Ceglia v. Zuckerberg et al

Filing 555

DECLARATION signed by Alexander H. Southwell re 553 MOTION for Discovery filed by Mark Elliot Zuckerberg, Facebook, Inc. filed by Mark Elliot Zuckerberg, Facebook, Inc.. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A, # 2 Exhibit B, # 3 Exhibit C, # 4 Exhibit D, # 5 Exhibit E, # 6 Exhibit F, # 7 Exhibit G, # 8 Exhibit H, # 9 Exhibit I, # 10 Exhibit J, # 11 Exhibit K, # 12 Exhibit L, # 13 Exhibit M, # 14 Exhibit N, # 15 Exhibit O, # 16 Exhibit P, # 17 Exhibit Q, # 18 Exhibit R, # 19 Exhibit S, # 20 Exhibit T, # 21 Exhibit U, # 22 Exhibit V, # 23 Exhibit W, # 24 Exhibit X, # 25 Exhibit Y, # 26 Exhibit Z, # 27 Exhibit AA, # 28 Exhibit BB, # 29 Exhibit CC, # 30 Exhibit DD, # 31 Exhibit EE, # 32 Exhibit FF, # 33 Exhibit GG, # 34 Exhibit HH, # 35 Exhibit II, # 36 Exhibit JJ, # 37 Exhibit KK, # 38 Exhibit LL, # 39 Exhibit MM, # 40 Exhibit NN)(Snyder, Orin)

EXHIBIT Q

From:
Sent:
To:
Cc:
Subject:

Southwell, Alexander H.
Friday, July 20, 2012 6:48 PM
Dean Boland ([e-mail])
[e-mail]; Benjamin, Matthew; Aycock, Amanda; Narasimhan, Sripriya
Response on emails re expert documents

Mr. Boland:
I write in response to your emails dated July 11, 2012 and July 20, 2012, requesting various
materials related to Defendants’ experts.
In your July 11 email, you make a “formal request for a copy in native format of all images,
scans or photographs your paper document expert captured of any documents or contracts in
this case.” First of all, you made this same inappropriately broad request in your motion to
compel (Doc. No. 390 at 5), and the Court firmly rejected it (Doc. No. 457 at 22-23).
Moreover, in forming their opinions, Defendants’ expert document examiners relied upon
their first-hand observations of the Work for Hire Document and Specifications Document,
both of which remain in Ceglia’s possession. Some of Defendants’ experts’ reports included
images for illustrative purposes; thus, to the extent that Defendants’ experts included any
images for illustrative purposes, you already have them. Moreover, Defendants’ experts relied
upon some images which are already in the possession of Plaintiff, and have been for many
months (e.g., the authentic StreetFax Contract, images of the Work for Hire Documents
produced by Ceglia’s attorneys and experts). Finally, the hard-copy Work for Hire document,
on which Defendants’ experts based their observations and opinions, remains in Plaintiff’s
possession, and was in Ceglia’s possession prior to its production to Defendants’ experts.
Some of our experts do state an opinion regarding Mr. Tytell’s scans taken at 9:18 a.m. and
9:22 a.m. on July 14, 2011; therefore, in order to make the court-ordered expert depositions
as efficient as possible, we are prepared to provide you with a copy of these native format
scans. Note, our provision of Mr. Tytell’s scans in no way acknowledges the propriety of your
overbroad request.
Please provide us immediately with the materials you agreed to provide regarding the Stewart
deposition, and which we requested in our July 16 Letter, specifically the entire file that he had
with him at his deposition on July 11, 2012, including all inventories of samples.
As to the remainder of your requests, Defendants object to them as they are inappropriate
and more efficiently sought through deposition.
1

Alex

Alexander H. Southwell
Partner

GIBSON DUNN
Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher LLP
200 Park Avenue, New York, NY 10166-0193
Tel [phone] • Fax [phone]
[e-mail] • www.gibsondunn.com

2