the deadline for Release of Transcript Restriction. After that date it may be obtained through PACER.. Redaction Request due 12/20/2010. Redacted Transcript Deadline set for 12/28/2010. Release of Transcript Restriction set for 2/25/2011. (DLC)

Download PDF
1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK 2 3 4 ---------------------------------------PAUL CEGLIA, Plaintiff, 5 6 - vs - 7 8 9 10 11 MARK ZUCKERBERG, Defendant. ---------------------------------------TRANSCRIPT OF ORAL ARGUMENT BEFORE THE HONORABLE RICHARD J. ARCARA UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 12 13 14 15 16 Docket Number 10-CV-569A APPEARANCES: For the Plaintiff: JAMES W. GRABLE ESQ., and TERRENCE M. CONNORS, ESQ., and PAUL A. ARGENTIERI, ESQ. For the Defendant: ORIN S. SNYDER ESQ. Court Reporter: YVONNE M. GARRISON, RPR Official Court Reporter U.S.D.C., W.D.N.Y. 68 Court Street Buffalo, New York 14202 716-847-2477 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Taken on October 13, 2010 at 9:13 a.m. Proceedings 1 THE CLERK: 2 Civil Action 2010-569A, Ceglia versus 2 Zuckerberg and other parties. 3 motion for remand. 4 5 6 Oral argument on plaintiff's Counsel, please state your name and the party you represent for the record. MR. GRABLE: Good morning, Your Honor. James Grable 7 appearing with Terry Connors and Paul Argentieri for the 8 plaintiff, Paul Ceglia. 9 10 MR. SNYDER: Good morning Your Honor. Orin Snyder appearing for the defendant. 11 THE COURT: 12 I guess Mr. Grable, or Mr. Connors. 13 MR. GRABLE: 14 THE COURT: 15 MR. GRABLE: 16 issues before you. 17 Okay. Good morning, everyone. I'm up, Your Honor. Go ahead, sir. I have a better answer, Judge, on the motion to remand. 18 And what you have before you is obviously a But the burden, as you know from the papers and from 19 your prior experience with these issues, is not ours. 20 burden of proof, by clear and convincing evidence, rests at all 21 times with Mr. Zuckerberg. 22 The He's provided you with his factual showing. He's put 23 in his submission that he argues to you necessitates denial of 24 our motion to remand and proves that there is, in fact, 25 diversity jurisdiction. Proceedings 1 3 But his submission falls woefully short. The reason 2 for that is because he's got one foot in New York and one foot 3 in California. 4 used as a shield in the prior litigation pending in 5 Massachusetts can't now be used as a sword. 6 7 And the law presumes that the domicile that he THE COURT: different? Then he was in college. 8 MR. GRABLE: 9 THE COURT: 10 MR. GRABLE: 11 THE COURT: 12 13 14 15 16 MR. GRABLE: Pardon me? He wasn't anymore. Okay. But he -- this was how long ago -- 2004 was the date -- in September of '04 was the date that the 2007 -THE COURT: He didn't have a company then in California, right? MR. GRABLE: 18 THE COURT: 19 MR. GRABLE: He did. He had a company then? He did. He had incorporated in California a few -- 21 THE COURT: 22 MR. GRABLE: 23 He wasn't anymore. ten years ago? 17 20 Aren't the circumstances quite a bit What year was that? That was in 2004, a few months before that action was filed in September. 24 THE COURT: 25 MR. GRABLE: He also had -- He's got 12, 1500 employees right now? Right. And I don't know how many Proceedings 4 1 employees he had back then, but he was closing in on a million 2 users for Facebook. 3 was living the same sort of existence that the proof shows he's 4 living now, a transient short of duffle bag, 5 apartment-to-apartment existence, not buying any real property 6 in California, not laying down any roots -- 7 8 He was no longer attending Harvard and he THE COURT: Does he have any real property in New York? 9 MR. GRABLE: 10 THE COURT: 11 MR. GRABLE: 12 THE COURT: Okay. We don't know. I think the answer to that question is no. 13 We don't know. 14 Now, his license expired in New York, right? 15 MR. GRABLE: 16 THE COURT: 17 No. MR. GRABLE: His license is valid today? Correct. It has not expired. It 18 expires in May of 2015. 19 his declaration asserts that the State of California punched a 20 hole in the license to render it invalid. 21 tell under New York law he can walk into the Department of 22 Motor Vehicles tomorrow in Dobbs Ferry and get a driver's 23 license if he wants one. 24 THE COURT: 25 MR. GRABLE: And when he got his California license But as far as I can Is that significant? Not by itself, maybe. But there's a Proceedings 1 whole host of factors, as you know. 2 You've addressed these issues before and you know 3 that the Court's used the totality of the circumstances 4 approach. 5 uses, which is a true, fixed home. 6 the case law talks about, that's the standard you used in '06 7 in the Hodge case, and more recently in 2010 in the New York 8 case. 9 You've used the standard that the Second Circuit That's the standard that And, obviously, Judge, when you look at a 10 month-to-month tenancy with an expired lease, appliances 11 provided by the landlord, ZIP codes all over the place -- 12 THE COURT: 13 MR. GRABLE: 14 But they're all in California. They are. As far as I can tell they're all -- 15 THE COURT: 16 MR. GRABLE: 17 THE COURT: 18 MR. GRABLE: 19 THE COURT: How does that work to your benefit? Well. Because -- They're all in California. Right. If he had some in New York I could 20 understand your argument. I don't understand the argument 21 because they're all in New York -- I mean, they're all in 22 California. 23 MR. GRABLE: Right. Because the standard is true, 24 fixed home, it becomes relevant. 25 assessing the totality of the circumstances here and with a And you're going to be 5 Proceedings 6 1 litigant who's got one foot in one state and one foot in 2 another and has proven to his own advantage, as a matter of law 3 and fact just a few years prior, that his domicile is in New 4 York, the law presumes that the domicile continues. 5 They have to clear almost the highest burden in our 6 system, short of beyond a reasonable doubt. 7 to you by clear and convincing evidence that the proof 8 establishes that he's picked up his roots in New York, in Dobbs 9 Ferry, and moved his roots to California. 10 11 And not much has changed since that decision in '07 -- 12 THE COURT: 13 MR. GRABLE: 14 They have to prove A lot changed, hasn't it? Only with respect to Facebook. Facebook has gotten bigger, but it was big at the time. 15 THE COURT: 16 MR. GRABLE: 17 THE COURT: 18 MR. GRABLE: 19 too. 20 How many employees? I think about 1500. That's quite a bit. He had a lot of employees back then, time of the decision. 21 22 And he was closing in on almost a million users at the THE COURT: How many employees did he have in the summer of 2004, ballpark? 23 MR. GRABLE: 24 THE COURT: 25 MR. GRABLE: I'm not sure. I'm not sure. Was it more than 50? I believe -- I believe it was below 50, Proceedings 1 but I'm not sure of that. 2 THE COURT: 3 MR. GRABLE: 4 7 Now, you've got 1500 people. But, Judge, the circumstances then were whether it's 50 or 1500. 5 THE COURT: 6 You don't think there's a difference? MR. GRABLE: Well, I think there was a difference in 7 terms of Facebook, but I don't think there's a difference in 8 terms of Mark Zuckerberg. 9 to lay down roots in California that's different than what he 10 was doing then except that the company he works for, which he 11 worked for back then, is just a lot bigger now. 12 hasn't bought any property in California, he still hasn't 13 done the kind of -- 14 15 THE COURT: MR. GRABLE: 17 THE COURT: 18 MR. GRABLE: 20 THE COURT: 21 MR. GRABLE: 22 THE COURT: 23 MR. GRABLE: 25 But he still I think you're He owns it. Right, and he did back then. Well, that's pretty significant, when you own a company with 1500 employees. 19 24 The company he works for. missing something else. 16 Mark Zuckerberg hasn't done anything Well, that's -All the ZIP codes are all in California? Employment is one factor. Okay, I agree. And you know that, Judge. telling you anything you don't know. THE COURT: I understand. I'm not Proceedings 1 MR. GRABLE: 8 And what you have here are a host of 2 other factors that leave him the opportunity to, if his 3 litigation strategy is suited by the argument, suggests that he 4 lives in Dobbs Ferry. 5 THE COURT: 6 MR. GRABLE: 7 Where did he vote? He voted -- we know that he voted once -- 8 THE COURT: The last time he voted was where? 9 MR. GRABLE: 10 THE COURT: 11 MR. GRABLE: No. 12 THE COURT: Okay. 13 MR. GRABLE: In California. Isn't that significant also? Not one -- one vote cast in one 14 presidential election. 15 New York. 16 the Court that he didn't vote in New York after '04. 17 don't know how many times he voted in New York prior to that. 18 We don't know when -- if he's voted in He says that in '04 he doesn't recall or can say to But we And we also know, Judge, from the proof in the 19 record, that if he decides that he wants to go in November in a 20 couple of weeks and vote for Paladino or Cuomo he can fly back 21 to Dobbs Ferry and cast a vote there. 22 And we also know, Judge, and this relates to 23 information that came to light after the briefs were submitted, 24 that one of the other factors that you have considered and that 25 other Courts considered -- Proceedings 1 THE COURT: 2 MR. GRABLE: 3 THE COURT: 4 MR. GRABLE: 5 THE COURT: 6 MR. GRABLE: 9 We're talking about since September 13th? Correct. That's from your reply papers? Right. Okay. Social, charitable, cultural ties, we 7 know that Mr. Zuckerberg has just given away or pledged to give 8 away $100 million of Facebook ownership to the Newark School 9 District. Now, the Newark School District is 30 miles from 10 Dobbs Ferry. 11 We also know, and we didn't point this out in our papers -- 12 THE COURT: 13 MR. GRABLE: How does that help you? Judge, one of the factors is whether 14 someone has taken steps to manifest an intention to put down a 15 fixed home in California. 16 Oakland. He didn't donate that money to He didn't donate that money to Palo Alto -- 17 THE COURT: What's his connection with New Jersey? 18 MR. GRABLE: Well, it's 30 miles from Dobbs Ferry, 19 it's just across the George Washington Bridge. 20 THE COURT: 21 MR. GRABLE: 22 THE COURT: Well, but it isn't in New York. No. Your argument, obviously, would be 23 stronger if it were in New York. 24 MR. GRABLE: 25 Judge, Exhibit M -- It would be stronger, but we also have, Proceedings 1 2 3 THE COURT: 10 What difference would it make whether it was New Jersey or Texas? MR. GRABLE: Well, I think 30 miles away, it's closer 4 to his parents' home in Dobbs Ferry than we are right now to 5 Hornell, New York or Youngstown, New York. 6 judicial notice of that under Rule 201. 7 THE COURT: And you can take How would I write a decision and say that 8 the Court finds it significant that the school district in 9 which he made this very generous donation is 30 miles from 10 11 12 13 14 New York City on the issue of domicile? MR. GRABLE: Well, the way I think the Court could do it is in describing the factors, one of which was -THE COURT: Would you really want to argue that in the Second Circuit? 15 MR. GRABLE: I'd be happy to. 16 Judge, one of the factors, as you know, is where -- 17 home is where you lay down your roots, the phrase that they use 18 in their submission. 19 THE COURT: Home is where -How flexible are domiciles? I mean, like 20 today a lot of people are trying to get a domicile in Florida, 21 you know, wealthy people, they don't like the whole New York 22 system of tax structure. 23 MR. GRABLE: 24 THE COURT: 25 Right. And there's all kinds of things you have to do to try to get domiciled in Florida. I'm somewhat Proceedings 11 1 familiar -- I did some research on that myself and it's really, 2 really hard to do. 3 all these things that I was looking at when I was checking that 4 out, just this is months ago, seems to have -- he doesn't seem 5 to have any of those still in New York. 6 do in New York right now? I mean, it looks, I mean, you have -- but 7 MR. GRABLE: 8 THE COURT: 9 10 11 He's -- what does he Well, he's got his voter registration -I know you want a hearing. That's something I seem to get the impression you're driving here for a hearing. MR. GRABLE: If you're going to conclude that they've 12 gotten close to their burden of clear and convincing evidence, 13 then I think a hearing is necessary. 14 THE COURT: 15 MR. GRABLE: 16 17 once in California. Does he pay taxes in New York? I don't think he does. He paid taxes And -- THE COURT: Do you really think that he is going to 18 pick up, leave his multi, I guess, multi-million, maybe even 19 more, I'm not sure, and go back and, I'll say this lightly, and 20 move back in his parents' apartment? 21 22 23 24 25 MR. GRABLE: No. But that's not the standard. That's not -THE COURT: Well, that's where he lived, wasn't it, his parents' basement when he was in New York? MR. GRABLE: The prior finding of domicile that he Proceedings 12 1 argued for was that he had never left the domicile that was the 2 domicile of his birth. 3 domicile -- And to prove that he's left that 4 THE COURT: Well, of course, then he was in college. 5 MR. GRABLE: Right, right. 6 THE COURT: Big difference. 7 MR. GRABLE: But I think the district court's 8 conclusion in Massachusetts was that the time in college and 9 when he was in New Hampshire at boarding school, that that was 10 sort of transient. 11 existence now is transient. 12 I would argue in much the same way that his You know, you don't live, Judge, people who have set 13 down roots and have a true, fixed home, you don't live with a 14 month-to-month tenancy with an expired lease -- 15 16 THE COURT: Why is that so important? I mean, month to month, so what? 17 MR. GRABLE: 18 show, they have to establish -- 19 THE COURT: 20 MR. GRABLE: 21 22 23 24 25 It's important because they have to Okay. That Dobbs Ferry is no longer the place and that his residence in California is his fixed home. THE COURT: He's been in California how long now? Couple years? MR. GRABLE: Massachusetts. Since before the decision in In fact, since before the date the Proceedings 1 Massachusetts action was filed. 2 THE COURT: 3 MR. GRABLE: 13 4 Right. And he was there with all these same hallmarks when the Massachusetts Court -- 5 THE COURT: 6 MR. GRABLE: 7 He's been there six years? Facebook. That's not quite the same. The only difference is the size of That's the only difference. 8 THE COURT: 9 MR. GRABLE: Well -And, Judge, we didn't point it out in 10 our reply papers, but in going through their exhibits last 11 night in preparing for this, if you take a look at Exhibit M, 12 which is one of his -- and if you don't have it up there I 13 apologize. 14 THE COURT: 15 MR. GRABLE: I have it somewhere up here. It's one of his bank account statements 16 that he attached. 17 attached to his submission to try to meet his burden. 18 bank account record, as far as I can tell, the co-joint owner 19 of that bank account is his father in Dobbs Ferry. 20 You saw all those redacted records that he And the Now, listen, any one of these factors is probably not 21 enough to reach a conclusion with respect to residence and 22 domicile, but you're looking at the entire picture and they 23 have to establish for you that things changed. 24 Massachusetts decision went their way, it's their burden to 25 show that something's changed. The Proceedings All right. 14 1 THE COURT: Let's hear from them. 2 MR. SNYDER: 3 I think Your Honor is absolutely right, that this is Thank you, Your Honor. 4 not one of those cases where there are substantial ties in 5 multiple states, and the Court has to weigh and evaluate the 6 significance of them. 7 We welcome the burden of proof here, Your Honor. And 8 we have not only carried it by clear and convincing evidence, I 9 think we've carried it by beyond any reasonable doubt. 10 11 12 13 It's hard to imagine a clearer case of a party -THE COURT: Well, you would have a stronger case if he had a home in California. MR. SNYDER: 14 Your Honor. 15 For the past -- yes. Well, he does, For the past six years he's lived continuously in California. 16 THE COURT: 17 MR. SNYDER: 18 THE COURT: 19 I mean, actually buy a piece of property. Sure. A home, pay taxes, live there. And maybe have a family and kids going to school and things like that. 20 MR. SNYDER: Certainly, Your Honor. 21 But this is a man who for the past six years has 22 continuously lived within blocks of where he has been building 23 and running his company. 24 in Northern California. 25 THE COURT: He's lived continuously for six years What are all these ZIP codes? Proceedings 1 2 MR. SNYDER: There are ZIP codes that all start with a nine. 3 4 15 THE COURT: count them. 5 How many are there altogether? I didn't Maybe about six or seven. MR. SNYDER: Well, Your Honor, the plaintiff creates 6 a false portrait of what he claims to be a dizzying array of 7 five ZIP codes. 8 also a silly argument. 9 his current residence, which is blocks away from Facebook -- First of all, it's factually wrong and it's 10 THE COURT: 11 MR. SNYDER: 12 THE COURT: 13 MR. SNYDER: The facts are there are five ZIP codes; He has a month to month? Yes, month to month. Okay. His work address at Facebook, where he 14 receives some mail as most of us receive mail both at work and 15 home. 16 security and privacy. 17 personal nature -- 18 19 He has a post office box in order to protect his THE COURT: Does he have a post office box anywhere else? 20 MR. SNYDER: 21 THE COURT: 22 MR. SNYDER: 23 He chooses to receive some mail of a No, just in Northern California. Okay. He has a former home address in Palo Alto to which some mail gets inadvertently sent. 24 THE COURT: 25 MR. SNYDER: That's a former address? His prior residence in Northern Proceedings 1 16 California, blocks away from Facebook. 2 THE COURT: Prior to -- what do you mean by prior? 3 MR. SNYDER: Meaning the place he lived before his 4 current address. 5 THE COURT: 6 MR. SNYDER: 7 I understand that, but when was that? That was about two or three years ago, Your Honor. 8 THE COURT: 9 Okay. MR. SNYDER: And then the fifth one is a 10 typographical error, so there was an inversion of two numbers. 11 So there are really only four ZIP codes, the fifth one was a 12 typographical error where numbers were interposed. 13 So the reason the argument is silly is all of these 14 ZIP codes confirm our point, which is that Mr. Zuckerberg has a 15 fixed and permanent residence in Northern California, blocks 16 away from the company he runs. 17 THE COURT: Has he been in New York at all the last MR. SNYDER: According to his affidavit he travels 18 19 few years? 20 out of California rarely and sporadically. 21 his affidavit six weeks out of the year he spends time outside 22 of Northern California. 23 Facebook in Palo Alto where he lives and works. 24 25 I think he said in All the rest of his time is spent at Your Honor, counsel said that he's living a duffle bag existence, a transient. He's done nothing to lay down Proceedings 1 roots. 2 Court points to California and California only as the place -- 3 It's the opposite. 17 THE COURT: Every piece of evidence before this You'll have to admit it is a little 4 strange to be running this huge company, I guess, worth a lot 5 of money, you're there and you're living in a month-to-month 6 apartment, I guess. 7 8 MR. SNYDER: No, Your Honor. I think not, with all due respect -- 9 THE COURT: 10 MR. SNYDER: Really? I think it's very common for a 11 20-something year old person who is focused on his job and his 12 work, particularly in this economy, to choose to live month to 13 month rather than maybe to purchase a home or to sign a 14 long-term lease. 15 And, again, Your Honor, we believe that this evidence 16 confirms the fact that Mr. Zuckerberg has lived continuously in 17 California, is in California today, blocks away from where his 18 headquarters is -- 19 THE COURT: Let me ask you this: I don't want to get 20 too personal, but does he have a girlfriend or a boyfriend in 21 California he lives with? 22 MR. SNYDER: There are press reports of which the 23 Court can take judicial notice that he has had a long time 24 girlfriend. 25 THE COURT: Where is she from? Proceedings 1 MR. SNYDER: 2 THE COURT: 3 She's in Northern California with him. And they live together in this month-to-month apartment? 4 5 18 MR. SNYDER: I think the press reports indicate that that's the case, Your Honor, yes. 6 THE COURT: 7 MR. SNYDER: Okay. So there is not only stability in 8 Northern California, but there is permanent -- Your Honor, this 9 is a 26-year old man who has spent almost a quarter of his life 10 blocks away from one of the fastest growing, most 11 well-recognized companies in the world. 12 evidence that this man has any roots in New York. 13 a shred of evidence, not a piece of evidence in this record 14 that he is living in a duffle bag anywhere, anywhere, period. 15 THE COURT: 16 MR. SNYDER: 17 THE COURT: 18 MR. SNYDER: There's not a shred of There's not Do his parents still live in New York? In Dobbs Ferry, certainly. Okay. And the law, Your Honor, as Your Honor 19 has held and as the Second Circuit has held in case after case, 20 the law does not require that you shed every vestige of your 21 past life. 22 case after case has found that a party has moved from one 23 domicile to another and left behind far more remnants of their 24 past than Mr. Zuckerberg has. 25 And this, Your Honor, is not a close call because Your Honor's decision in the Hodge case, I think, is Proceedings 19 1 very instructive. In that case Your Honor wrote the evidence 2 indicates that the defendant was domiciled in New York State 3 when this action was commenced. 4 Wisconsin driver's license he had left his employment, sold his 5 property and closed his bank accounts in Wisconsin. 6 in New York with his family, had bank accounts in New York, 7 worked in New York and paid New York State taxes. 8 his employment, sold his property and closed his bank accounts 9 in Wisconsin. Although he still held a He resided He had left In short, he had severed all ties to Wisconsin 10 with no apparent attempt to return. 11 to suggest that he was domiciled in Wisconsin at the time the 12 action was commenced. 13 There's simply no evidence Your Honor, this case where Mr. Zuckerberg long ago 14 changes domicile from New York to California is even stronger. 15 In Hodge the defendant had only lived in New York for two 16 years. 17 any indication of any intent to move for six years in 18 California. 19 Here, Mr. Zuckerberg has lived continuously, without In Hodge the defendant was a visiting professor in 20 the University in Beijing. Here Mr. Zuckerberg works only in 21 California. 22 has worked anywhere else for the past six years. There's no evidence that he works anywhere else or 23 And in Hodge the defendant -- 24 THE COURT: 25 MR. SNYDER: Does he do a lot of traveling at all? No, Your Honor. Proceedings 1 2 THE COURT: 20 He gets up every day, goes to work in this office? 3 MR. SNYDER: Yes, Your Honor. There are public 4 reports in which Mr. Zuckerberg has said he spends sometimes 5 16 hours a day poured over his desk at Facebook. 6 his life in building this company since 2004 and he set down 7 his roots in 2004 in California. 8 deeper and stronger. 9 THE COURT: 10 And those roots have grown Every -Let me ask this: Now, Palo Alto is, I guess, is the tech capital of the world. 11 MR. SNYDER: 12 THE COURT: 13 He has poured Yes, Your Honor. Is that why he picked -- because of the nature of his business? 14 MR. SNYDER: 15 THE COURT: 16 MR. SNYDER: Is that why he selected that area? Yes, Your Honor. Versus some other area? Yes, Your Honor. Originally he went in 17 2004 because he thought it would be fun to live there, but he 18 also thought it would be good as he was thinking -- as he was 19 building this fledgling company -- to be in Silicon Valley. 20 He moved there in 2004, Your Honor and not only has 21 he not moved, but he's put down roots in every aspect of his 22 life. 23 he pays taxes. 24 bank accounts are. 25 where his mailing address is. It's where he lives. It's where he works. It's where he votes. It's where It's where his financial It's where his professionals are. It's It's where he receives bills and Proceedings 1 21 more and more and more. 2 There is no evidence of roots in New York. 3 no evidence of an intent to return to New York. 4 evidence, Your Honor, that this -- that this party, 5 There is Mr. Zuckerberg, is a transient. 6 There is no I think it is, frankly, a silly argument to suggest 7 that Mark Zuckerberg, who has lived continuously for six years 8 in California, blocks away from the company that he is pouring 9 his life into, is a transient, as if he is somehow a nomad, 10 traveling the world in a duffle bag with no apparent direction. 11 There's no evidence of that. 12 and, at worst, Your Honor, it's frankly false. 13 THE COURT: It's -- it's hyperbole at best Now, one of the arguments Mr. Grable is 14 making is the fact that the company is basically the same, the 15 only difference is there is 50 employees versus 1500 employees. 16 Is that a good argument? 17 MR. SNYDER: No. 18 THE COURT: Okay. 19 MR. SNYDER: 20 reasons. 21 It's factually wrong -- -- Your Honor, for the following It ignores the facts. past six years -- 22 THE COURT: 23 MR. SNYDER: It ignores reality. Over the Well, the reality is 50 versus 1500. In the summer of 2004, Mark Zuckerberg 24 and a handful of friends were building this fledgling company 25 out of a living room of a group house. There are a handful of Proceedings 1 employees. 2 22 Things have changed dramatically and fundamentally since that time. 3 THE COURT: 4 MR. SNYDER: 5 THE COURT: 7 MR. SNYDER: 8 THE COURT: 9 MR. SNYDER: 10 THE COURT: 11 MR. SNYDER: 13 14 It's a group house. They're a bunch of college kids living in a house together. 6 12 What kind of a house did you call it? In California? Yes, in Northern California. This is 2004? In the summer of 2004. Where did the 50 people all work? No, there were a handful of employees. There were not 50 employees in summer of 2004, Your Honor. THE COURT: When the Judge made the decision in Massachusetts, how many about were employed or working? 15 MR. SNYDER: 16 handful of employees. 17 And things changed abruptly and unexpectedly at the end of 2004 18 and the ConnectU court itself, the Court of Massachusetts held 19 that by the fall of 2004 the landscape changed. 20 In the summer of 2004 there were a It was not a large company, Your Honor. Mr. Zuckerberg's life in California, at that point, 21 became more permanent because the company took off. 22 instead of returning to Harvard as scheduled he set down roots 23 in Northern California in the fall of 2004 and never moved. 24 25 And And, Your Honor, those roots are as deep and strong as -- as not only are necessary to meet our burden, but more Proceedings 23 1 than -- stronger than necessary to meet our burden. 2 said -- 3 THE COURT: 4 MR. SNYDER: 5 THE COURT: Yeah. 6 MR. SNYDER: Yes. 7 THE COURT: 8 MR. SNYDER: As I There's a building? Today? Yes, there are multiple -- What does it say on the building? Facebook. There are multiple buildings. 9 Facebook is a major corporation located in Palo Alto, with 10 multiple large buildings employing well over 1500 people. 11 THE COURT: 12 MR. SNYDER: 13 THE COURT: 14 MR. SNYDER: Brand new buildings that he built? Yes, Your Honor. So all these buildings were built by him? No. These are brand new buildings that 15 are now housed -- that now house Facebook, meaning Facebook has 16 expanded dramatically and as it's expanded it's moved into 17 larger offices which are called campuses. 18 called in the Silicon Valley. 19 THE COURT: 20 MR. SNYDER: 21 24 25 Okay and so -And so Facebook is housed today in multiple campuses or office buildings. 22 23 That's what they're THE COURT: He doesn't own the building, he leases them? MR. SNYDER: leased by Facebook. I believe, I believe that they are Proceedings 24 1 THE COURT: Okay. 2 MR. SNYDER: 3 THE COURT: How long are these leases for? 4 MR. SNYDER: Long-term leases, I believe. Mr. Zuckerberg -- 5 don't have the information. 6 But I Court. 7 THE COURT: 8 MR. SNYDER: 9 I can certainly provide it to the Okay. But Facebook, Your Honor, today is a company with 500 million members. 10 THE COURT: 11 MR. SNYDER: 500 million customers. How many did they have in 2004? In 2004 they had -- by December of '04 12 they had a million, Your Honor, one million. 13 of '04 far fewer. 14 But in the summer What happened is in the fall of 2004 things change 15 dramatically. 16 company took off and that's when Mr. Zuckerberg said I'm not 17 going back to Harvard anytime soon. 18 this company. 19 vigor for six years with no intent to be anywhere else other 20 than blocks away from this company which today is one of the 21 most well-recognized, fastest growing companies in the world. 22 23 There was a infusion of venture capital, the He's done that continuously and with zeal and THE COURT: is that set up? I'm going to build and run How does the corporate structure -- how Is he the president, the owner? 24 MR. SNYDER: 25 THE COURT: He's the CEO. CEO. Proceedings 1 MR. SNYDER: 2 THE COURT: 3 25 Yes, Your Honor, he runs the company. Okay. Was there a president also or just the CEO? 4 MR. SNYDER: 5 THE COURT: 6 MR. SNYDER: There's a chief operating officer. Okay. Who reports directly to Mr. Zuckerberg. 7 But Mr. Zuckerberg has been from day one and continues to be 8 today a hands-on CEO, running the company based in Silicon 9 Valley, Palo Alto. And that is why he lives there, and that is 10 why he makes his roots there, and that is why he has no 11 intention of living anywhere else, Your Honor, nor is there any 12 evidence of an intent to live anywhere else. 13 THE COURT: According to -- Well, the plaintiffs are saying that it 14 takes issue and says that he's trying to take -- I think the 15 word is strategic litigation advantage, I think that was 16 basically the phrase that they used. 17 MR. SNYDER: 18 THE COURT: 19 MR. SNYDER: 20 THE COURT: 21 MR. SNYDER: That's not true at all, Your Honor. Okay. The landscape -Why do you disagree with that? Because the issue in the ConnectU case 22 was whether Mr. Zuckerberg was a New York domiciliary in 23 September of 2004. 24 California yet. 25 car, he hadn't registered to vote, he hadn't set up a life. He was. He hadn't set down roots in He hadn't paid taxes, he hadn't registered his He Proceedings 1 was intending to return to Harvard. 2 THE COURT: 3 MR. SNYDER: 4 THE COURT: 5 MR. SNYDER: 6 THE COURT: 7 MR. SNYDER: 26 He was a kid at that time. Now, he's paying now California taxes? Yes, Your Honor. Is it a -- it's a private company? Yes, Your Honor. Incorporated in California? I believe it's incorporated -- it's 8 headquartered in California. I believe it's incorporated in 9 Delaware as most companies are. 10 THE COURT: 11 MR. SNYDER: Okay. But this is a Northern California-based 12 company, it's a significant employer in the area. 13 where Mr. Zuckerberg lives, as any of us -- 14 15 THE COURT: MR. SNYDER: 17 THE COURT: 19 Other than his parents that still live in New York. 16 18 And this is Yes, sir. Other than that, is there any connection at all in New York? MR. SNYDER: Other than that historic tie, that 20 connection to his parents and his childhood, which is we -- 21 most of us have, who live somewhere other than where we were 22 born, there is no evidence of a single connection to New York 23 that is relevant for domicile purposes. 24 25 What he points to is a driver's license and a voter registration -- Proceedings 1 2 THE COURT: Well, the driver's license, he still has a New York State driver's license, I guess? 3 4 27 MR. SNYDER: Well, Your Honor, let me address the driver's license. 5 Mr. Zuckerberg owns a car that has been registered in 6 California since March of 2008. 7 California driver's license since May of 2006. 8 9 He's possessed a valid They point to the fact that his New York driver's license supposedly remains valid, and this is wrong both 10 factually and legally. 11 California law, have a -- a -- a -- well, let me back up. 12 First of all, you could only, under He has a California license. His vehicle is 13 registered in California, he renewed that in 2004. 14 didn't do is call up New York State and say I have a California 15 license. 16 And what he But, Your Honor, in the Hodge case and many other 17 courts have held the fact that you have an old license is not 18 inconsistent with a change of domicile. 19 straws. 20 connections to the old domicile than here. 21 driver's license from your hometown that doesn't expire until a 22 certain date. 23 there's no evidence that he has any vehicles in New York, 24 there's nothing that connects him to New York, Your Honor, 25 other than that which, in the Hodge case Your Honor said that It's grasping at And in that case, Hodge, there are far more All they have is a There's no evidence that he uses that license, Proceedings 28 1 despite the fact that he had a Wisconsin driver's license 2 there's simply no evidence to suggest that he was domiciled in 3 Wisconsin because he severed all ties to Wisconsin. 4 Mr. Zuckerberg has severed all ties to New York in 5 every way that the Second Circuit looks at this issue and has 6 established the kind of roots that make domicile in California 7 not only obvious, but not even a close question. 8 9 THE COURT: When was the -- the day that he renewed his New York State driver's license? 10 MR. SNYDER: 11 THE COURT: 12 MR. SNYDER: 13 THE COURT: 14 MR. SNYDER: '05 is the date -- 15 MR. GRABLE: October 13th, 2005. 16 THE COURT: 17 He renewed his California -No, no, New York State. I don't believe he's renewed it. Well, when did he get it? What do you say about that? This is after 2004? 18 MR. SNYDER: Well, Your Honor -- 19 THE COURT: 20 (A recess was taken at 9:43 a.m.) 21 (Proceedings continued at 9:51 a.m.) 22 MR. SNYDER: We're going to take a brief break. Your Honor, I can address your question 23 directly about the driver's license, which confirms beyond any 24 question that Mr. Zuckerberg's roots are in and have been for 25 years in California, not in New York. Proceedings 1 29 The driver's license, which is Exhibit M to 2 Mr. Zuckerberg's affidavit, is an invalidated driver's license 3 that has been has been punched out. 4 I mean is -- 5 6 THE COURT: And by that I mean -- what What driver's license are you talking about? 7 MR. SNYDER: 8 THE COURT: 9 MR. SNYDER: 10 THE COURT: 11 MR. SNYDER: His New York driver's license. Okay. Exhibit K. I'm sorry, it's Exhibit K. I don't have it in front of me. Well, in any event, Your Honor, the 12 New York driver's license in evidence was issued on 13 October 13th, 2005. 14 If I can hand it up to Your Honor. 15 THE COURT: 16 MR. SNYDER: Yeah, I'll take it. I have it here. Under California law when an applicant 17 such as Mr. Zuckerberg appears at the Department of Motor 18 Vehicle Bureau in California and has an out-of-state license, 19 he must bring the valid out-of-state driver's license to the 20 Motor Vehicle Department in California and the out-of-state 21 license will be invalidated, punched out and returned to the 22 applicant. 23 And -- because under California law no person shall 24 have in his or her possession more than one driver's license, 25 meaning one valid driver's license. Proceedings 1 2 THE COURT: MR. SNYDER: 4 THE COURT: 5 MR. SNYDER: 6 THE COURT: 7 MR. SNYDER: 8 THE COURT: 9 MR. SNYDER: 10 THE COURT: 11 MR. SNYDER: They can punch it out. And they did. What do you mean punch it out? They punch a hole in it, Your Honor. What does that do? It renders it invalid. Under New York law or California law? Under -It's a New York driver's license. Under California law. The California invalidates -- 13 14 Can California invalidate a New York State license? 3 12 30 THE COURT: How can California invalidate a New York driver's license? 15 MR. SNYDER: I think a condition to getting a license 16 in California is that you -- that you surrender your New York 17 driver's license and get it punched out. 18 THE COURT: 19 At which point -- and California that says that? 20 MR. SNYDER: Is there some agreement between New York In any event, Your Honor, the question 21 is what was Mr. Zuckerberg's intent with respect to his 22 driver's license? 23 24 25 THE COURT: And he had a New York driver's license in 2005. MR. SNYDER: Yes, he did. And he brought it to Proceedings 31 1 California in 2006 when he decided he no longer wanted to be a 2 New York driver but a California driver. 3 the license, they punched a hole in it. 4 THE COURT: They -- he gave them And since 2006 -- What do you mean they punched a hole in 5 it? I don't know what that means. 6 California punched a hole and that invalidates it? 7 MR. SNYDER: 8 THE COURT: 9 MR. SNYDER: Some clerk over in Correct, Your Honor. Can we go to the bureau in Buffalo -The question is what was 10 Mr. Zuckerberg's intent with respect to California? 11 intent when he got his driver's license in 2006 -- 12 THE COURT: 13 MR. SNYDER: And his Okay. -- was to lay down roots in California. 14 And since 2006 that has been the driver's license he possesses 15 and uses. 16 course, is as of June of 2010, where was Mr. Zuckerberg 17 domiciled? 18 And the question in this case, Your Honor, of And since -- and in 2010, Your Honor, as I said, just 19 to repeat and then I'll move on to one more issue and then sit 20 down -- Mr. Zuckerberg lives, works, pays taxes, votes, owns 21 and registers a car, has a driver's license, maintains his bank 22 accounts, has his professionals, all in California, none in New 23 York. 24 25 And since 2004 many things have changed. pay taxes in California then. He didn't He pays taxes there now. Proceedings 1 32 As Your Honor sees, he didn't have a driver's license 2 then in California. 3 wasn't registered to vote in California, he didn't vote in 4 California. 5 that's where he last voted. 6 California in 2006, that's where all his professionals reside 7 today. 8 9 He has since 2006 and does today. He Today he's registered to vote in California and He didn't have professionals in And, of course, Facebook has changed. A major company employing over 1600 people in Palo Alto with 500 10 million active customers and users. 11 hands-on CEO of that company where he shows up to work every 12 day and works in California, nowhere else. 13 Mr. Zuckerberg is the And so, Your Honor, what this really is about, I 14 believe, this motion is an effort to get jurisdictional 15 discovery because -- 16 THE COURT: 17 MR. SNYDER: 18 or a hearing. 19 What do you mean? The plaintiffs have asked for discovery They've asked to take more evidence on this issue. 20 THE COURT: 21 MR. SNYDER: Yeah. And Your Honor has an overwhelming 22 record before you, and there are no facts left for plaintiff to 23 discover. 24 25 There are no facts left to develop. The declaration that we submitted is clear, comprehensive, specific and it's really dispositive. The Proceedings 33 1 exhibits are clear. 2 that the Second Circuit and Your Honor in his prior decisions 3 focus on in this totality of circumstances analysis not only 4 point to California but point to California and California 5 only. 6 All the hallmarks of California domicile And the Second Circuit, Your Honor, and courts within 7 the Second Circuit routinely rely on affidavits and 8 affirmations without conducting any jurisdictional discovery, 9 without bringing witnesses from across the country into 10 hearings to rule on the question of domicile. 11 Your Honor recently found, just this summer in the 12 New York Life case, that affirmations alone may provide a 13 sufficient evidentiary basis to make domicile determinations. 14 And here the only reason to have jurisdictional 15 discovery would be to harass and delay. 16 in a typical case, but I think Your Honor is aware that it's 17 our position this entire lawsuit is a fraud. 18 THE COURT: And that's bad enough What about this argument that they're 19 making, they don't cite any cases, and I've obviously spent a 20 little time in researching this, it's -- there's a strict 21 presumption against removal in favor of remand. 22 What case are you relying on for that? 23 And the other one is presumption of continuing 24 domicile. That I can understand. You say there's a strict 25 presumption against removal in favor of remand. I'm sure there Proceedings 34 1 was a case that you're relying on and you didn't cite it when 2 you made that -- 3 MR. GRABLE: Bear with me, Your Honor. 4 THE COURT: I really want to know that. 5 take another minute. 6 (A recess was taken at 9:58 a.m.) 7 (Proceedings continued at 10:10 a.m.) 8 THE COURT: 9 MR. GRABLE: So we'll 10 Mr. Grable, did you find it? I did, Your Honor. It's at page 5 of our initial memorandum, Shamrock 11 Oil and Gas Corp versus Sheets. 12 100, pages 108 and 109. The cite is 313 United States That's a 1941 case. 13 THE COURT: 14 MR. GRABLE: 15 THE COURT: 16 MR. GRABLE: 17 THE COURT: 18 MR. GRABLE: 19 quoted or cited to it in saying: 20 are courts of limited jurisdiction and as removal of a case 21 raises issues of federalism, removal statutes are narrowly 22 construed and doubts are resolved against removal. 23 1941? That's right. Okay. And it's still good law. I was one year old. Well, Judge Skretny, on June 25th, '09 Because the federal courts That's Williams versus Beemiller, 05-CV-836, 2009, 24 Westlaw 1812819. And within that pages five and six of our 25 initial memorandum we've cited to some additional cases within Proceedings 1 35 that string cite. 2 THE COURT: Anything further? 3 MR. SNYDER: Yes, Your Honor. 4 I would just say, Your Honor, that there's not a 5 single case in the Second Circuit or anywhere else that we have 6 found or read in advance of this hearing where a court has 7 found a party to be a New York domiciliary based on the kind of 8 flimsy facts that this plaintiff has proffered to the Court. 9 This is not a close call. 10 There are case after case after case, some of which 11 Your Honor decided, where the facts pointing to the old 12 domicile were far stronger than in this case, yet the courts 13 have found a change of domicile. 14 15 16 THE COURT: Mr. Grable, read that to me again, what you just read. MR. GRABLE: Because the federal courts are of 17 limited jurisdiction and as removal of a case raises issues of 18 federalism, removal statutes are narrowly construed and doubts 19 are resolved against removal. 20 THE COURT: Wait a minute. You're saying there's -- 21 in your reply you said strict presumption. 22 up with that? 23 24 25 MR. GRABLE: Where did you come From the Shamrock Oil and the Williams versus Beemiller. THE COURT: Read the language in that case that Proceedings 1 2 36 supports that, strict presumption against removal. MR. GRABLE: It says the removal provisions are to be 3 strictly construed against removal. 4 109 of Shamrock. 5 THE COURT: 6 MR. GRABLE: 7 THE COURT: 8 MR. GRABLE: That's at pages 108 and That's the same as strict presumption? Right. Strict construction. Okay. Sure. I mean, I think the law is -- 9 from 1941 to today recognizes the notion that plaintiff's 10 choice of forum is the one that governs and that there was 11 strict presumption against removal when removal is challenged 12 in a remand motion that the other side bears the burden. 13 THE COURT: 14 MR. SNYDER: 15 THE COURT: 17 MR. SNYDER: 19 We respectfully disagree. We think that that is a misstatement of the law. 16 18 What do you say to that? Well, he's pretty much quoting. I'm not aware of the Second Circuit adopting a strict presumption against removal. I'm aware of the Second Circuit, in case after case, 20 evaluating the totality of the facts and determining whether 21 complete diversity of jurisdiction exists. 22 removal is proper. If it does, the 23 Here there is complete diversity of jurisdiction. 24 THE COURT: 25 you would lose. I suppose if there was a close case that Proceedings 1 2 MR. SNYDER: I think on a close case where there are doubts -- 3 4 37 THE COURT: Then probably the law would seem to suggest that -- against removing. 5 MR. SNYDER: I think if we failed to carry our burden 6 of clear and convincing evidence and it's a close case, then 7 removal would be inappropriate. 8 THE COURT: 9 MR. SNYDER: 10 Okay. That's not this case. It's not close to this case. 11 And, again, Your Honor, I haven't seen a single case 12 remotely similar to this one where the Court has found that a 13 person like Mr. Zuckerberg, who's poured his life into 14 California for six years, made his roots there in every 15 meaningful way that the Courts look at this question, is 16 somehow, nonetheless, a domicile of his birth place, where he 17 has no meaningful context other than the fact that his parents, 18 whom he loves, lived there, and because he has cell phone, 19 which Mr. Grable didn't mention, with a 917 area code. 20 absurd. 21 Yorker because six or seven years ago when he was 20 years old 22 on summer vacation he slept in his birth home. 23 sense. 24 25 It's It's preposterous to think this Californian is a New THE COURT: It makes no I think I know the answer to this, but he doesn't pay New York State taxes? Proceedings 1 MR. SNYDER: 2 THE COURT: 3 MR. SNYDER: 4 THE COURT: 5 MR. SNYDER: 38 No, Your Honor. Is there income tax in California? A lot of it, yes. He pays. He pays California income tax? He pays California income tax, Your 6 Honor, and has paid California taxes for year after year after 7 year. 8 taxes. For almost a quarter of his life, he's paid California He does not pay New York taxes. 9 THE COURT: 10 MR. GRABLE: 11 quarter of his life. 12 Now, Mr. Grable, I'll let you come back. He paid California taxes in 2008, a before you. 13 But that's not the proof in the record The proof in the record before you, Judge, is a lot 14 of I believes, I think so, 914, not 917, which is a New York 15 area code on that cell phone, valid New York driver's license 16 that California can't revoke, that's up to New York to do that, 17 valid voter registration in Dobbs Ferry, the domicile that he 18 used offensively to get out of the ConnectU subject matter 19 jurisdiction pickle, contributions 30 miles from his Dobbs 20 Ferry home, his dad in Dobbs Ferry, who is dentist there, is on 21 his joint bank account there, that's exhibit M. 22 a month-to-month tenancy. 23 He's living in Facebook, it was one million or close to one million 24 users then, now it's 500 million. 25 company. A million is still a big Proceedings 1 39 And so when they say I can't find any set of facts or 2 any cases that would support the notion that he's a New York 3 domiciliary, they need look no farther than the Massachusetts 4 decision where they proved he was a New York domiciliary, when 5 all of these same hallmarks that they now mock were in place, 6 voter registration in New York, valid New York driver's 7 license, New York area codes, connections to his parents. 8 connections that they mock now -- 9 10 11 12 13 THE COURT: The The last time he voted, he voted in California. MR. GRABLE: That's 2008, in the presidential election, the only time that we know of that he voted. And, Judge, you asked some great questions today 14 about, you know, various hallmarks of domicile. 15 answers you got were, I think it's this, I don't know. 16 sort of our point. 17 convincing evidence. 18 And the That's They have the burden of proof by clear and And so at Hodge is a great example of a case where 19 you had less question marks, you had less question marks in 20 Hodge in '06 and you ordered jurisdictional discovery. 21 then you had argument after the jurisdictional discovery. 22 That's 2006 Westlaw 2669467. 23 And And Mr. Snyder hasn't found a Second Circuit case 24 that supports the proposition that there is a presumption in 25 favor of remand and against removal. He should have read Proceedings 40 1 Pampillonia versus RJR Nabisco, which is cited at page 6 of our 2 initial brief, which stands for the very clear proposition that 3 all factual and legal questions must be resolved in favor of 4 plaintiff's choice of state court, 138 F.3d 459, 461. 5 Second Circuit, 1998. 6 still valid law. 7 That's That's a Second Circuit decision that's And, Judge, you know, when he uses words like 8 preposterous and absurd and fraud, it's a thinly-veiled way of 9 trying to shift the burden back to the plaintiff. 10 11 12 13 And that's a burden we never bear at this stage. At the very least discovery is warranted. We think it's not a close call. That's the one thing I agree with Mr. Snyder on. 14 It's not a close call. 15 reason he didn't meet his burden is that their proof raises 16 more questions than answers. 17 has put down roots. 18 month-to-month tenancy. 19 20 21 He didn't meet his burden. And the It's not the proof of someone who It's proof of somebody who's living in a Sure, he's got a big company. He had a big company back then and so that hasn't changed. And the magistrate judge in Massachusetts who had 22 that day-long hearing and heard all the proof and let the 23 parties do discovery before that hearing, he found in 24 Zuckerberg's favor. 25 THE COURT: What would you discover if you had a Proceedings 1 hearing on this? 2 3 MR. GRABLE: THE COURT: Okay. It was a magistrate judge's decision? 6 7 Here's some of the things I would ask him. 4 5 41 MR. GRABLE: It was a magistrate judge's report and recommendation that the district court adopted. 8 THE COURT: 9 MR. GRABLE: Okay. What about social clubs? 10 where do you belong to your clubs? 11 in New York? 12 Social clubs, answer on how often it is -- 13 14 15 Do you belong to any clubs Mr. Snyder said -- he turned and looked for an THE COURT: What do you think you'd get for an answer? MR. GRABLE: I don't know. Maybe he belongs to some 16 clubs in New York and that's why he has a 914 area code and a 17 joint bank account -- 18 19 20 THE COURT: Why would he have a membership in a New York club? MR. GRABLE: I don't know. Maybe because, according 21 to his own declaration, he says I've spent no more than ten 22 days in New York during the past year. 23 six weeks in the past year. 24 he doesn't have domicile in California? 25 THE COURT: He's out of California Now, is that by itself proof that No. In the six weeks, where was he? Proceedings 1 MR. GRABLE: He doesn't say. 42 He says six weeks 2 outside of California and no more than ten days in New York. 3 That's paragraph 11. 4 Now, he doesn't say whether during those ten days he 5 stayed with mom and dad. Dad has the joint bank account with 6 him. 7 scouting out locations so he could tell Oprah that he was going 8 to give 100 million to a location 30 miles down the road. 9 don't know enough, and that's sort of the point. He doesn't say whether during those ten days he was We 10 Their burden is to prove that there is sufficient 11 subject matter jurisdiction which, as you know, Judge, is a 12 threshold question in every case. 13 question in every case that it's an issue -- 14 15 And it's so important a THE COURT: You want to ask him about social clubs. MR. GRABLE: What other bank accounts does he have, What else? 16 17 if any? 18 father in Dobbs Ferry who is dentist and doesn't reside in 19 California? 20 And why does he have a joint bank account with his Why does he still have a valid voter registration 21 that hasn't been revoked or that he hasn't taken any steps to 22 eliminate in New York State? 23 Why has he not done what the New York Vehicle and 24 Traffic Law requires and notified New York of his change of 25 address so that his license would be cancelled? Proceedings 1 2 3 THE COURT: 43 Well, apparently it hasn't been cancelled. MR. GRABLE: Well, I guess, maybe the clerk who 4 punched the hole in the license thinks so. But the State of 5 New York certainly doesn't, based on his DMV abstract. 6 The New York area code? 7 Why did you give the money, 100 million pledged to 8 Newark and not to Oakland, Palo Alto in your backyard. 9 THE COURT: 10 MR. GRABLE: 11 Wait a minute, it's still in New Jersey. 30 miles, though, Judge. It's like here to Niagara Falls. 12 THE COURT: Wait a minute. 13 MR. GRABLE: Sure it is. 14 THE COURT: 15 16 17 in New York. No, it isn't. Niagara Falls is in New York. Buffalo is New Jersey is in New Jersey. MR. GRABLE: Two bridges to get to Niagara Falls, one George Washington Bridge to get to Newark. 18 THE COURT: 19 MR. GRABLE: Different states. There's no inspection booth there to 20 cross that George Washington Bridge. 21 money and putting down his pledges and his PR moves in the 22 place where, I submit, the proof may show that that's what he 23 regards to be the place where he has his continuing roots. 24 25 He's putting down his And so the issue, Judge, is should you do what you did in Hodge, and proceed carefully so that we address this Proceedings 1 44 issue of subject matter? 2 THE COURT: 3 MR. GRABLE: I think I always proceed carefully. And, Judge, I guess the issue is we 4 would be -- you know, we would be able to address this issue of 5 subject matter jurisdiction in a deposition with Mr. Zuckerberg 6 later on, too. 7 So when they say this is an effort to harass or 8 burden or somehow engage in a fishing expedition, subject 9 matter jurisdiction is always relevant, every stage of the 10 case. 11 there's a lack of subject matter jurisdiction if you had the 12 facts before you. 13 You could find sua sponte at the trial in this case if Why don't we find out now? Why don't we find before 14 we start down the road of saying that this is the forum we 15 belong in when we're in court of limited jurisdiction and a 16 court that the defendant Zuckerberg bears the burden of showing 17 that he's entitled to be in. 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 THE COURT: All right. Some spectators are yawning. So I guess we heard enough. MR. SNYDER: Could I briefly address the jurisdictional discovery, Your Honor? Because I think Your Honor asked the direct question and the answer was telling. Your Honor, if Mr. Grable was correct in every case you would get jurisdictional discovery based on speculation, a Proceedings 1 fishing expedition. 2 social club in Timbuktu? 3 Wisconsin? 4 Mr. Zuckerberg has or does any of those things in New York. 5 45 All of the evidence is that it happens in California. 6 You can always say are you a member of Do you have a bank account in There's no evidence in the record that Where you get jurisdictional discovery is where you 7 have meaningful contacts in two different jurisdictions and the 8 Court needs to understand what is the import and impact of 9 those meaningful connections, not I want to ask fishing 10 expedition off-the-wall questions about well, when you go to 11 New York you say you were there only ten days, maybe you really 12 were there 100 days. Or do you, you know, do you march in 13 parades in New York? You could invent thousands of 14 hypothetical questions which are based on pure speculation in 15 an effort to get a deposition. 16 But that's not the law. And Your Honor made that very clear this summer in 17 the New York Life case where, based on affirmations such as you 18 have before you here, you found a sufficient evidentiary basis 19 to rule on domicile without putting the parties, without 20 putting counsel, without putting the Court through the burden, 21 expense and yes, harassment, Your Honor, of depositions and 22 discovery. 23 And what makes the harassment here more 24 inappropriate, with all due respect is, as Your Honor is aware, 25 it is the defendant's position that this case itself is a fraud Proceedings 1 46 bought by a convicted felon. 2 THE COURT: 3 MR. SNYDER: We're not going to get into that. But it makes the request here, Your 4 Honor, a tactic, yes, to harass; yes, to force Mr. Zuckerberg, 5 who's running a company with many obligations, to be subjected 6 to questions like do you belong to a social club in New York, 7 do you have bank accounts in New York, notwithstanding the fact 8 that he has provided Your Honor with a sworn statement, signed 9 under the penalties of perjury, telling Your Honor that 10 California is his home, his bank accounts are there, his life 11 is there, his roots are there and there's no evidence to the 12 contrary and therefore absolutely no basis for jurisdictional 13 discovery here. 14 Thank you, Your Honor. 15 THE COURT: 16 MR. GRABLE: Thank you, Judge. 17 MR. SNYDER: Thank you, Judge. 18 (Proceedings concluded at 10:15 a.m.) 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Thank you very much, gentlemen. 47 1 CERTIFICATION 2 3 I certify that the foregoing is a correct 4 transcription of the proceedings stenographically recorded by 5 me in this matter. 6 7 8 S/Yvonne M. Garrison, RPR 9 YVONNE M. GARRISON, RPR Official Reporter U.S.D.C., W.D.N.Y. 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

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?