Ceglia v. Zuckerberg et al

Filing 669

REPLY/RESPONSE to re 667 MOTION for Reconsideration re 660 Order,, filed by Facebook, Inc., Mark Elliot Zuckerberg. (Snyder, Orin)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
----------------------------------------------------------x
:
PAUL D. CEGLIA,
:
:
Plaintiff,
:
:
v.
: Civil Action No. 1:10-cv-00569-RJA
:
MARK ELLIOT ZUCKERBERG and
:
FACEBOOK, INC.,
:
:
Defendants.
:
----------------------------------------------------------x

DEFENDANTS’ RESPONSE TO PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION,
CORRECTION OR CLARIFICATION OF THE MAGISTRATE’S DECISION AND
ORDER (DOC. 660) (FED. R. CIV. P. 60(A) OR 60(B)(6))

Thomas H. Dupree, Jr.
GIBSON, DUNN & CRUTCHER LLP
1050 Connecticut Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20036
[phone]

Terrance P. Flynn
HARRIS BEACH PLLC
726 Exchange Street
Suite 1000
Buffalo, NY 14210
[phone]
June 6, 2013

Orin Snyder
Alexander H. Southwell
Matthew J. Benjamin
Amanda M. Aycock
GIBSON, DUNN & CRUTCHER LLP
200 Park Avenue, 47th Floor
New York, NY 10166-0193
[phone]

On September 5, 2012, Defendants filed their Eighth Motion to Compel (Doc. No. 511),
seeking three documents referenced in another document produced by Ceglia pursuant to
previous motions to compel. On November 7, this Court granted in part Defendants’ motion,
ordering Ceglia to produce immediately one of the documents and directing Ceglia to pay
attorneys’ fees and costs associated with Defendants’ pursuit of that document. Doc. No. 584.
The Court directed Defendants to file a fee application detailing the fees and costs expended in
this pursuit. See id. at 20-22. On November 19, as directed by the Court, Defendants filed their
Fee Application and supporting declaration and exhibits (Doc. No. 599). In a Decision and
Order dated May 9, 2013 (the “May 9 Order”), this Court granted Defendants’ Fee Application
in full, ordering that Ceglia pay Defendants $3,747.68. Doc. No. 660. On May 23, Ceglia filed a
Motion for Reconsideration, Correction, or Clarification of the Court’s May 9 order (Doc. No.
667), requesting that the Court “reconsider, correct or clarify” the order “so that the record is
clear and accurate” concerning the Order’s terms. Id. at 2.
Ceglia’s motion sets forth no basis for reconsideration of the substance of the May 9
Order, but only identifies an inadvertent typographical error: the conclusion of the May 9 Order
states that it was issued “in accordance with the January 10, 2012 Decision and Order (Doc. No.
283)” (Doc. No. 660 at 11), instead of the Court’s November 7, 2012 Decision and Order (Doc.
No. 584). The May 9 Order properly identifies and addresses the relevant fee application under
consideration—namely, Defendants’ application for fees incurred in connection with the
successful portion of their Eighth Motion to Compel. See, e.g., id. at 4 (“Defendants filed on
November 19, 2012, Defendants’ Fee Application in Connection With Their Eighth Motion to
Compel (Doc. No. 599) . . . . Based on the following, Defendants’ Fee Application is
GRANTED.”). Accordingly, the Court should simply amend its May 9 Order by correcting the

clause in the first sentence of its conclusion reading “in accordance with the January 10, 2012
Decision and Order (Doc. No. 283)” (Doc. No. 660 at 11), to read “in accordance with the
November 7, 2012 Decision and Order (Doc. No. 584).”

Dated:

New York, New York
June 6, 2013
Respectfully submitted,
/s/ Orin Snyder
Orin Snyder
Alexander H. Southwell
Matthew J. Benjamin
Amanda M. Aycock
GIBSON, DUNN & CRUTCHER LLP
200 Park Avenue, 47th Floor
New York, NY 10166-0193
[phone]

Thomas H. Dupree, Jr.
GIBSON, DUNN & CRUTCHER LLP
1050 Connecticut Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20036
[phone]

Terrance P. Flynn
HARRIS BEACH PLLC
726 Exchange Street
Suite 1000
Buffalo, NY 14210
[phone]
Attorneys for Defendants Mark Zuckerberg and Facebook, Inc.

2