Ceglia v. Zuckerberg et al

Filing 387

DECLARATION signed by Nathan Shaman re 318 MOTION to Dismiss, 319 Memorandum in Support of Motion filed by Paul D. Ceglia. (Attachments: # 1 Certificate of Service)(Boland, Dean)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
------------------------------------ x
:
PAUL D. CEGLIA,
:
:
Plaintiff,
:
:
v.
:
:
MARK ELLIOT ZUCKERBERG and
:
FACEBOOK, INC.,
:
:
Defendants.
------------------------------------ x

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

DECLARATION OF NATHAN A. SHAMAN
1.

I am an attorney licensed to practice law in the State of California. Jeffrey A.

Lake formerly was counsel of record for Plaintiff Paul D. Ceglia in the above-captioned matter at
which time I was an associate attorney with his practice. I make this declaration based upon
personal knowledge.
2.

On July 17, 2012, Stroz Friedberg LLC provided us with a Microsoft Excel

spreadsheet of the presumed relevant materials they had extracted from the Electronic Assets
pursuant to the Electronic Asset Inspection Protocol (Doc. No. 85) and the Joint Stipulated
Protective Order (JSPO) (Doc. No. 86).
3.

However, we were not provided with the proper password to access the actual

presumed relevant materials until the afternoon of Thursday, July 28, 2011. (Doc. No. 106-1 at ¶
22.)
4.

We worked through the weekend to analyze the presumed relevant materials. We

submitted a privilege log to Defendants’ attorneys on the afternoon of Tuesday, August 2, 2011.
(Doc. No. 106-5 at ¶ 8.)

5.

Given the short time frame in which we were required to produce the privilege log

(see Doc. No. 86 at ¶ 5.), we were unable to procure any information from Jim Kole concerning
the nature of the emails or attachments identified as Items 1-4 in the privilege log.
6.

The attachments to the alleged emails to Jim Kole, labeled as Items 2 and 4 in the

privilege log, were never designated as privileged but only as confidential pursuant to the JSPO
(Doc. No. 86).
7.

Additionally, at no point prior to the designation of the emails as attorney-client

privileged or the attachments as confidential did we have an opportunity to discuss the
authenticity of those items with Mr. Ceglia. Rather, the designations of the emails were made out
of an abundance of caution because it appeared, without further information, that the emails may
in fact be privileged.
8.

However, subsequent to the production of the privilege log, Mr. Ceglia informed

us that he never sent any such emails to Jim Kole, and he disclaimed the authenticity of the
attachments to those emails.
9.

Subsequent to the production, Jim Kole informed us he had no recollection of

ever receiving those emails or viewing any attachments such as those allegedly appended to
those emails.
10.

As such, we ultimately did not produce any evidence to show that the emails were

attorney-client communications.
///
///
///
///

2