1. HAMIDI is an officer, webmaster and the designated spokesperson for FACE-INTEL.

2. HAMIDI and FACE-INTEL sent electronic mail ("e-mail") to INTEL's proprietary computers on multiple occasions, including:

 
1. December 1996
2. February 17, 1997
3. March 3, 1997
4. April 2, 1997
5. March 5, 1998
6. September 1998

4. Analysis of HAMIDI's September 1998 e-mail indicates that it was directed to approximately 29,000 current employees on the INTEL proprietary computer systems.

5. INTEL specifically requested HAMIDI to stop sending these e-mails and HAMIDI refused to comply.

6. HAMIDI, aware that INTEL attempted to block his e-mails, made efforts to avoid blocking by sending e-mails in the early morning and by using different computers

7. HAMIDI's e-mails are uninvited, adversely affecting employee productivity. Intel employees often contact computer support with questions and request blocking.

8. INTEL's computer support personnel spend significant amounts of time attempting to block and remove HAMIDI's e-mail from the INTEL computer systems.

9. INTEL has specific policies that limit use of the e-mail system to company business. HAMIDI as provided in INTEL's own exhibit. (Springmann Decl. Exh. 2.)

DEFENDANT'S POSITION:

1. Undisputed.

2. Disputed. Hamidi and FACE-INTEl sent electronic mail ("e-mail") to internet addresses of INTEL employees. HAMIDI Decl. at ¶ 6. The electronic mail was sent to a server and was never directly sent to either INTEL computers or INTEL proprietary computers. HAMIDI Decl. at ¶ 6, 8. INTEL's proprietary intranet computers do not access the internet for network communications. HAMIDI Decl. at ¶ 9.

3. Disputed. HAMIDI directed the e-mails to addresses that are only accessible via a server on the internet. HAMIDI had no information that would have permitted him access to INTEL's proprietary computer systems. HAMIDI Decl. at ¶ 6, 8.

4. Disputed. HAMIDI directed the e-mails to addresses that are only accessible via a server on the internet. HAMIDI had no information that would have permitted him access to INTEL's proprietary computer systems. HAMIDI Decl. at ¶ 6, 8.

5. Undisputed.

6. Disputed. This is purespeculation by Jeff Sedayao and Kenneth True. They have no personal knowledge of the assertions in their declarations pertaining to these matters. Sedayao Decl. at ¶ 4. True Decl. at ¶ 3. Objection, the statement of undisputed fact misstates the testimony of HAMIDI as profided in INTEL's own exhibit. (Springmann Decl. Exh.2.)

7 Disputed. HAMIDI's e-mails may have been uninvited by INTEL management, but they were not directed to INTEL management. HAMIDI's e-mails were sent to internet addresses of INTEL employees. Of the approximately 30,000 employees to whom HAMIDI sent e-mails, only 450 requested not to receive further e-mails from HAMIDI. (HAMIDI Decl. at ¶ 8.)

8. Disputed and fully irrelevant. INTEL spends as much or as little time attempting to block the content of HAMIDI's messages sent to INTEL employees, as INTEL management chooses to do. Such  unproductive and repressive behavior on behalf of INTEL is not indicative of any impropriety on the part of HAMIDI. Furthermore, Carlene Ellis in an e-mail discussing blocking, states that only two hours were anticipated to block HAMIDI's e-mail messages. (HAMIDI's Req Prod of Docs. I-008, attached as Exhibit A to HAMIDI Declaration.)

9. Disputed and fully irrelevant. This assertion is completely false. INTEL permits personal use by employees of the internet for the receipt as well as the sending of electronic mail. (True Decl. Exh. 1). INTEL also permits personal use of the internet by employees for a variety of other uses. (True Decl. Exh. 1.)  Furthermore, even if INTEL prohibited personal use of the internet by employees, such a restriction would permit INTEL to direct the behavior of it's employees while using it's computers, it would not permit INTEL to limit the free speech rights of the people of the United States.

DEFENDANT'S ADDITIONAL DISPUTED FACTS RELEVANT TO THIS CASE DEFENDANT'S FACTS:

DF1. HAMIDI sent electronic mails to the internet addresses of INTEL employees.

DF2. HAMIDI sent electronic mails to addresses of INTEL employees via the internet.

DF3. HAMIDI's electronic mails consisted of non-commercial, protected free speech messages.

DF4. HAMIDI encouraged recipients to contact HAMIDI to have themselves removed from the mailing list should they so desire.

DF5. HAMIDI at no time accessed or attempted to access INTEL's proprietary computer system.

DF6. INTEL could have blocked HAMIDI's messages in as short a time as two hours.

DF7. INTEL must connect to the internet in order to receive electronic mail sent over the internet.

DF8. In order to retrieve HAMIDI's messages INTEL would have to voluntarily access the internet.

DF9. INTEL permits personal use by employees of INTEL computer systems.

DF10. Some INTEL employees use the internet for sending and receiving electronic mail.

DF11. Personal use of computer systems permitted by INTEL includes sending and receiving electronic mail.

SUPPORTING EVIDENCE:

DF1. HAMIDI Decl. at ¶ 6.

DF2. HAMIDI Decl. at ¶ 6.

DF3. Sedayao Decl. Exh. 1.

DF4. HAMIDI Decl. at ¶ 7. Sedayao Decl. Exh. 1.

DF5. Carlene Ellis stated that there had been no security breach in INTEL's proprietary computer systems. HAMIDI's Req Prod of Docs. I-009, attached as Exhibit A to HAMIDI Declaration.

DF6. HAMIDI's Req Prod of Docs. I-008, attached as Exhibit A to HAMIDI Declaration.

DF7. HAMIDI's RFA Set No. 2. RFA No. 4, attached as Exhibit K to HAMIDI Declaration.

DF8. HAMIDI's RFA Set No. 2. RFA No. 4, attached as Exhibit K to HAMIDI Declaration.

DF9. True Decl. Exh. 1.

DF10. HAMIDI's RFA Set No. 2. RFA No. 3, attached as Exhibit K to HAMIDI Declaration.

DF11. HAMIDI's RFA Set No. 2. RFA No. 5, attached as Exhibit K to HAMIDI Declaration.