LegalZoom.com Inc v. Rocket Lawyer Incorporated

Filing 137

ROCKET LAWYER INCORPORATED'S REDACTED OPPOSITION re: APPLICATION for Order for Granting Leave to File Documents Under Seal filed by plaintiff LegalZoom.com, Inc. Plaintiff LegalZoom.com, Inc. will and hereby does apply for an order permitting them to file under seal the following: 1) Unredacted Notic 125 filed by Defendant Rocket Lawyer Incorporated. (Attachments: # 1 DECLARATION OF MICHAEL JONES IN SUPPORT OF ROCKET LAWYER'S OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO SUPPLEMENT THE RECORD)(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

CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

18

WESTERN DIVISION

19
20

LEGALZOOM.COM, INC., a Delaware
corporation,

21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

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

Case No. 2:12-cv-09942-GAF-AGR
ROCKET LAWYER
INCORPORATED’S REDACTED
OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFF’S
MOTION TO SUPPLEMENT THE
RECORD
Date:
Time:
Judge:
Courtroom:

October 27, 2014
9:30 AM
Judge Gary A. Feess
740
255 East Temple Street
Los Angeles, CA 90012
Action Filed: November 20, 2012

1

TABLE OF CONTENTS

2

Page

3

I. 

Introduction ..................................................................................................... 1 

4

II. 

Factual & Discovery Background ................................................................... 1 

5

III. 

LegalZoom is Not Entitled to Supplement the Summary Judgment
Record .............................................................................................................. 4 

6

A. 

8
9
10
11

LegalZoom Delayed in Supplementing the Summary
Judgment Record ................................................................................... 4 

B. 

7

LegalZoom’s Discovery Delays Kept Deposition Testimony
Out of the Summary Judgment Record ................................................. 6 

IV. 

The Documents Cannot Create a Dispute of Fact ........................................... 8 

V. 

Conclusion ..................................................................................................... 12 

12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
i

1
2

TABLE OF AUTHORITIES

3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25

Page(s)
CASES

Bonillas v. United Air Lines, Inc.,
C 12-6574 SBA, 2014 WL 4087906 (N.D. Cal. Aug. 19, 2014) ..............................9
Edwards v. Pennsylvania Tpk. Comm’n,
80 F. App’x 261 (3d Cir. 2003) .........................................................................................8
Elliot v. Adknowledge,
C 10-01496 JSM, 2012 WL 892182 (N.D. Cal. Mar 14, 2012) ................................7
In re Google Inc.Gmail Litig.,
13-MD-02430-LHK, 2014 WL 1102660 (N.D. Cal. Mar. 18, 2014) ......................9
Jackson v. Ivens,
CIV.A. 01-559-JJF, 2010 WL 2802279 (D. Del. July 13, 2010) ..............................8
Lassen Municipal Utility Dist. V. Kinross Gold U.S.A. Inc.,
2:11-cv-00255-MCE-CMK, 2013 WL 875974 (E.D. Cal. Mar 7, 2013) ...............5
Mackey v. Pioneer Nat’l Bank,
867 F.2d 520 (9th Cir.1989) ...............................................................................................7
Orr v. Bank of America, NT & SA,
285 F.3d 764 (9th Cir.2002) ...............................................................................................9
Stucky v. Dep’t of Educ.,
337 F. App’x 611 (9th Cir. 2009) .................................................................................6, 7
Workers’ Int’l Ass’n Local Union No. 359 v. Madison Indus., Inc. of Arizona,
84 F.3d 1186 (9th Cir. 1996) ........................................................................................8, 11
OTHER AUTHORITIES

California Rule of Professional Conduct 5-100 ..................................................................5

26

Fed. R. Evid. 802, 805 ...............................................................................................................9

27

Fed. R. Civ. Proc. 11 ......................................................................................................3, 5, 7, 8

28
i

1

I.

INTRODUCTION

2

LegalZoom’s Motion to Supplement the Factual Record (the “Motion”) is

3

untimely and should be denied. The documents LegalZoom seeks to have considered

4

do not add to the record in any material way, and do not create a dispute of fact.

5

Moreover, LegalZoom should not be permitted to benefit from its lack of diligence in

6

discovery and its delay in seeking relief over the last two months. It should also not be

7

allowed to seek relief contrary to its multiple agreements that expressly provided for

8

depositions to occur after a hearing on the parties’ motions for summary judgment.

9

II.

FACTUAL & DISCOVERY BACKGROUND

10

LegalZoom obtained ex parte relief to pursue its Motion by presenting the

11

discovery history and other facts out of context.1 The complete discovery history and

12

the documents with which LegalZoom seeks to supplement the record demonstrate

13

that Rocket Lawyer has pursued discovery while LegalZoom failed to meet its own

14

discovery burden and delayed in seeking additional relief from the Court.
On April 4, 2014, LegalZoom sought ex parte relief from the court’s then

15
16

scheduling order so that it could complete fact and expert discovery. Declaration of

17

Michael T. Jones in Support of Rocket Lawyer’s Opposition to LegalZoom’s Motion

18

to Supplement the Record (“Jones Decl.”) at ¶ 5.2 The Court granted this relief on

19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

1

Rocket Lawyer did not respond before the Court ruled because although LegalZoom
filed its most recent application for ex parte relief on September 29 or 30, 2014, ECF
No. 126, it did not serve Rocket Lawyer with the unredacted Motion on which it is
premised until October 1, and only after Rocket Lawyer requested it. Jones Decl. at ¶
21.
2
Prior to this, LegalZoom had moved for Summary Judgment before any written
discovery responses had been served and before a single document had been
produced. See previously-filed Declaration of Hong-An Vu, ECF No. 52-1, at ¶ 2.
After that motion was denied, Rocket Lawyer continue to move steadily through the
discovery process. After multiple meet and confers, the parties agreed on search
terms for Rocket Lawyer’s documents in January 2014, which adopted the vast
majority of terms proposed by LegalZoom, and continued to negotiate terms for
LegalZoom’s documents. Id. at ¶¶ 2-10. The parties made their first productions on
January 28, 2014, but LegalZoom’s documents did not contain any metadata. Id. at
¶¶ 8, 12-13. Rocket Lawyer made its second production on March 3, 2014, and
LegalZoom finally reproduced its first set of documents with metadata on March 4,
2014. Id. at ¶ 13. By the time the parties moved for summary judgment, Rocket
Lawyer had made 9 productions of over 22,000 documents; by contrast, LegalZoom
had made 4 production of about 1,000 documents total. Jones Decl. ¶ 15.
1

1

April 15, 2014, giving plaintiffs two extra months for discovery. ECF No. 56. In this

2

scheduling order, as requested by LegalZoom, the deadline for a hearing on any

3

motions be August 18, 2014, less than one week after the discovery cut-off of August

4

12, 2014. See id. As such, any briefing on summary judgment would have to be

5

submitted before the discovery cut-off. See ECF No. 26 (“In virtually every case, the

6

Court expects that the moving party will provide more than the minimum

7

twenty−eight (28) day notice for such motions.”).

8

Despite this relief, LegalZoom continued to ignore discovery.

9

 LegalZoom did not produce a single, additional document until June 18,

10

2014 – two months after it sought relief from the scheduling order. Jones

11

Decl. at ¶ 6.

12

 Counsel for LegalZoom did not even discuss fact discovery with Rocket

13

Lawyer again until June 18, 2014, when LegalZoom sent a letter asking for

14

information Rocket Lawyer already produced, demonstrating that

15

LegalZoom had not reviewed the documents produced by Rocket Lawyer

16

and that counsel newly added to the case did not review the discovery

17

responses and correspondence in this case. Id. at ¶ 7.

18

 LegalZoom waited until a month later, July 18, 2014, to even begin

19

discussing depositions of Rocket Lawyer’s fact witnesses. Id. at ¶ 8.

20

 Given how late LegalZoom sought to depose Rocket Lawyer’s witnesses

21

and mutual scheduling difficulties, LegalZoom and Rocket Lawyer entered

22

into a stipulation that allowed depositions to be held after the discovery cut-

23

off, including dates after the August 18, 2014, summary judgment hearing

24

date. See ECF No. 85 (depositions may be taken on or before September 5,

25

2014); Jones Decl. at ¶ 9.

26

 LegalZoom affirmed the agreement that depositions could occur after the

27

summary judgment hearing by entering into another scheduling stipulation

28

providing as much. See ECF No. 104.
2

1
2
3
4
5
6

 LegalZoom further affirmed this agreement at the August 12, 2014, status
conference with the Court. Jones Decl. at ¶ 11.
 LegalZoom never moved to compel production from Rocket Lawyer. Id. at
¶ 12.
 LegalZoom produced a total of just over 2,000 of its own documents in
discovery over the last year. Id. at ¶ 13.

7

 LegalZoom’s last productions were on July 16, 22, and 28, 2014 – with the

8

last production occurring on the same day that Rocket Lawyer was required

9

to oppose LegalZoom’s motion for summary judgment. Id. at ¶ 14.

10

Rocket Lawyer has diligently reviewed and produced documents over the

11

course of discovery. Rocket Lawyer has produced over 38,000 documents in response

12

to LegalZoom’s 89 document requests. Id. at ¶ 4. This included several data pulls of

13

information relating to Rocket Lawyer’s advertisements and their performance. Id.

14

Rocket Lawyer completed its productions on July 18, 2014, four weeks before the

15

August 12, 2014 discovery cut-off. See id. at ¶ 3.

16

The documents LegalZoom now seeks to introduce were produced on July 3

17

and 11, 2014, id. at ¶ 15, over a month before the discovery cut-off and before

18

LegalZoom had to file its opposition to Rocket Lawyer’s motion. LegalZoom

19

demonstrated that it was aware of these documents and their purported significance at

20

least as of September 2, 2014, when it served its Rule 11 Motion. Id. at ¶ 16.

21

And yet, LegalZoom did not seek to supplement the summary judgment record

22

and present these documents to the Court until September 29, 2014. See ECF No.

23

124. Instead, LegalZoom decided to serve a Rule 11 Motion on Rocket Lawyer and

24

wait out the 21-day safe harbor—despite the fact that Rocket Lawyer had responded

25

that it did not believe that the documents changed the record in any material way.

26
27
28
3

1
2
3

III.

LEGALZOOM IS NOT ENTITLED TO SUPPLEMENT THE
SUMMARY JUDGMENT RECORD
LegalZoom’s delay in seeking to supplement the summary judgment record

4

should be fatal to its request. LegalZoom intends to provide the court with two sets of

5

information: (1) additional documents for which it claims insufficient time to review

6

before its opposition was due; and (2) deposition testimony. Neither request is timely,

7

each delay is LegalZoom’s own doing, and the motion should be denied as to both.

8
9

A.

LegalZoom Delayed in Supplementing the Summary Judgment
Record

10

The Court should not allow the LegalZoom to supplement the record with

11

documents it has had in its possession for over two months, including when it filed its

12

opposition to Rocket Lawyer’s motion for summary judgment.

13

The documents LegalZoom now seeks to introduce were produced on July 3,

14

and 11, 2014. Jones Decl. at ¶ 15. LegalZoom failed to use the documents in

15

opposition and failed to seek leave to supplement the summary judgment record

16

despite the passage of two scheduled hearings on the motions for summary judgment.

17

Any complaints that LegalZoom had about the volume of the documents

18

produced are belied by the fact that LegalZoom propounded 89 document requests and

19

resisted the attempts by Rocket Lawyer to narrow the scope of its requests. See id. at

20

¶¶ 4; see also supra note 2; ECF No. 52-1 at ¶¶ 2-13. The attorneys now managing

21

this case were not involved in any of the discovery discussions, which were primarily

22

handled by two other attorneys. Jones Decl. at ¶ 22. Indeed, when newly-added

23

counsel finally reached out to Rocket Lawyer about discovery two months after

24

receiving ex parte relief, counsel demonstrated that they had not reviewed documents

25

already provided by Rocket Lawyer nor the discovery responses and correspondence

26

in the case. Id. at ¶ 7; see also id. at ¶ 22. LegalZoom’s argument regarding Rocket

27

Lawyer’s productions is especially disingenuous considering LegalZoom’s

28

considerable delays in producing discovery, its meager productions totaling just over
4

1

2,000 documents, and because it produced half of its documents in June and July

2

2014, including producing documents on the very day Rocket Lawyer was required to

3

oppose its motion for summary judgment. See id. at ¶¶ 13-14.

4

Lassen Municipal Utility Dist. V. Kinross Gold U.S.A. Inc., 2:11-cv-00255-

5

MCE-CMK, 2013 WL 875974 (E.D. Cal. Mar 7, 2013) cited by LegalZoom does not

6

support granting LegalZoom’s requested relief as the moving party there, unlike

7

LegalZoom, did not have access to the evidence it seeks to introduce until after

8

briefing was completed and was diligent in discovery. Id. at *2. Rocket Lawyer

9

produced the documents LegalZoom seeks to introduce in advance of LegalZoom’s

10

July 21, 2014 filing deadline. LegalZoom failed to exercise diligence in discovery

11

after it received relief from the Court.

12

LegalZoom’s delay is inexplicable and its argument that it did not seek to

13

supplement the summary judgment record during the 21-day Rule 11 safe harbor

14

period is irrelevant. The standards for Rule 11 and seeking leave to supplement the

15

record are entirely separate. LegalZoom’s conflation of the two demonstrates its lack

16

of understanding of the law and its improper use of the Rule 11 mechanisms to obtain

17

a sur-reply. LegalZoom’s misconduct is evidenced by the fact that it threatened

18

Rocket Lawyer with the Rule 11 sanctions motion unless “Rocket Lawyer would

19

simply agree to not oppose a motion to place the subject material before the Court.”

20

Ex Parte App. at 3. This threat violates California Rule of Professional Conduct 5-100

21

which states, “A member shall not threaten to present criminal, administrative, or

22

disciplinary charges to obtain an advantage in a civil dispute.”

23

LegalZoom was dilatory in introducing evidence in its possession for over two

24

months. LegalZoom has acted improperly with respect to these documents. The

25

Court should deny LegalZoom’s motion.

26
27
28
5

1
2

B.

LegalZoom’s Discovery Delays Kept Deposition Testimony Out of
the Summary Judgment Record

3

The Court should also not allow LegalZoom to supplement the summary

4

judgment record with deposition testimony that has always been expected to be taken

5

after the summary judgment hearing. See Stucky v. Dep’t of Educ., 337 F. App’x 611,

6

613 (9th Cir. 2009) (affirming denial of motion to supplement summary judgment

7

record with deposition testimony where movant “presented no evidence indicating that

8

the deposition could not have been taken sooner”);

9

From the outset of this case, the Court’s schedule anticipated that motion

10

practice will close shortly after discovery. ECF No. 26. The original scheduling order

11

set the discovery cut-off on December 19, 2013 with the last day for any motion to be

12

heard on January 6, 2014. Id. As such, under the Scheduling Order and the Local

13

Rules, briefing on any dispositive motion would occur while discovery was still

14

ongoing. See id. at 8. More importantly, the Court encourages early summary

15

judgment motions. See ECF No. 26 at 8 (“Parties need not wait until the motion

16

cutoff to bring motions for summary judgment or partial summary judgment. Early

17

completion of non−expert discovery and filing of motions for summary judgment

18

may eliminate or reduce the need for expensive expert depositions which are

19

normally conducted in the last stages of discovery.”) (emphasis original). In

20

addition, the Court’s Case Management and Scheduling Order states that the

21

discovery cut-off date:

22

IS NOT THE DATE BY WHICH DISCOVERY REQUESTS MUST BE

23

SERVED; IT IS THE DATE BY WHICH ALL DISCOVERY IS TO BE

24

COMPLETED.

25

ECF No. 26 at 2 (emphasis in original). The Court further required that discovery be

26

served with sufficient time such that a discovery motion may be decided and for

27

discovery to be served if the motion is granted before the discovery cut-off. See id.

28
6

1

In April 2014, LegalZoom received the schedule it requested which gave the

2

parties an additional two months for discovery and set the motion cut-off just six days

3

after the discovery cut-off. ECF No. 56. And yet, LegalZoom delayed in discovery.

4

LegalZoom cannot benefit from such delay. LegalZoom waited until just

5

weeks before the discovery cut-off, in the height of vacation season, to discuss

6

depositions. It agreed multiple times to hold depositions after the date scheduled for

7

summary judgment. LegalZoom should not be allowed to delay the hearing and

8

ruling on summary judgment to add deposition testimony it could have obtained

9

earlier. See Stucky, 337 Fed. Appx. 611, 614 (9th Cir. 2009) (district court did not

10

abuse its discretion in denying plaintiff’s motion to supplement the record with

11

deposition testimony because of plaintiff’s lack of diligence in pursuing depositions

12

earlier); Mackey v. Pioneer Nat’l Bank, 867 F.2d 520, 524 (9th Cir.1989) (failure to

13

take advantage of additional month of discovery granted by district court showed lack

14

of diligence).

15

LegalZoom’s case supporting its position regarding deposition testimony is

16

inapposite. In Elliot v. Adknowledge, C 10-01496 JSM, 2012 WL 892182 (N.D. Cal.

17

Mar 14, 2012), the court allowed plaintiff to supplement the record with deposition

18

testimony it could not obtain prior to briefing on summary judgment due to their

19

involvement in another trial. Here, LegalZoom has not articulated any comparable

20

reason for why it noticed depositions so late, especially where it did nothing relating

21

to fact discovery for months after receiving relief from the Court, and the schedule it

22

proposed contemplated that summary judgment briefing would be completed before

23

the close of discovery.3

24

3

25
26
27
28

LegalZoom also should not be allowed to enter deposition testimony while
obstructing Rocket Lawyer’s ability to depose witnesses on topics very similar to
those LegalZoom is pursuing. See Jones Decl. at ¶ 23, Ex. 4. Additionally, even if
true that LegalZoom could not have reviewed the documents before summary
judgment briefing concluded, it knew of them at least when it began drafting its Rule
11 motion; LegalZoom could have moved to supplement the record even if it also
wanted to move forward with the Rule 11 motion. There is nothing mutually
exclusive about the two remedies. Compare ECF No. 94 at 3-6 (Rocket Lawyer’s
summary judgment opposition argument regarding LegalZoom’s control over
Legalspring.com); with ECF No. 116 (LegalZoom’s withdrawal of its argument
7

1

LegalZoom has not demonstrated its diligence in discovery and in seeking the

2

requested relief.4 As such, its Motion should be denied.

3

IV.

4

THE DOCUMENTS CANNOT CREATE A DISPUTE OF FACT
The Court should also deny the Motion because the proffered evidence cannot

5

create a dispute of fact. Courts in similar circumstances have denied a motion to

6

supplement the summary judgment record where the additional evidence will not

7

create a dispute of fact. E.g., Workers’ Int’l Ass’n Local Union No. 359 v. Madison

8

Indus., Inc. of Arizona, 84 F.3d 1186, 1192 (9th Cir. 1996) (holding that the district

9

court did not abuse its discretion in denying motion to supplement the record because

10

the evidence offered was “simply irrelevant to th[e] case”); see also, e.g., Edwards v.

11

Pennsylvania Tpk. Comm’n, 80 F. App’x 261, 265 (3d Cir. 2003) (finding no abuse of

12

discretion where District Court denied motion to supplement with evidence that “was

13

merely corroborative of evidence already on the record and would not have altered the

14

decision of the district court”); Jackson v. Ivens, CIV.A. 01-559-JJF, 2010 WL

15

2802279, at *1 (D. Del. July 13, 2010) (denying motion to supplement “because the

16

proposed supplementary information does not provide any new evidence or create any

17

new questions of material fact that impact ruling on the pending Motion for Summary

18

Judgment”)

19

The documents LegalZoom seeks to add to the summary judgment record

20

cannot create a dispute of fact. As explained more fully in Rocket Lawyer’s

21

Opposition to LegalZoom’s Rule 11 Motion, ECF No. 129, the Court should not

22

consider the proffered documents for the following reasons:

23
24

 Rocket Lawyer has proffered a well-conducted survey, testing the ads at issue
in context as directed by the Court, that demonstrates that there is no significant

25
26
27
28

“based on a lack of authorship or control by LegalZoom of the content at
LegalSpring.com”).
4
While the Court concluded that “[i]t is surely the case that Legal Zoom has gained
no advantage by waiting to supplement the record in connection with the current
motions,” ECF No. 131 at 3, LegalZoom has provided no explanation for that delay.
There is no explanation other than a continued pattern of seeking to hold off this
Court’s action on summary judgment.
8

1

difference between consumers’ perception of Rocket Lawyer’s ads as published

2

and a version of such ads addressing LegalZoom’s concerns. ECF No. 129 at 1-

3

2.

4

 Exhibits L, M, and N of the Vaughn Declaration,

5

, are inadmissible

6

hearsay within hearsay not properly considered on summary judgment. See

7

Fed. R. Evid. 802, 805; Orr v. Bank of America, NT & SA, 285 F.3d 764, 773

8

(9th Cir.2002) (“A trial court can only consider admissible evidence in ruling

9

on a motion for summary judgment.”); see also Bonillas v. United Air Lines,

10

Inc., C 12-6574 SBA, 2014 WL 4087906, at *9 n.12 (N.D. Cal. Aug. 19, 2014)

11

(finding evidence inadmissible at summary judgment in part because it was

12

“hearsay and contain[ed] double hearsay”).

13

 The sample sizes

in Exhibits L-N of the Vaughn

14

Declaration,

15

be relevant about whether a “substantial portion” of consumers have been

16

deceived as required by the Court. See ECF No. 44- at 11 (“In the Ninth

17

Circuit, claims of unfair competition and false advertising under state statutory

18

and common law are ‘substantially congruent’ to claims made under the

19

Lanham Act.”); see also In re Google Inc.Gmail Litig., 13-MD-02430-LHK,

20

2014 WL 1102660, at *10 n.8 (N.D. Cal. Mar. 18, 2014) (denying motion to

21

supplement record on class certification because evidence of individual concern

22

regarding defendant’s product was irrelevant to experience of larger class and

23

thus class certification.).

24
25
26



, are too small to

LegalZoom misrepresents the information contained in the documents.
o The data underlying Exhibit L, which LegalZoom neglects to introduce,
demonstrates that

27

. Jones Decl., ¶ 2, Ex. 1.

28
9

1
2
3
4
5

See id. But

is not the same

thing as being deceived by Rocket Lawyer’s advertisements.
o The portion of Exhibit M that LegalZoom refers to is unreliable as it is
inadmissible triple hearsay. In addition, it demonstrates that

6

, but nowhere suggests that their

7

credit cards were charged during the free trial period. The Court has

8

already found that requiring entry of credit card information does not

9

undermine “free.” See ECF No. 44 (“The fact that a customer will be

10

charged if she fails to cancel her membership after seven days does not

11

negate the fact that the trial period itself is unconditionally free”).

12
13
14

o Likewise, LegalZoom cites two hearsay

to suggest that consumers are confused by the
free trial. See Mot. at 6. But these quotes actually show that

15
16
17

comments

—not
that they are deceived by the free trial.
o Exhibit O, which was produced on July 3, 2014, does not reference what

18

percentage of Rocket Lawyer’s consumers may have been confused by

19

Rocket Lawyer’s free trial or what aspect of the free trial they did not

20

understand. A large percentage for business purposes is not the same as a

21

“substantial portion” for a false advertising claim. Furthermore, as

22

evidenced by the other Exhibits to the Vaughn Declaration, consumers do

23

not like free trials generally, not that they were necessarily deceived.

24

o Exhibit P, discussions with Google about a potential violation of its

25

policies – not any actionable, governing law – that may have occurred in

26

2010, that was ultimately resolved such that Rocket Lawyer could

27
28
10

1

continue advertising “Free Incorporation”5 cannot undermine the fact that

2

even if the ads violated Google’s policies, a substantial portion of

3

consumers were not likely deceived, as demonstrated by Professor

4

Wind’s survey.

5

o Finally, Exhibit Q, deposition testimony from Rocket Lawyer’s former

6

VP of Marketing that

7

has no bearing on the legal issues in this case. Ms. Weiner repeatedly

8
9
10

. See generally

11

Vaughn Decl. at Ex. Q. Her testimony further demonstrates that

12
13

. Vaughn Decl. Ex. Q, at p. 30, 0073:7-13.

14

The Court specified that a survey or market research was necessary to support

15

or refute LegalZoom’s claims. Rocket Lawyer’s survey abides by the Court’s

16

instruction and demonstrates that whether or not Rocket Lawyer revised the

17

advertisements at issue to address LegalZoom’s allegations, consumer behavior would

18

not change. See ECF No. 129 at 1-2. LegalZoom introduced a survey with many fatal

19

flaws, including its failure to heed the Court’s direction to test the ads in context. Id.

20

The documents LegalZoom seeks to introduce now cannot stand in for its flawed

21

survey, dispute Rocket Lawyer’s comprehensive survey, or save LegalZoom’s claims.

22

Accordingly, the Court should deny LegalZoom’s belated Motion to

23

supplement with inadmissible and irrelevant evidence. Sheet Metal Workers’ Int’l

24

Ass’n Local Union No. 359 v. Madison Indus., Inc. of Arizona, 84 F.3d 1186, 1192

25

(9th Cir. 1996) (holding that the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying

26
27
28

5

Rocket Lawyer continued to advertise its incorporation services without including
“plus state fees” or similar language in its advertisements until March 2013. See
previously-filed Declaration of Paul Hollerbach, ECF No. 37-3, at ¶ 24.
11

1

motion to supplement the record because the evidence offered was “simply irrelevant

2

to th[e] case”).

3

V.

4
5
6
7
8

CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons, the Court should deny LegalZoom’s motion in its

entirety.
Dated: October 6, 2014

Respectfully submitted,
By:

9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16

/s/ Michael T. Jones
Forrest A. Hainline III
[e-mail]
Hong-An Vu (SBN 266268)
[e-mail]
Michael T. Jones (SBN 290660)
[e-mail]
Brian W. Cook (Pro Hac Vice)
[e-mail]
GOODWIN PROCTER LLP
Three Embarcadero Center, 24th Floor
San Francisco, California 94111
Tel.: [phone]
Fax.: [phone]

Attorneys for Defendant
ROCKET LAWYER INCORPORATED

17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
12