1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

-1- PLAINTIFF FACEBOOK, INC.’S REPLY

ISO DAMAGES (Case No. 14-cv-02323)

LEGAL124897551.2

Judith B. Jennison, Bar No. 165929 JJennison@perkinscoie.com PERKINS COIE LLP 1201 Third Avenue, Suite 4900 Seattle, WA 98101-3099 Telephone: 206.359.8000 Facsimile: 206.359.9000

Attorneys for Plaintiff FACEBOOK, INC.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION

FACEBOOK, INC.,

Plaintiff,

v.

MARTIN GRUNIN,

Defendant.

Case No. 2014-CV-02323

PLAINTIFF FACEBOOK, INC.’S REPLY IN SUPPORT OF DAMAGES

In its January 8 Order granting Facebook’s motion for default judgment, Dkt. No. 76

(“Order”), the Court warned Grunin that his opposition to Facebook’s damages submission must

“set forth a specific counteranalysis, appending all of his counter-proof in a sworn declaration.”

Id. Grunin’s Response to Brief in Support of Damages, Dkt. No. 82 (“Response”) does not

comply with the Court’s order.

Grunin’s challenge to Facebook’s compensatory damages is a challenge to the underlying

claims already adjudicated, not the assessment of damages. As the Court has noted, Grunin has

had numerous opportunities to defend his innocence, and has failed to do so. Id. at 3. Moreover,

Grunin’s submission attaches no declaration or other evidence to support his position.

Case3:14-cv-02323-WHA Document83 Filed02/02/15 Page1 of 3

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

-2- PLAINTIFF FACEBOOK, INC.’S REPLY ISO DAMAGES (Case No. 14-cv-02323)

LEGAL124897551.2

Accordingly, Grunin has not effectively challenged Facebook’s request for compensatory

damages.

Grunin has also failed to effectively challenge Facebook’s request for punitive damages.

He suggests that punitive damages are unnecessary because he has already been punished enough.

But his unsupported claims are unpersuasive. The Court has already recognized the numerous

ways in which Grunin has caused substantial harm to Facebook. See, e.g., Order at 4 (accepting

the claims set forth in Facebook’s Complaint as true, and highlighting the fact that Grunin

“continued to create Facebook accounts after two cease-and-desist letters were sent to him” and

that “Facebook has disabled more than 70 accounts linked to Grunin”). After Facebook filed its

Complaint against him, he thumbed his nose at both Facebook and the judicial system by

“lard[ing] the record with a hodgepodge of documents” that evaded the claims against him (id. at

1) showing an utter lack of remorse. Moreover, Grunin’s recent public statements contradict his

claim that this lawsuit has hampered his lifestyle or compromised his personal relationships. On

November 21. 2014, Grunin posted a message on Reddit.com detailing the demise of his

relationship with his girlfriend of 9 years. Jennison Declaration, Exh. A and

http://www.reddit.com/user/mgrunin. In the post, Grunin recounts numerous reasons his

relationship failed and the claims by Facebook are not among them. The difference between

Grunin’s public statements and statements to the court are further evidence that Grunin continues

to ignore the seriousness of his actions. Significant punitive damages are appropriate here.

Grunin also argues that Facebook’s request for attorneys’ fees should be denied, claiming

that this case is a run-of-the-mill default. Reply at 4. As the Court has already acknowledged,

this case has not been typical. Order at 1–2 (summarizing Grunin’s numerous strange and

inappropriate filings). Grunin’s actions required much more work on the part of Facebook’s legal

team than would be the case in the typical default. The “representation” by a non-lawyer, the

repeated bogus filings, and the motion to set aside default all compounded the work required to

prosecute the case. Accordingly, Grunin has not effectively challenged Facebook’s request for

fees.

Case3:14-cv-02323-WHA Document83 Filed02/02/15 Page2 of 3

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

-3- PLAINTIFF FACEBOOK, INC.’S REPLY ISO DAMAGES (Case No. 14-cv-02323)

LEGAL124897551.2

Because Grunin has failed to provide any evidence or counteranalysis that properly

disputes Facebook’s damages, the court should give it no weight in determining the appropriate

amount of compensatory and punitive damages.

DATED: February 2, 2015

PERKINS COIE LLP

By: /s/ Judith B. Jennison Judith B. Jennison, Bar No. 165929 JJennison@perkinscoie.com

Attorneys for Plaintiff FACEBOOK, INC.

Case3:14-cv-02323-WHA Document83 Filed02/02/15 Page3 of 3