Pandemic Darlings The pandemic economy, in original documents
Home Source documents Complaint - CHD v. Facebook et al. (2020-09-10)

Complaint - CHD v. Facebook et al. (2020-09-10), Doc. 28-1 — Children's Health Defense v. Facebook Inc

Date
2020-09-10

Summary

A declaration of Roger I. Teich, counsel for plaintiff Children's Health Defense, filed September 10, 2020 as Document 28-1 in Children's Health Defense v. Facebook, Inc., et al., Case No. 3:20-cv-05787-SI, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California. It supports the plaintiff's withdrawal of consent to stipulations [Dkts. ##23-24] extending defendants' response time, and requests a case management order under Rule 16(c)(2) and orders for substituted electronic service under Rule 4(f)(3). The declaration states that Facebook's counsel had not answered the plaintiff's conditions on consolidated briefing, electronic service and ESI-retention protocols. It asks for substituted electronic service on defendants Mark Zuckerberg and Science Feedback, describing attempted service at Facebook's headquarters and the difficulty of serving the French organization.

Summary drafted by a model from the document's text below and checked by script against that text before publication. It is a navigation aid, not a reading of what the document proves. Where AI is used

Full text

             Case 3:20-cv-05787-SI Document 28-1 Filed 09/10/20 Page 1 of 5




1    ROGER I. TEICH
     California State Bar No. 147076
2    290 Nevada Street
     San Francisco, CA 94110
3    Telephone: (415) 948-0045
4    E-Mail Address: rteich@juno.com

5    ROBERT F. KENNEDY, JR.
     MARY HOLLAND
6    Children’s Health Defense
     1227 North Peachtree Parkway, Suite 202
7    Peachtree City, GA 30269
8    Telephone: (917) 743-3868
     E-Mail Address: mary.holland@childrenshealthdefense.org
9    (Subject to pro hac vice admission)
10   Attorneys for Plaintiff
     CHILDREN’S HEALTH DEFENSE
11
12                              UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
13                             NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
14                                 SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION
15
16
17
18   CHILDREN’S HEALTH DEFENSE,
19                                                  Case No. 20-cv-05787-SI
                  Plaintiff,
20                                                  DECLARATION OF ROGER TEICH IN
21          v.                                      SUPPORT OF WITHDRAWAL OF
                                                    CONSENT TO STIPULATION AND
22   FACEBOOK, INC., et al., ,                      REQUEST FOR RULE 4(F)(3), 16(C)(2)
23                                                  ORDERS
                  Defendants.
24
25
26
27
28


                                                1              ROGER TEICH DECLARATION RE:
                                                                  RULE 4(f)(3) and 16(c)(2) ORDERS
                                                     CHD v. Facebook et al.; Case No. 3:20-cv-05787-SK
                 Case 3:20-cv-05787-SI Document 28-1 Filed 09/10/20 Page 2 of 5




1                                   DECLARATION OF ROGER I. TEICH
2
           I, Roger I. Teich, declare as follows:
3
           1.        I am a member of the State Bar of California and the Bar of the United States
4
5    District Court for the Northern District of California. On August 17, 2020, I filed the verified
6
     Complaint in this civil action. This declaration is made in support of plaintiff’s withdrawal of
7
     consent to Stipulations [Dkts. ##23-24], and requests for case management order (Fed. R. Civ.
8
9    Pro. 16(c)) and order for substituted electronic service of defendants Mark Zuckerberg and
10
     Science Feedback (Fed. R. Civ. Pro. 4(f)(3).) If called as a witness, I could and would testify
11
     competently to the facts herein, except as to those matters stated on information and belief.
12
13
14
           A.        Defects in Facebook Counsel’s Declaration
15
            2.       Both in our phone discussions and email communications on September 4 and 9,
16
17   2020, Mary S. Holland, general counsel for Children’s Health Defense, and I conditioned our
18
     discussion regarding reciprocal 45-day extensions of defendants’ response to the Complaint on
19
     three requests: (1) the four U.S. defendants file a unitary, if oversized, motion to dismiss,
20
21   rather than four separate, but overlapping, briefs; (2) Facebook’s counsel accept substituted
22
     electronic service on behalf of its separate client, Mark Zuckerberg, who is joined
23
     individually, and respond regarding substituted service on Science Feedback, a related French
24
25   organization, and all U.S. defendants’ counsel accept electronic service of the Court’s
26
     assignment and case management orders [Dkts. ##14, 15]; (3) Facebook’s counsel agree to
27
     meet and confer regarding ESI-retention protocols, and agree not to apply newly-amended
28


                                                      2               ROGER TEICH DECLARATION RE:
                                                                         RULE 4(f)(3) and 16(c)(2) ORDERS
                                                            CHD v. Facebook et al.; Case No. 3:20-cv-05787-SK
                Case 3:20-cv-05787-SI Document 28-1 Filed 09/10/20 Page 3 of 5




1    Section 3.2 of Facebook’s Terms of Service to Plaintiff during this litigation since that
2
     amendment postdates the lawsuit, and its application would represent retaliatory misconduct
3
     and potential spoliation.
4
5          3.       To date, Facebook’s counsel has responded only that they will “get back to” us at
6
     some future indefinite time regarding these requests, and that a meet and confer regarding
7
     ESI-retention is “premature.” I believe Paragraphs 3-5 of Facebook counsel’s declaration are
8
9    inaccurate in omitting these material facts. See Dkt. #24-1 at ¶¶3-5. Accordingly, plaintiff
10
     withdraws its consent to the Stipulations filed yesterday [Dkts. ##23, 2], while requesting that
11
     the Court adopt the same briefing schedule in a sua sponte order. Additionally, plaintiff
12
13   requests an Order requiring that opposing lead counsel meet and confer concerning ESI-
14
     retention protocols, and the application or non-application of amended Section 3.2 of
15
     Facebook’s Terms to plaintiff within five-days of issuance of the Order.
16
17
18
           B. Substituted Electronic Service on Defendant Zuckerberg
19
           4.       On information and belief, on or about August 19, 2020, plaintiff attempted
20
21   service on defendant Zuckerberg by leaving a copy of the Summons and Complaint and
22
     related documents with security personnel at Facebook’s corporate headquarters within this
23
     district. Zuckerberg’s counsel has reserved the right to challenge defects in this service. [Dkt.
24
25   #23 at 1 n.1; Dkt. #24 at 1 n.1.] Zuckerberg’s counsel refused to accept substituted electronic
26
     service, even of this Court’s assignment and case management orders, writing vaguely that he
27
     would “get back to us.”
28


                                                      3               ROGER TEICH DECLARATION RE:
                                                                         RULE 4(f)(3) and 16(c)(2) ORDERS
                                                            CHD v. Facebook et al.; Case No. 3:20-cv-05787-SK
                Case 3:20-cv-05787-SI Document 28-1 Filed 09/10/20 Page 4 of 5




1          5.       I previously received an estimate from a San Franciso-based private investigator
2
     that effecting personal service on Zuckerberg himself would likely cost tens of thousands of
3
     dollars because, inter alia, “he owns numerous, well-fortified compounds and islands around
4
5    the US/world and is cautious to the point that some would call him ‘paranoid.’ He likely has a
6
     large security detail surrounding him at all times. Serving him personally will require
7
     surveillance with multiple operatives on multiple fronts and state lines and will likely cost
8
9    tens of thousands of dollars, if not more”
10
11
           C. Substituted Electronic Service on Defendant Science Feedback
12
13         6.       Plaintiff’s foreign process agent has identified defendant Science Feedback’s
14
     current address as 16 rue Furtado Heine, 75014 Paris, France, and Emmanuel Vincent as its
15
     Founder and Director. On information and belief, neither the organization nor its director
16
17   maintains a publicly-available email address, and plaintiff’s foreign process agent cannot
18
     establish without surveillance whether anyone is physically present at that address to accept
19
     the documents. Facebook counsel have not agreed to accept electronic substituted service on
20
21   Science Feedback of the English and French-translated Summons and Complaint and related
22
     documents. Indeed, Facebook’s counsel purported not to know who or what Science Feedback
23
     is, notwithstanding its contractual privity with Facebook, and its coordinated role in the
24
25   actions and events which give rise to the case. In subsequent emails, Facebook’s counsel has
26
     not addressed the issue or revised its position.
27
28


                                                        4             ROGER TEICH DECLARATION RE:
                                                                         RULE 4(f)(3) and 16(c)(2) ORDERS
                                                            CHD v. Facebook et al.; Case No. 3:20-cv-05787-SK
              Case 3:20-cv-05787-SI Document 28-1 Filed 09/10/20 Page 5 of 5




1          I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the United States that the foregoing
2
     is true and correct to the best of my knowledge and that this declaration was executed in
3
     Elk, California on September 10, 2020.
4
5
6
7                                                       ROGER I. TEICH
8
                                                        Counsel for Plaintiff
9                                                       Children’s Health Defense
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28


                                                    5                 ROGER TEICH DECLARATION RE:
                                                                         RULE 4(f)(3) and 16(c)(2) ORDERS
                                                            CHD v. Facebook et al.; Case No. 3:20-cv-05787-SK


File and source

File
gov.uscourts.cand.364478.28.1.pdf
Size
176,752 bytes
SHA-256
dc2e570be15dbb9f9da5c25527ec3e3abb3f2c1d59cd64979c876f86719eaa72
Our copy
gov.uscourts.cand.364478.28.1.pdf
Original
archive.org
Back to top