Beruflich Dokumente
Kultur Dokumente
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
10
11
12
FACEBOOK, INC.,
Plaintiff,
13
14
15
v.
MARTIN GRUNIN,
Defendant.
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
In its January 8 Order granting Facebooks motion for default judgment, Dkt. No. 76
(Order), the Court warned Grunin that his opposition to Facebooks damages submission must
set forth a specific counteranalysis, appending all of his counter-proof in a sworn declaration.
Id. Grunins Response to Brief in Support of Damages, Dkt. No. 82 (Response) does not
comply with the Courts order.
Grunins challenge to Facebooks 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,
Grunins submission attaches no declaration or other evidence to support his position.
27
28
-1LEGAL124897551.2
Accordingly, Grunin has not effectively challenged Facebooks request for compensatory
damages.
Grunin has also failed to effectively challenge Facebooks request for punitive damages.
3
4
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 Facebooks 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
10
Complaint against him, he thumbed his nose at both Facebook and the judicial system by
11
lard[ing] the record with a hodgepodge of documents that evaded the claims against him (id. at
12
1) showing an utter lack of remorse. Moreover, Grunins recent public statements contradict his
13
claim that this lawsuit has hampered his lifestyle or compromised his personal relationships. On
14
November 21. 2014, Grunin posted a message on Reddit.com detailing the demise of his
15
16
17
relationship failed and the claims by Facebook are not among them. The difference between
18
Grunins public statements and statements to the court are further evidence that Grunin continues
19
to ignore the seriousness of his actions. Significant punitive damages are appropriate here.
Grunin also argues that Facebooks request for attorneys fees should be denied, claiming
20
21
that this case is a run-of-the-mill default. Reply at 4. As the Court has already acknowledged,
22
this case has not been typical. Order at 12 (summarizing Grunins numerous strange and
23
inappropriate filings). Grunins actions required much more work on the part of Facebooks legal
24
team than would be the case in the typical default. The representation by a non-lawyer, the
25
repeated bogus filings, and the motion to set aside default all compounded the work required to
26
prosecute the case. Accordingly, Grunin has not effectively challenged Facebooks request for
27
fees.
28
-2LEGAL124897551.2
Because Grunin has failed to provide any evidence or counteranalysis that properly
disputes Facebooks damages, the court should give it no weight in determining the appropriate
4
5
By:
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
-3LEGAL124897551.2