LegalZoom.com Inc v. Rocket Lawyer Incorporated

Filing 166

EX PARTE APPLICATION for Leave to TO FILE MOTION TO SUPPLEMENT FACTUAL RECORD IN SUPPORT OF ITS MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT AND TO SET BRIEFING SCHEDULE filed by Defendant Rocket Lawyer Incorporated. (Attachments: # 1 DECLARATION OF HONGAN VU IN SUPPORT OF ROCKET LAWYER INCORPORATEDS EX PARTE APPLICATION TO FILE MOTION TO SUPPLEMENT FACTUAL RECORD AND TO ESTABLISH BRIEFING SCHEDULE, # 2 ROCKET LAWYER INCORPORATEDS NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION TO SUPPLEMENT FACTUAL RECORD IN SUPPORT OF ITS MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT, # 3 DECLARATION OF MICHAEL JONES IN SUPPORT OF ROCKET LAWYER INCORPORATEDS MOTION TO SUPPLEMENT FACTUAL RECORD IN SUPPORT OF ITS MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT, # 4 Proposed Order GRANTING MOTION TO SUPPLEMENT FACTUAL RECORD, # 5 Proposed Order GRANTING LEAVE TO FILE MOTION TO SUPPLEMENT FACTUAL RECORD AND TO ESTABLISH BRIEFING SCHEDULE)(Vu, Hong-An)

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 94111-4003
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, Massachusetts 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
21
22
23
24
25

LEGALZOOM.COM, INC., a Delaware
corporation,
Plaintiff,
v.
ROCKET LAWYER
INCORPORATED, a Delaware
corporation,
Defendant.

26
27
28

NO. 2:12-CV-09942-GAF-AGR

Case No. 2:12-cv-09942-GAF-AGR
DECLARATION OF MICHAEL
JONES IN SUPPORT OF ROCKET
LAWYER INCORPORATED’S
MOTION TO SUPPLEMENT
FACTUAL RECORD IN SUPPORT
OF ITS MOTION FOR SUMMARY
JUDGMENT
Judge:
Courtroom:

Judge Gary A. Feess
740
255 East Temple Street
Los Angeles, CA 90012
Action Filed: November 20, 2012

DECLARATION OF MICHAEL T. JONES

1
2

Michael T. Jones declares:

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 Notice of Motion and Motion

6

Supplement Factual Record in Support of Its Motion for Summary Judgment. I am

7

over the age of 18 years. Unless otherwise indicated, I have personal knowledge of

8

the matters stated herein and, if called upon to do so, I could and would competently

9

testify to them under oath.

10

2.

Attached hereto as Exhibit 1 is a true and correct copy of the Second

11

Supplemental Expert Report of Alan G. Goedde, Ph.D. (the “Third Report”), as

12

served on Rocket Lawyer by LegalZoom on October 6, 2014.

13

3.

Attached hereto as Exhibit 2 is a true and correct copy of LegalZoom’s

14

Third Amended Response to Rocket Lawyer’s Notice of 30(B)(6) Deposition, dated

15

October 3, 2014.

16

4.

Around July 18, 2014, after Rocket Lawyer completed its productions,

17

but while LegalZoom was still producing documents, the parties began to discuss

18

depositions.

19
20
21

5.

Attached hereto as Exhibit 3 is the notice of 30(b)(6) deposition served

on LegalZoom on July 30, 2014 (the “Notice”).
6.

Attached hereto as Exhibit 4 are LegalZoom’s responses and

22

objections to Rocket Lawyer’s third set of requests for production of documents,

23

served on July 31, 2014.

24
25
26
27

7.

The parties met and conferred about deposition schedules and

mediation in August 2014.
8.

Attached hereto as Exhibit 5 is a true and correct copy of LegalZoom’s

first response to the Notice, served on September 18, 2014.

28
-1-

1

9.

Attached hereto as Exhibit 6 is a true and correct copy of a letter I

2

wrote to LegalZoom about its objections and refusal to provide a damages witness

3

and other witnesses, sent on September 23, 2014.

4
5
6
7
8
9

10.

I met and conferred with counsel from LegalZoom about its position

regarding the Notice on September 24, 2014.
11.

Counsel for LegalZoom requested that Rocket Lawyer provide an

amended notice as to certain topics it considered “vague.”
12.

Although Rocket Lawyer maintains that its topics were not vague, on

September 26, 2014, Rocket Lawyer served an amended notice providing additional

10

guidance as to certain topics. A true and correct copy of the amended notice is

11

hereto attached as Exhibits 7.

12
13
14
15
16

13.

Attached hereto as Exhibit 8 is LegalZoom’s response to the amended

notice served on September 29, 2014.
14.

Rocket Lawyer took the depositions of LegalZoom’s fact witnesses

between October 3, 2014 and October 9, 2014.
15.

The document beginning Bates Number LZ007839, referenced in the

17

Third Report (Exhibit 1) was not produced to Rocket Lawyer before October 6,

18

2014, and still has not been produced to Rocket Lawyer other than the page with

19

Bates Number LZ007849.

20
21

16.

Additional documents referenced in the Goedde report have not

produced by LegalZoom to my knowledge, include:

22

(a)

Big Data Pull

23

(b)

Cohort Analysis Inc, LLC, LWT

24

(c)

877156_1.xlsx

25

(d)

uSamp Report prepared for LegalZoom, 3/29/12

26

(e)

SEM Clicks Cost 11-11-11-13 For Ken

27

(f)

Big Data Pull – Fixed

28

(g)

SEM Clicks Cost for Ken - Fixed
-2-

1

17.

Some of the information from these documents may have been

2

synthesized in the Third Report, but to my knowledge, LegalZoom has not produced

3

the above documents.

4
5

6

7
8

9

18.

Attached hereto as Exhibit 9 is an email communication between my

colleague Hong-An Vu and counsel for LegalZoom Barak Vaughn.
19.

LegalZoom has not responded to our note that they have refused to

produce documents relied upon by their experts.
20.

The Rocket Lawyer-produced documents cited in the Third Report

itself were all produced between March 2014 and July 3, 2014. Other documents

10

produced by Rocket Lawyer that are listed in Tab 3 of the Third Report were

11

produced on or before July 18,2014.

12
13
14

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

that the foregoing is true and correct. Executed on this 21st day of October, 2014.

15
16
17

18
19

20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

- 3-

EXHIBIT 1

[CONFIDENTIAL - LODGED
UNDER SEAL]

EXHIBIT 1

EXHIBIT 2

EXHIBIT 2

1

2
3
4
5

6
7

8

PATRICIA L. GLASER- State Bar No. 55668
p gl~ser(a),gl_aserweil. com
FRED 0: HEATHER- State Bar No. 110650
fheather@glaserweil. com
AARONP. ALLAN- State Bar No. 144406
[e-mail]
GLASER WElL FINK
HOWARD A VCHEN & SHAPIRO LLP
10250 Constellation Boulevard, 19th Floor
Los Angeles, California 90067
Telephone: [phone]
Facsimile: (31 0) 556-2920
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

v.
ROCKET LAWYER IN CORPORATED,
a Delaware corporation,

Hon. Gary A. F eess
Courtroom: 740

LEGALZOOM.COM, INC'S
THIRD AMENDED RESPONSE TO
DEFENDANT ROCKET LAWYER
INCORPORATED'S NOTICE OF
F.R.C.P. 30(b)(6) DEPOSITION

Defendants.

18
19

CASE NO.: CV 12-9942-GAF (AGRx)

Complaint Filed: November 20, 2012
!1---------------------------~

20
21

22
23
24

25
26
27

28
LEGALZOOM.COM, INC.'S THIRD AMENDED RESPONSE TO DEFENDANT TO ROCKET LAWYER
EXHIBIT 2 -97INCORPORATED'S NOTICE OF F.R.C.P. 30(b)(6) DEPOSITION
939310

I

TO ALL PARTIES AND THEIR ATTORNEYS OF RECORD:
PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that PlaintiffLEGALZOOM.COM, INC.

2
3

("LegalZoom") by and through its attorneys of record, hereby responds and objects to

4

Defendant's Amended Notice ofDeposition ofF.R.C.P. 30(b)(6) Deposition of

5

LegalZoom.com, Inc. (the "Notice") served September 26, 2014.

OBJECTIONS TO TOPICS FOR EXAMINATION

6
7
8
9
10

I.

GENERAL OBJECTIONS
The following General Objections are incorporated into each response set forth

below.
1.

LegalZoom objects to each examination topic in the Notice to the extent

11

that it could be construed to call for testimony or information protected by the

12

attorney-client privilege, the work product doctrine, or any applicable privilege,

13

doctrine or right of privacy.

14

2.

LegalZoom objects to each examination topic in the Notice to the extent

15

that it seeks confidential business and/or proprietary information without an

16

appropriate protective order designed to protect such information.

17

3.

LegalZoom objects to each examination topic in the Notice to the extent

18

that it is vague, ambiguous, overly broad, unduly burdensome or duplicative, or to the

19

extent that it seeks information that is neither relevant to the subject matter of the

20

pending action nor reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible

21

evidence.

22
23
24
25
26
27

4.

LegalZoom objects to each examination topic in the Notice on the

ground that it is vague as to time.
5.

LegalZoom submits these objections without waiving its right to amend,

revise, correct, supplement, or clarify any of these objections.
LegalZoom further objects and responds to each of the specific topics of
examination ("Topics") identified in the Notice as follows:

28

LEGALZOOM.COM, INC.'S THIRD AMENDED RESPONSE TO DEFENDANT TO ROCKET LAWYER
EXHIBIT 2 -98INCORPORATED'S NOTICE OF F.R.C.P. 30(b)(6) DEPOSITION
939310

1
2
3

4

II.

SPECIFIC RESPONSES AND OBJECTIONS TO TOPICS OF
EXAMINATION

TOPIC NO. 1:
LegalZoom's current and historic relationship with Travis Giggy, including,

5

without limitation the services provided by Mr. Giggy and the compensation provided

6

for such services.

7

RESPONSE TO TOPIC NO. 1:

8
9

LegalZoom incorporates each General Objection. LegalZoom further objects
that the Topic seeks testimony or information not relevant to the subject matter of the

10

pending action nor reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible

11

evidence, and that the Topic is ambiguous as to the phrase, "current and historic

12

relationship(s) with Travis Giggy .... "

13

Without waiver of the foregoing objections, LegalZoom will produce Dorian

14

Quispe as its corporate designee to testify concerning this Topic.

15

TOPIC NO.2:

16

LegalZoom's current and historic relationship with LegalSpring.com,

17

including, without limitation the services provided by LegalSpring.com and the

18

compensation provided for such services.

19

RESPONSE TO TOPIC NO.2:

20

LegalZoom incorporates each General Objection. LegalZoom further objects

21

that the Topic seeks testimony or information not relevant to the subject matter of the

22

pending action nor reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible

23

evidence, and that the Topic is ambiguous as to the phrase, "current and historic

24

relationship(s) with LegalSpring.com ... "

25
26

Without waiver of the foregoing objections, LegalZoom will produce Dorian
Quispe as its corporate designee to testify concerning this Topic.

27

28
2
LEGALZOOM.COM, INC.'S THIRD AMENDED RESPONSE TO DEFENDANT TO ROCKET LAWYER
EXHIBIT 2 -99INCORPORATED'S NOTICE OF F.R.C.P. 30(b)(6) DEPOSITION
939310

1
2

TOPIC NO.3:
LegalZoom's current and historic relationship with Own Vision, including,

3

without limitation the services provided by Own Vision and the compensation

4

provided for such services.

5

RESPONSE TO TOPIC NO.3:

6

LegalZoom incorporates each General Objection. LegalZoom further objects

7

that the Topic seeks testimony or information not relevant to the subject matter of the

8

pending action nor reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible

9

evidence, and that the Topic is ambiguous as to the phrase, "current and historic

10
11
12

relationship(s) with Own Vision .... "
Without waiver of the foregoing objections, LegalZoom will produce Dorian
Quispe as its corporate designee to testify concerning this Topic.

13
14
15

16
17

TOPIC NO.4:
LegalZoom's affiliate program.

RESPONSE TO TOPIC NO.4:
LegalZoom incorporates each General Objection. LegalZoom further objects

18

that the Topic seeks testimony or information not relevant to the subject matter of the

19

pending action nor reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible

20

evidence, and that the Topic is ambiguous as to the phrase, "affiliate program."

21
22

Without waiver of the foregoing objections, LegalZoom will produce Dorian
Quispe as its corporate designee to testify concerning this Topic.

23
24
25

TOPIC NO.5:
LegalZoom's affiliate relationship with LegalSpring.com/Own Vision,

26

including, but not limited to, LegalZoom's affiliate agreement(s) with

27

LegalSpring.com/Own Vision, the circumstances in which LegalZoom entered into

28

the affiliate agreement(s) with LegalSpring.com/Own Vision and/or Travis Giggy, the
3
LEGALZOOM.COM, INC.'S THIRD AMENDED RESPONSE TO DEFENDANT TO ROCKET LAWYER
EXHIBIT 2 -100INCORPORATED'S NOTICE OF F.R.C.P. 30(b)(6) DEPOSITION

939310

1

differences between the affiliate relationship with LegalSpring.com and other

2

affiliates that participate in the program found at

3

https://affiliate.legalzoom.com/?_ga=1.268723442.2027654598.1411408695.

4

RESPONSE TO TOPIC NO. 5:

5

LegalZoom incorporates each General Objection. LegalZoom further objects

6

to the extent that this Topic seeks legal conclusions, and/or testimony or information

7

protected by the attorney-client privilege, the work product doctrine, or any

8

applicable privilege, doctrine or right of privacy. A copy ofthe subject agreement(s)

9

have already been produced in this litigation.

10
11

Without waiver of the foregoing objections, LegalZoom will produce Dorian
Quispe as its corporate designee to testify concerning this Topic.

12

13
14

TOPIC NO.6:
LegalZoom's control over the content ofLegalSpring.com, including without

15

limitation the removal of negative advertisements posted on LegalSpring.com and the

16

posting of positive reviews at LegalZoom's direction on LegalSpring.com.

11

RESPONSE TO TOPIC NO.6:

18

LegalZoom incorporates each General Objection. LegalZoom further objects

19

on the following grounds: (1) the Topic seeks testimony or information not relevant

20

to the subject matter of the pending action nor reasonably calculated to lead to the

21

discovery of admissible evidence; (2) the Topic seeks information which does not

22

exist within LegalZoom's possession, custody or control, because LegalZoom does

23

not, and never did, "control" any of the content of LegalSpring.com.

24

Without waiver of the foregoing objections, LegalZoom will produce Dorian

25

Quispe as its corporate designee to provide testimony concerning LegalZoom 's

26

relationship and communications with LegalSpring.com.

27
28

4
LEGALZOOM.COM, INC.'S THIRD AMENDED RESPONSE TO DEFENDANT TO ROCKET LAWYER
EXHIBIT 2 -101INCORPORATED'S NOTICE OF F.R.C.P. 30(b)(6) DEPOSITION
939310

1

2

TOPIC NO.7:
Communications with Travis Giggy and/or employees ofLegalSpring.com

3

about LegalZoom's rating on LegalSpring.com, including, but not limited to,

4

LegalZoom's manipulation of such rating, requests to add positive reviews to

5

LegalSpring.com to increase LegalZoom's rating, LegalZoom's understanding ofhow

6

ratings are calculated on LegalSpring.com and the documents produced by

7

LegalZoom relating to its rating on LegalSpring.com, including, but not limited to

8

Bates LZ00447 and LZ000958.

9

RESPONSE TO TOPIC NO.7:

10

LegalZoom incorporates each General Objection. LegalZoom further objects

11

that the Topic seeks information not relevant to the subject matter of the pending

12

action nor reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence.

13

14

Without waiver of the foregoing objections, LegalZoom will produce Dorian
Quispe as its corporate designee to testify concerning this Topic.

15
16
11

TOPIC NO.8:
LegalZoom's lease and/or operation ofLegalSpring.com at least between 2012

18

and 2013.

19

RESPONSE TO TOPIC NO. 8:

20

LegalZoom incorporates each General Objection. LegalZoom further objects

21

on the following grounds: (1) the Topic seeks information not relevant to the subject

22

matter of the pending action nor reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of

23

admissible evidence; and (2) the Topic seeks information which is not in the

24

possession, custody or control of LegalZoom, because there has never been a time

25

when LegalZoom either leased or operated LegalSpring.com.

26

Without waiver of the foregoing objections, LegalZoom will produce Dorian

27

Quispe as its corporate designee to provide testimony concerning LegalZoom' s

28

relationship and communications with LegalSpring.com.
5
LEGALZOOM.COM, INC.'S THIRD AMENDED RESPONSE TO DEFENDANT TO ROCKET LAWYER
EXHIBIT 2 -102INCORPORATED'S NOTICE OF F.R.C.P. 30(b)(6) DEPOSITION

939310

2
3
4

TOPIC NO.9:
The importance of customer reviews to LegalZoom' s business, including, but

5

not limited to, LegalZoom's efforts to drive consumers to its website using review

6

websites or companies, including but not limited to, LegalSpring.com, Yelp.com,

7

Better Business Bureau, and Amazon.com, communications relating to the need to

8

maintain positive reviews on review websites as evidenced by communications such

9

as LZOO 1546, communications relating to the effect of negative reviews on

10

LegalZoom.com's business, and any research conducted by LegalZoom relating to the

11

importance of customer reviews to consumers.

12

RESPONSE TO TOPIC NO. 9:

13

LegalZoom incorporates each General Objection. LegalZoom further objects

14

on the following grounds: (1) the Topic seeks testimony or information protected by

15

the attorney-client privilege, the work product doctrine, or any applicable privilege,

16

doctrine or right of privacy; (2) the Topic calls for expert testimony; and (3) the Topic

11

is overbroad and unduly burdensome in scope.

18

Without waiver of the foregoing objections, LegalZoom will produce Dorian

19

Quispe as its corporate designee to provide testimony concerning LegalZoom's

20

efforts to drive consumers to its website using review websites or companies,

21

including but not limited to, LegalSpring.com, Yelp. com, Better Business Bureau,

22

and Amazon.com.

23
24

25

TOPIC NO. 10:
Any and all advertisements You published, or considered publishing, relating

26

to business formation, such as incorporation or forming an LLC, from January 1,

27

2008 to the present.

28

6
LEGALZOOM.COM, INC.'S THIRD AMENDED RESPONSE TO DEFENDANT TO ROCKET LAWYER
EXHIBIT 2 -103INCORPORATED'S NOTICE OF F.R.C.P. 30(b)(6) DEPOSITION
939310

1

2

RESPONSE TO TOPIC NO. 10:
LegalZoom incorporates each General Objection. LegalZoom further objects

3

on the following grounds: ( 1) the Topic seeks testimony or information protected by

4

the attorney-client privilege, the work product doctrine, or any applicable privilege,

5

doctrine or right of privacy; (2) the Topic seeks information not relevant to the subject

6

matter of the pending action nor reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of

7

admissible evidence; and (3) the Topic is vague and ambiguous as to the information

8

being sought.

9

10
11

TOPIC NO. 11:
Any and all advertisements You published, or considered publishing,

12

containing the word "free," from January 1, 2008 to the present.

13

RESPONSE TO TOPIC N0.11:

14

LegalZoom incorporates each General Objection. LegalZoom further objects

15

on the following grounds: ( 1) the Topic seeks testimony or information protected by

16

the attorney-client privilege, the work product doctrine, or any applicable privilege,

11

doctrine or right of privacy; (2) the Topic seeks information not relevant to the subject

18

matter of the pending action nor reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of

19

admissible evidence; and (3) the Topic is vague and ambiguous as to the information

20

being sought.

21

22
23

TOPIC NO. 12:
LegalZoom's "Don't trust free" campaign and/or "Freemium War" as

24

referenced in LZOO 1560 or other documents produced by LegalZoom.

25

RESPONSE TO TOPIC N0.12:

26

LegalZoom incorporates each General Objection. LegalZoom further objects

21

on the following grounds: (1) the Topic seeks testimony or information protected by

28

the attorney-client privilege, the work product doctrine, or any applicable privilege,
7
LEGALZOOM.COM, INC.'S THIRD AMENDED RESPONSE TO DEFENDANT TO ROCKET LAWYER
EXHIBIT 2 -104INCORPORATED'S NOTICE OF F.R.C.P. 30(b)(6) DEPOSITION

939310

1

doctrine or right of privacy; (2) the Topic seeks information not relevant to the subject

2

matter of the pending action nor reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of

3

admissible evidence; and (3) the Topic is vague and ambiguous as to the information

4

being sought.

5
6
7

TOPIC NO. 13:
LegalZoom' s business decision to communicate or not communicate with any

8

online legal service provider, including without limitation, lawdepot, standardlegal,

9

incforfree, MyCorporation, etc., regarding their use of advertisements containing the

10

11

.212

term "free."

RESPONSE TO TOPIC NO. 13:

12

O!'Ci

u;ro
ro:..c

LegalZoom incorporates each General Objection. LegalZoom further objects

13

on the following grounds: (1) the Topic seeks testimony or information protected by

c c

14

the attorney-client privilege, the work product doctrine, or any applicable privilege,

·a:;! 5:'
~l<e

15

doctrine or right of privacy; (2) the Topic seeks information not relevant to the subject

Q)/c<:)

16

matter of the pending action nor reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of

17

admissible evidence; and (3) the Topic is vague and ambiguous as to the information

18

being sought.

---...1./')

~,

cQ

u::!~

~-I~
VI)~

~io

t:J!I

19

20
21

TOPIC NO. 14:
Business reasons for LegalZoom's decision to file this lawsuit against Rocket

22

Lawyer and the timing thereof, including but not limited to, communications relating

23

to issues noted in LZOO 1712.

24

RESPONSE TO TOPIC NO. 14:

25

LegalZoom incorporates each General Objection. LegalZoom further objects

26

on the following grounds: (1) the Topic seeks testimony or information protected by

27

the attorney-client privilege, the work product doctrine, or any applicable privilege,

28

doctrine or right of privacy; (2) the Topic seeks information not relevant to the subject
8
LEGALZOOM.COM, INC.'S THIRD AMENDED RESPONSE TO DEFENDANT TO ROCKET LAWYER
EXHIBIT 2 -105INCORPORATED'S NOTICE OF F.R.C.P. 30(b)(6) DEPOSITION

939310

1

matter of the pending action nor reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of

2

admissible evidence; and (3) the Topic is vague and ambiguous as to the information

3

being sought.

4
5

Without waiver of the foregoing objections, LegalZoom will produce Brian Liu
as its corporate designee to speak generally about LZ001712.

6
1

8
9
10
11

TOPIC NO. 15:
LegalZoom's efforts to raise advertising and/or PPC costs for Rocket Lawyer
as evidenced in documents such as LZ007404.

RESPONSE TO TOPIC NO. 15:
LegalZoom incorporates each General Objection. LegalZoom further objects

12

on the following grounds: (1) the Topic seeks testimony or information protected by

13

the attorney-client privilege, the work product doctrine, or any applicable privilege,

14

doctrine or right of privacy; (2) the Topic seeks information not relevant to the subject

15

matter of the pending action nor reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of

16

admissible evidence; and (3) the Topic assumes facts not in evidence and is vague and

17

ambiguous as to the information being sought.

18
19

Without waiver of the foregoing objections, LegalZoom will produce Dorian
Quispe as its corporate designee to speak generally about this Topic.

20
21

22

TOPIC NO. 16:
LegalZoom's free trials, including the layout ofLegalZoom's free trial offers

23

and disclosures of the conditions on the free offers.

24

RESPONSE TO TOPIC NO. 16:

25

LegalZoom incorporates each General Objection. LegalZoom further objects

26

on the following grounds: (1) the Topic seeks testimony or information protected by

21

the attorney-client privilege, the work product doctrine, or any applicable privilege,

28

doctrine or right of privacy; (2) the Topic seeks information not relevant to the subject
9
LEGALZOOM.COM, INC.'S THIRD AMENDED RESPONSE TO DEFENDANT TO ROCKET LAWYER
EXHIBIT 2 -106INCORPORATED'S NOTICE OF F.R.C.P. 30(b)(6) DEPOSITION

939310

1

matter of the pending action nor reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of

2

admissible evidence; and (3) the Topic is vague and ambiguous as to the information

3

being sought.

4

Without waiving the foregoing objections, LegalZoom will produce Brian Liu

5

as its corporate designee to testify about the nature ofLegalZoom's free trials to the

6

extent there is information not protected by the attorney-client privilege or attorney

7

work product.

8
9
10

TOPIC NO. 17:
Customer complaints about LegalZoom' s free trial, business formation, and

11

-

attorney services.

12

RESPONSE TO TOPIC N0.17:

0.

~1e

01'0..

u

I'd

LegalZoom incorporates each General Objection. LegalZoom further objects

cd.C

13

~~"'"
C:ic:

14

on the following grounds: (1) the Topic seeks information not relevant to the subject

15

matter of the pending action nor reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of

Q)icd
Vlj~

16

admissible evidence; and (2) the Topic is ambiguous as to time.

t,?,I

17

--..V)

·-1

Q)

u..,.C

·a:;l ~
~I<(
!....i"E

~10

18

Without waiver of the foregoing objections, LegalZoom will produce Brian Liu
to testify as its corporate designee for this Topic.

19
20
21

22
23

TOPIC NO. 18:
LegalZoom's performance including its gross revenue, net revenue, and profits.

RESPONSE TO TOPIC NO. 18:
LegalZoom incorporates each General Objection. LegalZoom further objects

24

that this Topic vague as to time and as to the information being sought, and would

25

have been better addressed through a request for the production of accounting records

26

and similar documentation. It is unfair in the context of a deposition to expect that a

21

corporate representative can be prepared to answer such questions with specific

28

information about gross revenue, net revenue and profits.
10
LEGALZOOM.COM, INC.'S THIRD AMENDED RESPONSE TO DEFENDANT TO ROCKET LAWYER
EXHIBIT 2 -107INCORPORATED'S NOTICE OF F.R.C.P. 30(b)(6) DEPOSITION

939310

Without waiver of the foregoing objections, LegalZoom will produce Brian Liu
2

to testify as its corporate designee regarding LegalZoom' s general financial

3

performance issues.

4

5

6
7

8

9

TOPIC NO. 19:
LegalZoom' s advertising spend on Business Formation Ads.

RESPONSE TO TOPIC NO. 19:
LegalZoom incorporates each General Objection. LegalZoom further objects
that this Topic vague as to time and as to the information being sought, and would

1o

have been better addressed through a request for the production of accounting records

11

and similar documentation. It is unfair in the context of a deposition to expect that a

12

corporate representative can be prepared to answer such questions with specific

13

information about advertising spend.

14

Without waiver of the foregoing objections, LegalZoom will produce Brian Liu

15

to testify as its corporate designee regarding LegalZoom' s general financial

16

performance issues.

17

18

19
20
21

TOPIC NO. 20:
How LegalZoom tracks its conversions on Business Formation Ads.

RESPONSE TO TOPIC NO. 20:
LegalZoom incorporates each General Objection. LegalZoom further objects

22

on the following grounds: (1) the Topic seeks testimony or information protected by

23

the attorney-client privilege, the work product doctrine, or any applicable privilege,

24

doctrine or right of privacy; and (2) the Topic seeks information not relevant to the

25

subject matter of the pending action nor reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery

26

of admissible evidence.

27
28

Without waiver of the foregoing objections, LegalZoom will produce Dorian
Quispe as its corporate designee to speak generally about this Topic.
11
LEGALZOOM.COM, INC.'S THIRD AMENDED RESPONSE TO DEFENDANT EXHIBIT 2 -108TO ROCKET LAWYER
INCORPORATED'S NOTICE OF F.R.C.P. 30(b)(6) DEPOSITION

939310

2
3

TOPIC NO. 21:

LegalZoom's customer data, such as

4

(a)

how many customers You have had since November 2008;

5

(b)

how customers are enrolled - whether by organic traffic vs. paid

7

(c)

the average amount spent on LegalZoom.com by Your customers;

8

(d)

the average length of time Your customers are enrolled in a

6

9

advertising;

LegalZoom plan;

10

(e)

breakdown of customer purchases by product;

II

(f)

percentage of customer who make repeat purchases;

12

(g)

percentage breakdown of customers; and

uiro
ro: ..c::

13

(h)

Average order size per customer.

El ~

14

VljQ

_Q, I....

oJ·o..

---.VJ

L.L.i..c::

~~~
~~"'0
~~ ~
~~~

t:JII

15

RESPONSE TO TOPIC NO. 21:

LegalZoom incorporates each General Objection. LegalZoom further objects

16

on the following grounds: (1) the Topic seeks testimony or information protected by

17

the attorney-client privilege, the work product doctrine, or any applicable privilege,

18

doctrine or right of privacy; and (2) the Topic seeks information not relevant to the

19

subject matter of the pending action nor reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery

20

of admissible evidence.

21

22

Without waiver of the foregoing objections, LegalZoom will produce Brian Liu
as its corporate designee to speak generally about this Topic.

23
24

25
26

TOPIC NO. 22:

LegalZoom's financial performance, including but not limited to percentage of
total costs, sales, and revenue, in the following marketing channels:

27

(a)

Search engine marketing;

28

(b)

Affiliate marketing;
12

LEGALZOOM.COM, INC.'S THIRD AMENDED RESPONSE TO DEFENDANT EXHIBIT 2 -109TO ROCKET LAWYER
INCORPORATED'S NOTICE OF F.R.C.P. 30(b)(6) DEPOSITION
939310

(c)

Radio marketing;

2

(d)

Television marketing;

3

(e)

E-mail marketing; and

4

(f)

Mail marketing.

5
6

RESPONSE TO TOPIC NO. 22:
LegalZoom incorporates each General Objection. LegalZoom further objects

7

on the following grounds: (1) the Topic seeks information not relevant to the subject

8

matter of the pending action nor reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of

9

admissible evidence; (2) the Topic is vague and ambiguous as to time, and as to the

10

information being sought; and (3) the Topic is unduly burdensome to prepare a

11

witness to testify about the specific subjects mentioned, and should have been

12

pursued with a timely interrogatory.

13

Without waiver of the foregoing objections, LegalZoom will produce Brian Liu

14

as its corporate designee to speak generally about LegalZoom' s financial

15

performance.

16

11
18
19
20

TOPIC NO. 23:
LegalZoom's bidding of Keywords relating to Rocket Lawyer.

RESPONSE TO TOPIC NO. 23:
LegalZoom incorporates each General Objection. LegalZoom further objects

21

on the following grounds: (1) the Topic seeks information not relevant to the subject

22

matter of the pending action nor reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of

23

admissible evidence; and (2) the Topic is vague and ambiguous as to time, and as to

24

the information being sought.

25
26

Without waiver of the foregoing objections, LegalZoom will produce Dorian
Quispe as its corporate designee to testify concerning this Topic.

27
28

13
LEGALZOOM.COM, INC.'S THIRD AMENDED RESPONSE TO DEFENDANT TO ROCKET LAWYER
EXHIBIT 2 -110INCORPORATED'S NOTICE OF F.R.C.P. 30(b)(6) DEPOSITION
939310

1
2

TOPIC NO. 24:
LegalZoom's communications with the search engines such as Google.com and

3

Bing.com about its advertisements and/or Rocket Lawyer.

4

RESPONSE TO TOPIC NO. 24:

5

LegalZoom incorporates each General Objection. LegalZoom further objects

6

that the Topic is vague and overbroad, and to the extent that the Topic seeks

7

testimony or information protected by the attorney-client privilege, the work product

8

doctrine, or any applicable privilege.

9

10

Without waiver of the foregoing objections, LegalZoom will produce Dorian
Quispe as its corporate designee to testify concerning this Topic.

II
~

..01 E

01'15..
u ro
ro:...c
-I/)
..::£1 c>Q
c:: c::
·-! (])
~~...c
·-i u

12
13

14

TOPIC NO. 25:
All surveys conducted by LegalZoom relating to Rocket Lawyer.

RESPONSE TO TOPIC NO. 25:
LegalZoom incorporates each General Objection. LegalZoom further objects

(])1>

15

~~~

16

that the Topic is vague and overbroad, and to the extent that the Topic seeks

l.?ii

11

testimony or information protected by the attorney-client privilege, the work product

18

doctrine, or any applicable privilege.

~I<(
s.....>"P
~~ 0

19

20

Without waiver of the foregoing objections, LegalZoom will produce Brian Liu
as its corporate designee to testify concerning this Topic.

21
22
23
24
25

TOPIC NO. 26:
LegalZoom's damages sought in this lawsuit.

RESPONSE TO TOPIC NO. 26:
LegalZoom incorporates each General Objection. LegalZoom further objects

26

on the following grounds: the Topic seeks expert testimony and/or information

21

protected by the attorney-client privilege, the work product doctrine, or any

28

applicable privilege.
14
LEGALZOOM.COM, INC.'S THIRD AMENDED RESPONSE TO DEFENDANT EXHIBIT 2 -111TO ROCKET LAWYER
INCORPORATED'S NOTICE OF F.R.C.P. 30(b)(6) DEPOSITION

939310

2
3

TOPIC NO. 27:
LegalZoom's document retention policy, including, its inability to produce

4

documents from before April 1, 2010.

5

RESPONSE TO TOPIC NO. 27:

6

LegalZoom incorporates each General Objection. LegalZoom further objects

7

on the following grounds: the Topic seeks testimony or information protected by the

8

attorney-client privilege, the work product doctrine, or any applicable privilege.

9

IO

Without waiver of the foregoing objections, LegalZoom will produce Brian Liu
as its corporate designee to testify concerning this Topic.

II
I2
I3

TOPIC NO. 28:
LegalZoom' s document collection procedures and processes in the above-

I4

captioned case.

15

RESPONSE TO TOPIC NO. 28:

I6

LegalZoom incorporates each General Objection. LegalZoom further objects

17

on the following grounds: the Topic seeks testimony or information protected by the

I8

attorney-client privilege, the work product doctrine, or any applicable privilege.

19

20

Without waiver of the foregoing objections, LegalZoom will produce Brian Liu
as its corporate designee to testify concerning this Topic.

21

22
23

DATED: October 3, 2014

Respectfully submitted,
GLASER WElL FINK HOWARD
AVCHEN & SHAPIRO LLP

24

25

By:
26
27

A-

AARON P. ALLAN
Attorneys for Plaintiff
LegalZoom.com, Inc.

28

15
LEGALZOOM.COM, INC.'S THIRD AMENDED RESPONSE TO DEFENDANT TO ROCKET LAWYER
EXHIBIT 2 -112INCORPORATED'S NOTICE OF F.R.C.P. 30(b)(6) DEPOSITION
939310

PROOF OF SERVICE
2

3
4

5
6
7

I am employed in the County of Los Angeles, State of California; I am over the
8:ge of 18 and not a party to the within action; my business address is 10250
Constellation Boulevard, 19th Floor, Los Angeles, California 90067. On October 3,
2014, I served the foregoing document(s) described as
LEGALZOOM.COM, INC'S THIRD AMENDED RESPONSE TO
DEFENDANT ROCKET LAWYER IN CORPORATED'S NOTICE OF
F.R.C.P. 30(b)(6) DEPOSITION
on the interested parties to this action by delivering thereof to each of said
interested parties at the following address( es ):

8

Forrest A. Hainline III
Hong-An Vu
Goodwin Procter LLP
Three Embarcadero Center, 24th Floor
San Francisco, California 94111

10
11

Counsel for Defendant
Rocket Lawyer Incorporated
Tel.: [phone]
Fax.: [phone]
fhainline@goodwinprocter. com
hvu@goodwinprocter. com

Michael T. Jones
Goodwin Procter LLP
135 Commonwealth Drive
Menlo Park, California 94025-1105

9

Counsel for Defendant
Rocket Lawyer Incorporated
Tel.: [phone]
Fax.: [phone]
mjones@goodwinprocter. com

12
13
14
15
16
17

D

(BY MAIL) I am readily familiar with the busines~ practice for collection and
processing of corresponaence for mailing with the United States Postal Service.
This correspondence shall be deposited with the United States Postal Service
this same day in the ordinary course of business at our Firm's office address in
Los Angeles, California. Service made pursuant to this paragraph, upon
motion of a party served, shall be presumed invalid if the postaf cancellation
date of postage meter date on the envel oRe is more than one day after the date
of deposit for mailing contained in this affidavit.

D

(BY ELECTRONIC SERVICE) by causing the foregoing document(s) to be
electronically filed using the Court's Electronic Filing System which
constitutes service of the filed document(s) on the individual(s) listed on the
attached mailing list.

~

(BY E-MAIL SERVICE) Based on the agreement of the parties to accept
service by e-mail or electronic transmission, I caused such document to oe
delivered electronically via e-mail to the e-mail address of the addressee(s} set
forth above. I did not receive, within a reasonable time after the transmission,
any electronic message or other indication that the transmission was
unsuccessful.

D

(BY OVERNIGHT DELIVERY) I served the foregoing document by FedEx,
an express service carrier which provides overnight delivery, as follows: I

18
19

20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

EXHIBIT 2 -113939310

Rlaced true copies of the foregoing document in sealed envelopes or packages
aesignated by the express service carrier; addressed to each interested party as
set forth above, with fees for overnight aelivery paid or provided for.

2
3

D

(BY FACSIMILE) I caused the above-referenced document to be transmitted
to the interested parties via facsimile transmission to the fax number(s) as
stated on the attached service list.

D

(BY PERSONAL SERVICE) I caused such envelope to be delivered by hand
to the offices of the above named addressee(s).

D

(State)

~

(Federal) I declare that I am a member of the bar of this court. I declare under
penalty of perjury that the above is true and correct.

4
5
6
7
8

I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of
California that the above is true and correct.

9

Executed on October 3, 2014, at Los Angeles, California.
10
II

'""

A· ~-

Aaron Allan

~

"'10
..Ot!,;,..

oi·a...

ulro
ro...c.
--..V)

12
13

~c.<:;

c: c:
·- (])
u.....c.
:= u

~~
s...."E
(]) ro

VI

~

14
15
16

~ 0

\.9I

17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
EXHIBIT 2 -114939310

EXHIBIT 3

EXHIBIT 3

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
17

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

18

CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

19

WESTERN DIVISION

20
21

LEGALZOOM.COM, INC., a Delaware
corporation,

22
23
24
25
26
27

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

Case No. 2:12-cv-09942-GAF-AGR
ROCKET LAWYER
INCORPORATED’S NOTICE OF
F.R.C.P. 30(B)(6) DEPOSITION OF
LEGALZOOM.COM, INC.
Date:
Time:
Address:

August 19, 2014
9:30 a.m.
601 S. Figueroa Street
41st floor
Los Angeles, CA 90017

28
EXHIBIT 3 -115-

1

TO ALL PARTIES AND THEIR ATTORNEYS OF RECORD:

2

PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure

3

30(b)(6), Rocket Lawyer Incorporated ("Rocket Lawyer") will take the deposition

4

ofthe person(s) plaintiffLegalZoom.com, Inc. identifies as most knowledgeable on

5

the topics of examination listed in Exhibit A of this notice on August 19, 2014 at

6

9:30AM at the law offices of Goodwin Procter, LLP, 601 S. Figueroa St.,

7

41st Floor, Los Angeles, CA 90017.

8
9

This deposition will be before a court reporter authorized to administer oaths,
and shall continue from day to day until completed. The deposition will be recorded

10

stenographically. The deposition may be recorded using real time using instant

11

visual display oftestimony, and by sound and video recording.

12
13
14
15

Dated: July 30, 2014

Respectfully submitted,

By: F o~III
~
fh.ainline , goodwinprocter. com
Michael ones
'!1)ones@g oodwinprocter. com
Hon_g-An Vu
hvu(gjg9_odwinprocter. com
Brian W. Cook (pro hac vice)
bcook@JszoodwinJ!..rocter. com

16
17
18

GOODWIN PROCTER LLP

19
20

Attorrz~JlS

for Defendant

ROCKE1LA WYER INCORPORATED

21
22
23
24
25
26
27

28
1

EXHIBIT 3 -116-

1

EXHIBIT A

2

DEFITIONS

3

1.

The terms “LegalZoom,” “You,” and “Your” means LegalZoom and

4

its past and present agents, representatives, and all persons now or previously under

5

its control, and all persons currently or previously acting or purporting to act on its

6

behalf.

7

2.

The term “Document(s)” is defined to be synonymous in meaning and

8

equal in scope to the usage of this term in Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 34(a),

9

including, without limitation, electronic or computerized data compilations. A draft

10
11
12
13

or non-identical copy is a separate document within the meaning of this term.
3.

The term “Communication(s)” means the transmittal of information (in

the form of facts, ideas, inquiries, or otherwise).
4.

The term “Person” includes both singular and plural and, whenever

14

appropriate, includes not only a natural person, but also a corporation, partnership,

15

unincorporated association, joint venture, nonprofit organization, or other business

16

entity or association of persons, and also any governmental agency, office,

17

administrative, board, or other body. However, any request to identify the Person

18

having knowledge of facts or custody of the documents refers to a natural person.

19

5.

The term “Keyword” means words that may be bid on through

20

Google.com, Yahoo.com, Bing.com or other search engines for advertising on

21

search results.

22

6.

23
24

The term “Business Formation Ad(s)” means advertisements for

business formation such as incorporation or forming an LLC.
7.

The term “Complaint” means the First Amended Complaint in

25

Legalzoom.com, Inc. v. Rocket Lawyer Incorporated, Case No. CV 12-9942-GAF

26

(AGRx) filed in the Central District of California.

27
28

8.

The term “Concerning” means relating to, referring to, reflecting,

describing, evidencing, bearing on, or constituting.
2

EXHIBIT 3 -117-

1
2

9.

Unless otherwise stated, the relevant time period is from November

2008 to the present.
RULES OF CONSTRUCTION

3
4

The following rules of construction apply to these interrogatories:

5

1.

All/Each. The terms “all” and “each” shall be construed as all and each.

6

2.

And/Or. The connectives “and” and “or” shall be construed either

7

disjunctively or conjunctively as necessary to bring within the scope of the
TOPICS OF EXAMINATION

8
9

1.

LegalZoom’s current and historic relationship with Travis Giggy,

10

including, without limitation the services provided by Mr. Giggy and the

11

compensation provided for such services.

12

2.

LegalZoom’s current and historic relationship with LegalSpring.com,

13

including, without limitation the services provided by LegalSpring.com and the

14

compensation provided for such services.

15

3.

LegalZoom’s current and historic relationship with Own Vision,

16

including, without limitation the services provided by Own Vision and the

17

compensation provided for such services.

18

4.

LegalZoom’s affiliate program.

19

5.

LegalZoom’s affiliate agreement(s) with LegalSpring.com.

20

6.

LegalZoom’s control over the content of LegalSpring.com, including

21

without limitation the removal of negative advertisements posted on

22

LegalSpring.com and the posting of positive reviews at LegalZoom’s direction on

23

LegalSpring.com.

24

7.

LegalZoom’s rating on LegalSpring.com.

25

8.

LegalZoom’s lease and/or operation of LegalSpring.com at least

26

between 2012 and 2013.

27

9.

The importance of customer reviews to consumers.

28

10.

LegalZoom’s business formation advertisements.
3

EXHIBIT 3 -118-

1

11.

LegalZoom’s advertisements containing the word “free.”

2

12.

LegalZoom’s “Don’t trust free” campaign.

3

13.

LegalZoom’s decision to communicate or not communicate with any

4

online legal service provider, including without limitation, lawdepot, standardlegal,

5

incforfree, MyCorporation, etc., regarding the use of advertisements using the term

6

“free.”

7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16

14.

LegalZoom’s decision to file this lawsuit against Rocket Lawyer and

the timing thereof.
15.

LegalZoom’s efforts to raise advertising and/or PPC costs for Rocket

Lawyer.
16.

LegalZoom’s free trials, including the layout of LegalZoom’s free trial

offers and disclosures of the conditions on the free offers.
17.

Customer complaints about LegalZoom’s free trial, business formation,

and attorney services.
18.

LegalZoom’s performance including its gross revenue, net revenue, and

profits.

17

19.

LegalZoom’s advertising spend on Business Formation Ads.

18

20.

How LegalZoom tracks its conversions on Business Formation Ads.

19

21.

LegalZoom’s customer data, such as

20

(a)

how many customers You have had since November 2008;

21

(b)

how customers are enrolled – whether by organic traffic vs. paid

(c)

the average amount spent on LegalZoom.com by Your

(d)

the average length of time Your customers are enrolled in a

22

advertising;

23
24
25
26

customers;

LegalZoom plan;

27

(e)

breakdown of customer purchases by product;

28

(f)

percentage of customer who make repeat purchases;
4

EXHIBIT 3 -119-

1

(g)

percentage breakdown of customers; and

2

(h)

Average order size per customer.

3

22.

4

LegalZoom’s performance according to the following marketing

channels:

5

(a)

Search engine marketing;

6

(b)

Affiliate marketing;

7

(c)

Radio marketing;

8

(d)

Television marketing;

9

(e)

E-mail marketing; and

10

(f)

Mail marketing.

11

23.

LegalZoom’s bidding of Keywords relating to Rocket Lawyer.

12

24.

LegalZoom’s communications with the search engines such as

13

Google.com and Bing.com about its advertisements and/or Rocket Lawyer.

14

25.

All surveys conducted by LegalZoom relating to Rocket Lawyer.

15

26.

LegalZoom’s damages sought in this lawsuit.

16

27.

LegalZoom’s document retention policy, including, its inability to

17
18
19

produce documents from before April 1, 2010.
28.

LegalZoom’s document collection procedures and processes in the

above-captioned case.

20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
5

EXHIBIT 3 -120-

1

PROOF OF SERVICE

2

At the time of service I was over 18 years of age and not a party to this action.
My residence or business address is: Three Embarcadero Center, 24th Floor, San
Francisco, CA 94111.

3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12

On July 30, 2014, I served the following documents by placing a true copy
thereof in a sealed envelope(s) on the persons below as follows:
ROCKET LAWYER INCORPORATED’S NOTICE OF F.R.C.P. 30(B)(6)
DEPOSITION OF LEGALZOOM.COM, INC.
Fred D. Heather
Aaron Allan
Barak Vaughn
Patricia Winograd
GLASER WEIL FINK JACOBS
HOWARD AVCHEN & SHAPIRO LLP
10250 Constellation Boulevard, 19th Floor
Los Angeles, California 90067


(MAIL). By United States mail. I enclosed the documents in a sealed
envelope or package addressed to the persons at the addresses listed and
placed the envelope for collection and mailing, following our ordinary
business practices. I am readily familiar with this business's practice for
collecting and processing correspondence for mailing. On the same day that
correspondence is placed for collection and mailing, it is deposited in the
ordinary course of business with the United States Postal Service, in a
sealed envelope with postage fully prepaid at San Francisco, California.



(OVERNIGHT DELIVERY). By overnight delivery. I enclosed the
documents in an envelope or package provided by an overnight delivery
carrier and addressed to the persons at the addresses listed. I placed the
envelope or package for collection and overnight delivery at an office or a
regularly utilized drop box of the overnight delivery carrier.



(E-MAIL or ELECTRONIC TRANSMISSION) By electronic service.
Based on a court order or an agreement of the parties to accept electronic
service, I caused the documents to be sent to the persons at the electronic
service addresses listed.



(FACSIMILE). By fax transmission. Based on an agreement of the parties
to accept service by fax transmission, I faxed the documents to the persons
at the fax numbers listed. No error was reported by the fax machine that I
used. A copy of the record of the fax transmission, which I printed out, is
attached.



(MESSENGER SERVICE) By messenger service. I served the documents
by placing them in an envelope or package addressed to the persons at the
addresses listed and providing them to a professional messenger service for
service. (A declaration by the messenger must accompany this Proof of
Service or be contained in the Declaration of Messenger below.)

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

Counsel for
Plaintiff LegalZoom.com, Inc.
Tel. [phone]
Fax. [phone]
[e-mail]
[e-mail]
[e-mail]
[e-mail]

28

ACTIVE/74641092.2

1

EXHIBIT 3 -121-

1

2
3
4

5

6
7

8

D

(PERSONAL SERVICE). By personal service. I personally delivered the
documents to the persons at the addresses listed. [1] For a party represented
by an attorney, delivery was made to the attorney or at the attorney's office
by leaving the documents, in an envelope or package clearly labeled to
identify tlie attorney being served1 with a receptiomst or an individual in
charge of the office, between the nours of nine (9) in the morning and five
(5) in the evening. [2] For a party, delivery was made to the party or by
leaving the documents at the party's residence with some 12erson not
younger th~n 18 years .of age between the hours of eight ( ~) in the morning
and stx (6) m the even mg.

I declare under penalty of perjury that I am employed in the office of a
member of the bar oftnis Court at whose direction this service was made and that
the foregoing is true and correct.
Executed on July 30,2014, at San Francisco, California.

9

10
11

~re)

Hong-An Vu
(Type or print name)

12
13
14
15
16

17
18
19

20
21
22

23
24
25

26
27

28

ACTIVE/74641 092.2

2

EXHIBIT 3 -122-

EXHIBIT 4

EXHIBIT 4

1

PATRICIA L. GLASER- State Bar No. 55668

Qgl~ser@,g~erweil.com

2
3
4
5
6

7
8

FRED 0: HEATHER- State Bar No. 110650
fheather@,glaserweil.com
AARONP. ALLAN- State Bar No. 144406
aallan{a),_glaserweil. com
GLASER WElL FINK
HOWARD A VCHEN & SHAPIRO LLP
10250 Constellation Boulevard, 19th Floor
Los Angeles, California 90067
Telephone: [phone]
Facsimile: (31 0) 556-2920

Attorneys for Plaintiff
LegalZoom.com, Inc.

9

10

Cd

ro.s::;;

---.l.f')

~cO

CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

11

~~e
0 ·a..
u

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

WESTERN DIVISION

12
13

LEGALZOOM.COM, INC., a Delaware
corporation,

c: c:

14

= u
<ll~
~"0

15

v.

~ ~

16

l:JI

17

ROCKET LAWYER INCORPORATED,
a Delaware corporation, .

· - <1J
u...s::;;

1...

1...

~0

18

Plaintiff,

CASE NO.: CV 12-9942-GAF (AGRx)
Hon. Gary A. F eess

LEGALZOOM.COM, INC.'S
RESPONSE TO ROCKET
LAWYER INCORPORATED'S
THIRD SET OF REQUESTS FOR
PRODUCTION

Defendant.

19

20
21

22
23

24
25
26

27

28
LEGALZOOM'S RESPONSE TO ROCKET LAWYER'S THIRD SET OF REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION
EXHIBIT 4 -123899190

2

Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 34, PlaintiffLegalZoom.com, Inc.

3

(hereinafter "LegalZoom") responds to the Third Set of Requests for Production

4

served by Defendant Rocket Lawyer Incorporated ("Rocket Lawyer") on July 1,

5

2014, as follows:
PRELIMINARY STATEMENT

6
7·

1.

The following responses are based solely on the facts, information,

8

documents and witnesses presently available and specifically known and recalled by

9

LegalZoom, which LegalZoom presently recognizes as relevant and responsive to the

10

Requests. LegalZoom has not completed its investigation, research and analysis as to

11

all facts, circumstances, documents and witnesses relevant to this action. LegalZoom

12

anticipates that its discovery, investigation, research and trial preparation may reveal

13

additional facts, documents and witnesses not presently known or recalled by them,

14

which they may introduce or rely upon at trial. LegalZoom anticipates that discovery,

15

investigation, research and trial preparation will add meaning to known facts,

16

documents and witnesses, thereby leading to new contentions and conclusions which

17

it may introduce or rely upon at trial. LegalZoom further anticipates that discovery,

18

investigation, research and trial preparation will render relevant or responsive

19

additional facts, documents and witnesses, which it did not recognize as relevant or

20

responsive when responding to these Requests. Consequently, the following

21

discovery responses are not intended to, and shall not, preclude LegalZoom from

22

asserting further objections, making further contentions and relying upon or

23

introducing additional facts, witnesses and documents at trial, based upon the results

24

of subsequent discovery, investigation, research and trial preparation.

"_;
_;

~~e
0 ·a_
u ctt
ctt.r;

~~on

..::t.

<X$

LL.

CLl
.r;

~

~
1:

c c

I...

CLl

u

~
t-' I
VI

ctt

25

2.

By these responses, LegalZoom does not waive and, in fact, expressly

26

reserves: (a) any objections as to the admissibility, competency, relevancy and

27

materiality of evidence and any privilege attaching to any documents or information

28

produced; and (b) the right to object to other discovery requests or undertakings
I
LEGALZOOM'S RESPONSE TO ROCKET LAWYER'S THIRD SET OF REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION

EXHIBIT 4 -124-

899190

1

involving or reflecting the subject matter of the documents or information requested

2

herein.
GENERAL OBJECTIONS

3

LegalZoom in general objects to the Requests on each and every one of the

4

5

following grounds, which are incorporated into and made a part ofLegalZoom's

6

response to each and every individual request.
1.

7

8

LegalZoom objects to the extent the Requests seek to impose obligations

upon LegalZoom not required by the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.
2.

9

LegalZoom objects to the extent the Requests call for documents or

10

things that are neither relevant to the claim or defense of a party, nor reasonably

11

calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence.
3.

12

LegalZoom objects to the extent the Requests, individually and taken as

13

a whole, are unduly burdensome and oppressive and virtually unlimited in time and

14

scope.

15

4.

LegalZoom objects to the extent the Requests call for the disclosure of

16

documents subject to the attorney-client privilege, the attorney work-product doctrine,

17

the taxpayer privilege or any other applicable privileges.

18

5.

LegalZoom objects to the extent the Requests seek the production of

19

documents that are in the possession of independent parties over whom LegalZoom

20

has no control or that are publicly available and hence equally available to all parties

21

to this litigation.

22

6.

LegalZoom objects to the definition of "You" and "Your" as including

23

LegalZoom's "past and present agents, representatives, and all persons now or

24

previously under its control, and all persons currently or previously acting or

25

purporting to act on its behalf." This definition is impermissibly vague, ambiguous,

26

and overly broad, and renders any related requests unduly burdensome, unreasonable,

27

and oppressive. LegalZoom shall limit the terms "You" and "Your" to mean

28

LegalZoom.com, Inc.
2
LEGALZOOM'S RESPONSE TO ROCKET LAWYER'S THIRD SET OF REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION

EXHIBIT 4 -125-

899190

RESPONSES TO REQUESTS FOR DOCUMENTS
2
3

REQUEST FOR DOCUMENTS NO.1:

All Documents and Communications Concerning the answers provided in Your

4

response to Rocket Lawyer's Second Set of Interrogatories

5

RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR DOCUMENT NO.1:

6

LegalZoom incorporates by reference each of the foregoing General

7

Objections. LegalZoom further objects to this Request to the extent that it is vague,

8

overbroad, unduly burdensome, harassing, and virtually unlimited in time and scope.

9

REQUEST FOR DOCUMENTS NO 2:

1o
11

All Documents relied on by Your experts in rendering their expert opinion.
RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR DOCUMENT NO. 2:

12

LegalZoom incorporates by reference each of the foregoing General

13

Objections. LegalZoom further objects to this Request to the extent that it is not

14

properly directed to LegalZoom, overbroad, unduly burdensome, harassing, and

15

virtually unlimited in time and scope.

16

REQUEST FOR DOCUMENTS NO 3:

17

All Documents Concerning any analysis You have conducted on Your

18

customers such as, analysis into their purchasing decisions, their experience on

19

LegalZoom.com, their thoughts on LegalZoom.com compared to competitors such as

20

Rocket Lawyer or Law Depot, and their reactions to Your products and services.

21

RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR DOCUMENT NO. 3:

22

LegalZoom incorporates by reference each of the foregoing General

23

Objections. LegalZoom further objects to this Request to the extent that it is vague,

24

compound, overbroad, unduly burdensome, harassing, and virtually unlimited in time

25

and scope.

26

REQUEST FOR DOCUMENTS NO 4:

27

28

All Documents Concerning how much You spend on advertising each quarter.
RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR DOCUMENT NO. 4:
3
LEGALZOOM'S RESPONSE TO ROCKET LAWYER'S THIRD SET OF REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION
EXHIBIT 4 -126-

899190

LegalZoom incorporates by reference each of the foregoing General
2

Objections. LegalZoom further objects to this Request to the extent that it is

3

overbroad, unduly burdensome, harassing, and virtually unlimited in time and scope.

4

REQUEST FOR DOCUMENTS NO 5:

All Documents Concerning Your advertising spend by channel, including, but

5

6

not limited, radio, television, online, etc.

7

RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR DOCUMENT NO. 5:

LegalZoom incorporates by reference each of the foregoing General

8
9

Objections. LegalZoom further objects to this Request to the extent that it is

10

overbroad, unduly burdensome, harassing, virtually unlimited in time and scope, and

11

seeks irrelevant documentation.

12

REQUEST FOR DOCUMENTS NO 6:

CL

-'
_j

11110
0 ·a..

.D

I...

v ro

ro.t::.

All Document Concerning Your advertising spend by product.

13

--..~on

_!(.o(j

c c

·-

(J)

14

RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR DOCUMENT NO. 6:

u...t::.

:= u
(J)~

LegalZoom incorporates by reference each of the foregoing General

~-o

15

ro

16

Objections. LegalZoom further objects to this Request to the extent that it is

17

overbroad, unduly burdensome, harassing, virtually unlimited in time and scope, and

18

seeks irrelevant documentation.

19

REQUEST FOR DOCUMENTS NO 7:

I...

CLl
Ill

I...

~

~0

l9I

20

All Documents Concerning Your customers, including, but not limited to:

21

(a)

how many customers You have had since November 2008;

22

(b)

how customers are enrolled - whether by organic traffic vs. paid

23

advertising;

24

(c)

the average amount spent on LegalZoom.com by your customers;

25

(d)

the average length of time Your customers are enrolled in a LegalZoom

27

(e)

breakdown of customer purchases by product;

28

(f)

percentage of customer who make repeat purchases;

26

plan;

4
LEGALZOOM'S RESPONSE TO ROCKET LAWYER'S THIRD SET OF REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION

EXHIBIT 4 -127-

899190

(g)
2
3
4

percentage breakdown of customers; and

(h)

Average order size per customer.

RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR DOCUMENT NO. 7:

LegalZoom incorporates by reference each of the foregoing General

5

Objections. LegalZoom further objects to this Request to the extent that it is vague,

6

compound, overbroad, unduly burdensome, harassing, and virtually unlimited in time

7

and scope.

8

REQUEST FOR DOCUMENTS NO 8:

9

10
11
a..
_;

_,

All Documents Concerning your average order size.
RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR DOCUMENT NO. 8:

LegalZoom incorporates by reference each of the foregoing General

12

Objections. LegalZoom further objects to this Request to the extent that it is

13

overbroad, unduly burdensome, harassing, and virtually unlimited in time and scope.

c c
(])
..c:

14

LegalZoom further objects to the term "average order size" as vague and ambiguous,

~

15

causing LegalZoom to speculate as to what documents and information, if any, is

16

responsive.

17

REQUEST FOR DOCUMENTS NO 9:

_8J ·a..
e
0
u ro

l't!..C:

--..~.n

~

olS

LL..

!.....

u

~
"E

~
t:J I
(])
VI

ro

18

All Documents Concerning the number of transactions customers have

19

completed on your website.

20

RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR DOCUMENT NO. 9:

21

LegalZoom incorporates by reference each of the foregoing General

22

Objections. LegalZoom further objects to this Request to the extent that it is

23

overbroad, unduly burdensome, harassing, and virtually unlimited in time and scope.

24

LegalZoom further objects to the term "transactions" as vague and ambiguous,

25

causing LegalZoom to speculate as to what documents and information, if any, is

26

responsive.

27
28
5
LEGALZOOM'S RESPONSE TO ROCKET LAWYER'S THIRD SET OF REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION

EXHIBIT 4 -128-

899190

1

DATED: July 30,2014

GLASER WElL FINK
HOWARD AVCHEN & SHAPIRO LLP

2
3
4

5
6
7

_lc2
_____

By: ____;___A...,!_'{"
PATRICIA L. GLASER
FRED D. HEATHER
AARONP. ALLAN
Attorneys for Plaintiff
LegalZoom.com, Inc.

8
9

10
11

12

11110
0 ·a_

.DI...

u ro

ro.s::

13

--.1./)
~olj

c:: c::
· - (I)
u...s::

=

u

(I)~

~"0
I..

I..

14
15

~ ~

16

~I

17

~0

18
19

20
21

22
23

24
25

26
27
28
6
LEGALZOOM'S RESPONSE TO ROCKET LAWYER'S THIRD SET OF REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION

EXHIBIT 4 -129-

899190

PROOF OF SERVICE
STATE OF CALIFORNIA,COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES
I am employed in the County of Los Angeles, State of California; I am over the
a e of 18 and not a party to the within action; my business address is 10250
onstellation Boulevard, 19th Floor, Los Angeles, California 90067.

c

On July 31, 2014,I served the foregoing documents) described as
LEGALZOOM.COM,INC.'S RESPONSE TO ROCKET LAWYER
INCORPORATED'S THIRD SET OF REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION on the
interested parties to this action by delivering thereof in a sealed envelope addressed to
each of said interested parties at the following address(es):
SEE ATTACHED LIST
D
io
_€

ii
is

~ L
0

u
ro~
~~
~~
~
~i

Q

-~
~~
~~
c~ z

13

is u

is
i6

(BY MAIL)I am readily familiar with the business~ practice for collection and
processing of correspondence for mailing with the United States Postal Service.
This correspondence shall be deposited with the United States Postal Service
this same day in the ordinary course of business at our Firm's office address in
Los Angeles, California. Service made pursuant to this paragraph, upon
motion of a party served, shall be presumed invalid if the postalcancellation
date of postage meter date on the envelope is more than one day after the date
of deposit for mailing contained in this affidavit.
(BY ELECTRONIC SERVICE)by causing the foregoing documents)to be
electronically filed using the Court's Electronic Filmg System which
constitutes service ofthe filed documents)on the individuals) listed on the
attached mailing list.

D

(BY E-MAIL SERVICE)I caused such document to be delivered
electronically via e-mail to the e-mail address ofthe addressees) set forth in
the attached service list.

u

i9

(BY PERSONAL SERVICE)I caused such envelope to be delivered by hand
to the offices ofthe above named addressee(s).

Zo u

(State)

~ 1~
is

21

D
Za
23
24

Zs

I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of
California that the above is true and correct.

(Federal) I declare that I am employed in the office of a member of the bar of
this court at whose direction the service was made. I declare under
penalty of perjury that the above is true and correct.
Executed on July 31, 2014 at Los Angeles, California.
I

CHEREE L. CASTILLE

26
27
28

EXHIBIT 4 -130899190

i

SERVICE LIST

2

Forrest A. Hainline III
3 Hong-An Vu
Goodwin Procter LLP
4
Three Embarcadero Center, 24th Floor
s San Francisco, California 94111
Tel.: [phone]
6
Fax.: [phone]
fhainline~a, o~ o, dwinprocter.com
g

Counselfor Defendant
Rocket Lawyer Incorporated

hvu(a~goodwinprocter.com

9

Michael T. Jones
io Goodwin Procter LLP
13.5 Commonwealth Drive
it 1Vlenlo Park, California 94025-1105
12 Tel.: [phone]
Fax.: [phone]
13
m 'of nes(a~ og odwinprocte~.com

Counselfor Defendant
Rocket Lawyer Incorporated

14

Counselfor Defendant
Rocket Lawyer Incorporated

Brian W.Cook,Esq.
is Goodwin Procter LLP
53 State Street Exchange Place
16
Boston, MA 02109
i~ Tel.:[phone]
bcook(a~goodprocter.com
is
19

20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

EXHIBIT 4 -131899190

EXHIBIT 5

EXHIBIT 5

i PATRICIA L. GLASER -State Bar No. 55668
pgl~aser(a~glaserweil.com
FRED IS. HEATHER -State Bar No. 110650
2
flleather(a~glaserweil.com
3 AARON'. ALLAN -State Bar No. 144406
aallan(c~glaserweil.com
GLASER WEIL FINK
4
HOWARD AVCHEN & SHAPIRO LLP
10250 Constellation Boulevard, 19th Floor
s
Los Angeles, California 90067
6 Telephone: [phone]
Facsimile: 310 556-2920
7

Attorneys for Plaintiff
LegalZoom.com,Inc.
s
9
io

J

-,~,
~~
~ c
ii ~

CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

ii
~.
~, a
~L

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

WESTERN DIVISION

is LEGALZOOM.COM,INC., a Delaware
corporation,
i3
Plaintiff,

CASE NO.: CV 12-9942-GAF(AGI~)
Hon. Gary A. Feess
Courtroom: 740

14

v.

_~
,~
.~
-~
v ~

ROCKET LAWYER INCORPORATED,
i6 a Delaware corporation,

c~ s

1~

is

LEGALZOOM.COM,INC'S
RESPONSE TO DEFENDANT
ROCKET LAWYER
INCORPORATED'S NOTICE OF
F.R.C.P. 30(b)(6) DEPOSITION

Defendants.

ig
19

Complaint Filed: November 20, 2012

20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
LEGALZOOM.COM,INC.'S RESPONSE TO DEFENDANT TO ROCKET LAWYER INCORPORATED'S
EXHIBIT 5 -132NOTICE OF F.R.C.P. 30(b)(6) DEPOSITION
929259

TO ALL PARTIES AND THEIR ATTORNEYS OF RECORD:
PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that Plaintiff LEGALZOOM.COM,INC.

2
3

("LegalZoom") by and through its attorneys of record, hereby responds and objects to

4

Defendant's Notice of Deposition of F.R.C.P.30(b)(6) Deposition of

s LegalZoom.com, Inc.(the "Notice").
OBJECTIONS TO TOPICS FOR EXAMINATION

6

I.
s
9

io

GENERAL OBJECTIONS
The following General Objections are incorporated into each response set forth

below.
1.

LegalZoom objects to each examination topic in the Notice to the extent

ii that it could be construed to call for testimony or information protected by the
~.
a
~ a

t2

attorney-client privilege, the work product doctrine, or any applicable privilege,

g

13

doctrine or right of privacy.

-,~
~~
~~
_~

Q

v 3
~ ~
~=

i4

2.

LegalZoom objects to each examination topic in the Notice to the extent

is that it seeks confidential business andJor proprietary information without an
16
17

appropriate protective order designed to protect such information.
3.

LegalZoom objects to each examination topic in the Notice to the extent

that it is vague, ambiguous, overly broad, unduly burdensome or duplicative, or to the
extent that it seeks information that is neither relevant to the subject matter ofthe
pending action nor reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible
evidence.
22
23
24

4.

LegalZoom objects to each examination topic in the Notice on the

ground that it is vague as to time.
5.

LegalZoom submits these objections without waiving its right to amend,

2s revise, correct, supplement, or clarify any ofthese objections.
26
2~

LegalZoom further objects and responds to each ofthe specific topics of
examination ("Topics") identified in the Notice as follows:

28
LEGALZOOM.COM,INC.'S RESPONSE TO DEFENDANT TO ROCKET LAWYER INCORPORATED'S
EXHIBIT 5 -133NOTICE OF F.R.C.P. 30(b)(6)DEPOSITION
929259

i II.

SPECIFIC RESPONSES AND OBJECTIONS TO TOPICS OF

2

EXAMINATION

3
4

TOPIC NO. 1:
LegalZoom's current and historic relationship with Travis Giggy, including,

s without limitation the services provided by Mr. Giggy and the compensation provided
6

for such services.
RESPONSE TO TOPIC NO. 1:

s

LegalZoom incorporates each General Objection. LegalZoom further objects

9 that the Topic seeks testimony or information not relevant to the subject matter of the
io pending action nor reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible
ii evidence, and that the Topic is ambiguous as to the phrase,"current and historic
a
~, 0

12

relationships) with Travis Giggy...."

.,C~ L
~~

~N
~~

,~

13

is Quispe as its corporate designee to testify concerning this Topic.

~s

-~
a ~
~,

~ a

t~ s

Without waiver ofthe foregoing objections, LegalZoom will produce Dorian

16

TOPIC NO.2:
LegalZoom's current and historic relationship with LegalSpring.com,

1 ~ including, without limitation the services provided by LegalSpring.com and the
is compensation provided for such services.
~9 RESPONSE TO TOPIC NO.2:
20
21

LegalZoom incorporates each General Objection. LegalZoom further objects
that the Topic seeks testimony or information not relevant to the subject matter ofthe

as pending action nor reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible
23

evidence, and that the Topic is ambiguous as to the phrase,"current and historic

24

relationships) with LegalSpring.com ..."

25 I
26

Without waiver ofthe foregoing objections, LegalZoom will produce Dorian
Quispe as its corporate designee to testify concerning this Topic.

27
28

EXHIBIT 5
RESPONSE TO DEFENDANT'S NOTICE OF F.R.C.P. 30(b)(6)DEPOSITION -134929259

i TOPIC NO.3:
2

LegalZoom's current and historic relationship with Own Vision, including,

3

without limitation the services provided by Own Vision and the compensation

4

provided for such services.

s RESPONSE TO TOPIC NO.3:
6

LegalZoom incorporates each General Objection. LegalZoom further objects
that the Topic seeks testimony or information not relevant to the subject matter of the

s pending action nor reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible
9

evidence, and that the Topic is ambiguous as to the phrase,"current and historic

io relationships) with Own Vision...."
Without waiver ofthe foregoing objections, LegalZoom will produce Dorian
~.
i Quispe as its corporate designee to testify concerning this Topic.
..n L
O 'a
u cd
c~ s
-- cn
,
~ ~

TOPIC NO.4:

c ~
i~. s
v

= v

LegalZoom's affiliate program.

~d
L ~y

RESPONSE TO TOPIC NO.4:

a ~
~ ~

LegalZoom incorporates each General Objection. LegalZoom further objects

t~~=

is that the Topic seeks testimony or information not relevant to the subject matter ofthe
19

pending action nor reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible

20 evidence,.and that the Topic is ambiguous as to the phrase,"affiliate program."
ai ',
22

Without waiver ofthe foregoing objections, LegalZoom will produce Dorian
Quispe as its corporate designee to testify concerning this Topic.

23
24
25
26

a~

TOPIC NO.S:
LegalZoom's affiliate agreements) with LegalSpring.com.
~ RESPONSE TO TOPIC NO.S:
LegalZoom incorporates each General Objection. LegalZoom further objects

Zs that this Topic seeks legal conclusions, and/or testimony or information protected by
EXHIBIT 5
RESPONSE TO DEFENDANT'S NOTICE OF F.R.C.P. 30(b)(6)DEPOSITION -135929259

the attorney-client privilege, the work product doctrine, or any applicable privilege,
2

doctrine or right of privacy. A copy of the subject agreements) have already been

3

produced in this litigation.

4

s TOPIC NO.6:
6

LegalZoom's control over the content of LegalSpring.com, including without
limitation the removal of negative advertisements posted on LegalSpring.com and the

s posting of positive reviews at LegalZoom's direction on LegalSpring.com.
9

io RESPONSE TO TOPIC NO.6:
ii

LegalZoom incorporates each General Objection. LegalZoom further objects

12

on the following grounds: (1)the Topic seeks testimony or information not relevant

13

to the subject matter of the pending action nor reasonably calculated to lead to the
discovery of admissible evidence;(2)the Topic seeks information which does not
exist within LegalZoom's possession, custody or control, because LegalZoom does
not, and never did,"control" any of the content of LegalSpring.com.

~,~+~■

Without waiver of the foregoing objections, LegalZoom will produce Dorian
Quispe as its corporate designee to provide testimony concerning LegalZoom's
relationship and communications with LegalSpring.com.

TOPIC NO.7:
22
23
24

LegalZoom's rating on LegalSpring.com.
RESPONSE TO TOPIC NO.7:
LegalZoom incorporates each General Objection. LegalZoom further objects

25

on the following grounds: (1)the Topic seeks information not relevant to the subject

26

matter ofthe pending action nor reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of

2~

admissible evidence;(2)the Topic is vague as to time, and ambiguous as to the

Zs information being sought; and(3)the Topic seeks information that is equally
EXHIBIT 5
RESPONSE TO DEFENDANT'S NOTICE OF F.R.C.P. 30(b)(6) DEPOSITION -136929259

i

available to Rocket Lawyer.

2
3
4

TOPIC NO.8:
LegalZoom's lease and/or operation of LegalSpring.com at least between 2012

s and 2013.
6

RESPONSE TO TOPIC NO.8:
LegalZoom incorporates each General Objection. LegalZoom further objects

a on the following grounds: (1)the Topic seeks information not relevant to the subject
9

matter ofthe pending action nor reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of

io admissible evidence; and (2)the Topic seeks information which is not in the
ii

possession, custody or control ofLegalZoom, because there has never been a time

12

when LegalZoom either leased or operated LegalSpring.com.

13

Without waiver of the foregoing objections, LegalZoom will produce Dorian

14

Quispe as its corporate designee to provide testimony concerning LegalZoom's

15

relationship and communications with LegalSpring.com.

TOPIC NO.9:
The importance of customer reviews to consumers.
RESPONSE TO TOPIC NO.9:
LegalZoom incorporates each General Objection. LegalZoom further objects
21

on the following grounds: (1)the Topic seeks testimony or information protected by

as the attorney-client privilege, the work product doctrine, or any applicable privilege,
23

doctrine or right of privacy;(2)the Topic calls for expert testimony; and(3)the Topic

24

would call for LegalZoom to speculate as to the reactions ofindividual consumers.

25
26
27
28
5
EXHIBIT 5
NOTICE OF F.R.C.P. 30(b)(6)DEPOSITION -137RESPONSE TO DEFENDANT'S
929259

TOPIC NO. 10:
2
3
4

LegalZoom's business formation advertisements.
RESPONSE TO TOPIC NO.10:
LegalZoom incorporates each General Objection. LegalZoom further objects

s on the following grounds: (1)the Topic seeks testimony or information protected by
6

the attorney-client privilege, the work product doctrine, or any applicable privilege,
doctrine or right of privacy;(2)the Topic seeks information not relevant to the subject

s matter of the pending action nor reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of
9

admissible evidence; and(3)the Topic is vague and ambiguous as to the information

io being sought.
ii TOPIC NO. 11:
12
13
14

LegalZoom's advertisements containing the word "free."
RESPONSE TO TOPIC NO.11:
LegalZoom incorporates each General Objection. LegalZoom further objects

IS

on the following grounds: (1)the Topic seeks testimony or information protected by

16

the attorney-client privilege, the work product doctrine, or any applicable privilege,
doctrine or right of privacy;(2)the Topic seeks information not relevant to the subject
matter ofthe pending action nor reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of
admissible evidence; and(3)the Topic is vague and ambiguous as to the information
being sought.

ai
az ~ TOPIC NO.12:
23
24
25

LegalZoom's "Don't trust free" campaign.
RESPONSE TO TOPIC NO.12:
LegalZoom incorporates each General Objection. LegalZoom further objects

26

on the following grounds: (1)the Topic seeks testimony or information protected by

27

the attorney-client privilege, the work product doctrine, or any applicable privilege,

Zs doctrine or right of privacy;(2)the Topic seeks information not relevant to the subject
6
EXHIBIT 5
RESPONSE TO DEFENDANT'S NOTICE OF F.R.C.P. 30(b)(6) DEPOSITION -138929259

i matter ofthe pending action nor reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of
2

admissible evidence; and (3)the Topic is vague and ambiguous as to the information

3

being sought.

4

s TOPIC NO.13:
6

LegalZoom's decision to communicate or not communicate with any online
legal service provider, including without limitation, lawdepot, standardlegal,

s incforfree, MyCorporation, etc., regarding the use of advertisements using the term
9

"free."

io RESPONSE TO TOPIC NO.13:
ii

LegalZoom incorporates each General Objection. LegalZoom further objects

~.
f/1
..fl

J

12

on the following grounds: (1)the Topic seeks testimony or information protected by

13

the attorney-client privilege, the work product doctrine, or any applicable privilege,

~L

~~

~~
~~
~
~~
_~

,~

3
~ a
t7 s

i4 doctrine or right of privacy;(2)the Topic seeks information not relevant to the subject

is

matter ofthe pending action nor reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of

i6 admissible evidence; and (3)the Topic is vague and ambiguous as to the information
1 ~ being sought.
is
19

20
21

TOPIC NO.14:
LegalZoom's decision to file this lawsuit against Rocket Lawyer and the timing
thereof.

Za RESPONSE TO TOPIC NO.14:
23
24

LegalZoom incorporates each General Objection. LegalZoom further objects
on the following grounds: (1)the Topic seeks testimony or information protected by

Zs the attorney-client privilege, the work product doctrine, or any applicable privilege,
26

doctrine or right of privacy;(2)the Topic seeks information not relevant to the subject

z~ matter of the pending action nor reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of
as admissible evidence; and (3)the Topic is vague and ambiguous as to the information
EXHIBIT 5
RESPONSE TO DEFENDANT'S NOTICE OF F.R.C.P. 30(b)(6)DEPOSITION -139929259

being sought.
2
3
4
5
6

TOPIC NO. 15:
LegalZoom's efforts to raise advertising and/or PPC costs for Rocket Lawyer.
RESPONSE TO TOPIC NO.15:
LegalZoom incorporates each General Objection. LegalZoom further objects
on the following grounds: (1)the Topic seeks testimony or information protected by

g the attorney-client privilege, the work product doctrine, or any applicable privilege,
9 doctrine or right of privacy;(2)the Topic seeks information not relevant to the subject
io matter ofthe pending action nor reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of
ii admissible evidence; and(3)the Topic is vague and ambiguous as to the information
is being sought.
13
14

is
16

~~

~ TOPIC NO. 16:
LegalZoom's free trials, including the layout of LegalZoom's free trial offers
~ and disclosures of the conditions on the free offers.

i~ RESPONSE TO TOPIC NO.16:
is
19

LegalZoom incorporates each General Objection. LegalZoom further objects
on the following grounds: (1)the Topic seeks testimony or information protected by

20 the attorney-client privilege, the work product doctrine, or any applicable privilege,
21

doctrine or right of privacy;(2)the Topic seeks information not relevant to the subject

22

matter of the pending action nor reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of

23

admissible evidence; and (3)the Topic is vague and ambiguous as to the information

24

being sought.

25
26

Without waiving the foregoing objections, LegalZoom will produce Brian Liu
as its corporate designee to testify about the nature of LegalZoom's free trials to the

a~ extent there is information not protected by the attorney-client privilege or attorney
Zs ~ work product.

s

EXHIBIT 5
RESPONSE TO DEFENDANT'S NOTICE OF F.R.C.P. 30(b)(6) DEPOSITION -140929259

1
2
3
4

TOPIC NO.17:
Customer complaints about LegalZoom's free trial, business formation, and
attorney services.

s RESPONSE TO TOPIC NO. 17:
6

LegalZoom incorporates each General Objection. LegalZoom further objects
on the following grounds: (1)the Topic seeks information not relevant to the subject

s matter of the pending action nor reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of
9

io

admissible evidence; and(2)the Topic is ambiguous as to time.
Without waiver ofthe foregoing objections, LegalZoom will produce Brian Liu

ti to testify as its corporate designee for this Topic.
12
13
14
15
16

~~

TOPIC NO. 18:
LegalZoom's performance including its gross revenue, net revenue, and profits.
RESPONSE TO TOPIC NO. 18:
LegalZoom incorporates each General Objection. LegalZoom further objects

i~ that this Topic vague as to time and as to the information being sought, and would
is have been better addressed through a request for the production of accounting records
19

and similar documentation. It is unfair in the context of a deposition to expect that a

20 corporate representative can be prepared to answer such questions with specific
21
22

information about gross revenue, net revenue and profits.
Without waiver ofthe foregoing objections, LegalZoom will produce Brian Liu

23

to testify as its corporate designee regarding LegalZoom's general financial

24

performance issues.

25
26
27
28

9

EXHIBIT 5
RESPONSE TO DEFENDANT'S NOTICE OF F.R.C.P. 30(b)(6) DEPOSITION -141929259

i TOPIC NO. 19:
a
3
4

LegalZoom's advertising spend on Business Formation Ads.
RESPONSE TO TOPIC NO. 19:
LegalZoom incorporates each General Objection. LegalZoom further objects

s that this Topic vague as to time and as to the information being sought, and would
6

have been better addressed through a request for the production of accounting records
and similar documentation. It is unfair in the context of a deposition to expect that a

s corporate representative can be prepared to answer such questions with specific
9

io

information about advertising spend.
Without waiver ofthe foregoing objections, LegalZoom will produce Brian Liu

ii to testify as its corporate designee regarding LegalZoom's general financial
~.
~°
~s
--~ ~n

is performance issues.

~ ~
c ~

TOPIC NO.20:

i~ ~
= v

How LegalZoom tracks its conversions on Business Formation Ads.

~~
L ~

RESPONSE TO TOPIC NO.20:

v
`~ o

LegalZoom incorporates each General Objection. LegalZoom further objects

~~

is on the following grounds: (1)the Topic seeks testimony or information protected by
19

the attorney-client privilege, the work product doctrine, or any applicable privilege,

ao doctrine or right of privacy; and(2)the Topic seeks information not relevant to the
21

subject matter ofthe pending action nor reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery

Za of admissible evidence.
23
24

Without waiver ofthe foregoing objections, LegalZoom will produce Brian Liu
as its corporate designee to speak generally about this Topic.

25
26
27
28
10
EXHIBIT 5
RESPONSE TO DEFENDANT'S NOTICE OF F.R.C.P. 30(b)(6) DEPOSITION -142929259

i TOPIC NO.21:
2

LegalZoom's customer data, such as

3

(a)

how many customers You have had since November 2008;

4

(b)

how customers are enrolled —whether by organic traffic vs. paid

(c)

the average amount spent on LegalZoom.com by Your customers;

(d)

the average length oftime Your customers are enrolled in a

s advertising;
6

s LegalZoom plan;
9

(e)

breakdown of customer purchases by product;

io

(~

percentage of customer who make repeat purchases;

ii

(g)

percentage breakdown of customers; and

12

(h)

Average order size per customer.

~.
~, 0
~

L

~s

13

RESPONSE TO TOPIC NO.21:

-,~
~~
~ ~
s

is

Q

is

on the following grounds: (1)the Topic seeks testimony or information protected by

v 3
~ ~
C7i=

16

the attorney-client privilege, the work product doctrine, or any applicable privilege,

17

doctrine or right of privacy; and (2)the Topic seeks information not relevant to the

LegalZoom incorporates each General Objection. LegalZoom further objects

is subject matter of the pending action nor reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery
19

ao
21

of admissible evidence.
Without waiver ofthe foregoing objections, LegalZoom will produce Brian Liu
as its corporate designee to speak generally about this Topic.

22
23
24

TOPIC NO.22:
LegalZoom's performance according to the following marketing channels:

as

(a)

Search engine marketing;

26

(b)

Affiliate marketing;

2~

(c)

Radio marketing;

as

(d)

Television marketing;
11

EXHIBIT 5
RESPONSE TO DEFENDANT'S NOTICE OF F.R.C.P. 30(b)(6)DEPOSITION -143929259

i

(e)

E-mail marketing; and

a

(~

Mail marketing.

3
4

RESPONSE TO TOPIC NO.22:
LegalZoom incorporates each General Objection. LegalZoom further objects

s on the following grounds: (1)the Topic seeks information not relevant to the subject
6

matter of the pending action nor reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of
admissible evidence; and(2)the Topic is vague and ambiguous as to time, and as to

g the information being sought.
~.
TOPIC NO.23:
LegalZoom's bidding of Keywords relating to Rocket Lawyer.
RESPONSE TO TOPIC NO.23:
LegalZoom incorporates each General Objection. LegalZoom further objects
on the following grounds: (1)the Topic seeks information not relevant to the subject
matter of the pending action nor reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of
admissible evidence; and(2)the Topic is vague and ambiguous as to time, and as to
~,~►~.

the information being sought.
is
19

Without waiver of the foregoing objections, LegalZoom will produce Brian Liu
as its corporate designee to testify concerning this Topic.

20
21

as

~ TOPIC NO.24:
LegalZoom's communications with the search engines such as Google.com and

23

Bing.com about its advertisements and/or Rocket Lawyer.

24

RESPONSE TO TOPIC NO.24:

25

LegalZoom incorporates each General Objection. LegalZoom further objects

26

that the Topic is vague and overbroad, and to the extent that the Topic seeks

2~

testimony or information protected by the attorney-client privilege, the work product

2s doctrine, or any applicable privilege.
12

EXHIBIT 5
RESPONSE TO DEFENDANT'S NOTICE OF F.R.C.P. 30(b)(6) DEPOSITION -144929259

i
2

Without waiver ofthe foregoing objections, LegalZoom will produce Brian Liu
as its corporate designee to testify concerning this Topic.

3
4
5
6

TOPIC NO.25:
All surveys conducted by LegalZoom relating to Rocket Lawyer.
RESPONSE TO TOPIC NO.25:
LegalZoom incorporates each General Objection. LegalZoom further objects

s that the Topic is vague and overbroad, and to the extent that the Topic seeks
9

testimony or information protected by the attorney-client privilege, the work product

io doctrine, or any applicable privilege.
Without waiver of the foregoing objections, LegalZoom will produce Brian Liu
as its corporate designee to testify concerning this Topic.

~ TOPIC NO.26:
LegalZoom's damages sought in this lawsuit.
RESPONSE TO TOPIC NO.26:
LegalZoom incorporates each General Objection. LegalZoom further objects

~~~

on the following grounds: the Topic seeks expert testimony and/or information
protected by the attorney-client privilege, the work product doctrine, or any
20 applicable privilege.
ai
22
23
24

TOPIC NO.27:
LegalZoom's document retention policy, including, its inability to produce
~ documents from before April 1, 2010.

Zs RESPONSE TO TOPIC NO.27:
26
27

LegalZoom incorporates each General Objection. LegalZoom further objects
on the following grounds: the Topic seeks testimony or information protected by the

2s attorney-client privilege, the work product doctrine, or any applicable privilege.
13
EXHIBIT 5
NOTICE OF F.R.C.P. 30(b)(6)DEPOSITION -145RESPONSE TO DEFENDANT'S
929259

1
2

Without waiver ofthe foregoing objections, LegalZoom will produce Brian Liu
as its corporate designee to testify concerning this Topic.

3
4
5
6

TOPIC NO.28:
LegalZoom's document collection procedures and processes in the abovecaptioned case.
RESPONSE TO TOPIC NO.28:

s
9

LegalZoom incorporates each General Objection. LegalZoom further objects
on the following grounds: the Topic seeks testimony or information protected by the

io attorney-client privilege, the work product doctrine, or any applicable privilege.
ii
a
J
,,, 0
~

12

Without waiver ofthe foregoing objections, LegalZoom will produce Brian Liu
as its corporate designee to testify concerning this Topic.

L

~s
---,vi
~ ~
~ c
i.~ ~

13
14

,~
.s

is

~, ~
~,
~ o
~s

i6

DATED: September 17, 2014

Respectfully submitted,
GLASER WEIL FINK HOWARD
AVCHEN & SHAPIRO LLP

17
is
19

Zo
21
22

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

23
24
25
26
27
28

14
EXHIBIT 5
RESPONSE TO DEFENDANT'S NOTICE OF F.R.C.P. 30(b)(6) DEPOSITION -146929259

PROOF OF SERVICE
2

I am employed in the County of Los Angeles, State of California; I am over the
a~ge of 18 and not a party to the within action; my business address is 10250
Constellation Boulevard, 19th Floor, Los Angeles, California 90067. On September
17, 2014,I served the foregoing documents) described as

4

LEGALZOOM.COM,INC'S RESPONSE TO DEFENDANT ROCKET
LAWYER INCORPORATED'S NOTICE OF F.R.C.P. 30(b)(6) DEPOSITION
on the interested parties to this action by delivering thereof to each of said
interested parties at the following address(es):
Forrest A. Hainline III
Hong-An Vu
Goodwin Procter LLP
Three Embarcadero Center, 24th Floor
San Francisco, California 94111

Michael T. Jones
Goodwin Procter LLP
135 Commonwealth Drive
Menlo Park, California 94025-1105

io
ii
~, a
~

Counsel for Defendant
Rocket Lawyer Incorporated
Tel.: [phone]
Fax.: [phone]
fhainlinengoodwinprocter.com
hvu(a~ og odwinprocter.com
Counsel for Defendant
Rocket Lawyer Incorporated
Tel.: [phone]
Fax.: [phone]
m~ones(a~ o~dwinprocter.com

is

L

~

~s
~N

13

v

= C

14

~Q

is

-~
~ ~
~~
~ a
~~z

i6
1~

u

(BY MAIL)I am readily familiar with the business practice for collection and
processing of correspondence for mailing with the United States Postal Service.
This correspondence shall be deposited with the United States Postal Service
this same day in the ordinary course of business at our Firm's office address in
Los Angeles, California. Service made pursuant to this paragra~ph, upon
motion of a party served, shall be presumed invalid if the postal cancellation
date of postage meter date on the envelope is more than one day after the date
of deposit for mailing contained in this affidavit.

u

(BY ELECTRONIC SERVICE)by causing the foregoing documents)to be
electronically filed using the Court's Electronic Filing System which
constitutes service ofthe filed documents)on the individuals) listed on the
attached mailing list.

D

(BY E-MAIL SERVICE)Based on the agreement of the parties to accept
service by e-mail or electronic transmission, I caused such document to be
delivered electronically via e-mail to the e-mail address ofthe addressees) set
forth above. I did not receive, within a reasonable time after the transmission,
any electronic message or other indication that the transmission was
unsuccessful.

u

(BY OVERNIGHT DELIVERY)I served the foregoing document by FedEx,
an express service carrier which provides overnight delivery as follows: I
placed true copies ofthe foregoing document in sealed envelopes or packages

is
19

ao
21
22
23
24
25
26
2~

2s

EXHIBIT 5 -147929259

designated by the express service carrier addressed to each interested party as
set forth above, with fees for overnight delivery paid or provided for.

i
O

(BY FACSIMILE)I caused the above-referenced document to be transmitted
to the interested parties via facsimile transmission to the fax numbers)as
stated on the attached service list.

u

(BY PERSONAL SERVICE)I caused such envelope to be delivered by hand
to the offices ofthe above named addressee(s).

u

(State)

D

2

(Federal) I declare that I am employed in the office of a member of the bar of
this court at whose direction the service was made. I declare under
penalty of perjury that the above is true and correct.

3
4

s
6

s

I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws ofthe State of
California that the above is true and correct.

9

Executed on September 17, 2014, at Los Angeles, California.
io
ii
o

Cheree Castille

i2

o 'a
~=
~N
~ ~
~ c
ii t
~

13

= u

Q
-~

is

v 3

16

N
~

14

O

~J .dam

1/

10

19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
EXHIBIT 5 -148929259

EXHIBIT 6

EXHIBIT 6

EXHIBIT 6 -149-

EXHIBIT 6 -150-

EXHIBIT 6 -151-

EXHIBIT 6 -152-

EXHIBIT 6 -153-

EXHIBIT 7

EXHIBIT 7

EXHIBIT 7 -154-

EXHIBIT 7 -155-

EXHIBIT 7 -156-

EXHIBIT 7 -157-

EXHIBIT 7 -158-

EXHIBIT 7 -159-

EXHIBIT 7 -160-

EXHIBIT 7 -161-

EXHIBIT 7 -162-

EXHIBIT 7 -163-

EXHIBIT 8

EXHIBIT 8

2
3
4
5
6

PATRICIA L. GLASER -State Bar No. 55668
pgl~aser~a,gl~a~serweil.com
FRED I3. HEATHER -State Bar No. 110650
(heather glaserweil.com
AARO .ALLAN -State Bar No. 144406
aallan glaserweil.com
GLAS~R WEIL FINK
HOWARD AVCHEN & SHAPIRO LLP
10250 Constellation Boulevard, 19th Floor
Los Angeles, California 90067
Telephone: [phone]
Facsimile: 310 556-2920

7

Attorneys for Plaintiff
s LegalZoom.com, Inc.
9

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

to

CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

ii

WESTERN DIVISION

~, a

'
2

~i~

LEGALZOOM.COM,INC., a Delaware
corporation,

13

~~
~ ~ ::
,~ ~
~-~
) V
Nf~

~~
vj ~

~' o
C7~2

Plaintiff,

i4
v.
~5

ROCKET LAWYER INCORPORATED,
i6 a Delaware corporation,
17

Defendants.

CASE NO.: CV 12-9942-GAF(AGE)
Hon. Gary A. Feess
Courtroom: 740
LEGALZOOM.COM,INC'S
SECOND AMENDED RESPONSE
TO DEFENDANT ROCKET
LAWYER INCORPORATED'S
NOTICE OF F.R.C.P. 30(b)(6)
DEPOSITION

~s
Complaint Filed: November 20, 2012
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
LEGALZOOM.COM,INC.'S SECOND AMENDED RESPONSE TO DEFENDANT TO ROCKET LAWYER
INCORPORATED'S NOTICE OF F.R.C.P. 30(b)(6) DEPOSITION
EXHIBIT 8 -164939310

TO ALL PARTIES AND THEIR ATTORNEYS OF RECORD:
PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that Plaintiff LEGALZOOM.COM,INC.

2
3

("LegalZoom") by and through its attorneys of record, hereby responds and objects to

4

Defendant's Amended Notice of Deposition of F.R.C.P. 30(b)(6) Deposition of

5

LegalZoom.com, Inc.(the "Notice") served September 26, 2014.
OBJECTIONS TO TOPICS FOR EXAMINATION

6

I.
s
9

~o
11

GENERAL OBJECTIONS
The following General Objections are incorporated into each response set forth

below.
1.

LegalZoom objects to each examination topic in the Notice to the extent

that it could be construed to call for testimony or information protected by the

.~

~, o
~;
o~'a
~` ~
~~
~~
~,~,.

~ z attorney-client privilege, the work product doctrine, or any applicable privilege,
i3 doctrine or right of privacy.
i4

2.

LegalZoom objects to each examination topic in the Notice to the extent

'v1,Q

15

that it seeks confidential business and/or proprietary information without an

~I ~

16

appropriate protective order designed to protect such information.

-; U

~^ ~ 3
'~ o

c~=

i~

3.

LegalZoom objects to each examination topic in the Notice to the extent

~s that it is vague, ambiguous, overly broad, unduly burdensome or duplicative, or to the
19

extent that it seeks information that is neither relevant to the subject matter of the

zo pending action nor reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible
Zt
22
23
24
25
26
2~

evidence.
4.

LegalZoom objects to each examination topic in the Notice on the

ground that it is vague as to time.
5.

LegalZoom submits these objections without waiving its right to amend,

revise, correct, supplement, or clarify any of these objections.
LegalZoom further objects and responds to each ofthe specific topics of
examination ("Topics") identified in the Notice as follows:

28
1
RESPONSE TO DEFENDANT TO ROCKET LAWYER
LEGALZOOM.COM,INC.'S SECOND AMENDED
EXHIBIT 8 -165INCORPORATED'S NOTICE OF F.R.C.P. 30(b)(6) DEPOSITION
939310

II.
2
3
4

SPECIFIC RESPONSES AND OBJECTIONS TO TOPICS OF
EXAMINATION

TOPIC NO. 1:
LegalZoom's current and historic relationship with Travis Giggy, including,

s without limitation the services provided by Mr. Giggy and the compensation provided
6

for such services.
RESPONSE TO TOPIC NO.1:

s
9
10

LegalZoom incorporates each General Objection. LegalZoom further objects
that the Topic seeks testimony or information not relevant to the subject matter of the
pending action nor reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible

ii evidence, and that the Topic is ambiguous as to the phrase,"current and historic
~, p
o'~ci
rd's
~~
~ ~

12

i3

relationships) with Travis Giggy...."
Without waiver of the foregoing objections, LegalZoom will produce Dorian

~4 Quispe as its corporate designee to testify concerning this Topic.

,s
~~Q

~i~
vl ~

~ 3
0
t~11

15

i6
t~

TOPIC NO.2:
LegalZoom's current and historic relationship with LegalSpring.com,
including, without limitation the services provided by LegalSpring.com and the

~s compensation provided for such services.
t9 RESPONSE TO TOPIC NO.2:
ao
2t

LegalZoom incorporates each General Objection. LegalZoom further objects
that the Topic seeks testimony or information not relevant to the subject matter of the

za pending action nor reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible
23

evidence, and that the Topic is ambiguous as to the phrase,"current and historic

24

relationships) with LegalSpring.com ..."

as
26

Without waiver of the foregoing objections, LegalZoom will produce Dorian
Quispe as its corporate designee to testify concerning this Topic.

27
28
2
AMENDED RESPONSE TO DEFENDANT TO ROCKET LAWYER
LEGALZOOM.COM,INC.'S SECOND
EXHIBIT 8 -166INCORPORATED'S NOTICE OF F.R.C.P. 30(b)(6) DEPOSITION
939310

TOPIC NO.3:
2

LegalZoom's current and historic relationship with Own Vision, including,

3

without limitation the services provided by Own Vision and the compensation

4

provided for such services.

5

RESPONSE TO TOPIC NO.3:

6

LegalZoom incorporates each General Objection. LegalZoom further objects
that the Topic seeks testimony or information not relevant to the subject matter of the

s pending action nor reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible
9

evidence, and that the Topic is ambiguous as to the phrase,"current and historic

io relationships) with Own Vision...."
Without waiver of the foregoing objections, LegalZoom will produce Dorian
a

iL Quispe as its corporate designee to testify concerning this Topic.

~^ L
~~~ o
o'~
~~
~~
~ ~ ~~
~~~
as
f~

13
14

V
'
~,'`a
~~
v

16

c.~=

i~

~^' 3
~" o

15

~ TOPIC NO.4:
LegalZoom's affiliate program.
RESPONSE TO TOPIC NO.4:
LegalZoom incorporates each General Objection. LegalZoom further objects

is that the Topic seeks testimony or information not relevant to the subject matter of the
19

pending action nor reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible

20 evidence, and that the Topic is ambiguous as to the phrase,"affiliate program."
ai
22

Without waiver of the foregoing objections, LegalZoom will produce Dorian
Quispe as its corporate designee to testify concerning this Topic.

23
24
25
26

~~ TOPIC NO.S:
LegalZoom's affiliate relationship with LegalSpring.com/Own Vision,
including, but not limited to, LegalZoom's affiliate agreements) with

2~ LegalSpring.com/Own Vision, the circumstances in which LegalZoom entered into
2s the affiliate agreements) with LegalSpring.com/Own Vision and/or Travis Giggy, the
3
LEGALZOOM.COM,INC.'S SECOND AMENDED RESPONSE TO DEFENDANT TO ROCKET LAWYEK
EXHIBIT 8 -167INCORPORATED'S NOTICE OF F.R.C.P. 30(b)(6) DEPOSITION
939310

differences between the affiliate relationship with LegalSpring.com and other
2

affiliates that participate in the program found at

3

https://affiliate.legalzoom.com/?_ga=1.268723442.2027654598.1411408695.

4

RESPONSE TO TOPIC NO.5:

s
6

LegalZoom incorporates each General Objection. LegalZoom further objects
to the extent that this Topic seeks legal conclusions, and/or testimony or information
protected by the attorney-client privilege, the work product doctrine, or any

s applicable privilege, doctrine or right of privacy. A copy of the subject agreements)
9

io
t~
~, o

Without waiver of the foregoing objections, LegalZoom will produce Dorian
Quispe as its corporate designee to testify concerning this Topic.

l2

o' a

v csi
~~
---•to
~ v~

have already been produced in this litigation.

13

TOPIC NO.6:
LegalZoom's control over the content of LegalSpring.com, including without

~~ ~
~~~
v'Q
`"

~a

~~~

~` ~

i6 posting of positive reviews at LegalZoom's direction on LegalSpring.com.

cal=

1~ RESPONSE TO TOPIC NO.6:

~s limitation the removal of negative advertisements posted on LegalSpring.com and the

18

LegalZoom incorporates each General Objection. LegalZoom further objects

i9 on the following grounds: (1)the Topic seeks testimony or information not relevant
20 to the subject matter of the pending action nor reasonably calculated to lead to the
2t

discovery of admissible evidence;(2)the Topic seeks information which does not

22

exist within LegalZoom's possession, custody or control, because LegalZoom does

23
24

j not, and never did,"control" any of the content of LegalSpring.com.
Without waiver of the foregoing objections, LegalZoom will produce Dorian

2s Quispe as its corporate designee to provide testimony concerning LegalZoom's
26

relationship and communications with LegalSpring.com.

27
28

4
SECOND AMENDED RESPONSE TO DEFENDANT TO ROCKET LAWYER
LEGALZOOM.COM,INC.'S
EXHIBIT 8 -168INCORPORATED'S NOTICE OF F.R.C.P. 30(b)(6) DEPOSITION
939310

TOPIC NO.7:
Communications with Travis Giggy and/or employees of LegalSpring.com
3

about LegalZoom's rating on LegalSpring.com, including, but not limited to,

4

LegalZoom's manipulation of such rating, requests to add positive reviews to

5

LegalSpring.com to increase LegalZoom's rating, LegalZoom's understanding of how

6

ratings are calculated on LegalSpring.com and the documents produced by
LegalZoom relating to its rating on LegalSpring.com, including, but not limited to

s Bates LZ00447 and LZ000958.
9

~o

RESPONSE TO TOPIC NO.7:
LegalZoom incorporates each General Objection. LegalZoom further objects

11

that the Topic seeks information not relevant to the subject matter of the pending

12

~ action nor reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence.

13
14

Without waiver of the foregoing objections, LegalZoom will produce Dorian
'I Quispe as its corporate designee to testify concerning this Topic.

15
16

~ TOPIC NO.8:
LegalZoom's lease and/or operation of LegalSpring.com at least between 2012

~s and 2013.
19

zo

RESPONSE TO TOPIC NO.8:
LegalZoom incorporates each General Objection. LegalZoom further objects

21

on the following grounds: (1)the Topic seeks information not relevant to the subject

ZZ

matter of the pending action nor reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of

23

admissible evidence; and (2)the Topic seeks information which is not in the

24

possession, custody or control of LegalZoom, because there has never been a time

25

when LegalZoom either leased or operated LegalSpring.com.

26
2~

Without waiver of the foregoing objections, LegalZoom will produce Dorian
~ Quispe as its corporate designee to provide testimony concerning LegalZoom's

2s relationship and communications with LegalSpring.com.
5
SECOND AMENDED RESPONSE TO DEFENDANT TO ROCKET LAWYER
LEGALZOOM.COM,INC.'S
EXHIBIT 8 -169INCORPORATED'S NOTICE OF F.R.C.P. 30(b)(6) DEPOSITION
939310

2
3
4

TOPIC NO.9:
The importance of customer reviews to LegalZoom's business, including, but

5

not limited to, LegalZoom's efforts to drive consumers to its website using review

6

websites or companies, including but not limited to, LegalSpring.com, Yelp.com,
Better Business Bureau, and Amazon.com, communications relating to the need to

s maintain positive reviews on review websites as evidenced by communications such
9 as LZ001546, communications relating to the effect of negative reviews on
~o LegalZoom.com's business, and any research conducted by LegalZoom relating to the
ii importance of customer reviews to consumers.
Ni

~'

12

.,C1 L
4 'Q

v~ ~
~;~
~~
~'

~;~
-_
v~Q
~ ~,.~
L- ` L

cu ~ ca
~ 3
`~ o
~.7'=

13

RESPONSE TO TOPIC NO.9:
LegalZoom incorporates each General Objection. LegalZoom further objects

i4 on the following grounds: (1)the Topic seeks testimony or information protected by
is the attorney-client privilege, the work product doctrine, or any applicable privilege,
16 doctrine or right of privacy;(2)the Topic calls for expert testimony; and (3)the Topic
17
18
19

is overbroad and unduly burdensome in scope.
Without waiver of the foregoing objections, LegalZoom will produce Dorian
Quispe as its corporate designee to provide testimony concerning LegalZoom's

20 efforts to drive consumers to its website using review websites or companies,
z~ including but not limited to, LegalSpring.com, Yelp.com, Better Business Bureau,
Za and Amazon.com.
23
24

zs

TOPIC NO. 10:
Any and all advertisements You published, or considered publishing, relating

26

to business formation, such as incorporation or forming an LLC,from January 1,

2~

2008 to the present.

28
6
SECOND AMENDED RESPONSE TO DEFENDANT TO ROCKET LAWYER
LEGALZOOM.COM,INC.'S
EXHIBIT 8 -170INCORPORATED'S NOTICE OF F.R.C.P. 30(b)(6) DEPOSITION
939310

RESPONSE TO TOPIC NO. 10:
2

LegalZoom incorporates each General Objection. LegalZoom further objects

3

on the following grounds: (1)the Topic seeks testimony or information protected by

4

the attorney-client privilege, the work product doctrine, or any applicable privilege,

s doctrine or right of privacy;(2)the Topic seeks information not relevant to the subject
6

matter of the pending action nor reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of
admissible evidence; and (3)the Topic is vague and ambiguous as to the information

g being sought.
9
10
11

TOPIC NO. 11:
Any and all advertisements You published, or considered publishing,
containing the word "free," from January 1, 2008 to the present.

,~, ~ ~

12

~' ~
~~
--.
~.
~3~
_~
'~Q
~'
a ~

O"CL

i3 RESPONSE TO TOPIC NO. 11:

~' o

~~ doctrine or right of privacy;(2)the Topic seeks information not relevant to the subject

wiz

~a

LegalZoom incorporates each General Objection. LegalZoom further objects

~s on the following grounds: (1)the Topic seeks testimony or information protected by
~6 ,the attorney-client privilege, the work product doctrine, or any applicable privilege,

is matter of the pending action nor reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of
19

admissible evidence; and (3)the Topic is vague and ambiguous as to the information

ao ~ being sought.
21
22
23

TOPIC NO. 12:
LegalZoom's "Don't trust free" campaign and/or "Freemium War" as

24

referenced in LZ001560 or other documents produced by LegalZoom.

25

RESPONSE TO TOPIC NO. 12:

26
2~

LegalZoom incorporates each General Objection. LegalZoom further objects
~~ on the following grounds: (1)the Topic seeks testimony or information protected by

Zs the attorney-client privilege, the work product doctrine, or any applicable privilege,
7
LEGALZOOM.COM,INC.'S SECOND AMENDED RESPONSE TO DEFENDANT TO ROCKET LAWY~:it
EXHIBIT 8 -171INCORPORATED'S NOTICE OF F.R.C.P. 30(b)(6) DEPOSITION
939310

doctrine or right of privacy;(2)the Topic seeks information not relevant to the subject
2

matter of the pending action nor reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of

3

admissible evidence; and (3)the Topic is vague and ambiguous as to the information

4

being sought.

5
6

TOPIC NO. 13:
LegalZoom's business decision to communicate or not communicate with any

s online legal service provider, including without limitation, lawdepot, standardlegal,
9 incforfree, MyCorporation, etc., regarding their use of advertisements containing the
io term "free."
11
~.

o
oI',i
~;s
—y
~~ .x
~ ~
.~ ~

i2

v c~

f~ d
°

~~z

LegalZoom incorporates each General Objection. LegalZoom further objects

~3 on the following grounds: (1)the Topic seeks testimony or information protected by
i4 the attorney-client privilege, the work product doctrine, or any applicable privilege,
15
doctrine or right of privacy;(2)the Topic seeks information not relevant to the subject

~~
Li L

RESPONSE TO TOPIC NO. 13:

l6

matter of the pending action nor reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of

i~ admissible evidence; and (3)the Topic is vague and ambiguous as to the information
ig j being sought.
is
Zo ~ TOPIC NO. 14:
21
22
23
24
25

Business reasons for LegalZoom's decision to file this lawsuit against Rocket
Lawyer and the timing thereof, including but not limited to, communications relating
Ito issues noted in LZ001712.
RESPONSE TO TOPIC NO. 14:
LegalZoom incorporates each General Objection. LegalZoom further objects

26

on the following grounds: (1)the Topic seeks testimony or information protected by

27

the attorney-client privilege, the work product doctrine, or any applicable privilege,

2s doctrine or right of privacy;(2)the Topic seeks information not relevant to the subject

s
LEGALZOOM.COM,INC.'S SECOND AMENDED RESPONSE TO DEFENDANT 1'U KUCK~'1' LAW Y ~K
EXHIBIT 8 -172INCORPORATED'S NOTICE OF F.R.C.P. 30(b)(6) DEPOSITION
939310

i matter of the pending action nor reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of
2

admissible evidence; and (3)the Topic is vague and ambiguous as to the information

3

being sought.

4

Without waiver of the foregoing objections, LegalZoom will produce Brian Liu

s as its corporate designee to speak generally about LZ001712.
6

TOPIC NO. 15:
s
9

LegalZoom's efforts to raise advertising andlor PPC costs for Rocket Lawyer
as evidenced in documents such as LZ007404.

~o RESPONSE TO TOPIC NO.15:
LegalZoom incorporates each General Objection. LegalZoom further objects
~^ a

on the following grounds: (1)the Topic seeks testimony or information protected by

~i~

the attorney-client privilege, the work product doctrine, or any applicable privilege,

~1 j L
pj a

---* v~

doctrine or right of privacy;(2)the Topic seeks information not relevant to the subject

i.~ ; cu
—`v
~vf

matter of the pending action nor reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of

>

?~~

v

16

~^' 3
~I o

admissible evidence; and(3)the Topic assumes facts not in evidence and is vague and
ambiguous as to the information being sought.

~~_
ig
19

Without waiver of the foregoing objections, LegalZoom will produce Dorian
j Quispe as its corporate designee to speak generally about this Topic.

20

zi TOPIC NO. 16:
z2

LegalZoom's free trials, including the layout of LegalZoom's free trial offers

23

and disclosures of the conditions on the free offers.

24

~ RESPONSE TO TOPIC NO. 16:

25

LegalZoom incorporates each General Objection. LegalZoom further objects

26

~ on the following grounds: (1)the Topic seeks testimony or information protected by

2~

~ the attorney-client privilege, the work product doctrine, or any applicable privilege,

Zs doctrine or right of privacy;(2)the Topic seeks information not relevant to the subject
9
LEGALZOOM.COM,INC.'S SECOND AMENDED RESPONSE TO DEFENDANT TO ROCKET LAWYER
EXHIBIT 8 -173iNCORPORATED'S NOTICE OF F.R.C.P. 30(b)(6) DEPOSITION
939310

matter of the pending action nor reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of
2 admissible evidence; and (3)the Topic is vague and ambiguous as to the information
3
4

being sought.
Without waiving the foregoing objections, LegalZoom will produce Brian Liu

5

as its corporate designee to testify about the nature of LegalZoom's free trials to the

6

extent there is information not protected by the attorney-client privilege or attorney
work product.

s
9

io

TOPIC NO.17:
Customer complaints about LegalZoom's free trial, business formation, and

~i attorney services.
~, p

~~ L
o~~~
~,~
~~
~ <~
~~ c
u
''.~
_? v
~vQ
L~
a~; ca
~. ~
~~ O

12

~3

RESPONSE TO TOPIC NO. 17:
LegalZoom incorporates each General Objection. LegalZoom further objects

15

on the following grounds: (1)the Topic seeks information not relevant to the subject
matter of the pending action nor reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of

16

admissible evidence; and (2)the Topic is ambiguous as to time.

14

Without waiver of the foregoing objections, LegalZoom will produce Brian Liu

~~_

is to testify as its corporate designee for this Topic.
i9
20 TOPIC NO. 18:
ai
22
23

LegalZoom's performance including its gross revenue, net revenue, and profits.
RESPONSE TO TOPIC NO. 18:
LegalZoom incorporates each General Objection. LegalZoom further objects

24

that this Topic vague as to time and as to the information being sought, and would

25

have been better addressed through a request for the production of accounting records

26

and similar documentation. It is unfair in the context of a deposition to expect that a

a~ corporate representative can be prepared to answer such questions with specific

Zs information about gross revenue, net revenue and profits.

io
LEGALZOOM.COM,INC.'S SECOND AMENDED RESPONSE TO DEFENDANT TO ROCKET LAWYER
EXHIBIT 8 -174INCORPORATED'S NOTICE OF F.R.C.P. 30(b)(6) DEPOSITION
939310

Without waiver of the foregoing objections, LegalZoom will produce Brian Liu
2

to testify as its corporate designee regarding LegalZoom's general financial

3

performance issues.

4
5
6

TOPIC NO. 19:
LegalZoom's advertising spend on Business Formation Ads.

RESPONSE TO TOPIC NO. 19:
s
9

LegalZoom incorporates each General Objection. LegalZoom further objects
that this Topic vague as to time and as to the information being sought, and would

io have been better addressed through a request for the production of accounting records
>> and similar documentation. It is unfair in the context of a deposition to expect that a
~a corporate representative can be prepared to answer such questions with specific
13
14

information about advertising spend.
Without waiver of the foregoing objections, LegalZoom will produce Brian Liu

15

to testify as its corporate designee regarding LegalZoom's general financial

lb

performance issues.

17

is TOPIC NO.20:
19

How LegalZoom tracks its conversions on Business Formation Ads.

Zo RESPONSE TO TOPIC NO.20:
21

LegalZoom incorporates each General Objection. LegalZoom further objects

zz on the following grounds: (1)the Topic seeks testimony or information protected by
23

the attorney-client privilege, the work product doctrine, or any applicable privilege,

24

doctrine or right of privacy; and (2)the Topic seeks information not relevant to the

Zs subject matter of the pending action nor reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery
26

z~
2g

of admissible evidence.
Without waiver ofthe foregoing objections, LegalZoom will produce Brian Liu
as its corporate designee to speak generally about this Topic.
11
SECOND AMENDED RESPONSE TO DEFENDANT TO ROCKET LAWYER
LEGALZOOM.COM,INC.'S
EXHIBIT 8 -175INCORPORATED'S NOTICE OF F.R.C.P. 30(b)(6) DEPOSITION

939310

1
2
3

TOPIC NO.21:
LegalZoom's customer data, such as

4

(a)

how many customers You have had since November 2008;

s

(b)

how customers are enrolled —whether by organic traffic vs. paid

(c)

the average amount spent on LegalZoom.com by Your customers;

(d)

the average length oftime Your customers are enrolled in a

6

s
9

advertising;

LegalZoom plan;

~o

breakdown of customer purchases by product;

ii
~ ~
o'cL
~E~
--.
~?

(e)
(~

percentage of customer who make repeat purchases;

~2

(g)

percentage breakdown of customers; and

~3

(h)

Average order size per customer.

i4 RESPONSE TO TOPIC NO.21:

LL.i~
~ ~
V

~, a
>~Q
i~~

v ~
~' ~
~ o
~'=

15

LegalZoom incorporates each General Objection. LegalZoom further objects

~6 on the following grounds: (1)the Topic seeks testimony or information protected by
1 ~ the attorney-client privilege, the work product doctrine, or any applicable privilege,
~s doctrine or right of privacy; and (2)the Topic seeks information not relevant to the
19

subject matter of the pending action nor reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery

Zo of admissible evidence.
zi
22

Without waiver ofthe foregoing objections, LegalZoom will produce Brian Liu
as its corporate designee to speak generally about this Topic.

23
24
25
26

TOPIC NO.22:
LegalZoom's financial performance, including but not limited to percentage of
total costs, sales, and revenue, in the following marketing channels:

2~

(a)

Search engine marketing;

zs

(b)

Affiliate marketing;

12
AMENDED RESPONSE TO DEFENDANT TO ROCKET LAWYER
LEGALZOOM.COM,INC.'S SECOND
EXHIBIT 8 -176INCORPORATED'S NOTICE OF F.R.C.P. 30(b)(6) DEPOSITION
939310

(c)

Radio marketing;

2

(d)

Television marketing;

3

(e)

E-mail marketing; and

4

(~

Mail marketing.

5
6

RESPONSE TO TOPIC NO.22:
LegalZoom incorporates each General Objection. LegalZoom further objects
on the following grounds: (1)the Topic seeks information not relevant to the subject

s matter of the pending action nor reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of
9

admissible evidence;(2)the Topic is vague and ambiguous as to time, and as to the

io information being sought; and (3)the Topic is unduly burdensome to prepare a
11
~ p
o~~n.

witness to testify about the specific subjects mentioned, and should have been

12

pursued with a timely interrogatory.

~~~
~~
.~

~3

~ c

14

~

is

i,~, au
= v

i~

Q1 ', (0
~ ~

Without waiver of the foregoing objections, LegalZoom will produce Brian Liu
as its corporate designee to speak generally about LegalZoom's financial
~ performance.

~6

'—~ o

TOPIC NO.23:

~~z
~s
19

Zo

LegalZoom's bidding of Keywords relating to Rocket Lawyer.
RESPONSE TO TOPIC NO.23:
LegalZoom incorporates each General Objection. LegalZoom further objects

21

on the following grounds: (1)the Topic seeks information not relevant to the subject

22

matter of the pending action nor reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of

23

admissible evidence; and (2)the Topic is vague and ambiguous as to time, and as to

24

the information being sought.

2s
26

Without waiver of the foregoing objections, LegalZoom will produce Dorian
Quispe as its corporate designee to testify concerning this Topic.

27
28

13
SECOND AMENDED RESPONSE TO DEFENDANT TO ROCKET LAWYER
LEGALZOOM.COM,INC.'S
EXHIBIT 8 -177INCORPORATED'S NOTICE OF F.R.C.P. 30(b)(6) DEPOSITION
939310

1
2

TOPIC NO.24:
LegalZoom's communications with the search engines such as Google.com and

3

Bing.com about its advertisements and/or Rocket Lawyer.

4

RESPONSE TO TOPIC NO.24:

5
6

LegalZoom incorporates each General Objection. LegalZoom further objects
that the Topic is vague and overbroad, and to the extent that the Topic seeks
testimony or information protected by the attorney-client privilege, the work product

s doctrine, or any applicable privilege.
9
10

Without waiver of the foregoing objections, LegalZoom will produce Brian Liu
as its corporate designee to testify concerning this Topic.

11
'i'; Q
~'
O'~

~~~
~N
x ~~
~'•. c
is.t
'~FQ
—' ~

t2 TOPIC NO.25:
13
14
15

?~

~~ ~
`~ ` o

16

All surveys conducted by LegalZoom relating to Rocket Lawyer.
RESPONSE TO TOPIC NO.25:
LegalZoom incorporates each General Objection. LegalZoom further objects
that the Topic is vague and overbroad, and to the extent that the Topic seeks
testimony or information protected by the attorney-client privilege, the work product

~'_

is doctrine, or any applicable privilege.
19

Without waiver of the foregoing objections, LegalZoom will produce Brian Liu

ao as its corporate designee to testify concerning this Topic.
z~
22
23
24
25

~ TOPIC NO.26:
LegalZoom's damages sought in this lawsuit.
RESPONSE TO TOPIC NO.26:
LegalZoom incorporates each General Objection. LegalZoom further objects

26

on the following grounds: the Topic seeks expert testimony and/or information

27

protected by the attorney-client privilege, the work product doctrine, or any

2s applicable privilege.
14
AMENDED RESPONSE TO DEFENDANT TO ROCKET'LAWY~:K
LEGALZOOM.COM,INC.'S SECOND
EXHIBIT 8 -178I1~TCORPORATED'S NOTICE OF F.R.C.P. 30(b)(6) DEPOSITION
939310

1
2
3

TOPIC NO.27:
LegalZoom's document retention policy, including, its inability to produce

4

documents from before April 1, 2010.

5

RESPONSE TO TOPIC NO.27:

6

LegalZoom incorporates each General Objection. LegalZoom further objects
on the following grounds: the Topic seeks testimony or information protected by the

s attorney-client privilege, the work product doctrine, or any applicable privilege.
Without waiver of the foregoing objections, LegalZoom will produce Brian Liu
~~ as its corporate designee to testify concerning this Topic.

TOPIC NO.28:
LegalZoom's document collection procedures and processes in the abovecaptioned case.
RESPONSE TO TOPIC NO.28:
16
17

LegalZoom incorporates each General Objection. LegalZoom further objects
on the following grounds: the Topic seeks testimony or information protected by the

~s attorney-client privilege, the work product doctrine, or any applicable privilege.
19

Without waiver of the foregoing objections, LegalZoom will produce Brian Liu

Zo as its corporate designee to testify concerning this Topic.
Zt
22
23

DATED: September 29, 2014

Respectfully submitted,
GLASER WEIL FINK HOWARD
AVCHEN & SHAPIRO LLP

24
25
By:

AARON P. ALLAN
Attorneys for Plaintiff
LegalZoom.com, Inc.

26
2~

2s
is
LEGALZOOM.COM,INC.'S SECOND AMENDED RESPONSE TO DEFENDANT TO ROCKET LAWYER
EXHIBIT 8 -179INCORPORATED'S NOTICE OF F.R.C.P. 30(b)(6) DEPOSITION
939310

PROOF OF SERVICE
I am employed in the County of Los Angeles, State of California; I am over the
age of 18 and not a party to the within action; my business address is 10250
Constellation Boulevard, 19th Floor, Los Angeles, California 90067. On September
29, 2014, I served the foregoing documents) described as
4

LEGALZOOM.COM,INC'S SECOND AMENDED RESPONSE TO
DEFENDANT ROCKET LAWYER INCORPORATED'S NOTICE OF
F.R.C.P. 30(b)(6) DEPOSITION
on the interested parties to this action by delivering thereof to each of said
interested parties at the following address(es):
Forrest A. Hainline III
Hong-An Vu
Goodwin Procter LLP
Three Embarcadero Center, 24th Floor
San Francisco, California 94111

Michael T. Jones
Goodwin Procter LLP
135 Commonwealth Drive
Menlo Park, California 94025-1105

tt
~.
~ o
o'~—
~'
~'
~a ~
~~

13

~4

L; L

a~, ~
`~( o

~=s

Counsel for Defendant
Rocket Lawyer Incorporated
Tel.: [phone]
Fax.: [phone]
mjonesngoodwinprocter.com

12

~~

~',~

Counsel for Defendant
Rocket Lawyer Incorporated
Tel.: [phone]
Fax.: [phone]
fhainlinena,goodwinprocter.com
hvu(a~goodwinprocter.com

is
16

t~

u

(BY MAIL)I am readily familiar with the business practice for collection and
processing of correspondence for mailing with the United States Postal Service.
This correspondence shall be deposited with the United States Postal Service
this same day in the ordinary course of business at our Firm's office address in
Los Angeles, California. Service made pursuant to this paragraph, upon
motion of a party served, shall be presumed invalid if the postal cancellation
date of postage meter date on the envelope is more than one day after the date
of deposit for mailing contained in this affidavit.

u

(BY ELECTRONIC SERVICE)by causing the foregoing documents)to be
electronically filed using the Court's Electronic Filing System which
constitutes service of the filed documents) on the individuals) listed on the
attached mailing list.

D

(BY E-MAIL SERVICE)Based on the agreement of the parties to accept
service by e-mail or electronic transmission, I caused such document to be
delivered electronically via e-mail to the e-mail address of the addressees) set
forth above. I did not receive, within a reasonable time after the transmission,
any electronic message or other indication that the transmission was
unsuccessful.

u

(BY OVERNIGHT DELIVERY)I served the foregoing document by FedEx,
an express service carrier which provides overnight delivery, as follows: I

18

t9
ao
2t
22
23
24
25
26
27

2s

EXHIBIT 8 -180939310

placed true copies of the foregoing document in sealed envelopes or packages
designated by the express service carrier addressed to each interested party as
set forth above, with fees for overnight delivery paid or provided for.

z
u

(BY FACSIMILE)I caused the above-referenced document to be transmitted
to the interested parties via facsimile transmission to the fax numbers) as
stated on the attached service list.

u

(BY PERSONAL SERVICE)I caused such envelope to be delivered by hand
to the offices of the above named addressee(s).

u

(State)

D

(Federal) I declare that I am a member of the bar of this court. I declare under
penalty of perjury that the above is true and correct.

3
4
5
6

a

I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of
California that the above is true and correct.

9

Executed on September 29, 2014, at Los Angeles, California.
io
>>

1~I2

Aaron Allan

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

EXHIBIT 8 -181939310

EXHIBIT 9

EXHIBIT 9

Vu, Hong-An
From:
Sent:
To:
Cc:
Subject:
Attachments:

Vu, Hong-An
Wednesday, October 01, 2014 5:14 PM
'Barak Vaughn'
Jones, Michael T; Cook, Brian W
RE: Document Attached to Moss Adams Report - LegalZoom v. Rocket Lawyer
IBIS-OD5638_Online Legal Services_05-14.pdf

Barak: 

Attached please find a copy of the IBIS Industry report referenced in the Moss Adams rebuttal report.  We must note 
that you have not produced the documents relied on and referenced in your expert reports and in fact, have formally 
refused to do so.  See response to Request No. 2 of Rocket Lawyer’s Third Set of Requests for Production.  

Sincerely, 
Hong‐An 

Hong‐An 

Hong‐An Vu  
Goodwin Procter LLP  
Three Embarcadero Center, 24th Floor  
San Francisco, CA  94111  
T: 415‐733‐6114  
F: 415‐677‐9041  
[e-mail]  
www.goodwinprocter.com 

From: Barak Vaughn [mailto:[e-mail]]
Sent: Wednesday, October 01, 2014 10:03 AM
To: Vu, Hong-An
Subject: Document Attached to Moss Adams Report - LegalZoom v. Rocket Lawyer

Good Morning Hong‐An: 

Having reviewed the Moss Adams report recently, I noticed that we never received the following report that was 
referenced within their report: 

IBISWorld Industry Report OD5638 Online Legal Services in the US, May 2014 

Please immediately forward this report to my attention.  Thank you in advance for your compliance to this request.   

1

EXHIBIT 9 -182-