throbber
Case 3:21-cv-09773-JD Document 30-1 Filed 03/14/22 Page 1 of 4
`
`Sarah E. Fowler (SBN CA 264838)
`SFowler@perkinscoie.com
`PERKINS COIE LLP
`3150 Porter Drive
`Palo Alto, California 94304-1212
`Telephone: 650.838.4300
`Facsimile: 650.838.4350
`Gene W. Lee (pro hac vice)
`GLee@perkinscoie.com
`Thomas V. Matthew (pro hac vice)
`TMatthew@perkinscoie.com
`PERKINS COIE LLP
`1155 Avenue of the Americas, 22nd Floor
`New York, New York 10036-2711
`Telephone: 212.262.6900
`Facsimile: 212.977.1649
`Attorneys for Plaintiff Twitter, Inc.
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
`SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION
`
`TWITTER, INC.,
`Plaintiff,
`
`v.
`VOIP-PAL.COM, INC.,
`Defendant.
`
`Case No. 21-CV-09773-JD
`DECLARATION OF GENE LEE IN
`SUPPORT OF STIPULATION TO
`REQUEST EXTENSION OF BRIEFING
`DEADLINES FOR VOIP-PAL’S MOTION
`TO DISMISS
`
`21-CV-09773-JD
`DECLARATION OF GENE LEE IN SUPPORT OF
`TWITTER’S OPPOSITION TO VOIP-PAL’S MOTION TO DISMISS
`
`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
`
`

`

`Case 3:21-cv-09773-JD Document 30-1 Filed 03/14/22 Page 2 of 4
`
`I, Gene Lee, declare that:
`1.
`I am an attorney at the law firm Perkins Coie LLP and counsel for Plaintiff Twitter,
`Inc., (“Twitter”) in the above-captioned matter. I am a member in good standing of the bar of New
`York and am admitted to this Court pro hac vice. I am fully familiar with the facts set forth below
`and could testify competently thereto if called upon to do so. I make this declaration pursuant to
`Civ. L. R. 5-1(d)(5) in support of Twitter’s Opposition To VoIP-Pal’s Motion To Dismiss.
`2.
`Pursuant to stipulation and order (ECF Nos. 26, 27), the deadline for filing Twitter’s
`Opposition To VoIP-Pal’s Motion To Dismiss was March 11, 2022.
`3.
`The Court’s ECF system experienced a technical failure on March 11, 2022.
`Counsel for Twitter tried multiple times on March 11, 2022, to file Twitter’s Opposition To VoIP-
`Pal’s Motion To Dismiss, but Twitter was unable to do so solely because of the technical failure of
`the Court’s ECF system.
`4.
`Another counsel for Twitter, a member of our administrative staff, and I tried to gain
`access to the Court’s ECF system many times after 12:00 pm Pacific time on March 11, 2022, but
`we were unable to do so solely because of the technical failure of the ECF system. At about 2:56 pm
`Pacific time, I received an email from the “ECF Helpdesk” stating that the Court’s CM/ECF system
`was experiencing a service disruption and was offline. Among our attempts to gain access to the
`Court’s ECF system, I attempted to file Twitter’s Opposition To VoIP-Pal’s Motion To Dismiss at
`approximately 5:00 pm Pacific time and 8:00 pm Pacific time, but I was unable to do so solely
`because of the technical failure of the ECF system.
`5.
`In view of the technical failure of the Court’s ECF system, I served by email a
`courtesy copy of Twitter’s Opposition To VoIP-Pal’s Motion To Dismiss on counsel for VoIP-Pal
`on March 11, 2022. That copy of Twitter’s Opposition was 24 pages in length, within the 25-page
`limit of Civ. L. R. 7-4(b), but it overlooked this Court’s standing order, which includes a 15-page
`limit for memoranda.
`
`-1-
`
`21-CV-09773-JD
`DECLARATION OF GENE LEE IN SUPPORT OF
`TWITTER’S OPPOSITION TO VOIP-PAL’S MOTION TO DISMISS
`
`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
`
`

`

`Case 3:21-cv-09773-JD Document 30-1 Filed 03/14/22 Page 3 of 4
`
`On Saturday, March 12, 2022, at about 10:31 am Pacific time, I received an email
`6.
`from the “ECF Helpdesk” stating, “As of approximately 8:10 AM Pacific time, all services have
`returned to normal.”
`7.
`On Monday, March 14, 2022, counsel for VoIP-Pal informed counsel for Twitter of
`the non-compliance with this Court’s 15-page limit. Accordingly, Twitter revised its Opposition to
`comply with this Court’s 15-page limit and is filing a revised Opposition on March 14, 2022,
`pursuant to Civ. L. R. 5-1(d)(5) and to account for the 15-page limit under this Court’s standing
`order. In connection with this change, the parties stipulate that VoIP-Pal may file its reply in support
`of its Motion To Dismiss by March 28, 2022, (extended from March 25, 2022) to account for the
`timing of Twitter’s revised Opposition on March 14, 2022.
`I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct. Executed in New
`York, New York on March 14, 2022.
`
`By:
`
`/s/ Gene Lee
`Gene Lee
`
`-2-
`
`21-CV-09773-JD
`TWITTER’S OPPOSITION TO VOIP-PAL’S MOTION TO DISMISS
`
`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
`
`

`

`Case 3:21-cv-09773-JD Document 30-1 Filed 03/14/22 Page 4 of 4
`
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
`
`The undersigned certifies under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of New
`York that, on the date given below, he caused to be served a copy of DECLARATION OF
`GENE LEE IN SUPPORT OF TWITTER’S OPPOSITION TO VOIP-PAL’S MOTION
`TO DISMISS upon the following person(s) pursuant to Civ. L. R. 5-1(g) by electronic filing of
`this document via the ECF system:
`
`Lewis E. Hudnell, III
`lewis@hudnelllaw.com
`Nicolas S. Gikkas
`nick@hudnelllaw.com
`HUDNELL LAW GROUP P.C.
`800 W. El Camino Real Suite 180
`Mountain View, California 94040
`Telephone: 650.564.3698
`Facsimile: 347.772.3034
`
`Attorneys for Defendant
`VOIP-PAL.COM, INC.
`
`DATED this 14th of March, 2022, at New York, New York.
`
`/s/ Gene W. Lee
`Gene W. Lee
`
`21-CV-09773-JD
`DECLARATION OF GENE LEE IN SUPPORT OF
`TWITTER’S OPPOSITION TO VOIP-PAL’S MOTION TO DISMISS
`
`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
`
`

This document is available on Docket Alarm but you must sign up to view it.


Or .

Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.

After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.

Accept $ Charge
throbber

Still Working On It

This document is taking longer than usual to download. This can happen if we need to contact the court directly to obtain the document and their servers are running slowly.

Give it another minute or two to complete, and then try the refresh button.

throbber

A few More Minutes ... Still Working

It can take up to 5 minutes for us to download a document if the court servers are running slowly.

Thank you for your continued patience.

This document could not be displayed.

We could not find this document within its docket. Please go back to the docket page and check the link. If that does not work, go back to the docket and refresh it to pull the newest information.

Your account does not support viewing this document.

You need a Paid Account to view this document. Click here to change your account type.

Your account does not support viewing this document.

Set your membership status to view this document.

With a Docket Alarm membership, you'll get a whole lot more, including:

  • Up-to-date information for this case.
  • Email alerts whenever there is an update.
  • Full text search for other cases.
  • Get email alerts whenever a new case matches your search.

Become a Member

One Moment Please

The filing “” is large (MB) and is being downloaded.

Please refresh this page in a few minutes to see if the filing has been downloaded. The filing will also be emailed to you when the download completes.

Your document is on its way!

If you do not receive the document in five minutes, contact support at support@docketalarm.com.

Sealed Document

We are unable to display this document, it may be under a court ordered seal.

If you have proper credentials to access the file, you may proceed directly to the court's system using your government issued username and password.


Access Government Site

We are redirecting you
to a mobile optimized page.





Document Unreadable or Corrupt

Refresh this Document
Go to the Docket

We are unable to display this document.

Refresh this Document
Go to the Docket