Ceglia v. Zuckerberg et al

Filing 641

REPLY/RESPONSE to re 640 Reply/Response, filed by Paul D. Ceglia. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit, # 2 Certificate of Service)(Argentieri, Paul)

Case 1:10-cv-00569-RJA-LGF Document 610-1 Filed 11/26/12 Page 1 of 10

Dueling Experts Table
Illustrates Opposing Expert Opinions on Every Conclusion Presented by Defendants’ Experts

Defendants’ Expert Conclusion

Dueling Expert Conclusion

Laporte Conclusion #1
“The ink in the interlineation on page 1 of the
Work for Hire document was not placed on
the document on April 28, 2003. It is highly
probable that the interlineation was produced
within 24 months prior to August 28, 2011
(the date the testing was conducted).” Doc.
No. 326 at 24.

1.) Defendants’ own expert, Albert Lyter,
found “Because of the deterioration of the
ink, the TLC results were not useable and
I could not perform Ink Identification, TLC
Densitometry or Relative Aging” Doc. No. 328
at 9.

Laporte Conclusion #2
“When the Work for Hire document was
presented to me for inspection by Plaintiff’s
counsel on July 16, 2011, the paper and
inks on the front of pages 1 and 2 were
severely degraded due to a photochemical
reaction. There is unequivocal evidence that
the Work for Hire document was exposed to
sunlight or another intense energy source for
a prolonged period, probably over a span of
weeks.” Doc. No. 326 at 24.

Plaintiff’s expert Larry Stewart
concluded, “The yellow discoloration/
damage evident in the Facebook Contract
is, in my opinion, the result of repeated
exposure of the document to high intensity
and/or UV lights.”, and “Upon review of the
videotapes made of the examinations by
both Defendants’ and Plaintiff’s experts, it is
evident that the Facebook Contract yellowed
dramatically between the time when the
document was provided to the Defendants’
experts and when it was made available to
the Plaintiff’s experts.” Doc. No. 416 at 15.

Laporte Conclusion #3
“Based on the totality of all of the forensic
evidence and a review of multiple
declarations and briefs, the Work for Hire
document was deliberately exposed to
sunlight or another intense energy source

Plaintiff’s expert James Blanco states, “I
observed Facebook’s experts repeatedly
exposing the Facebook Contract to UV light
as well as other light sources. Even though
I was on the other side of the room, I could
see the lights of the VSC glowing from around

2.) Plaintiff’s expert Larry Stewart found
that “It is not possible to perform ‘Ink age’
determination on the Facebook Contract.
This is due to the degradation of the ink and
paper, the lack of knowledge of the storage
conditions and their potential affect on aging
characteristics and the failure to identify
the formula of inks so as to have basic
knowledge of the original compositions.” Doc.
No. 416-3 at 23.

1

Case 1:10-cv-00569-RJA-LGF Document 610-1 Filed 11/26/12 Page 2 of 10

for a prolonged period. This intentional
exposure occurred after January of 2011,
when Plaintiff’s experts Valery Aginsky and
John Paul Osborn took high-resolution scans
of the document, and prior to the inspection
by Defendants’ experts beginning on July
14, 2011. The fact that Plaintiff has proffered
an explanation of how the document was
damaged that is wholly inconsistent with
the forensic evidence provides unequivocal
support for this conclusion.” Doc. No. 326 at
24.

the sides of the unit. I further noted that
the documents were repeatedly tested on
the “ESDA” machine by Gus Lesnevich and
his assistant Khody Detwiler.”, Doc. No. 415
at 65, and “I was so concerned about the
excessive processing by Facebook experts
that at one point I asked Tytell, who was at
the VSC machine, what settings he was using
for his UV examinations” Id. at 66.

Laporte Conclusion #4
“The deterioration of the “Work for Hire”
document did not occur during the forensic
examination of the document by Defendants’
experts.” Doc. No. 326 at 25.

Plaintiff’s expert James Blanco
concluded, “The front sides of page 1 and
page 2 of the Facebook Contract were
deteriorated/ “yellowed”, the probable
cause having been the result of defendants’
experts excessive document processing and
mishandling of the documents.” Doc. No. 415
at 88.

Laporte Conclusion #5
“Page 1 and page 2 of the Work for
Hire document were not produced
contemporaneously, at the same time, based
on the following:

a. Plaintiff’s expert James Blanco
concluded, “[T]he difference in font between
page 1 and page 2 is readily explained by the
common occurrence that when documents
are pieced together by means of “cutting
and pasting” sections from other source
documents, the fonts of those other sections
that were cropped from other documents
come along in the transposition and when
inserted into sections of the new document
being created, may or may not match the
other fonts of the document being typed.”
Doc. No. 415 at 91.

a. The formatting for the paragraphs and
the typeface of the text (font) on page 1 are
different than the formatting and typeface
used on page 2.
b. The paper used for pages 1 and 2 is
different, and it is probable that each page
originates from different sources. This
conclusion is based on different physical
characteristics, optical properties, and
chemical compositions.

b. Concerning the similarities between page
1 and page 2 of the Work for Hire document,
Plaintiff’s expert Walter Rantanen found, “The
fiber content of the two vials is consistent with
c. The toner used on page 1 of the Work for
coming from the same mill and production
Hire document is different from the toner used run.” Doc. No. 421 at 2.
for page 2. Therefore a different source of
toner was used to produce the documents.
c. Plaintiff’s expert Larry Stewart

2

Case 1:10-cv-00569-RJA-LGF Document 610-1 Filed 11/26/12 Page 3 of 10

The use of different toners means that
either a different printing device or different
cartridge of toner was used to produce pages
1 and 2.

found, “Test results indicate that the toner
found on page 1 matches that found on page
2.”, and “Exhaustive chemical and physical
testing failed to detect any differences
between the toner samples.” Doc. No. 416 at
24.

d. Taken together, the physical and chemical
examinations showed that different inks
were used to create the written entries on
page 1 when compared to the inks on page
2. The inks used for the signatures on page
2 in the names of Paul Ceglia (Ink 3) and
Mark Zuckerberg (Ink 4) were different from
each other, and both were different from the
inks used on page 1 of the Work for Hire
document.” Doc. No. 326 at 26.

d. Defendants’ own expert Lyter concluded
that ink identification was not possible. Doc.
No. 328 at 9. Laporte himself (see Laporte
Conclusion #8) concluded that the ink
formulation cannot be determined.

Laporte Conclusion # 6
“There were some indentations from
handwriting observed on the Work for Hire
document—specifically, a portion of the
impressed entry on page 2 coincides with the
same text on page 1—but the results from
the indentation examination are inconclusive
due to the deterioration of the document.
And even if the impression originated from
the interlineation, the only conclusion that
could be drawn is that page 1 was over the
top of page 2 at the time that the handwritten
interlineation was made on page 1. It does
not provide any evidence that pages 1 and 2
were created contemporaneously or that the
Work for Hire document is authentic.” Doc.
No. 326 at 26.

Plaintiff’s expert James Blanco
concludes, “[P]age 1 was indeed over the top
of page 2 when the hand printed interlineation
was written on page 1.” Doc. No. 415 at 54.

Laporte Conclusion #7
“There is no evidence to refute the possibility
that another page, other than page 1 of
the Work for Hire document, was originally
stapled to page 2 and removed at a later
time.” Doc. No. 326 at 26.

Plaintiff’s expert James Blanco
concludes, “The staple holes and secondary
staple hole impressions/detent marks of
page 1 of the Facebook Contract match
the staple holes and secondary staple hole
impressions/ detent marks of page 2 of the
Facebook Contract. That is, the staple holes
on both pages align demonstrating that these
two pages of the Facebook Contract have
only been stapled one time wherein they

3

Case 1:10-cv-00569-RJA-LGF Document 610-1 Filed 11/26/12 Page 4 of 10

were actually stapled together.”, and “On this
regard, the evidence does not support any
theory that page 1 was attached to page 2
by hand using a staple (that is, not using an
actual stapler but connecting the two pages
together with a staple by hand).” Doc. No.
415 at 88.
Laporte Conclusion #8
“None of the results could be used to
determine whether or not page 2 of the Work
for Hire document was produced on April 28,
2003. In part, the testing was hindered by the
fact that the inks were severely compromised
due to the deterioration of the document
and TLC could not be used to determine the
availability of the ink formulation.” Doc. No.
326 at 26.

Laporte acknowledges that the ink
formulation cannot be determined.

Romano Conclusion A
“The ‘WORK FOR HIRE’ document is, at
least in part, forged.” Doc. No. 327 at 12.

1.) Plaintiff’s expert James Blanco
concluded, “The original Facebook
Contract...examined by all of the document
experts is an authentic, unaltered document.
The sum of the evidence reveals that
page 1 of the Facebook Contract was
originally executed together with page 2 as a
companion document. Based on the detailed
forensic analysis of this two-page document,
there is no justification or support for the
defendant’s theory of a page 1 substitution,
forgery or fraud. The sum of the evidence
shows that page 1 was not a later inserted
page to the original two-page document set.”
Doc. No. 415 at 232.

Other than Lesnevich, none of Defendants’
experts found any evidence that page 2 of the
Work for Hire document was anything other
than authentic.

2.) Plaintiff’s expert Larry Stewart
concluded, “After a thorough and exhaustive
forensic testing of the Facebook Contract
(Work For Hire) (Exhibit Q1), there is no
indication to suggest the Contract is anything
other than genuine. In addition, there is
no evidence to support that the Facebook
Contract is altered.” Doc. No. 416-3 at 21.

4

Case 1:10-cv-00569-RJA-LGF Document 610-1 Filed 11/26/12 Page 5 of 10

Romano Conclusion B
“Page 1 of the ‘WORK FOR HIRE’ document
is an amateurish forgery.” Doc. No. 327 at
12.

Plaintiff’s expert James Blanco
counters, “Review of Romano’s CV/Resume
reveals that Romano lacks the industry
standard qualifications to opine as a Forensic
Document Examiner- particularly in regard
to his assertion that page 1 of the Facebook
Contract was an “amateurish forgery”
(Document 327 Page 12). His opinion and
report, therefore, should be considered in
light of his lack of qualifications to opine as
a court-qualified expert on the matters which
are the subject of his report.” Doc. No. 415 at
23.

Romano Conclusion C
“Page 1 and Page 2 of the ‘WORK FOR
HIRE’ document were printed on different
printers.” Doc. No. 327 at 12.

Plaintiff’s expert Larry Stewart
found, “Physical analysis resulted in a
determination that both pages 1 and 2 of the
Facebook Contract were printed with an office
machine that utilized toner, e.g. a laserjet
printer.” Doc. No. 416 at 23, and “Test results
indicate that the toner found on page 1
matches that found on page 2.” Id. at 24.

Romano Conclusion D
“Page 1 of the ‘WORK FOR HIRE’ document
was printed on a more recent printer than
Page 2 of the ‘WORK FOR HIRE’ document.”
Doc. No. 327 at 12.

Plaintiff’s expert James Blanco
concludes, “Contrary to Romano’s claim,
my Figure 8 and Figure 9 photographic
enlargements are produced here to
demonstrate that there is no perceivable
difference in “edge definition” as alleged by
Romano.” Doc. No. 415 at 23.

Romano Conclusion E
“The typeface, point sizes, and formats of
Page 1 and Page 2 of the ‘STREET FAX’
document are significantly more consistent
than those of Page 1 and Page 2 of
the ‘WORK FOR HIRE’ document.” Doc. No.
327 at 12.

Plaintiff’s expert James Blanco points out, “
I know of no properly trained Forensic
Document Examiner who would perform a
font (typestyle) analysis on such extremely
deteriorated evidence. Any proffered opinion
regarding classifying or identifying the
typestyle in this regard lacks any reasonable
forensic basis and is not worthy of due
consideration. Since Tytell claims special
knowledge in typography, I suspect that
even he would disagree with the findings and
opinions of Romano in this regard. Indeed,
Tytell offered no such findings as Romano on

5

Case 1:10-cv-00569-RJA-LGF Document 610-1 Filed 11/26/12 Page 6 of 10

this point.” Doc. No. 415 at 25.
Romano Conclusion F
“Page 1 of the ‘WORK FOR HIRE’ document
appears to be a modification of Page 1 of
the ‘STREET FAX’ document.” Doc. No. 327
at 12.

Plaintiff’s expert James Blanco
concluded, “Page 1 of the STREET
FAX “smoking gun” document was not the
original companion page attached to page 2
of the Facebook Contract” Doc. No. 415 at
90.

Lyter Conclusion #1
“The “Work for Hire” document was
intentionally exposed to excessive
environmental conditions, probably sunlight
for an extended period of time, which caused
the deterioration of the paper and the ink now
present on the document.” Doc. No. 328 at 8.

Plaintiff’s expert Larry Stewart
concluded, “The yellow discoloration/
damage evident in the Facebook Contract
is, in my opinion, the result of repeated
exposure of the document to high intensity
and/or UV lights.”, and “Upon review of the
videotapes made of the examinations by
both Defendants’ and Plaintiff’s experts, it is
evident that the Facebook Contract yellowed
dramatically between the time when the
document was provided to the Defendants’
experts and when it was made available to
the Plaintiff’s experts.” Doc. No. 416 at 15.

Lyter Conclusion #2
“The intentional deterioration of the ‘Work for
Hire’ document thwarted my ability to assess
the authenticity of the questioned documents
using TLC analysis and Ink Identification and
Relative Aging methodologies.” Doc. No. 328
at 9.

Defendants’ expert Lyter’s conclusion that he
was unable “to assess the authenticity of the
questioned documents using TLC analysis
and Ink Identification and Relative Aging
methodologies” should cause the weigher of
facts to question the validity of Defendants’
other experts’ test results.

Lyter Conclusion #3
“The ‘Work for Hire’ document was altered
by exposure to excessive environmental
conditions, most likely sunlight for an
extended period of time, at some point during
the time period from January 2011 to the
Defendants’ experts’ examinations in mid-July
2011.” Doc. No. 328 at 9.

Plaintiff’s expert James Blanco
concluded, “The front sides of page 1 and
page 2 of the Facebook Contract were
deteriorated/ “yellowed”, the probable
cause having been the result of defendants’
experts excessive document processing and
mishandling of the documents.” Doc. No. 415
at 88.

Lesnevich’s 1st Report, Conclusion #1
“There are at least 20 significant
dissimilarities between the handwritten
interlineations on the Questioned Documents,

Plaintiff’s expert James Blanco has concluded
differently, “I have performed detailed
analysis of these different documents and
have determined that they are just four

6

Case 1:10-cv-00569-RJA-LGF Document 610-1 Filed 11/26/12 Page 7 of 10

all of which Plaintiff Paul Ceglia has proffered
as images of the same physical document.”
Doc. No. 329 at 31.

different copies of the same document page,
only scanned/copied and reprinted by various
different machine processes.” Doc. No. 415 at
27.

Lesnevich’s 1st Report, Conclusion #2
“Based on my examination of the questioned
handwritten interlineations, including but not
limited to the 20 significant dissimilarities
described above, I conclude to the highest
degree of certainty possible, beyond any
reasonable doubt, that the Questioned
Documents are images of at least two
different physical documents.” Doc. No. 329
at 31.

Lesnevich himself said, “[T]he poor
reproduction quality and distortion of the
questioned written entry . . . makes the
scanned copy unsuitable for examination and
comparison of the handwriting that appears
on the document.” Doc. No. 52, para. 15-16.

Lesnevich’s 1st Report, Conclusion #3
“Therefore, Ceglia has proffered at least two
different physical documents as the Work
for Hire document. In particular, Ceglia
produced a Work for Hire document to
Defendants’ experts in July 2011 that was
different than the document he attached to his
Complaint.” Doc. No. 320 at 31.

Lesnevich’s comparison and conclusions
are flawed and unreliable because he was
unwittingly comparing a grossly altered copy
of the FB contract with the original. Doc. No.
481 at 39.

Lesnevich’s 2nd Report, Conclusion #1
“Ceglia has proffered at least two different
physical documents as the Work for Hire
document.” Doc. No. 472-1 at 73.

Plaintiff’s expert James Blanco has concluded
differently, “I have performed detailed
analysis of these different documents and
have determined that they are just four
different copies of the same document page,
only scanned/copied and reprinted by various
different machine processes.” Doc. No. 415 at
27.

Lesnevich’s 2nd Report Conclusion #2
“The questioned ‘Mark Zuckerberg’ signature
and date of signature on the Work for
Hire document were not written by Mark
Zuckerberg.” Doc. No. 472-1 at 73.

Plaintiff’s expert Blanco has found the
opposite, “Another significant finding was
that this “Mark Zuckerberg” signature was
written rapidly revealing free flowing and
spontaneous rhythm. Examinations did not
reveal evidence that rose to demonstrate
tremor, patching or misinterpretation of letter
construction to argue that this questioned no
evidence of a trace forgery.” Doc. No. 415 at
38.

7

Case 1:10-cv-00569-RJA-LGF Document 610-1 Filed 11/26/12 Page 8 of 10

Lesnevich’s 2nd Report Conclusion #3
“The questioned “MZ” initials on the Work
for Hire document were not written by Mark
Zuckerberg.” Doc. No. 472-1 at 74.

Plaintiff’s expert Blanco concluded the
opposite, “Given all of these observed
handwriting similarities, the handwriting
features present in the questioned “MZ”
initials did represent the natural, normal and
genuine handwriting characteristics of Mark
Zuckerberg as demonstrated by his EXHIBIT
19 known specimen initials.” Doc. No 415 at
46.

Lesnevich’s 2nd Report Conclusion #4
“The questioned “Paul Ceglia” signature
and date of signature on the Work for Hire
document are tracings.” Doc. No 472-1 at 74.

Plaintiff’s expert Blanco’s conclusion,
sums it all up. “The original Facebook
Contract...examined by all of the document
experts is an authentic, unaltered document.
The sum of the evidence reveals that
page 1 of the Facebook Contract was
originally executed together with page 2 as a
companion document. Based on the detailed
forensic analysis of this two-page document,
there is no justification or support for the
defendant’s theory of a page 1 substitution,
forgery or fraud. The sum of the evidence
shows that page 1 was not a later inserted
page to the original two-page document set.”
Doc. No. 415 at 232.

Tytell Conclusion #1
“The two-page Work for Hire document is
not consistent with the normal preparation
of a two-page document. Rather the use of
multiple type styles and the pattern of ink
usage indicate preparation of the two pages
at different times.” Doc. No. 330 at 13.

Plaintiff’s expert James Blanco
concluded, “The font (typestyle) of page 1 of
the Facebook Contract is obviously different
than the font of page 2 of the Facebook
Contract. However the different fonts are
indicative of laypersons creating a contract,
which on its own, does not provide indicia of a
forged document.” Doc. No. 415 at 89.

Tytell Conclusion #2
“The deteriorated condition of the ink and
paper on the Work for Hire document when
Mr. Argentieri produced it at 9:11 AM on July
14, 2011 are classic indicia of an attempt to
artificially accelerate the aging of a document,
an attempt that took place prior to the
production of the Work for Hire document on
July 14, 2011.” Doc. No. 330 at 13.

The Court stated its position by asking
Plaintiff’s counsel, “Don't you agree that they
[Defendants] have not established that Mr.
Ceglia is responsible for any discoloration?”
Hearing Trans. 12-13-11 at 67-68.

8

Case 1:10-cv-00569-RJA-LGF Document 610-1 Filed 11/26/12 Page 9 of 10

Stroz Friedberg Conclusion #1
“Stroz Friedberg found direct and compelling
digital forensic evidence that the documents
relied upon by Mr. Ceglia to support his claim
are forged.” Doc. No. 325 at 60.

“Neither of Defendants’ computer experts are
certified fraud experts. Rose Depo. at 208,
McGowan Depo. at 7. In contrast, Plaintiff’s
computer forensics expert, Neil Broom, is
a certified fraud expert. Doc. No. 417 at 2.
Plaintiff’s expert, Neil Broom, found that all
the ‘anomalies’ identified by Stroz were not
conclusive evidence of fraud. Doc. No. 417.”
Doc. No. 481 at 44.

Stroz Friedberg Conclusion #2
“Stroz Friedberg also found what it believes to
be the authentic contract between Mr. Ceglia
and Mr. Zuckerberg. That contract contains
no references to Facebook.”

Plaintiff’s expert James Blanco
concludes, “Page 1 of the STREET
FAX “smoking gun” document was not the
original companion page attached to page 2
of the Facebook Contract:” Doc. No. 415 at
90.
Plaintiff’s expert James Blanco also
states, “The STREET FAX “smoking gun”
document exists only as two computer image
(“tiff”) files; no original has been produced for
analysis. Although these two image files offer
extremely poor legibility, it was determined
that the STREET FAX page 1 does not
represent a supposed original to page 2
of the Facebook Contract for the following
reasons:
●

●

9

1.) The presence of the actual staple
in the STREET FAX image file argues
that had page 1 of the STREET FAX
document really been the original
companion page to page 2 of the
Facebook Contract, then page 2 of the
Facebook Contract should reveal an extra
set of staple holes, which it does not. Id.
2.) The visible hand printed interlineation
as observed on page 1 of the STREET
FAX tiff image was not the source of the
hand printed latent image on page 2 of
the Facebook Contract since it does not
match the proper position of where the

Case 1:10-cv-00569-RJA-LGF Document 610-1 Filed 11/26/12 Page 10 of 10

latent impression was discovered on page
2 of the original of the Facebook Contract
examined by the document expert. Id.
●

3.) The “PC” initials discovered as a
latent writing impression on page 2 of the
original Facebook Contract match the
position of the visible “PC” initials on page
1 of the original of the Facebook Contract
and do not match the position of the “PC”
initials observed on the poor quality tiff
image of page 1 of the STREET FAX
document reference EXHIBIT 33 hereto.
Id. at 91

●

4.) In support of item 2 above, the
verb “is,” which appears as the visibly
hand printed verb in the interlineation
on page 1 of the Facebook Contract,
and which also appears as the latent
handwritten verb on page 2 of the
Facebook Contract, is not the same verb
for the interlineation on the STREET FAX
document. The verb used for the STREET
FAX hand printed interlineation was the
word “has” rather than “is.” Id.

●

5.) The column measurements between
the two pages of the STREET FAX
document are substantially different from
one another.” Id.

10