LegalZoom.com Inc v. Rocket Lawyer Incorporated

Filing 157

MINUTES (IN CHAMBERS): ORDER RE: APPLICATIONS TO FILE UNDER SEAL by Judge Gary A. Feess: The Court: (1) GRANTS, in part Legal Zoom's application to file Exhibits A-C to the Fred D. Heather Declaration under seal but (2) DENIES Legal Zoom's application to file its Reply Memorandum to Supplement the Factual Record and Reply Memorandum for Rule 11 Sanctions and Exhibits E. to the Fred D. Heather Declaration under seal. The Court (3) DENIES Rocket Lawyer's application to file its Opposition to the Motion for Rule 11 Sanctions and Exhibits 2 to the Michael Jones Declaration in Support of Rocket Lawyer's Opposition to the Motion to Supplement the Record under seal. denying 133 Application to Seal, granting in part and denying in part 155 Application to Seal (bp)

LINK: 133, 155
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL
Case No.

CV 12-9942 GAF (AGRx)

Title

LegalZoom.com Inc v. Rocket Lawyer Incorporated

Present: The Honorable

Date

October 17, 2014

GARY ALLEN FEESS

Stephen Montes Kerr
Deputy Clerk

None
Court Reporter / Recorder

N/A
Tape No.

Attorneys Present for Plaintiff:

Attorneys Present for Defendant:

None

None

Proceedings:

(In Chambers)
ORDER RE: APPLICATIONS TO FILE UNDER SEAL
I.
INTRODUCTION

The Court is currently in receipt of two applications to file under seal: one submitted by
Plaintiff LegalZoom.com (“Legal Zoom”) (Docket No. 155 [Appl.].), regarding Legal Zoom’s
Reply Memorandum to Supplement the Factual Record, Exhibits A-C and E to the Declaration
of Fred D. Heather in support of Legal Zoom’s Reply Memorandum to Supplement the Factual
Record (“Exhibits A-C” and “Exhibit E”), and Legal Zoom’s Reply for Rule 11 Sanctions, and
another by Defendant Rocket Lawyer (“Rocket Lawyer”) (Docket No. 133 [Rocket Appl.]),
regarding Rocket Lawyer’s Opposition to the Motion for Rule 11 Sanctions and Exhibits 1 and 2
to the Michael Jones Declaration in Support of Rocket Lawyer’s Opposition to the Motion to
Supplement the Record (“Exhibit 1” and “Exhibit 2”). Both Legal Zoom and Rocket Lawyer
have filed redacted1 versions of the memoranda and exhibits on the public docket. (See Docket
No. 154 [Reply Mem. to Supp. Record (“Reply Supp. Record”)]; Docket No. 153 [Reply Mem.
for Rule 11 Sanctions (“Reply Mem. Sanctions”)]; Docket No. 137 [Rocket Lawyer’s Opp. to
Supp. Record (“Opp. Supp. Record”)] at Ex.1 [Michael Jones Declaration (“Jones Decl.”)] at
Exs. 1, 2; Docket No. 129 [Rocket Lawyer’s Opp. (“Opp.”)].)
Legal Zoom urges that good cause exists to seal the documents they request because
“[t]hese documents are subject to the Court’s protective order and the sealing of these documents
is necessary in order to protect information that Rocket Lawyer has designated as ‘confidential’

1

One exhibit was filed unredacted. Discussed, infra.

CV-90 (06/04)

CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL

Page 1 of 5

LINK: 133, 155
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL
Case No.

CV 12-9942 GAF (AGRx)

Title

Date

October 17, 2014

LegalZoom.com Inc v. Rocket Lawyer Incorporated

or ‘attorneys’ eyes only,’ including without limitation, confidential business information and
other sensitive business data relating to Rocket Lawyer Incorporated.” (Appl. at 2.) Rocket
Lawyer also urges that good cause exists to seal the documents they request for the very same
reasons and because “[s]pecifically, Exhibit 1 is a document produced by Rocket Lawyer that is
designated ‘attorney’s eyes only,’ and Exhibit 2 and the Unredacted Opposition refer to
confidential information from within Exhibit 1.” (See Rocket Appl. at 2.)
II.
DISCUSSION
A. LEGAL STANDARD
While courts customarily allow the parties to establish ground rules for designating
material as confidential for discovery purposes, the Court does not cede to them ultimate
authority or responsibility over the sealing of documents. Thus, the fact that certain information
may fall within the ambit of the parties’ protective order is of limited importance to the Court in
determining whether or not an application to seal should be granted. The public has a “general
right to inspect and copy public records and documents, including judicial records and
documents” because it has an interest in “keep[ing] a watchful eye on the workings of public
agencies.” Nixon v. Warner Commc’ns., Inc., 435 U.S. 589, 597–98 (1978). A “strong
presumption of access to judicial records applies fully to dispositive pleadings, including
motions for summary judgment and related attachments.” Kamakana v. City & Cnty. of
Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172, 1179 (9th Cir. 2006). “Thus, ‘compelling reasons’ must be shown to
seal judicial records attached to a dispositive motion.” (Id.)
In light of the “strong presumption of access to judicial records,” a party should not
request that an entire document be filed under seal unless the document’s entire contents are
confidential. See Kamakana, 447 F.3d at 1179. Instead, a party should redact those portions of
the document that are confidential. The redacted copy should then be filed on the public docket
and an unredacted copy should be provided to the Court.
B. APPLICATION
1. Legal Zoom’s Application to File Under Seal
a. Legal Zoom’s Reply Memorandum to Supplement the Factual Record
Legal Zoom seeks to file its Reply to Supplement the Factual Record under seal. The
Court previously granted Legal Zoom’s motion to file certain documents related to this motion
CV-90 (06/04)

CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL

Page 2 of 5

LINK: 133, 155
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL
Case No.

CV 12-9942 GAF (AGRx)

Title

Date

October 17, 2014

LegalZoom.com Inc v. Rocket Lawyer Incorporated

under seal. (See Docket No. 151 [10/10/14 Order].) However, in Legal Zoom’s Reply to
Supplement the Factual Record, Legal Zoom goes beyond redacting excerpts of these
documents. (See e.g., Reply Supp. Record at 2-3 (improperly redacting job descriptions of
various Rocket Lawyer employees).) Some of this information is clearly not confidential and
thus, is not properly filed under seal. Accordingly, absent any further showing, Legal Zoom’s
request to file its Reply Memorandum to Supplement the Factual Record under seal is DENIED.

b. Exhibits A-C and E to the Fred D. Heather Declaration in Support of the
Reply Memorandum in Support of Motion to Supplement the Factual Record
Legal Zoom also seeks to file Exhibits A-C, and E to the Fred D. Heather Declaration in
support of its Motion to Supplement the Factual Record under seal. Exhibits A-C appear to be
excerpts of deposition testimony and counsel’s communications on a deposition record regarding
documents the Court previously sealed under the 10/10/14 Order. Thus, they too are properly
filed under seal. Exhibit E, however, is different.
Exhibit E is a letter of correspondence from Legal Zoom’s Counsel to Rocket Lawyer’s
Counsel. Indeed, it discusses some of the documents that the Court sealed, however, again,
Legal Zoom has gone outside the parameters of the Court’s 10/10/14 Order and redacted
information that has not been sealed by the Court. (See Reply Supp. Record at 1-2 (redacting
information regarding Legal Zoom witnesses’ statements regarding certain documents and
statements regarding searches for document production).) Some of this information is clearly
not confidential and improperly sought to be sealed.
Accordingly, Legal Zoom’s request to file its Exhibits A-C under seal is GRANTED, in
part but, absent any further showing, is DENIED as to Exhibit E.
c. Legal Zoom’s Reply Memorandum in Support of Motion for Rule 11
Sanctions
Legal Zoom also seeks to file its Reply Memorandum in Support of its Sanction Motion
under seal. for Rule 11 Sanctions under seal. The Court previously granted Legal Zoom’s
motion to file certain documents relating to this motion under seal. (10/10/14 Order.) However,
in Legal Zoom’s Reply, Legal Zoom goes beyond redacting discussion of these documents. (See
e.g., Reply Mem. Sanctions at 5 (redacting factual information); see id. generally (redacting
persons’ names throughout).) Some of the redacted information is not confidential, and thus, the
CV-90 (06/04)

CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL

Page 3 of 5

LINK: 133, 155
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL
Case No.

CV 12-9942 GAF (AGRx)

Title

Date

October 17, 2014

LegalZoom.com Inc v. Rocket Lawyer Incorporated

memorandum should not be filed under seal. Accordingly, Legal Zoom’s request to file under
seal is DENIED.
2. Rocket Lawyer’s Application to File Under Seal
a. Exhibits 1 and 2 to the Michael Jones Declaration in Support of Rocket
Lawyer’s Opposition to the Motion to Supplement the Record
Rocket Lawyer is seeking to file Exhibit 1 and Exhibit 2 to the Michael Jones Declaration
under seal. (Jones Decl. at Exs. 1, 2.) The Court has already granted Rocket Lawyer’s
application to file Exhibit 1 under seal and thus need not decide the issue again. (Docket No.
150 [10/10/14 Order granting Rocket Lawyer’s Motion to File Under Seal].) However, Exhibit 2
has not been ruled on. Exhibit 2 is correspondence from Rocket Lawyer’s Counsel to Legal
Zoom’s Counsel. (See Jones Decl. at Ex. 2.) Moreover, in Rocket Lawyer’s filings on the
public record Exhibit 2 is currently unredacted and appears in its entirety. (Id.) The Court infers
that the information contained therein must therefore not be confidential as Rocket Lawyer has
not moved to remove or change this public filing. Moreover, a review of Exhibit 2 shows that,
while it discusses some of the sealed documents’ contents, it is not confidential in its entirety.
(Id. (E.g., portions of letter relating to meeting and conferring and advancing arguments).)
Accordingly, absent any further showing, Rocket Lawyer’s request to file under seal is DENIED
as to Exhibit 2.
b. Rocket Lawyer’s Opposition to the Motion for Rule 11 Sanctions
Rocket Lawyer is also seeking to file its Opposition to the Motion for Rule 11 Sanctions
under seal. Again, while Rocket Lawyer has properly redacted references to documents the
court has sealed, (see 10/10/14 Order), Rocket Lawyer improperly goes beyond such redactions.
(See Opp. at 7-9 (redacting persons’ names and various numbers).) Some of this information is
not confidential,2 and thus should not be filed under seal.
Accordingly, absent any further showing, Rocket Lawyer’s request to file its Opposition
to the Motion for Rule 11 Sanctions under seal is DENIED.

2

Indeed, Rocket Lawyer did not redact the words “interviews” or “interviewees.” It cannot be that the
number of interviews or interviewees is confidential, if the fact that the interview occurred or existence of
interviewees is not. (See Opp. at 7, 9.)
CV-90 (06/04)

CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL

Page 4 of 5

LINK: 133, 155
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL
Case No.

CV 12-9942 GAF (AGRx)

Title

Date

October 17, 2014

LegalZoom.com Inc v. Rocket Lawyer Incorporated
III.
CONCLUSION

Accordingly, the Court: (1) GRANTS, in part Legal Zoom’s application to file Exhibits
A-C to the Fred D. Heather Declaration under seal but (2) DENIES Legal Zoom’s application to
file its Reply Memorandum to Supplement the Factual Record and Reply Memorandum for Rule
11 Sanctions and Exhibit E to the Fred D. Heather Declaration under seal. The Court (3)
DENIES Rocket Lawyer’s application to file its Opposition to the Motion for Rule 11 Sanctions
and Exhibit 2 to the Michael Jones Declaration in Support of Rocket Lawyer’s Opposition to the
Motion to Supplement the Record under seal.
Because the Court declines to file Legal Zoom’s Memoranda and Exhibit E to the Fred D.
Heather Declaration under seal, the Court REJECTS Legal Zoom’s Reply to Supplement the
Factual Record and Reply Memorandum for Rule 11 Sanctions as they are currently filed and
ORDERS Legal Zoom either (1) to refile their Memoranda without attempting to place them or
Exhibit E to the Fred. D. Heather Declaration, under seal, or (2) to refile redacted versions of the
Memoranda and Exhibit E to the Fred D. Heather Declaration consistent with this Order.
Additionally, because the Court declines to file Rocket Lawyer’s Opposition to the Motion for
Rule 11 Sanctions under seal, the Court REJECTS Rocket Lawyer’s Opposition to the Motion
for Rule 11 Sanctions as it is currently filed and ORDERS Rocket Lawyer either (1) to refile
their Motion without attempting to place that Motion under seal, or (2) to refile redacted versions
of the Memoranda consistent with this Order. As Exhibit 2 currently appears on the docket
unredacted, no further action is necessary and Rocket Lawyer’s Opposition to the Motion to
Supplement the Record is permissible as currently filed.
The hearing on Legal Zoom’s Motion for Rule 11 Sanctions is currently scheduled for
November 10, 2014 at 9:30 AM. The Parties are ORDERED to comply with this Court’s orders
above timely so that the hearing may go forward on that date.
If either Party wishes to submit another application to seal their respective motions
or exhibits, they should either appropriately redact their respective motions or explain why
such redaction is impracticable. The Parties are instructed to contact the Court Clerk to
either (1) arrange to pick up the materials they requested be filed under seal or (2) inform
the Court that it may destroy the documents.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
CV-90 (06/04)

CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL

Page 5 of 5