Ceglia v. Zuckerberg et al
Filing
542
DECISION and ORDER granting 525 Motion for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply re 318 MOTION to Dismiss. Replies due by 10/15/2012 or two weeks following Plaintiff's full compliance with the courts determination of Defendants' Eighth and Ninth Motions to Compel (Doc. No. 511 and 521) now pending before the court, should the court grant either or both of Defendants' motions. Signed by Hon. Leslie G. Foschio on 9/14/2012. (SDW)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
PAUL D. CEGLIA,
Plaintiff,
v.
MARK ELLIOT ZUCKERBERG,
FACEBOOK, INC.,
DECISION
and
ORDER
10-CV-569A(F)
Defendants.
APPEARANCES:
PAUL A. ARGENTIERI, ESQ.
Attorney for Plaintiff
188 Main Street
Hornell, New York 14843
BOLAND LEGAL, LLC
Attorney for Plaintiff
DEAN M. BOLAND, of Counsel
18123 Sloane Avenue
Lakewood, Ohio 44107
GIBSON, DUNN & CRUTCHER, LLP
Attorneys for Defendants
ORIN S. SNYDER,
ALEXANDER H. SOUTHWELL,
THOMAS H. DUPREE, JR., of Counsel
200 Park Avenue, 47th Floor
New York, New York 10166-0193
HARRIS BEACH LLP
Attorneys for Defendants
TERRANCE P. FLYNN, of Counsel
Larkin at Exchange
726 Exchange Street, Suite 1000
Buffalo, New York 14210
The court has carefully reviewed the parties’ submission in support of (Doc. Nos.
525, 526, 537, and 538) and in opposition to (534, 535. and 536) Defendants’ motion to
extend time for the filing of Defendants’ reply to Plaintiff’s opposition to Defendants’
motion to dismiss (Doc. No. 525). In this case, where Plaintiff seeks extraordinary
damages, the court finds that Defendants are entitled to conduct a thorough
examination of all the factual questions pertinent to Defendants’ insistence that the
contract on which Plaintiff’s claims are based is, as Defendants claim, fraudulent. The
court further finds that although the court, as Plaintiff asserts, previously found Plaintiff
was at that time substantially in compliance with Plaintiff’s discovery obligations,
sufficient to trigger Defendants then outstanding obligation to provide reciprocal
discovery, such determination occurred well-prior to the events disclosed in Defendants
eighth and ninth motions to compel presently pending before the court. Moreover,
Plaintiff’s supposition that Defendants’ present discovery motions and request for a
limited period of additional time within which to file Defendants’ reply represents a
belated effort to unduly delay the ability of the court to render a determination on
Defendants’ fraud claim is unfounded. Contrary to Plaintiff’s assertion, Defendants are
most certainly interested in obtaining a prompt and final judicial determination on
whether the supposed contract underlying the dispute is genuine or not in order to
remove the self-evident question regarding the exact ownership of Defendant
Facebook, Inc., created by Plaintiff’s claim. Simply, the court perceives no purpose on
the part of Defendants in creating any opportunity for unnecessary delay in such
resolution. As well articulated in Defendants’ Memorandum (Doc. No. 525) and
Defendants’ Reply (Doc. No. 538), the present discovery controversies, which
Defendants reasonably request be fully resolved before Defendants are required to file
Defendants’ last round of briefing directed to the threshold issue of Plaintiff’s alleged
fraud, were not authored by Defendants; rather, their existence stems from the conduct
of Plaintiff. In short, Defendants have no apparent interest in delaying the court’s
2
consideration of this matter – Defendants’ current request for modification of the
scheduled briefing on Defendants’ motion to dismiss instead manifests a desire to
‘leave no stones unturned,’ relating to the primary authenticity issue, a perfectly
reasonable stance given the significant economic interests at stake.
The court, of course, appreciates Plaintiff’s solicitude for maintaining the integrity
of the court’s scheduling order. Plaintiff is assured that the court shares this solicitude
and will resolve the present disputes as promptly as possible. But adherence to
judicially imposed schedules must sometimes give way to the equally strong imperative
that all relevant facts be presented to the court without compromising fairness to the
parties, in order that justice be obtained. It is not in the interest of litigants or the public
that mistakes be made fast. And, importantly, as Defendants note, Plaintiff identifies no
prejudice to Plaintiff’s case if Defendants’ request is granted. Thus, upon this record,
the court finds Defendants have established good cause for the requested enlargement
of time.
CONCLUSION
Based on the foregoing, Defendants’ motion (Doc. No. 525) is GRANTED.
Defendants’ reply shall be filed not later than October 18, 2012 or two weeks following
Plaintiff’s full compliance with the court’s determination of Defendants’ Eighth and Ninth
Motions to Compel (Doc. No. 511 and 521) now pending before the court, should the
court grant either or both of Defendants’ motions.
SO ORDERED.
/s/ Leslie G. Foschio
________________________________
LESLIE G. FOSCHIO
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
Dated: September 14, 2012
Buffalo, New York
3
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?