LegalZoom.com Inc v. Rocket Lawyer Incorporated

Filing 130

DECLARATION of Michael Jones re Objection/Opposition (Motion related) 129 In Support of Rocket Lawyer's Opposition to LegalZoom's Motion for Rule 11 Sanctions filed by Defendant Rocket Lawyer Incorporated. (Jones, Michael)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15

Forrest A. Hainline III (SBN 64166)
[e-mail]
Hong-An Vu (SBN 266268)
[e-mail]
GOODWIN PROCTER LLP
Three Embarcadero Center
24th Floor
San Francisco, California 94111
Tel.: [phone]
Fax.: [phone]
Michael T. Jones (SBN 290660)
[e-mail]
GOODWIN PROCTER LLP
135 Commonwealth Drive
Menlo Park, California 94025-1105
Tel.: [phone]
Fax.: [phone]
Brian W. Cook (Pro Hac Vice)
[e-mail]
GOODWIN PROCTER LLP
53 State Street
Boston, MA 02109-2802
Tel.: [phone]
Fax.: [phone]
Attorneys for Defendant
ROCKET LAWYER INCORPORATED

16

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26

CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
WESTERN DIVISION
LEGALZOOM.COM, INC., a Delaware Case No. 2:12-cv-09942-GAF-AGR
corporation,
DECLARATION OF MICHAEL
Plaintiff,
JONES IN SUPPORT OF ROCKET
LAWYER’S OPPOSITION TO
v.
LEGALZOOM’S MOTION FOR
RULE 11 SANCTIONS
ROCKET LAWYER
INCORPORATED, a Delaware
Date:
October 27, 2014
corporation,
Time:
9: 30 a.m.
Judge:
Judge Gary A. Feess
Defendant.
Courtroom: 740
255 East Temple Street
Los Angeles, CA 90012
Action Filed: November 20, 2012

27
28

ACTIVE/78437716.1

DECLARATION OF MICHAEL T. JONES

1
2

I, Michael T. Jones, declare as follows:

3

1.

I am a partner at Goodwin Procter LLP, counsel of record for defendant

4

and counterclaimant Rocket Lawyer Incorporated (“Rocket Lawyer”). I submit this

5

declaration in support of Rocket Lawyer’s Motion for Rule 11 Sanctions (the

6

“Motion”). I am over the age of 18 years. Unless otherwise indicated, I have

7

personal knowledge of the matters stated herein and, if called upon to do so, I could

8

and would competently testify to them under oath.

9

2.

Attached hereto as Exhibit 1 is a true and correct copy of notes taken

10

as part of the April 2010 usability study conducted by Dr. Elizabeth Ferguson,

11

Ph.D., beginning Bates Number RLI0039820 and produced to LegalZoom on July

12

11, 2014.

13

3.

Rocket Lawyer has regularly produced documents to LegalZoom every

14

few weeks since March, 2014. These productions slowed while expert discovery

15

was conducted in April, May, and June, but resumed until production was complete

16

on July 18, 2014.

17
18
19
20
21
22
23

4.

In total, Rocket Lawyer has produced over 38,000 documents including

significant data pulls relating to millions of its advertisements.
5.

The Studies attached to the Declaration of Barak Vaughn at ¶¶ 2-4,

Exs. 1-3, were produced to LegalZoom on July 11, 2014.
6.

Attached hereto as Exhibit 2 is a true and correct copy of a letter I sent

to counsel for LegalZoom on September 23, 2014.
7.

On September 24, 2014, I telephonically met and conferred with

24

counsel for LegalZoom regarding their Motion for Rule 11 sanctions. In the course

25

of that conversation, counsel threatened that LegalZoom would file its Motion

26

unless Rocket Lawyer allowed LegalZoom to supplement the summary judgment

27

record with the Studies.

28
-1ACTIVE/78437716.1

1
2
3

8.

Attached hereto as Exhibit 3 is a true and correct copy of a letter I

received from counsel for LegalZoom on September 25, 2014.
9.

On September 25, 2014, I again telephonically met and conferred with

4

counsel for LegalZoom again urged Rocket Lawyer to allow LegalZoom to

5

supplement the summary judgment record without opposition in order to avoid

6

LegalZoom’s Rule 11 Motion. Rocket Lawyer refused to waive its right to oppose

7

an untimely motion to supplement the record to avoid a threat of sanctions.

8
9
10
11

10.

At numerous meet and confer discussions relating to discovery,

counsel for LegalZoom has informed me and my colleagues that they have been
actively reviewing documents for production.
11.

To date, LegalZoom and third party Travis Giggy, who is also

12

represented by Glaser Weil Fink Howard Avchen & Shapiro LLP, have produced

13

just over 3,300 documents.

14

I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California

15

that the foregoing is true and correct. Executed on this 1st day of October, 2014.

16
17

/s/ Michael T. Jones
MICHAEL T. JONES

18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
-2ACTIVE/78437716.1

EXHIBIT 1

[CONFIDENTIAL - LODGED
UNDER SEAL]

EXHIBIT 1

EXHIBIT 2

[CONFIDENTIAL - LODGED
UNDER SEAL]

EXHIBIT 2

EXHIBIT 3

EXHIBIT 3

•

aser e~

10250 Constellation Blvd.
19th Floor
Los Angeles, CA 90067
310.553.3000 TEL
310.556.2920 FAX
Aaron P. Allan

September 25, 2014

VIA EMAIL

Direct Dial
310.282.6279
Direct Fax
310.785.3579
Email
[e-mail]

Michael T. Jones
([e-mail])
Goodwin Procter LLP
135 Commonwealth Drive
Menlo Park, CA 94025

Re:

LegalZoom.com,Inc. v. Rocket Lawyer Incorporated — LegalZoom's Rule 11
Motion

Dear Michael,
Your letter sent yesterday afternoon purports to recount a position that we took on behalf of
LegalZoom during a telephonic meeting and conference yesterday morning concerning
LegalZoom's Rule 11 motion which was originally served, but not filed, on September 2, 2014
(the "Rule 11 Motion"). Because your letter is mistaken about LegalZoom's position, I am
writing to correct the record.
Prior to our telephone call, you had expressed Rocket Lawyer's position, in writing, that it did
not view the Rule 11 Motion as having merit because the documents that Rocket Lawyer chose
not to reveal to the Court would not (in your view) have created any triable issue of fact as to
Rocket Lawyer's pending motion for summary judgment. In response to that position, and in an
attempt to meet and confer to avoid filing the Rule 11 Motion, we offered to avoid seeking
sanctions if Rocket Lawyer would essentially agree to place the disputed documents before the
Court. Our reasoning, as we explained during the call, was that if you are so confident that the
disputed documents would not convince the Court that a triable issue precludes Rocket Lawyer's
motion for summary judgment, then let's simply put those documents before the Court and let
the Court decide. We offered to desist from filing the Rule 11 Motion if you would agree to
allow us to put those documents before the Court without objection. You indicated that you
were not inclined to do that. We then suggested that the parties further consider the issue over
night, and we set up another telephone call for tomorrow at 10:00 a.m. to further discuss the
issue.
We are therefore surprised at both the tone and substance of your letter, which purports to
describe a conversation very different from the one which Fred and I participated in with you
X11 MENITAS LAW FIRMS WORLDWIDE

933304.1

EXHIBIT 3 -42-

Michael T. Jones
Goodwin Procter LLP
September 25, 2014
Page 2
yesterday morning. We made no threats, and in fact offered to reconsider the entire topic over
night. Moreover, your citation to Rule 5-100 is somewhat disingenuous given Rocket Lawyer's
previously served motion for sanctions which not only was intended to seek a litigation
advantage, but which in fact resulted in Rocket Lawyer obtaining the litigation advantage of
LegalZoom withdrawing a single ground upon which it had relied in moving for partial summary
judgment.
We are still considering the most appropriate way to proceed, given (a) Rocket Lawyer's attempt
to bury these extremely relevant survey documents within a last minute production of over
15,000 documents made after Rocket Lawyer filed its summary judgment motion,(b)the
subsequent passage of time spent by the parties to mediate, and (c)the additional passage of
twenty-one days after we served the Rule 11 Motion. We still believe that judicial economy and
the interests of the Court and the parties would be best served by simply agreeing to place these
internal Rocket Lawyer survey documents before the Court without objection. But if the only
solution is motion practice, then you are leaving us with no choice. We look forward to further
discussions today.

Sincerely yours,

AARON P. ALLAN
of GLASER WEIL FINK HOWARD AVCHEN & SHAPIRO LLP

APA:cc

933304.1

EXHIBIT 3 -43-