Ceglia v. Zuckerberg et al

Filing 536

DECLARATION signed by Paul Argentieri re 534 Memorandum in Opposition to Motion, filed by Paul D. Ceglia, Dean Boland filed by Paul D. Ceglia, Dean Boland. (Boland, Dean)

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

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

Plaintiff,
v.

DECLARATION
OF PAUL ARGENTIERI IN
OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANTS’
REQUEST FOR DELAY

MARK ELLIOT ZUCKERBERG, Individually, and
FACEBOOK, INC.
Defendants.
DECLARANT, submits this declaration and hereby declares under penalty of
perjury and pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1746 and under the laws of the United States
that the following is true and correct:
1.

I make this declaration upon personal knowledge.

2.

At the June 29th, 2011 hearing, Plaintiff was ordered to produce copies of the
authentic FB contract that were prepared as of June 30th, 2010.

3.

My client and I have been in compliance with that order since that court
appearance date and understand that these type of orders are of a continuing
duty.

4.

In July 2010, I suggested to Defendant Zuckerberg and his attorneys that they
could examine the FB contract.

5.

Thereafter, Attorney Lisa Simpson telephoned me to inquire if Defendants’
lawyers could examine Plaintiff’s copy of the FB contract.

1

6.

I directed Ms. Simpson to call attorney Terry Connors who was in charge of the
decision-making on that issue.

7.

Defendants sought a one-sided examination of only Plaintiff’s copy of the FB
contract but refused to allow Defendant Zuckerberg’s copy of the FB contract to
be examined.

8.

Plaintiff’s counsel would only agree to reciprocal exchange of the respective
copies of the FB contract for both parties to examine.

9.

Defendants refused the suggested reciprocal examination which would have
been the ultimate “expedited”  discovery.

10. Defendants’ counsel did not inform anyone at that time that Defendant
Zuckerberg had discarded his copy of the FB contract.
11. After that decision to conceal Defendant Zuckerberg’s destruction of his
contract, Attorney Snyder never made another examination request and never
demanded Plaintiff and or his attorneys preserve any and all copies of the
original contract that existed as June 30th, 2010 until their bogus motion
made a year later in June 2011 designed to manipulate this court into
expedited one sided discovery.
12. At the June 29th, 2011 hearing, Attorney Snyder failed to disclose to this court
that his law firm instructed Stroz Friedberg to examine 28 additional
electronic assets owned and used by Defendant Zuckerberg at times relevant to
this litigation.
13. Defendants have not filed one declaration of a non-expert witness supporting
2

their allegation and constant smearing of the Plaintiff that he has committed
fraud by forging what is now clearly an authentic FB contract.
14. Consistent with my previous declaration, I printed a copy of the FB contract
received from Paul Ceglia and then proceeded to make several copies of it in
order to get a legible copy for submission to the New York courts.
15. Any remaining, unused copies or printouts, were discarded in the office trash.
16. Mr. Snyder has claimed that one of the justifications for delay of Defendants’
due date to submit their reply is his required participation in a trial in New
York State Court, i.e. the Voom case. (VOOM HD Holdings LLC v. EchoStar
Satellite L.L.C., Index No. 600292/08 (Hon. Richard B. Lowe III).
17. I spoke to Charles Kerr, counsel opposing Snyder in the Voom Case, and was
informed that all counsel in that case, including Snyder, were informed by the
court of the September 19th trial date on, or about, May 15, 2012.
18. Despite having nearly four months of foreknowledge about the Voom case trial
date falling during Defendants’ reply period, Defendants waited until the last
moment to thrust this excuse upon the court.
19. I have first hand knowledge of the work of Eric Speckin in this case. He never
generated a report for us and no report has ever been submitted to this court
from Plaintiff’s consulting expert, Erich Speckin.
20. The subject of Kasowitz departure related to a discussion of the now well
known unauthenticated Street Fax digital images that Defendants have had in
their possession for more than a year.
3

21. The Kasowitz letters that Defendants now seek in their eighth motion to
compel do not rely in any part on the opinion of any expert.
22. I personally insured, with Plaintiff’s full support and encouragement, that the
electronic assets we knew contained the Street Fax images, were disclosed to
Defendants in discovery without delay.
23. It strains credibility to suggest that Plaintiff was perpetrating a fraud on this
court and would then willingly disclose this media.
24. Pursuant to my request, Plaintiff underwent a polygraph examination to
demonstrate further his honesty and cooperation with the truth finding
process. Those results have been filed and shared with this court establishing
even more strongly the authenticity of the FB contract.
I hereby declare under penalty of perjury and pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1746 and
under the laws of the United States that the following is true and correct:
DATED: September 12, 2012.

/s/ Paul Argentieri
Declarant

4