LegalZoom.com Inc v. Rocket Lawyer Incorporated

Filing 100

REPLY MOTION for Partial Summary Judgment 69 (Redacted) filed by Plaintiff LegalZoom.com Inc. (Attachments: # 1 Evidentiary Objections to Rocket Lawyer's Opposition to LegalZoom's Motion for Partial Summary Judgment (Redacted))(Heather, Fred)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

PATRICIA L. GLASER - State Bar No. 55668
[e-mail]
FRED D. HEATHER - State Bar No. 110650
[e-mail]
AARON P. ALLAN - State Bar No. 144406
[e-mail]
GLASER WEIL FINK HOWARD
AVCHEN & SHAPIRO LLP
10250 Constellation Boulevard, 19th Floor
Los Angeles, California 90067
Telephone: [phone]
Facsimile: [phone]
Attorneys for Plaintiff
LegalZoom.com, Inc.

9

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

10

CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

11

WESTERN DIVISION

12
13

LEGALZOOM.COM, INC., a Delaware
corporation,
Plaintiff,

14
15
16
17
18
19

v.
ROCKET LAWYER INCORPORATED,
a Delaware corporation,
Defendant.

CASE NO.: CV 12-9942-GAF (AGRx)
Hon. Gary A. Feess
Courtroom: 740
EVIDENTIARY OBJECTIONS TO
ROCKET LAWYER’S
OPPOSITION TO LEGALZOOM’S
MOTION FOR PARTIAL
SUMMARY JUDGMENT
Date:
August 18, 2014
Time:
9:30 a.m.
Courtroom: 740

20
21

Complaint Filed: November 20, 2012

22
23
24
25
26
27
28
1
LEGALZOOM INC.’S EVIDENTIARY OBJECTIONS
903622

Pursuant to the Court’s current standing Scheduling Order, Plaintiff

1
2

LegalZoom.com, Inc. (“LegalZoom”) hereby submits its Evidentiary Objections to

3

Rocket Lawyer Incorporated’s (“Rocket Lawyer”) alleged “Statement of Genuine

4

Issues in Support of Opposition to LegalZoom.com Inc.’s Motion for Partial

5

Summary Judgment”:
Rocket Lawyer’s Additional Undisputed Facts (“AUF”) Paragraph 45:

6
7

Objection to Paragraph 20, Exhibit 19 of the Declaration of Hong-An Vu (“Vu

8

Declaration”) on grounds that: (1) Exhibit 19 lacks foundation because it is not

9

accompanied by the testimony of a witness who has personal knowledge thereof and

10

can establish its meaning and/or authenticity (Fed. R. Evid. 602)1; (2) Exhibit 19 is

11

speculative and irrelevant because it has no content showing that the statement “
,” relates to the matter in dispute, namely

12
13

the statement does not specify LegalZoom reviews or any action with respect to

14

Legalspring.com (Fed. R. Evid. 401, 402; Munoz v. PHH Corp., 2013 WL 684388, *3

15

(E.D. Cal. Feb. 22, 2013) (“If the inference to be drawn from the evidence is the

16

result of speculation or conjecture, the underlying evidence is not relevant.”)); and (3)

17

Exhibit 19 is misleading to the extent it implies that LegalZoom employees

18

manipulated LegalZoom reviews on Legalspring.com (Fed. R. Evid. 403).
AUF Paragraph 48: Objection to Paragraphs 10, 33-34, Exhibits 9, 32-33 of the

19
20

Vu Declaration on the grounds that: (1) Exhibits 9, 32-33 lack foundation because

21

they are not accompanied by the testimony of a witness who has personal knowledge

22
23
24
25
26
27
28

1

Hong-An Vu is counsel of record for Rocket Lawyer. (Vu Decl., ¶1.) As the Court
recognized in its standing Scheduling Order, “The Court will accept counsel’s
authentication of deposition transcripts, of written discovery responses, and of the
receipt of documents in discovery if the fact that the document was in the opponent’s
possession is of independent significance. Documentary evidence as to which there is
no stipulation regarding foundation must be accompanied by the testimony, either by
declaration or properly authenticated deposition transcript, of a witness who can
establish its authenticity.” Scheduling Order, II.C.2 (emphasis in original). Rocket
Lawyer has failed entirely to satisfy this requirement as to the evidence upon which it
relies. This statement applies to all objections made herein on grounds of lack of
foundation.
2
LEGALZOOM INC.’S EVIDENTIARY OBJECTIONS

903622

1

thereof and can establish their meaning and/or authenticity (Fed. R. Evid. 602); (2)

2

Exhibits 9, 32-33 contain inadmissible hearsay, not subject to any exception (Fed. R.

3

Evid. 801-804) – a consumer’s indication on a website of the helpfulness of a review

4

is an out-of-court statement by a third party that Rocket Lawyer attempts to offer for

5

the truth of the matter asserted.

6

AUF Paragraph 49: Objection to Paragraphs 10, 33-34, Exhibits 9, 32-33 of the

7

Vu Declaration on the grounds that: (1) Exhibits 9, 32-33 lack foundation because

8

they are not accompanied by the testimony of a witness who has personal knowledge

9

thereof and can establish their meaning and/or authenticity (Fed. R. Evid. 602); (2)

10

Exhibits 9, 32-33 contain inadmissible hearsay, not subject to any exception (Fed. R.

11

Evid. 801-804) – a consumer’s indication on a website of the helpfulness of a review

12

is an out-of-court statement by a third party that Rocket Lawyer attempts to offer for

13

the truth of the matter asserted.

14

AUF Paragraph 52: Objection to Paragraphs 16-18, Exhibits 15-17 of the Vu

15

Declaration on the grounds that: (1) Exhibits 15-17 lack foundation because they are

16

not accompanied by the testimony of a witness who has personal knowledge thereof

17

and can establish their meaning and/or authenticity (Fed. R. Evid. 602); (2) Exhibits

18

15-17 do not support the stated fact in AUF 52 (“LegalZoom worked with Giggy to

19

transfer operation of LegalSpring.com to LegalZoom”) because Exhibits 15-17 do not

20

contain any fact indicating that operation of Legalspring.com was transferred to

21

LegalZoom – the emails only indicate that

22
23

in order to do so (Fed. R. Civ. Proc.

24

56(c)(2)); (3) Exhibits 15-17 are misleading to the extent they imply that LegalZoom

25

operated LegalSpring.com, when there is no evidence indicating LegalZoom did so

26

(Fed. R. Evid. 403); and (4) Exhibits 15-17 are speculative and irrelevant because

27

they do not show that operation of Legalspring.com was transferred to LegalZoom

28

(Fed. R. Evid. 401, 402; Munoz v. PHH Corp., 2013 WL 684388, *3 (E.D. Cal. Feb.
3
LEGALZOOM INC.’S EVIDENTIARY OBJECTIONS

903622

1

22, 2013) (“If the inference to be drawn from the evidence is the result of speculation

2

or conjecture, the underlying evidence is not relevant.”)).

3

AUF Paragraph 53: Objection to Paragraph 17, Exhibit 6 of the Vu Declaration

4

on grounds that: (1) Exhibit 6 lacks foundation because it is not accompanied by the

5

testimony of a witness who has personal knowledge thereof and can establish its

6

meaning and/or authenticity (Fed. R. Evid. 602); (2) Exhibit 6 is speculative and

7

irrelevant because the meaning of the term “

8

there is no

9

2013 WL 684388, *3 (E.D. Cal. Feb. 22, 2013) (“If the inference to be drawn from

” is conjecture, particularly where

in evidence (Fed. R. Evid. 401, 402; Munoz v. PHH Corp.,

10

the evidence is the result of speculation or conjecture, the underlying evidence is not

11

relevant.”)); and (3) Exhibit 6 is misleading to the extent it implies that LegalZoom

12

operated Legalspring.com (Fed. R. Evid. 403).

13

AUF Paragraph 56: Objection to Paragraphs 16-18, Exhibits 15-17 of the Vu

14

Declaration on the grounds that: (1) Exhibits 15-17 lack foundation because they are

15

not accompanied by the testimony of a witness who has personal knowledge thereof

16

and can establish their meaning and/or authenticity (Fed. R. Evid. 602); (2) Exhibits

17

15-17 do not support the stated fact in AUF 56 (“At the time the disclaimer was

18

added, LegalZoom was not merely treating LegalSpring like any affiliate, but instead
”) because Exhibits 15-17 do not

19
20

contain any fact indicating that LegalZoom

21
22
23

in order to do so (Fed. R. Civ. Proc. 56(c)(2)); (3) Exhibits 15-17 are

24

misleading to the extent they imply that LegalZoom operated LegalSpring.com, when

25

there is no evidence indicating LegalZoom did so (Fed. R. Evid. 403); and (4)

26

Exhibits 15-17 are speculative and irrelevant because they do not show that

27

LegalZoom operated Legalspring.com (Fed. R. Evid. 401, 402; Munoz v. PHH Corp.,

28

2013 WL 684388, *3 (E.D. Cal. Feb. 22, 2013) (“If the inference to be drawn from
4
LEGALZOOM INC.’S EVIDENTIARY OBJECTIONS

903622

1

the evidence is the result of speculation or conjecture, the underlying evidence is not

2

relevant.”)).

3

In addition to the foregoing objections, LegalZoom objects to the evidence

4

Rocket Lawyer offers in support of AUF paragraphs 22-24, 26-44, 46-47, 50-51, 55

5

and 61-70, which evidence encompasses Paragraphs 3-10 and 12-34, Exhibits 2-9 and

6

11-33 of the Vu Declaration, on the grounds that Exhibits 2-9 and 11-33 lack

7

foundation because they are not accompanied by the testimony of a witness who has

8

personal knowledge thereof and can establish their meaning and/or authenticity (Fed.

9

R. Evid. 602). Each of these exhibits is something other than a deposition transcript,

10

a written discovery response, or a document where the fact that it was in the

11

opponent’s possession is of independent significance. See fn. 1, supra.

12
13
14

DATED: August 4, 2014

Respectfully submitted,
GLASER WEIL FINK JACOBS
HOWARD AVCHEN & SHAPIRO LLP

15
16
17
18
19

By: /s/ Fred Heather
PATRICIA L. GLASER
FRED D. HEATHER
AARON P. ALLAN
Attorneys for Plaintiff
LegalZoom.com, Inc.

20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
5
LEGALZOOM INC.’S EVIDENTIARY OBJECTIONS
903622

1

PROOF OF SERVICE

2

STATE OF CALIFORNIA, COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES

3

I am employed in the County of Los Angeles, State of California; I am over the
4

age of 18 and not a party to the within action; my business address is 10250
5

Constellation Boulevard, 19th Floor, Los Angeles, California 90067.
6

On August 4, 2014, I electronically filed the following document(s) using the
7

CM/ECF system.
8

EVIDENTIARY OBJECTIONS TO ROCKET LAWYER’S
9

OPPOSITION TO LEGALZOOM’S MOTION FOR PARTIAL
10

SUMMARY JUDGMENT.
11

Participants in the case are registered CM/ECF users and will be served by the
12

CM/ECF system.
13

I declare that I am employed in the office of a member of the bar of this court at
14

whose direction the service was made. I declare under penalty of perjury that the
15

above is true and correct.
16

Executed on August 4, 2014 at Los Angeles, California.
17
18
19

/s/ Fred Heather
Fred Heather

20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
PROOF OF SERVICE
903622