Ceglia v. Zuckerberg et al

Filing 661

MOTION for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply as to 654 Objections -- non-motion,, , MOTION for Leave to File Excess Pages by Paul D. Ceglia. (Attachments: # 1 Declaration of Paul Argentieri, Esq. in Support of Motion, # 2 Text of Proposed Order, # 3 Certificate of Service)(Argentieri, Paul)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
___________________________________
:
PAUL D. CEGLIA,
:
:
Plaintiff,
:
:
v.
:
:
MARK ELLIOT ZUCKERBERG and
:
FACEBOOK, INC.,
:
:
Defendants.
:
:
___________________________________ :

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

DECLARATION OF PAUL
ARGENTIERI IN SUPPORT OF
PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO ENLARGE
TIME TO FILE REPLY TO
DEFENDANTS’ OPPOSITION TO
PLAINTIFF’S OBJECTIONS TO
MAGISTRATE’S REPORT AND
RECOMMENDATION AND TO
INCREASE PAGE LIMIT

Paul Argentieri, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1746, declares under the pains and penalties of
perjury as follows:
1.

I am one of the attorneys for Plaintiff in this action and have primary

responsibility for preparing, filing and serving Plaintiff’s written objections to the Magistrate
Judge’s Report and Recommendation dated March 26, 2013, and Plaintiff’s reply to Defendants’
opposition to Plaintiff’s written objections.
2.

I have personal knowledge of the facts stated herein and if called upon to testify as

to them, I would competently do so.
3.

The Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation comprising 152 pages was

filed on March 26, 2013. After Plaintiff moved, with the consent of opposing counsel, for an
extension of time and an increase in the page limit, the Court granted Plaintiff’s motion. Both
Plaintiff and Defendants were granted additional time and an increase in the page limits for the
Objections and Defendants’ Opposition.

4.

According to the Court’s Order, Plaintiff’s Reply to Defendants’ Opposition is

now due on May 15, 2013.
5.

As stated, the Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation is lengthy and

involves voluminous facts, several expert opinions, and complex mixed questions of law and
fact. The Plaintiff and Defendants have filed their Objections and Opposition, respectively, of 50
pages each. It requires considerable work to properly prepare Plaintiff’s reply to Defendants’
opposition in a thorough, yet concise, manner. Co-counsel and I have been working diligently to
simultaneously prepare Plaintiff’s reply while also preparing Plaintiff’s written submissions in
support of his Motion for a Preliminary Injunction in the related case, Ceglia v. Holder, Case No.
1:13-cv-00256-RJA, which was heard by the Court yesterday, May 10, 2013,
6.

Given these circumstances, Plaintiff respectfully requests an additional seven

days, to and including May 22, 2013, in which to file his reply to Defendants’ opposition. We
will also require, and respectfully request, an increase in the allowable 10 page limit so that
Plaintiff may file a reply of up to 20 pages. This is needed due to the length and complexity of
the issues raised by Defendants’ 50 page opposition to Plaintiff’s written Objection to the
Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation.
7.

On May 10, 2013, I requested of Alexander H. Southwell, Esq. Defendants’

consent to this motion and counsel responded that they do not take a position for or against the
motion.
8.

This motion by Plaintiff is timely made with respect to the request for additional

9.

This request for an increase in the page limit is not, however, made at least seven

time.

days before the May 15 due date, as required by the Local Rules, but Plaintiff did not become

2

aware of the necessity for additional pages until after May 8, when he had completed his filings
in support of the preliminary injunction motion in the related case.
10.

This motion is not being made for purposes of delay, but in good faith.

I declare, under the pains and penalties of perjury of the laws of the United States, that the
foregoing is true and correct.
Executed on May 11, 2013
s/ Paul Argentieri
Paul Argentieri

3