LegalZoom.com Inc v. Rocket Lawyer Incorporated

Filing 190

ORDER Granting Stipulation re: Scheduling and Additional Discovery by Judge Gary A. Feess: Upon consideration of the Joint Stipulation for Order re Scheduling and Limited Additional Discovery and good cause appearing, the Court hereby ORDERS the following: This action shall proceed on the following schedule: Trial on April 21, 2015 at 8:30 a.m.; Hearing on Motions in Limine and Hearing on Disputed Jury Instructions on April 13, 2015 at 9:30 a.m.; Pretrial Conference, Motions in Limine to be filed, Proposed Voir Dire Questions Lodged, and Agreed-to Statement of Case on March 16, 2015 at 3:30 p.m.; Deadline to amend pretrial filings is March 10, 2015; Last date to conduct Settlement Conference is February 24, 2015; Hearing on Cross-Motions for Summary Judgment on February 23, 2015 at 9:30 a.m.; Deadline to supplement summary judgment record is February 2, 2015; Close of Limited Renewed Discovery is January 16, 2015. See document for details. (smo)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

Forrest A. Hainline III (SBN 64166)
[e-mail]
Hong-An Vu (SBN 266268)
[e-mail]
GOODWIN PROCTER LLP
Three Embarcadero Center
24th Floor
NOTE: CHANGES MADE BY THE COURT
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
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
WESTERN DIVISION
LEGALZOOM.COM, INC., a Delaware Case No. 2:12-cv-09942-GAF (AGRx)
corporation,
ORDER GRANTING STIPULATION
RE SCHEDULING AND
Plaintiff,
ADDITIONAL DISCOVERY
v.
Judge:
Judge Gary A. Feess
Courtroom: 740
ROCKET LAWYER
255 East Temple Street
INCORPORATED, a Delaware
Los Angeles, CA 90012
corporation,
Action Filed: November 20, 2012
Defendant.

1

Upon consideration of the Joint Stipulation for Order re Scheduling and

2

Limited Additional Discovery and good cause appearing, the Court hereby

3

ORDERS the following:

4

The above-captioned action shall proceed on the following schedule:

5
6

Matter

7

Trial
Estimated length: 6 trial days

8

Weeks
before trial
(at least)

New Date or
Deadline
April 21, 2015 at
8:30 a.m.

Hearing on Motions
–1
in Limine; Hearing on Disputed
Jury Instructions
Pretrial Conference; Motions in
–4
Limine to be filed; Proposed Voir
Dire Qs Lodged and Agreed−to
Statement of Case

April 13, 2015 at
9:30 a.m.

Deadline to amend pretrial filings

–6

March 10, 2015

Last date to conduct Settlement
Conference (with Magistrate
Gandhi as originally proposed in
Rule 26(f) Report)

–8

February 24, 2015

N/A

17

Hearing on Cross-Motions for
Summary Judgment

February 23, 2015
at 9:30 a.m.

18

Deadline to supplement summary
judgment record

N/A

February 2, 2015
(only one brief per
side per motion)

Close of Limited Renewed
Discovery
(start date – November 14, 2014
or as soon as the court enters an
order re scheduling and renewed
discovery)

N/A

January 16, 2015

9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16

19
20
21
22
23

March 16, 2015
at 3:30 p.m.

24
25
26
27
28

During the approximately 60-day renewed discovery period:
1. LegalZoom may pursue the following discovery:
a. Depositions of third-parties:

1

1

i. Dr. Elizabeth Ferguson;

2

ii. Jenn Mazzon;

3

iii. Michael Margolis;

4

iv. Katherine K (Google);

5

v. Google relating to Google’s inquiry into Rocket Lawyer’s free

6
7
8
9

advertisements
b. Deposition of Alan Hungate regarding the reports served on November
5, 2014;
c. Document Subpoenas:

10

i. Dr. Elizabeth Ferguson;

11

ii. Google Ventures relating to any and all Topline studies and/or

12

any studies done by Google Ventures concerning Rocket

13

Lawyer to the extent these studies relate to the advertisements at

14

issue in this litigation or other similar free advertisements and

15

have not been produced; and

16
17
18
19

iii. Google relating to Google’s inquiry into Rocket Lawyer’s free
advertisements; and
d. Documents from Rocket Lawyer:
i. The other usability studies, including all videotapes and notes

20

taken in conjunction with each of these studies referenced in

21

RLI0040690 to the extent these studies relate to the

22

advertisements at issue in this litigation and have not been

23

produced.

24

ii. Any and all Topline studies and/or any studies done by Google

25

Ventures concerning Rocket Lawyer, including any videotapes

26

and/or notes taken in conjunction thereto to the extent these

27

studies relate to the advertisements at issue in this litigation or

28

other similar free advertisements and have not been produced.
2

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9

iii. The identity of Katherine K of Google as referenced in
RLI0042339.
2. Rocket Lawyer may pursue the following discovery:
a. Deposition of Dr. Goedde concerning his Second Supplemental Report
served on October 6, 2014;
b. Deposition of Dr. Isaacson’s concerning his Second Supplement
Report served on October 27, 2014;
c. Document and deposition subpoenas for Google relating to any inquiry
made to LegalZoom concerning double serving/bidding;

10

d. Deposition of Matt Scanlan (Google); and

11

e. Documents and Information from LegalZoom:

12

i. WTR/NPS reports from January 2009 to September 2013 that

13

include (i) complaints relating to LegalZoom’s business

14

formation services; (ii) complaints relating to LegalZoom’s free

15

trial; (iii) complaints relating to ads both in search engine

16

marketing and on your website for free products or services.

17

ii. Permissions from consumers to use their WTR/NPS responses

18
19

in marketing.
iii. Studies and surveys (including usability studies, focus group

20

studies, and awareness studies) conducted or commissioned by

21

LegalZoom concerning: (i) Rocket Lawyer; (ii) freemium

22

offerings/microsites (e.g., Legalcenterpro, lightwavelaw,

23

creating will); (iii) LegalZoom’s Free Trial offerings; and/or (iv)

24

fee disclosures for LegalZoom’s business formation offerings.

25

iv. Payments to LegalSpring.com, Own Vision, and/or Mr. Giggy

26

relating to LegalSpring’s affiliate relationship with LegalZoom,

27

including data and reports from Cake, Direct track, and

28

LegalZoom’s payment tracking system.
3

1

A party who receives documents or information in response to a third party

2

subpoena shall produce to the other party a copy of all such documents and

3

information within three business days.

4

A non-subpoenaing party may ask questions at deposition in case the witness

5

become unavailable for trial and to avoid having such witnesses appear for more

6

than one deposition.

7
8

IT IS SO ORDERED.

9

DATED: November 10, 2014

10
11

Honorable Gary A. Feess_________
United States District Court Judge
Central District of California

12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
4