The following is extracted from Plaintiff Facebook, Inc.'s Opposition to Tele-Publishing Inc.'s Motion to Strike in the Facebook, Inc. v. Phoenix Media/Communications Group, Inc. et al. (filed January 18, 2011 with U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts, C.A. No. 1:10-cv-11917-DPW) patent infringement case:
Facebook’s opposition to TPI’s motion to dismiss made clear that the Complaint, on its face, met and exceeded the requirements of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. The factual information provided in Facebook’s opposition, along with the support provided in the declaration included with it, was necessitated by TPI’s allegations in its opening brief. In particular, TPI’s opening brief requested that Facebook be sanctioned, repeatedly stating that “Facebook does not and cannot offer evidentiary support for its claims against TPI.” Such groundless accusations by TPI required Facebook to submit a detailed response demonstrating otherwise, which Facebook has done. There is no justification to deny Facebook the opportunity to defend itself against TPI’s baseless motion and accusations through the extreme measure of striking from the record the very information that TPI demanded. Doing so while allowing TPI to make its own allegations based on self-serving and uncorroborated extraneous information (which is refuted by publicly available facts) would be prejudicial in the extreme. TPI’s motion to strike, for which it can cite no supporting authority, should therefore be denied.
In both its motion to strike and its motion to dismiss seeking sanctions, TPI unsupportedly crowed that “Facebook Does Not And Cannot Offer Evidentiary Support For Its Claims.” (TPI’s Mot. to Strike (Dkt No. 29) at ¶ 3; TPI’s Mot. to Dismiss (Dkt. No. 17) at 5.) Facebook thus had to respond by showing its support, though none is required to be cited in the Complaint itself. Striking Facebook’s defenses against TPI’s baseless Rule 11 sanctions allegations would be extraordinarily prejudicial to Facebook. Denying TPI’s motion to strike, however, presents no prejudice to TPI: The Court is free in its discretion to consider or not consider the materials outside the pleadings to the extent necessary to dispense with TPI’s frivolous claims. TPI’s motion to strike should therefore also be denied on these grounds.
Read the full motion here.