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-
J OINT CASE MANAGEMENT
STATEMENT AND PROPOSED ORDER
(Case No. 14-cv-02323)
LEGAL123597879.5
J udith B. J ennison, Bar No. 165929
J J ennison@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.

Andrew B. Gordon, (pro hac vice)
GORDON LAW GROUP, LTD.
1 1st Bank Plz, Suite 302
Lake Zurich, IL 60047
Telephone: (847) 580-1279
Facsimile: (847) 305-1202
abg@gordonlawltd.com

Seth Weinstein, Bar No. 279625
LAW OFFICES OF SETH WEINSTEIN
15260 Ventura Blvd. Suite 1200
Sherman Oaks, CA 91403
Telephone: (310) 707-7131
Facsimile: (818) 475-1945
sweinsteinlaw@gmail.com

Attorneys for Defendant
MARTIN GRUNIN

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION
FACEBOOK, INC.,
Plaintiff,
v.
MARTIN GRUNIN,
Defendant.
Case No. 2014-CV-02323
JOINT CASE MANAGEMENT
STATEMENT AND PROPOSED ORDER

Case3:14-cv-02323-WHA Document62 Filed10/23/14 Page1 of 10
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-
J OINT CASE MANAGEMENT
STATEMENT AND PROPOSED ORDER
(Case No. 14-cv-02323)
LEGAL123597879.5
Plaintiff Facebook, Inc. and Defendant Martin Grunin hereby submit this J OINT CASE
MANAGEMENT STATEMENT AND PROPOSED ORDER pursuant to the Standing Order for
All J udges of the Northern District of California dated J uly 1, 2011, and Civil Local Rule 16-9.
1. Jurisdiction and Service
This is an action under 28 U.S.C. 1331 because Facebook alleges that Grunin violated
the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act, 18 U.S.C. 1030. The Court has supplemental jurisdiction
over Facebooks state law claims under 28 U.S.C. 1367. In addition or alternatively, the Court
has subject matter jurisdiction over this action under 28 U.S.C. 1332(a) because there is
diversity of citizenship between the parties, and the matter in controversy exceeds the sum or
value of $75,000, exclusive of interests or costs. Facebook personally served Grunin with the
Complaint and Summons on May 22, 2014, in accordance with Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(e)(2)(A).
Grunin does not dispute jurisdiction or service.
2. Facts
A. Plaintiffs Description Of The Case
Facebook alleges that Grunin is a serial abuser of Facebooks platform and services who
has repeatedly and willfully violated Facebooks terms of service, abused and violated his
Facebook privileges for his own profit, and defrauded Facebook. Facebooks Complaint alleges
that Grunin, among other things:
Placed pornographic advertisements on Facebook in violation of Facebooks terms
of service;
Created more than 70 bogus user accounts to access Facebook's site and services
despite being banned from Facebook as a result of his violation of Facebooks
terms;
Sold access to Facebook advertising accounts without authorization;
Tricked Facebook users into participating in deceptive interactive advertising
schemes that lured them to commercial websites that paid Grunin commissions for
the referrals and/or traffic; and
Case3:14-cv-02323-WHA Document62 Filed10/23/14 Page2 of 10
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-
J OINT CASE MANAGEMENT
STATEMENT AND PROPOSED ORDER
(Case No. 14-cv-02323)
LEGAL123597879.5
Defrauded Facebook by taking over the advertising accounts of other legitimate
Facebook users, and then posing as those legitimate users to convince Facebook
representatives to increase the advertising limits on those advertising accounts so
that he could run his own ads on the other Facebook users' accounts without ever
paying for the advertising.
After this suit was filed and served, Grunin denied this Courts authority and engaged in a
course of conduct designed to frustrate Facebooks enforcement efforts and impede the legal
process. Among other things he:
Hired Brian Robert Costello, a non-lawyer who openly advertises that he
represents clients by rejecting the existence of authoritiessuch as courtsthat
seek to impose power over them;
Continued to engage Costello even after Facebook filed its Motion for an Order
Prohibiting Brian Robert Costello from Appearing on Behalf of Defendant and to
Strike Grunins filings to date (Motion to Strike) (Dkt. 18.), which explicitly put
Grunin on notice that Costellos behavior was not only inappropriate, but in
violation of the law;
Signed a document entitled Notice of Offer to Settle, demanding $500,000 from
Facebook for failure to accept the offer and demanding a penalty of $500,000
against the Court for issuing any orders or judgments, or otherwise interfering with
the dispute (Dkts. 23, 27); and
Signed an affidavit in which he states, among other things, that the U.S. District
Court does not exist, he is not a citizen of the United States, he is not subject to
federal law, and this case does not exist (Dkt. 35).
Facebook filed a Motion on J une 14 for an Order Prohibiting Brian Robert Costello from
Appearing on Behalf of Defendant and To Strike Dockets 8, 10, and 17 (dkt. 18). J udge Breyer
issued an Order to Show Cause on J uly 9 why that motion should not be granted. Grunin did not
respond, but instead filed a number of documents before the show cause deadline, including a
Case3:14-cv-02323-WHA Document62 Filed10/23/14 Page3 of 10
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


-4-
J OINT CASE MANAGEMENT
STATEMENT AND PROPOSED ORDER
(Case No. 14-cv-02323)
LEGAL123597879.5
Notice of Offer to Settle, that, among other things, stated that the Court would be fined
$500,000 for issuing rulings adverse to Grunin or otherwise intervening in this case (dkt. 27); a
Legal Notice, which claimed that Facebooks Motion to Strike has no validity or legal effect
and that Costello is a Public Minister of the united states [sic] of America (dkt. 30); and a
Notice of Default in Dishonor Consent to J udgment, which claimed that Facebook was in
default for failing to honor Grunins/Costellos Settlement Offer (dkt. 31). J udge Breyer
granted Facebooks Motion to Strike on J uly 21, 2014 (dkt. 33). Grunins default was entered on
J une 23, 2014 (dkt. 22). Grunin retained legitimate legal counsel in August and they appeared on
Grunins behalf on August 15.
B. Grunins Description of the Case
Grunin contends Facebook has no legal or factual basis for bringing this lawsuit.
Facebook has alleged a Breach of Contract claim, along with three claims of Fraud against
Grunin. (Dkt. 1 at 10(3), 10(19), 11(14), 12(6)). Essential to each individual cause of action
raised in its Complaint, Facebook must demonstrate that it was in fact Grunin who committed the
acts alleged in the Complaint. In the Complaint Facebook relies on the proposition that 1) Grunin
actually controlled the original Martin Grunin Facebook account and therefore consented to its
terms of service. (Dkt. 1 at 12 and 19) and 2) that Grunin himself impersonated various
individuals in order to gain access to Facebook advertising space (Dkt. 1 at 31- 48).
What Facebook does not allege, however, is that it ever tried to verify Martin Grunins
identity. Facebook never once alleges that anyone from its company ever met Grunin face to
face. Facebook never even alleges that anyone ever spoke with an individual representing
himself as Grunin over the phone. All of Facebooks claims rely on the notion that Grunin, the
individual they have sued, has wronged them in some way; however Facebook has failed to
prove, or even allege, that Grunin is in fact the Martin Grunin with a Facebook account they
seek.
Case3:14-cv-02323-WHA Document62 Filed10/23/14 Page4 of 10
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


-5-
J OINT CASE MANAGEMENT
STATEMENT AND PROPOSED ORDER
(Case No. 14-cv-02323)
LEGAL123597879.5
Given the exclusively online nature of Facebooks claims, linking Grunins identity with
the alleged unauthorized access is an evidentiary task requiring complex Internet sourcing
methods. Absent such evidence, Facebooks claims make an unfounded logical leap and
arbitrarily impute liability without proof of proximate causation. Grunins defense as to
Facebooks failure to verify his identify and associate him with each of the alleged instances of
unauthorized access underscores his position that he is in no way liable to Plaintiff.
Further, Grunin rejects Plaintiffs characterization of his actions after the Complaint was
filed and served. As articulated in Grunins Motion to Set Aside Entry of Default (Dk. 44),
Plaintiff filed a lawsuit against Grunin on May 20, 2014 (Dkt. 1). On May 27, 2014 Grunin
retained the services of Brian Robert Costello. At the time of retention, Grunin was under the
belief that Mr. Costello had the requisite authority to represent his interests before this Court. On
May 29, 2014 Mr. Costello filed a NOTICE RE Special Limited Power of Attorney (Dkt. 8,
Stricken) with what appeared to Grunin to contain legal allegations and defenses to Facebooks
lawsuit. Grunin is a 22 year old with no legal education or training; he mistakenly concluded that
Mr. Costello had both filed an Appearance on his behalf and had timely responded to the
requirements of filing answering or pleading to the Complaint. Throughout the entirety of the
litigation process, Grunin believed he was adequately represented by counsel. Having no legal
background, Grunin did not understand the notion of a default entry on J une 23, 2014 (Dkt. 22).
As such, Grunin continued to believe that Mr. Costello was his legal representative. It was not
until Grunin received the Order Granting Plaintiff Facebooks Motion for an Order Prohibiting
Brian Robert Costello From Appearing on Behalf of Defendant and to Strike Dockets 8,10 and 17
(Dkt. 33) that he realized he was not adequately represented. At that time, Grunin immediately
started his search to find new representation. Grunin retained Andrew Gordon on August 4,
2014, less than two weeks after he learned he needed new counsel. Mr. Gordon then engaged the
services of local California attorney Seth Weinstein.
Since the time Grunin retained Gordon and Weinstein, all filing deadlines have been
strictly adhered to and all documents filed have adhered to the Federal and Local Rules of the
Case3:14-cv-02323-WHA Document62 Filed10/23/14 Page5 of 10
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


-6-
J OINT CASE MANAGEMENT
STATEMENT AND PROPOSED ORDER
(Case No. 14-cv-02323)
LEGAL123597879.5
United States District Court, Northern District of California. Grunin believes he has sufficiently
represented to the Court that the Default he currently finds himself in should be set aside and that
the case should be tried on its merits.

C. The Principal Factual Issues Which The Parties Dispute
The Clerk of the Court entered Grunins default due to his failure to respond to the
Complaint. Grunin has filed a Motion to Set Aside Default, recently re-noticed for October 30,
2014. Since the case is in default as of this filing, the factual allegations in the complaint are
taken as true and are therefore undisputed.
3. Legal Issues
Facebook seeks damages and injunctive relief against Grunin for the following claims:
a) Breach of contract;
b) Violation of the federal Computer Fraud And Abuse Act, 18 U.S.C.
1030;
c) Violation of the California Computer Data Access and Fraud Act, CAL.
PEN. CODE 502(c); and
d) Fraud.
4. Motions
Grunin has moved to Set Aside his Default. This Motion has been fully briefed and is
currently noticed for October 30, 2014.
5. Amendment of Pleadings
The parties do not anticipate any amendment of the pleadings at this time.
6. Evidence Preservation
The parties have reviewed the Guidelines Relating to the Discovery of Electronically
Stored Information (ESI Guidelines), and have taken proportionate steps to preserve evidence
relevant to the issues reasonably evident in this action.
7. Disclosures
Because Grunin is in Default, the parties have not exchanged initial disclosures.
Case3:14-cv-02323-WHA Document62 Filed10/23/14 Page6 of 10
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


-7-
J OINT CASE MANAGEMENT
STATEMENT AND PROPOSED ORDER
(Case No. 14-cv-02323)
LEGAL123597879.5
8. Discovery
Because Grunin is in Default, no discovery has been taken in this matter. If Grunins
Motion to Set Aside Default is granted, Facebook anticipates taking the deposition of Martin
Grunin and any third parties it learns may have discoverable information through the course
discovery. Facebook also expects to serve document requests, interrogatories and requests for
admission on Grunin and subpoenas on third parties that may have discoverable information.
Grunin anticipates taking the deposition of Facebook and any third parties he learns may
have discoverable information through the course of discovery. Grunin also expects to serve
documents requests, interrogatories, and requests for admission on Facebook and subpoenas on
third parties that may have discoverable information.
9. Class Actions
This case is not a class action.
10. Related Cases
There are no related cases pending in this District or elsewhere.
11. Relief
Plaintiff seeks compensatory damages in the amount of at least $340,000.00 and economic
damages in a sum as yet to be determined, punitive damages in the amount of at least $2 million,
and costs and fees as yet to be determined.
12. Settlement and ADR
As required by ADR L.R. 3-5, the parties have discussed the available ADR options. If
Grunins Motion to Set Aside Default is granted, the parties are willing to participate in Early
Neutral Evaluation if private settlement negotiations are unsuccessful.
13. Consent to Magistrate Judge For All Purposes
The parties do not consent to a U.S. Magistrate J udge for all purposes.
Case3:14-cv-02323-WHA Document62 Filed10/23/14 Page7 of 10
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


-8-
J OINT CASE MANAGEMENT
STATEMENT AND PROPOSED ORDER
(Case No. 14-cv-02323)
LEGAL123597879.5
14. Other References
This case is not suitable for other references.
15. Narrowing of Issues
If Grunins Motion to Set Aside is granted, the parties anticipate no narrowing of the
issues.
16. Expedited Trial Procedure
This case is not suitable for expedited trial procedures.
17. Scheduling
If the Court denies Grunins Motion to Set Aside Default, Facebook is prepared to
promptly file a Motion for Default J udgment. If the Court grants Grunin's Motion to Set Aside
Default, Grunin will be required to file an Answer or otherwise respond to the Complaint. The
parties have also committed to meet and confer again to discuss discovery and trial scheduling,
and to submit a jointly-proposed case scheduling order.
18. Trial
If Grunins Motion to Set Aside Default is granted and this case were to go to trial, the
parties anticipate that a trial of all issues presently in the case would take approximately 68 days.
19. Disclosure of Non-parties Interested Entity or Persons
Facebook filed a certificate of interested entities pursuant to Civil Local Rule 3-15.
Case3:14-cv-02323-WHA Document62 Filed10/23/14 Page8 of 10
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


-9-
J OINT CASE MANAGEMENT
STATEMENT AND PROPOSED ORDER
(Case No. 14-cv-02323)
LEGAL123597879.5
20. Other
If Grunins Motion to Set Aside Default is granted, the parties have agreed to electronic
e-mail service of all discovery requests and responses to discovery requests pursuant to Fed. R.
Civ. P. 5.

DATED: October 23, 2014





DATED: October 23, 2014

PERKINS COIE LLP
By: /s/ J udith B. J ennison
J udith B. J ennison, Bar No. 165929
J J ennison@perkinscoie.com
Attorneys for Plaintiff
FACEBOOK, INC.

GORDON LAW GROUP LTD
By: /s/ Andrew B. Gordon
Andrew B. Gordon (pro hac vice)
abg@gordonlawltd.com

Seth Weinstein, Bar No. 279625
Sweinsteinlaw@gmail.com
Attorneys for Plaintiff
FACEBOOK, INC.



I, J udith B. J ennison, am the ECF User whose ID and password are being used to file this
J oint Case Management Statement and Proposed Order. In compliance with N.D. Cal. General
Order No. 45, I hereby attest that Andrew B. Gordon has concurred in this filing.

/s/ J udith B. J ennison
J udith B. J ennison (State Bar No. 165929)
J J ennison@perkinscoie.com

Case3:14-cv-02323-WHA Document62 Filed10/23/14 Page9 of 10
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


-10-
J OINT CASE MANAGEMENT
STATEMENT AND PROPOSED ORDER
(Case No. 14-cv-02323)
LEGAL123597879.5
CASE MANAGEMENT ORDER
The above J OINT CASE MANAGEMENT STATEMENT is approved as the Case
Management Order for this case and all parties shall comply with its provisions.





IT IS SO ORDERED.


Dated: ___________________ ________________________________________
Honorable William H. Alsup
District Court J udge

Case3:14-cv-02323-WHA Document62 Filed10/23/14 Page10 of 10