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)

Download PDF
EXHIBIT LL In  the  Gibson  Dunn  email,  dated  8/31/12,  Mr.  Southwell  makes  many  new   and  some  repeated  claims,  describing  numerous  documents  he  believes  I  am   withholding  or  have  “produced”  for  the  first  Gme  on  8/30/12.    Mr.  Southwell   is  demonstrably  wrong.       In  his  paragraph  1  (email  dated  8/31/12)  Mr.  Southwell  states,  “We   acknowledge  receipt  of  this  producGon  which,  yet  again,  contains  addiGonal   documents  that  neither  you  nor  Mr.  Stewart  previously  produced  to   Defendants.”       Mr.  Southwell  conGnues,  “Screenshots  of  the  August  30  YouSendIt   producGons  are  aNached.    All  files  you  and  Mr.  Stewart  previously  produced   to  Defendants  in  October  2011  and  July  and  August  2012  were  clearly   detailed  in  Defendants’  August  27,  2012  leNer  to  you.    Merely  by  way  of   example,  new  files  not  previously  produced  but  contained  in  your  August  30   producGon  include,  but  are  not  limited  to,  IMG_0805.JPG,  IMG_0810.JPG,   and  IMG_0816.JPG.    AddiGonally,  many  of  the  pages  of  the  various  PDF   documents  you  produced  had  never  been  previously  produced  to   Defendants,  such  as  the  locaGon  map  of  Mr.  Stewart’s  sampling  from  the   SpecificaGons  Document.    See  DOC083012A.pdf  at  33-­‐42.    A  complete  lisGng   of  the  new  items  that  were  not  previously  produced  in  any  prior  producGon,   which  were  produced  for  the  first  Gme  on  August  30,  is  below.” Mr.  Southwell  then  provides  the  full  list  of  files  which  he  Gtles,  “List  of  Items   Produced  on  August  30,  2012  for  the  First  Time”. Following  is  his  list: IMG_0805.JPG IMG_0806.JPG IMG_0807.JPG IMG_0808.JPG IMG_0809.JPG IMG_0810.JPG IMG_0811.JPG IMG_0812.jpg IMG_0813.jpg IMG_0815.jpg IMG_0816.JPG IMG_0817.JPG IMG_0818.JPG IMG_0819.JPG IMG_0820.JPG IMG_0821.jpg IMG_0822.jpg IMG_0823.JPG IMG_0824.JPG IMG_0826.JPG IMG_0827.JPG IMG_0828.JPG IMG_0829.JPG IMG_0830.JPG IMG_0831.JPG IMG_0832.JPG IMG_0833.JPG IMG_0847.JPG   DOC070312.pdf  (all  pages) DOC083012.pdf  (all  pages) DOC083012A.pdf  (pages  1-­‐12,  33-­‐43,  49-­‐55) Not  only  is  Mr.  Southwell  again  wrong  regarding  whether  I  have  previously   provided  Gibson  Dunn  or  himself  with  those  image  files,  in  some  instances   he  is  doubly  wrong  in  that  they  have  been  provided  repeatedly.      Duplicates   of  the  submissions  made  to  Gibson  Dunn  or  Mr.  Southwell  have  been   maintained  by  me,  clearly  showing  the  previous  submissions  of  these   supposed  never  received  or  newly  received  files.   Following  is  Mr  Southwell’s  list  of  items  supposedly  produced  for  the  “first   Gme”  on  8/30/12  along  with  my  descriptor  indicaGng  when,  in  fact,  Gibson   Dunn  or  Mr.  Southwell  was  first  provided  those  images: 1. IMG_0805.JPG  -­‐  image  provided  at  the  beginning  of  July  2012  in  response   to  Gibson  Dunn  (GD)  6/13/12  leNer 2. IMG_0806.JPG  -­‐  image  provided  at  the  beginning  of  July  2012  in  response   to  GD  6/13/12  leNer 3. IMG_0807.JPG  -­‐  image  provided  at  the  beginning  of  July  2012  in  response   to  GD  6/13/12  leNer 4. IMG_0808.JPG  -­‐  image  provided  at  the  beginning  of  July  2012  in  response   to  GD  6/13/12  leNer 5. IMG_0809.JPG  -­‐  image  provided  at  the  beginning  of  July  2012  in  response   to  GD  6/13/12  leNer 6. IMG_0810.JPG  -­‐  image  provided  at  the  beginning  of  July  2012  in  response   to  GD  6/13/12  leNer 7. IMG_0811.JPG  -­‐  image  provided  at  the  beginning  of  July  2012  in  response   to  GD  6/13/12  leNer 8. IMG_0812.jpg  -­‐  image  provided  at  the  beginning  of  July  2012  in  response   to  GD  6/13/12  leNer 9. IMG_0813.jpg  -­‐  image  provided  at  the  beginning  of  July  2012  in  response   to  GD  6/13/12  leNer 10. IMG_0815.jpg  -­‐  image  provided  at  the  beginning  of  July  2012  in   response  to  GD  6/13/12  leNer 11. IMG_0816.JPG  -­‐  image  provided  at  the  beginning  of  July  2012  in   response  to  GD  6/13/12  leNer 12. IMG_0817.JPG  -­‐  image  provided  at  the  beginning  of  July  2012  in   response  to  GD  6/13/12  leNer 13. IMG_0818.JPG  -­‐  image  provided  at  the  beginning  of  July  2012  in   response  to  GD  6/13/12  leNer 14. IMG_0819.JPG  -­‐  image  provided  at  the  beginning  of  July  2012  in   response  to  GD  6/13/12  leNer 15. IMG_0820.JPG  -­‐  image  provided  at  the  beginning  of  July  2012  in   response  to  GD  6/13/12  leNer 16. IMG_0821.jpg  -­‐  image  provided  at  the  beginning  of  July  2012  in   response  to  GD  6/13/12  leNer 17. IMG_0822.jpg  -­‐  image  provided  at  the  beginning  of  July  2012  in   response  to  GD  6/13/12  leNer 18. IMG_0823.JPG  -­‐  image  provided  at  the  beginning  of  July  2012  in   response  to  GD  6/13/12  leNer 19. IMG_0824.JPG  -­‐  image  provided  at  the  beginning  of  July  2012  in   response  to  GD  6/13/12  leNer 20. IMG_0826.JPG  -­‐  image  provided  at  the  beginning  of  July  2012  in   response  to  GD  6/13/12  leNer 21. IMG_0827.JPG  -­‐  image  provided  at  the  beginning  of  July  2012  in   response  to  GD  6/13/12  leNer 22. IMG_0828.JPG  -­‐  image  provided  at  the  beginning  of  July  2012  in   response  to  GD  6/13/12  leNer 23. IMG_0829.JPG  -­‐  image  provided  at  the  beginning  of  July  2012  in   response  to  GD  6/13/12  leNer 24. IMG_0830.JPG  -­‐  image  provided  at  the  beginning  of  July  2012  in   response  to  GD  6/13/12  leNer 25. IMG_0831.JPG  -­‐  image  provided  at  the  beginning  of  July  2012  in   response  to  GD  6/13/12  leNer 26. IMG_0832.JPG  -­‐  image  provided  at  the  beginning  of  July  2012  in   response  to  GD  6/13/12  leNer 27. IMG_0833.JPG  -­‐  image  provided  at  the  beginning  of  July  2012  in   response  to  GD  6/13/12  leNer 28. IMG_0847.JPG  -­‐  image  provided  at  the  beginning  of  July  2012  in   response  to  GD  6/13/12  leNer 29. DOC070312.pdf  (all  pages)  -­‐  images  provided  at  the  beginning  of  July   2012  in  response  to  GD  6/13/12  leNer 30. DOC083012.pdf  (all  pages)  -­‐  images  provided  8/30/12  in  response  to  GD   8/30/12  email 31. DOC083012A.pdf  (pages  1-­‐12,  33-­‐43,  49-­‐55)  -­‐  images  provided  8/30/12   in  response  to  GD  8/30/12  email For  item  numbers  1-­‐29,  Gibson  Dunn  and  Mr.  Southwell  only  first  requested   that  material  just  prior  to  my  deposiGon  (July  11,  2012).    Their  first  request   came  in  the  form  of  a  leNer  from  them  dated  6/13/12.    Once  their  request   was  clarified,  Mr.  Southwell  sent  an  email,  dated  7/3/12,  outlining  specific   items  they  were  asking  for  prior  to  my  deposiGon.    In  that  email,  they   requested  the  following: “Next,  as  you  know,  you  indicated  in  your  June  22,  2012  email  that   PlainGff  would  provide  certain  of  the  materials  idenGfied  in  our  June   13,  2012  leNer  related  to  the  upcoming  deposiGons  of  PlainGff’s   document  examiners.    Specifically,  you  stated  that  Larry  Stewart  will   provide  everything  requested  in  our  June  13th  leNer  with  the   excepGon  of  the  informaGon  on  his  library  of  standards,  owing  to   concerns  about  proprietary  business  or  manufacturer  informaGon.    To   be  clear,  we  are  not  seeking  any  proprietary  informaGon.    Rather,  we   are  seeking  sufficient  informaGon  to  understand  and  evaluate  Mr.   Stewart’s  opinion,  which  is  parGcularly  important  given  that  this   porGon  of  his  opinion  is  so  sparse.    For  instance,  a  directory  or  index   that  demonstrates  the  quanGty  of  toners  in  the  library  and  lists  the   names  or  idenGfiers  of  the  various  toners  might  suffice.    We  are  not   seeking  proprietary  or  sensiGve  informaGon  that  might  be  guarded  by   manufacturers,  such  as  formulas  of  compaGble  printers.    Please   explain  what  you  can  provide  in  this  regard  and  what  specific   restricGons  you  believe  are  in  place.   Given  the  approaching  deposiGon  dates,  please  produce  these   Stewart  and  Rantanen  materials  (the  requested  Stewart  materials   other  than  the  “library”  materials  and  all  non-­‐proprietary  materials   about  the  “library”  plus  the  Rantanen  material),  and  your  explanaGon   about  the  restricGons  with  respect  to  the  “library,”  by  today,  July  3,   2012,  at  8:00  p.m.    Defendants  reserve  all  rights  with  respect  to   Ceglia’s  failure  to  produce  these  documents  sufficiently  in  advance  of   Ceglia’s  experts’  deposiGons,  including  conGnuing  the  deposiGon  afer   full  producGon  of  the  relevant  documents  and  moving  for  appropriate   sancGons.” Mr.  Southwell  received  all  of  his  requested  items  in  my  7/3/12  response.     That  response  was  8  days  prior  to  my  deposiGon.     Item  nos.  30  and  31  were  provided  to  Gibson  Dunn  on  more  than  one   occasion.    Gibson  Dunn  has  been  provided  files  responsive  to  the  Court   Order  (10/25/11)  along  with  addiGonal  files  on  06/13/12  based  on  their   request  for  new  materials.    In  addiGon,  Gibson  Dunn  was  provided  files  they   said  they  hadn't  received  at  the  07/11/12  deposiGon  (These  files  were   provided  on-­‐site  at  the  deposiGon  and  given  directly  to  Gibson  Dunn).    Next,   based  on  their  repeated  inference  that  they  hadn't  received  all  of  the   material  requested,  I  resubmiNed  the  previously  provided  material  on   08/23/12.    Due  to  their  conGnued  insistence  that  they  hadn't  been  provided   all  of  the  requested  files,  on  8/30/12  I  provided  a  file  where  I  photocopied  all   printed  documents  responsive  to  the  Court  and  defendants  requests  and   provided  pdf's  of  those  along  with  all  of  the  image  files.    This  material  was  all   previously  provided  (actually  on  mulGple  occasions),  but  to  be  certain,  I   provided  everything  again.    This  resulted  in  approximately  1.322  GB  of  image   and  pdf  files.     The  following  day  (8/31/12)  Mr.  Southwell  made  a  new  demand  for   disclosure.    In  that  Gibson  Dunn  email,  dated  8/31/12,  Mr.  Southwell  makes   many  incorrect  statements.    Not  only,  as  I  have  previously  shown,  is  he   incorrect  about  never  receiving  the  31  listed  files,  the  remaining  demands   are  also  demonstrably  false. In  his  second  paragraph,  Mr.  Southwell  begins  with  the  following: “Notwithstanding  your  belated  producGon  of  those  new   documents,  ....” There  has  been  no  “belated  producGon  of  documents”  on  my  part.    As   shown  clearly  with  my  earlier  lisGng,  Mr.  Southwell  has  received  all  of  the   documents,  either  prior  to  or  at  the  Gme  of  my  deposiGon.     As  a  summary: First,    I  responded  appropriately  to  the  Court  Order  (10/25/11)  where  I   provided  all  of  the  requested  materials.     Next,    I  responded  to  Mr.  Southwell’s  new  and  further  request  for   materials  8  days  prior  (7/3/12)  to  my  deposiGon  (7/11/12).     Then,  at  my  deposiGon,  Gibson  Dunn  looked  through  material  I  had  in   my  possession  and  declared  that  they  had  not  received  some  of  the   documents.    Although,  I  was  certain  that  I  had  provided  them  the   material  previously,  I  gave  them  the  material  again,  at  that  Gme,  to   photocopy.       Since  then,  Mr.  Southwell  has  repeated  claims  insisGng  that  he  has  not   been  provided  the  files.    On  8/23/12,  I  provided  a  copy  of  all  previously   submiNed  documents  and  files  as  requested  through  the  Court  Order,   and  then  later  by  either  Gibson  Dunn  or  Mr.  Southwell.       Next,  on  8/30/12,  as  an  over  abundance  of  cauGon,  I  provided  image   files  of  absolutely  everything  in  my  file.     Then,  that  was  followed  with  Mr.  Southwell’s  current  (8/31/12)   demand  indicaGng  he  just  received  certain  images  and  files  for  the  first   Gme  and  that  he  has  sGll  has  not  received  certain  files,  at  all.    Mr.   Southwell  is  demonstrably  and  fallaciously  wrong.     In  paragraph  2  of  Mr.  Southwell’s  8/31/12  demand,  he  conGnues  with: “...you  sGll  have  not  produced  any  evidence  documenGng  any  ink   sampling  that  Mr.  Stewart  conducted  on  July  25,  2011.      Nor  have  you   produced  the  second  “ TLC  Worksheet  Form”  that  Mr.  Stewart  used  on   July  25,  2011.    That  worksheet  reflects  Mr.  Stewart’s  inventory  of  the   contents  of  Vials  11-­‐18,  in  which  he  placed  paper  and  toner  samples  at   the  inspecGon.    You  have  produced  only  the  first  “ TLC  Worksheet   Form”  dated  July  25,  2011,  documenGng  the  contents  of  Mr.  Stewart’s   Vials  1-­‐10,  and  another  “ TLC  Worksheet  Form”  dated  July  29,  2011,   documenGng  the  rows  of  Mr.  Stewart’s  TLC  Plate  #1,  on  which  he   conducted  toner  analysis.    Neither  of  these  two  “ TLC  Worksheet   Forms”  is  the  second  “ TLC  Worksheet  Form”    used  on  July  25,  2011,   which,  again,  Mr.  Stewart  can  clearly  be  seen  filling  out  on  the   videotape  of  the  inspecGon.” Following,  I  will  break  down  those  remaining  statements  Mr.  Southwell  has   made  in  his  current  email,  along  with  my  response: 1. “...you  sGll  have  not  produced  any  evidence  documenGng  any  ink   sampling  that  Mr.  Stewart  conducted  on  July  25,  2011.” I  have  provided  (on  mulGple  occasions)  all  TLC  worksheets,  handwriNen   notes,  along  with  scans  and  photocopies  of  the  Work  For  Hire  Contract   showing  locaGons  of  areas  where  I  removed  samples.    There  is  nothing  else  I   can  provide. 2. “Nor  have  you  produced  the  second  “ TLC  Worksheet  Form”  that  Mr.   Stewart  used  on  July  25,  2011.    That  worksheet  reflects  Mr.   Stewart’s  inventory  of  the  contents  of  Vials  11-­‐18,  in  which  he   placed  paper  and  toner  samples  at  the  inspecGon.    You  have   produced  only  the  first  “ TLC  Worksheet  Form”  dated  July  25,  2011,   documenGng  the  contents  of  Mr.  Stewart’s  Vials  1-­‐10,  and  another   “TLC  Worksheet  Form”  dated  July  29,  2011,  documenGng  the  rows   of  Mr.  Stewart’s  TLC  Plate  #1,  on  which  he  conducted  toner  analysis.     Neither  of  these  two  “ TLC  Worksheet  Forms”  is  the  second  “ TLC   Worksheet  Form”    used  on  July  25,  2011,  which,  again,  Mr.  Stewart   can  clearly  be  seen  filling  out  on  the  videotape  of  the  inspecGon.” In  my  8/30/12  response,  I  stated:   “As  informaGon,  pgs  13  and  18  of  55  from  the  file  named,   "doc083012a.pdf"  are  the  two  worksheets.    Pg  20  of  the  same  file  is  a   page  of  handwriNen  notes  describing  the  sampling  of  the  WFH   document.    Pgs  21-­‐42  of  the  same  file  show  "before  and  afer"   sampling  pictures  as  well  as  locaGons  of  sampling  areas.    I  sGll  am   maintaining  the  untested  samples  in  case  they  are  needed.” Mr.  Southwell  fails  to  note  that  there  are  two  dates  shown  on  one  of  the  TLC   Worksheet  Forms  (the  one  Mr.  Southwell  describes  as  being  dated  July  29,   2011).    The  second  date  on  that  worksheet  is  “7/25/11.”    As  seen  at  the  top   of  that  worksheet,  I  placed  handwriNen  notes  indicaGng  “11-­‐07-­‐100  7/29/11   PLUGS  TAKEN  FROM  THOSE  REMOVED  7/25/11  LFS”.    The  beginning  porGon   of  that  entry  (11-­‐07-­‐100)  represents  an  internal  case  file  number  that  would   have  been  created  afer  returning  to  my  laboratory  and  prior  to  beginning   any  analysis.    As  easily  seen  on  the  image,  there  are  mulGple  pens  and  inks   used  in  the  compleGon  of  that  form.    That  is  because  the  form  was  filled  out   on  mulGple  dates.    In  my  facility,  I  maintain  notes  and  worksheets  and  add  to     or  create  new  ones  as  new  data  or  changes  in  situaGons  require,  e.g.  if  some   of  the  material  is  tested  or  transferred  to  a  different  facility,  etc.     As  Mr.  Southwell  insists  that  I  created  two  worksheets  on  7/25/11,  and  I   have  2  worksheets  with  a  date  of  7/25/11,  I  can  only  assume  that  the  2   worksheets  provided  to  Mr.  Southwell  represent  the  2  worksheets  he  is   speaking  of.    There  is  no  addiGonal  or  3rd  worksheet  outlining  an   “inventory”  of  the  contents  of  vials  11  through  18.    Instead,  I  have  scans  and   photocopies  of  the  Work  For  Hire  Contract  and  SpecificaGons  Contract   showing  locaGons  of  sampling.    These  were  all  provided  to  Mr.  Southwell.     Although  I  don’t  recall  making  a  mistake  on  the  handwriNen  pages  I  created   on  7/25/11,  that  is  always  a  possibility.    If  that  happened,  it  is  possible  that  I   started  a  form  over.    But  that  is  not  my  recollecGon. TLC  Worksheet  forms  are  generally  created  for  a  reason.    In  this  case,  I   described  my  destrucGve  sampling  via  handwriNen  notes  as  well  as  locaGon   maps.    TLC  Worksheet  Forms  were  created  when  I  began  outlining  my  plans   for  tesGng  of  the  toner  and  paper.    That  explains  why  only  some  of  the  vials   are  described  on  those  forms,  simply  because  only  some  of  the  material  has   been  tested,  to  date.    The  untested  items  remain  in  my  possession  in  case   future  tesGng  is  requested.     I  believe  I  have  followed  the  Court  Order,  as  well  as  provided  for  all  of  the   reasonable  demands  of  the  defendants  counsel.    There  has  been  no   purposeful  destrucGon  of  materials  or  files.    In  fact,  the  untested  material   awaits.    That  way,  if  addiGonal  tests  become  necessary  to  answer  quesGons   regarding  the  ink,  paper  or  toner  from  the  Work  For  Hire  Contract,  we  are   prepared  to  provide  them.

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?