LegalZoom.com Inc v. Rocket Lawyer Incorporated
Filing
42
REPLY LEGALZOOM.COM Inc.'s Reply in Support of its Motion for Summary Judgment filed by Plaintiff LegalZoom.com Inc, Counter Defendant LegalZoom.com Inc. (Attachments: # 1 Declaration of Patty Chikamagalur, # 2 Declaration of Mary Ann Nguyen, # 3 Response to Evidentiary Objections, # 4 Response to Separate Statement of Undisputed Material Facts, # 5 Memorandum of Evidentiary Objections)(Heather, Fred)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
PATRICIA L. GLASER - State Bar No. 55668
pglaser@glaserweil.com
FRED D. HEATHER - State Bar No. 110650
fheather@glaserweil.com
MARY ANN T. NGUYEN - State Bar No. 269099
mnguyen@glaserweil.com
GLASER WEIL FINK JACOBS
HOWARD AVCHEN & SHAPIRO LLP
10250 Constellation Boulevard, 19th Floor
Los Angeles, California 90067
Telephone: (310) 553-3000
Facsimile: (310) 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
18
19
v.
ROCKET LAWYER INCORPORATED,
a Delaware corporation,
Defendants.
CASE NO.: CV 12-9942-GAF (AGRx)
Hon. Gary A. Feess
Courtroom: 740
PLAINTIFF LEGALZOOM.COM,
INC.’S RESPONSE TO ROCKET
LAWYER’S MEMORANDUM OF
EVIDENTIARY OBJECTIONS
Date:
October 21, 2013
Time:
9:30 a.m.
Courtroom: 740
255 East Temple Street
Los Angeles, CA 90012
20
21
Complaint Filed: November 20, 2012
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
PLAINTIFF LEGALZOOM.COM, INC.’S RESPONSES TO ROCKET LAWYER’S MEMORANDUM OF
EVIDENTIARY OBJECTIONS
829314
1
Plaintiff LegalZoom.com, Inc. (“LegalZoom”) hereby responds to Defendant
2
Rocket Lawyer, Incorporated’s (“Rocket Lawyer”) Memorandum of Evidentiary
3
Objections in Support of Its Opposition to LegalZoom’s Motion for Summary
4
Judgment as follows:
5
6
Separate Statement Paragraph 7: Objection to Paragraph 5 of the Declaration of
7
Mary Ann T. Nguyen (“Nguyen Decl.”) (“Rocket Lawyer’s customers are required to
8
pay the state fees associated with incorporation and formation”) on the grounds that it
9
is misleading. To the extent this statement implies that Rocket Lawyer imposes the
10
fees, as opposed to the state, or that customers of LegalZoom or of any other
11
competitor are not required to pay the same fees, it is misleading. Fed. R. Evid. 403.
12
Response to Rocket Lawyer’s Objection to Separate Statement Paragraph 7:
13
The statement that consumers who incorporate a business are required to pay state
14
fees is a demonstrable and uncontrovertible fact. Here, it is admissible because it is
15
directly relevant to the central issue in this case—that is, whether the ads used by
16
Rocket Lawyer which state or imply that incorporation is “free”—violate the Lanham
17
Act and constitute unfair competition and false advertising under the California
18
Business and Professions Code. Given its direct relevance, the fact contested is
19
admissible under Federal Rule of Evidence 401. Rocket Lawyer’s attempt to invoke
20
the protections of Rule 403 as a basis to exclude this directly relevant and highly
21
probative evidence on the ground that it is misleading is unavailing. Indeed, Rocket
22
Lawyer has asserted no fact demonstrating, as would be required to do in order to
23
preclude the introduction of evidence with such high probative value, the misleading
24
nature of this statement. Contrary to Rocket Lawyer’s suggestion, the statement
25
implies nothing in connection with who imposes the state fees. Moreover, to the
26
extent that it is ambiguous as to whether Rocket Lawyer’s, but not other competitor’s,
27
customers need to pay the state-imposed fees, it highlights the misleading nature of
28
Rocket Lawyer’s own ads, which are silent on their face, as to whether a consumer
1
PLAINTIFF LEGALZOOM.COM, INC.’S RESPONSES TO ROCKET LAWYER’S MEMORANDUM OF
EVIDENTIARY OBJECTIONS
829314
1
must pay state fees and which directly suggest that incorporation is entirely “free.” In
2
any event, there is nothing misleading about this statement, which reflects the idea
3
that consumers are required to pay fees to the state in order to incorporate.
4
Separate Statement Paragraph 8: Objection to Exhibit D to the Nguyen Decl.,
5
“Screen grabs of Rocket Lawyer’s ‘Interview’ for ‘Company Set-Up’ and ‘Company
6
Details,”‘ on the grounds that the evidence is incomplete and misleading. To the
7
extent that it is offered to show the only disclosure of state filing fees on Rocket
8
Lawyer.com, it is incomplete and misleading. Fed. R. Evid. 106, 403.
9
Response to Rocket Lawyer’s Objection to Separate Statement Paragraph 8:
10
The subject evidence, which includes certain pages of Rocket Lawyer’s website, is
11
relevant to a central issue in the case—whether Rocket Lawyer’s ads, which boast
12
“free” incorporation services are nonetheless false or misleading under the Lanham
13
Act and the California Business and Professions Code, particularly because the
14
disclosure that the subject services (i.e. incorporation) are not, in fact, free, are made
15
in places on the website far removed from the “free” advertisements. The evidence is
16
also probative of whether the disclosure that certain fees must be paid are sufficiently
17
conspicuous and clear as to not mislead consumers, a critical inquiry for purposes of
18
Rocket Lawyer’s violation of California Business and Professions Code section
19
17200. See, e.g., In the Matter of Prodigy Servs. Corp., 125 F.T.C. 430, 434 (Mar. 16,
20
1998) (Prodigy liable for advertising “free” Internet service but failing to disclose at
21
the outset that customers would be charged if they did not cancel during the trial
22
period); 16 C.F.R. § 251.1 (1998).
23
Neither Federal Rule of Evidence 106 nor 403 operates to preclude the
24
admission of this evidence that is taken directly from Rocket Lawyer’s own website
25
featuring its ads—which Rocket Lawyer does not contest. To the extent that Rocket
26
Lawyer argues that the selected pages of the website are “incomplete,” Federal Rule
27
106 does not mandate outright exclusion of the subject evidence. In fact, Rocket
28
Lawyer has not clearly established why or how the subject screenshots are
2
PLAINTIFF LEGALZOOM.COM, INC.’S RESPONSES TO ROCKET LAWYER’S MEMORANDUM OF
EVIDENTIARY OBJECTIONS
829314
1
incomplete. Nor has Rocket Lawyer made the requisite showing indicating that
2
“fairness” requires the introduction of additional material. U.S. v. Branch, 91 F.3d
3
699 (1996); U.S. v. Boylan, 898 F.2d 230 (1990), cert. denied, 111 S.Ct. 139 (noting
4
that there is no “per se rule requiring the admission of evidence in any case and that a
5
preliminary decision is required concerning what units contained in a document
6
collection constitutes a “fair and reasonably” complete unit of material). In any
7
event, to the extent that Rule 106 does apply, Rule 106 simply permits Rocket Lawyer
8
to offer evidence rendering the pages of the website (to the extent that they constitute
9
“writings” or “recorded statements” for purposes of the Rule) whose contents Rocket
10
Lawyer suggests are allegedly incomplete, complete. By now, Rocket Lawyer should
11
have proffered whatever evidence it believes is necessary to make this submission
12
complete, thus mooting this objection altogether. If not, it certainly had the
13
opportunity to do so.
14
Rocket Lawyer’s attempt to invoke the protections of Rule 403 as a basis to
15
exclude this directly relevant and highly probative evidence is also unavailing.
16
Rocket Lawyer has not established that the probative value of the evidence itself is
17
substantially outweighed by any potential confusion. Again, the evidence goes to a
18
central issue. Moreover, there is nothing confusing or misleading about the evidence
19
itself, particularly where, as here, Rocket Lawyer has had the opportunity to provide
20
contemporaneous corrective statements or evidence to controvert it.
21
Separate Statement Paragraph 9: Objection to the assertion that “Rocket
22
Lawyer subsequently changed the language of these advertisements after LegalZoom
23
filed its original Complaint” on the grounds that it is irrelevant, evidence of a
24
subsequent remedial measure, and misleading. Any Rocket Lawyer advertising not
25
complained of is irrelevant. Fed. R. Evid. 401, 402. To the extent it is offered as a
26
subsequent remedial measure demonstrating culpable conduct, it is inadmissible. Fed.
27
R. Evid. 407. To the extent it is offered to show an admission of guilt, it is misleading
28
as LegalZoom has offered no evidence and Rocket Lawyer has made no concession
3
PLAINTIFF LEGALZOOM.COM, INC.’S RESPONSES TO ROCKET LAWYER’S MEMORANDUM OF
EVIDENTIARY OBJECTIONS
829314
1
2
that its new advertisements resulted from the original Complaint. Fed. R. Evid. 403.
Response to Rocket Lawyer’s Objection to Separate Statement Paragraph 9:
3
By Rocket Lawyer’s own admission, evidence of its ads and policies—both as they
4
exist now and as they existed previously—are undoubtedly relevant. In its
5
opposition, Rocket Lawyer specifically invites this Court to view its current
6
advertisements on the website today as distinct from its prior advertisements evident
7
previously and to which LegalZoom has cited extensively. See, e.g., Opposition at p.
8
2, lines 18-20 (“[i]f the Court were to visit Rocketlawyer.com today, it would look
9
substantially different from LegalZoom’s exhibits”). Advertisements of any nature at
10
any time are directly relevant to whether there has been a violation of the Lanham Act
11
or Business and Professions Code. See, e.g., Skydrive Arizona, Inc. v. Quattrocchi,
12
2009 WL 6597892, *25 (D. Ariz. Feb. 2, 2009) ( liability for false advertising under
13
the Lanham Act may not be avoided by removing false statements from later
14
advertising). The evidence is additionally relevant to Rocket Lawyer’s intent,
15
including specifically Rocket Lawyer’s state of mind regarding whether it knew that
16
its ads were false or whether an alternative was feasible. See, e.g., Pom Wonderful
17
LLC v. Coca Cola Co., 727 F. Supp. 2d 849, 869 (C.D. Cal. 2010) (aff'd in part,
18
vacated in part, remanded sub nom. Pom Wonderful LLC v. Coca-Cola Co., 679 F.3d
19
1170 (9th Cir. 2012)) (“if [the defendant has] intentionally misled consumers, [the
20
court will presume that] consumers were in fact deceived and [the defendant] would
21
have the burden of demonstrating otherwise”) Thus, under 401, the evidence should
22
be admitted.
23
Contrary to Rocket Lawyer’s position, Section 407 does not mandate exclusion
24
of this evidence. Indeed, it is questionable whether Section 407 even applies to this
25
case. To the extent that Rocket Lawyer contends that the changes that it has instituted
26
to its website are “subsequent remedial measures” (and Rocket Lawyer does not
27
appear to have made any such claim), 407 is inapplicable. Rule 407 only applies in
28
instances where the “subsequent remedial measure” has made the injury or harm that
4
PLAINTIFF LEGALZOOM.COM, INC.’S RESPONSES TO ROCKET LAWYER’S MEMORANDUM OF
EVIDENTIARY OBJECTIONS
829314
1
was posed by the prior condition less likely to occur. See, e.g., In re
2
HOMESTORE.COM, INC. Securities Litigation, 2011 WL 291176 (C.D. 2011)
3
(where act or repair not taken in order to improve the conditions that led to harm or
4
injury, the evidence does not constitute a subsequent remedial measure within the
5
realm of Rule 407); Brazos River Authority v. GE Ionics, Inc., 469 F.3d 416, 42 (5th
6
Cir. 2006). Whatever changes Rocket Lawyer has made, it has not been established
7
and there is no evidence submitted in connection with these motions that its changes
8
“lessened” any confusion on the part of the consumer. Moreover, it is not being
9
offered for an impermissible purpose under section 407.
10
Insofar as Rocket Lawyer’s objection on the basis of section 403 is concerned,
11
there is no evidence that the probative value of this evidence (which Rocket Lawyer
12
admits) is substantially outweighed by the danger of misleading this Court. Indeed,
13
that Rocket Lawyer elected to change features of its website is already in evidence on
14
account of Rocket Lawyer’s own admissions. The Court is free to draw from this
15
evidence those inferences that are supported from the available evidence.
16
Separate Statement Paragraph 10: Objection to Exhibit E to the Nguyen Decl.,
17
“Screen grabs of Rocket Lawyer’s Advertisements,” on the grounds that the evidence
18
is misleading and irrelevant. Page 45 of Exhibit E purports to show that Rocket
19
Lawyer advertised “free legal review.” The evidence is taken from Rocket Lawyer’s
20
website and does not make clear when in the user experience this screen is
21
encountered. Thus, to the extent it is offered to show what Rocket Lawyer advertised
22
to non-customers, it is misleading and irrelevant to the fact asserted. Fed. R. Evid.
23
401, 402, 403.
24
Response to Rocket Lawyer’s Objection to Separate Statement Paragraph 10:
25
Rocket Lawyer objects to evidence from its own website evidencing the central
26
advertisements at issue in this lawsuit as “misleading and irrelevant.” It strains
27
credulity that Rocket Lawyer could claim that its own statements and advertising that
28
are the subject of this lawsuit are “irrelevant,” and that is true whether a consumer
5
PLAINTIFF LEGALZOOM.COM, INC.’S RESPONSES TO ROCKET LAWYER’S MEMORANDUM OF
EVIDENTIARY OBJECTIONS
829314
1
ultimately was lured by the ads and became a customer or not. And, to the extent
2
that Rocket Lawyer claims that it is “misleading,” because it is unclear “when” in the
3
“user experience” this screen is encountered, it proves, at a minimum, that the ads
4
themselves, are misleading to the extent that they are read as stand-alone statements.
5
Rocket Lawyer’s invocation of Rule 403 as a grounds for exclusion is unavailing
6
where, as here, the evidence is relevant to a central issue in the case and the value is
7
not outweighed, let alone substantially outweighed, by any purported confusion
8
concerning the statements of Rocket Lawyer on its own website. Even to the extent
9
that the evidence is related to the impact of the ads on consumers who are not
10
currently customers of Rocket Lawyer, the evidence is not “misleading” for purposes
11
of section 403, but, in fact, the best evidence of what Rocket Lawyer advertises.
12
Objection to the supporting evidence of http://www.Rocket Lawyer.com/on-
13
call-terms-of-service.rl for assertion that “The paid-membership requirement for
14
access to the purported `free help from local attorneys’ and `free legal review’ was
15
not disclosed in close proximity to the advertisements on Rocket Lawyer’s website”
16
on the grounds that it is irrelevant and misleading. The evidence provided does not
17
demonstrate the disclosure’s proximity or lack thereof to Rocket Lawyer’s advertising
18
and is therefore irrelevant to the asserted fact. Fed. R. Evid. 401, 402. To the extent it
19
is used for such purpose, it is misleading. Fed. R. Evid. 403.
20
Response to Rocket Lawyer’s Objection: Evidence of the terms and conditions
21
attached to the receipt of the free services offered by Rocket Lawyer is undoubtedly
22
relevant. Notably, Rocket Lawyer does not dispute that its website contains
23
disclosures concerning the terms of the consumer’s purported free access. To the
24
extent that it is clear from looking at the terms of service that the advertisement is not
25
on the same page, it is further relevant and persuasive as to whether there has been a
26
violation of the law, see, e.g, Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code § 17600 et seq., California
27
Business and Professions Code § 17200; In the Matter of Prodigy Servs. Corp., 125
28
F.T.C. 430, 434 (Mar. 16, 1998) (Prodigy liable for advertising “free” Internet service
6
PLAINTIFF LEGALZOOM.COM, INC.’S RESPONSES TO ROCKET LAWYER’S MEMORANDUM OF
EVIDENTIARY OBJECTIONS
829314
1
but failing to disclose at the outset that customers would be charged if they did not
2
cancel during the trial period); 16 C.F.R. § 251.1 (1998), and therefore admissible
3
under section 401. Any attempted exclusion on the grounds of the catch-all of
4
Federal Rule of Evidence 403 is specious. The evidence makes clear that the
5
advertisement is not contained on the same page as the terms of service relating to the
6
conditions upon which access is given.
7
In any event, Rocket Lawyer’s invocation of Rule 403 as a grounds for
8
exclusion is unavailing where, as here, the evidence is relevant to a central issue in
9
the case and the value is not substantially outweighed by any purported confusion
10
concerning where these terms and conditions are encountered in relation to the ads at
11
issue in this litigation. Again, Rocket Lawyer has now had the opportunity to clear up
12
any confusion concerning these terms and conditions.
13
Separate Statement Paragraph 13: Objection to the supporting evidence of
14
http://www.Rocket Lawyer.com/on-call-terms-of-service.rl for assertion that “The
15
paid-membership requirement was only disclosed in Rocket Lawyer’s `On Call Terms
16
of Service,’ which was accessible to customers on a separate link found at
17
http://www.Rocket Lawyer.com/on-call-terms-of -service.rl.” The evidence provided
18
does not support the assertion that the Terms of Service are the only disclosure. To
19
extent that it is used for that purpose, it is misleading. Fed. R. Evid. 403.
20
Response to Rocket Lawyer’s Objection to Separate Statement Paragraph 13:
21
Evidence of the terms and conditions, and how readily accessible the terms and
22
conditions are, upon which the receipt of the free services advertised by Rocket
23
Lawyer are and were to the consumer is clearly relevant to the issue of whether there
24
is a violation of the Lanham Act and the California Business & Professions Code.
25
see, e.g, Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code § 17600 et seq. To the extent that Rocket Lawyer
26
here argues for exclusion on the grounds that other information exists on the website
27
also discloses these conditions, that is for Rocket Lawyer to argue and to present to
28
the Court. However, exclusion under 403 is not required in light of the highly
7
PLAINTIFF LEGALZOOM.COM, INC.’S RESPONSES TO ROCKET LAWYER’S MEMORANDUM OF
EVIDENTIARY OBJECTIONS
829314
1
probative value of the subject evidence.
2
Separate Statement Paragraph 14: Objection to the supporting evidence of
3
Rocket Lawyer’s On Call Terms of Service dated November 2012 on the grounds that
4
it is irrelevant, misleading, and evidence of a subsequent remedial effort. Any Rocket
5
Lawyer terms of service not complained of are not relevant. Fed. R. Evid. 401, 402.
6
To the extent it is offered as a subsequent remedial measure demonstrating culpable
7
conduct, it is inadmissible. Fed. R. Evid. 407. To the extent it is offered to show an
8
admission of guilt or that the prior terms of service were insufficient as a disclosure, it
9
is misleading. Fed. R. Evid. 403.
10
Response to Rocket Lawyer’s Objection to Separate Statement Paragraph 14:
11
By Rocket Lawyer’s own admission, evidence of Rocket Lawyer’s ads and policies
12
concerning receipt of the services that are the subject of those ads—both as they exist
13
now and as they existed previously—are undoubtedly relevant. See, e.g., Opposition
14
at p. 2, lines 18-20. Rocket Lawyer, in fact, submits into evidence, virtually the
15
same—if not identical—Terms of Service in defense of its position opposing
16
summary judgment. See, e.g., Exhibit 13 to the Declaration of Hong-An Vu
17
Submitted in Support of its Opposition to LegalZoom’s Motion for Summary
18
Judgment. It, thus, strains credulity that Rocket Lawyer could argue that the very
19
same document taken from its website within 6 days of the other could be argued as
20
relevant and straightforward when submitted by it, but irrelevant and misleading
21
when submitted by LegalZoom. In fact, it cannot be the case that an earlier version of
22
the terms and conditions under which consumers receive Rocket Lawyer’s services is
23
simply mooted or deemed inactionable upon the inclusion of later terms and
24
conditions. Indeed, liability for false advertising under the Lanham Act may not be
25
avoided by removing false statements from later advertising. Skydrive Arizona, Inc.
26
v. Quattrocchi, 2009 WL 6597892, 25 (D. Ariz. Feb. 2, 2009). The evidence is
27
additionally relevant to Rocket Lawyer’s intent, including specifically Rocket
28
Lawyer’s state of mind regarding whether it knew that its ads were false or whether
8
PLAINTIFF LEGALZOOM.COM, INC.’S RESPONSES TO ROCKET LAWYER’S MEMORANDUM OF
EVIDENTIARY OBJECTIONS
829314
1
an alternative was feasible. See, e.g., Pom Wonderful LLC v. Coca Cola Co., 727 F.
2
Supp. 2d 849, 869 (C.D. Cal. 2010) (aff'd in part, vacated in part, remanded sub nom.
3
Pom Wonderful LLC v. Coca-Cola Co., 679 F.3d 1170 (9th Cir. 2012)) (“if [the
4
defendant has] intentionally misled consumers, [the court will presume that]
5
consumers were in fact deceived and [the defendant] would have the burden of
6
demonstrating otherwise”) Thus, under 401, the evidence should be admitted.
7
Neither Federal Rule of Evidence 403 nor 407 preclude its introduction into
8
evidence. First, contrary to Rocket Lawyer’s position, Section 407 does not mandate
9
exclusion of this evidence. Indeed, it is questionable whether section 407 even
10
applies to this case. To the extent that Rocket Lawyer contends that the changes that
11
it has instituted to its website are “subsequent remedial measures,” (and Rocket
12
Lawyer actually has not made any such claim), 407 is only applicable in instances
13
where the “subsequent remedial measure” has made the injury or harm that was posed
14
by the prior condition less likely to occur. See, e.g., In re Homestore.com, Inc.
15
Securities Litigation, 2011 WL 291176 (C.D. 2011) (where act or repair not taken in
16
order to improve the conditions that led to harm or injury, the evidence does not
17
constitute a subsequent remedial measure within the realm of Rule 407); Brazos River
18
Authority v. GE Ionics, Inc., 469 F.3d 416, 42 (5th Cir. 2006). Whatever changes
19
Rocket Lawyer has made, it has not been established, and there is no evidence
20
submitted in connection with these motions to suggest, that its changes “lessened”
21
any confusion on the part of the consumer. Moreover, it is not being offered for an
22
impermissible purpose under section 407.
23
Insofar as Rocket Lawyer’s objection on the basis of section 403 is concerned,
24
there is no evidence that the probative value of this evidence (which Rocket Lawyer
25
admits) is substantially outweighed by the danger of misleading this Court. In
26
essence, Rocket Lawyer argues that evidence of its changed policies may be
27
misleading to this Court. However, having itself placed into evidence the content of
28
its prior policies, it may not now shun these policies when offered as evidence by
9
PLAINTIFF LEGALZOOM.COM, INC.’S RESPONSES TO ROCKET LAWYER’S MEMORANDUM OF
EVIDENTIARY OBJECTIONS
829314
1
LegalZoom. The Court is entitled to make whatever inferences about the documents
2
to which the available evidence is susceptible.
3
Separate Statement Paragraph 15: Objection to the supporting evidence of
4
Rocket Lawyer’s On Call Terms of Service, dated July 2012, and Rocket Lawyer’s
5
On Call Terms of Service, dated November 2012, on the grounds that they are
6
misleading. Rocket Lawyer’s terms of service do not demonstrate what customers
7
actually had access to attorney review. To the extent they are offered for that purpose,
8
they are misleading. Fed. R. Evid. 403.
9
Response to Rocket Lawyer’s Objection to Separate Statement Paragraph 15:
10
Rocket Lawyer’s own Terms of Service clearly are relevant as they clearly set forth
11
(and are intended to set forth clearly to consumers) the conditions under which they
12
can receive the services that Rocket Lawyer provides, and ultimately, are probative as
13
to whether Rocket Lawyer provides anything for “free,” as it advertises. Rocket
14
Lawyer admits so—having placed in evidence the same document to serve its own
15
purposes. Federal Rule of Evidence 403 does not support the exclusion of this
16
highly-probative evidence as there is no clearly-articulated argument that
17
demonstrates that the probative value of this evidence is outweighed, let alone
18
substantially outweighed, by any purported confusion. In any event, there is nothing
19
inherently misleading about the document itself, another iteration of a document upon
20
which Rocket Lawyer relies itself and does not preclude its introduction. That Rocket
21
Lawyer does not agree that the document supports the proposition for which
22
LegalZoom offers the document is of no moment.
23
Separate Statement Paragraph 16: Objection to the supporting evidence of
24
Rocket Lawyer’s On Call Terms of Service, dated November 2012, on the grounds
25
that it is misleading. To the extent Rocket Lawyer’s terms of service are offered to
26
show that customers provided Rocket Lawyer with credit card information and were
27
billed, they are misleading. Fed. R. Evid. 403.
28
Response to Rocket Lawyer’s Objection to Separate Statement Paragraph 16:
10
PLAINTIFF LEGALZOOM.COM, INC.’S RESPONSES TO ROCKET LAWYER’S MEMORANDUM OF
EVIDENTIARY OBJECTIONS
829314
1
Rocket Lawyer’s own Terms of Service clearly are relevant as they clearly set forth
2
(and are intended to set forth clearly to consumers) the conditions under which they
3
can receive the services that Rocket Lawyer provides, and ultimately, are probative as
4
to whether Rocket Lawyer provides anything for “free,” as it advertises. Rocket
5
Lawyer admits so—having placed in evidence the same document to serve its own
6
purposes. Federal Rule of Evidence 403 does not support the exclusion of this
7
highly-probative evidence as there is no clearly-articulated argument that
8
demonstrates that the probative value of this evidence is outweighed, let alone
9
substantially outweighed, by any purported confusion. In any event, there is nothing
10
inherently misleading about the document itself, another iteration of which Rocket
11
Lawyer relies on itself. That Rocket Lawyer does not agree that the document
12
supports the proposition for which LegalZoom offers the document is of no moment.
13
Separate Statement Paragraph 18: Objection to Paragraph 13 of the supporting
14
Nguyen Decl. (“[C]ustomers who sign up for a one-week free trial membership under
15
the `Basic Legal Plan’ or `Pro Legal Plan’ must first provide Rocket Lawyer with
16
their credit card information and enroll in Rocket Lawyer’s ‘negative option’ program
17
— i.e., a program in which customers are automatically enrolled and billed and must
18
contact Rocket Lawyer to opt out of.”) on the grounds that it is misleading and
19
improperly sets forth a legal conclusion. To the extent that it is offered to show that
20
Rocket Lawyer charges its customers for free trials, it is misleading. Fed. R. Evid.
21
403. It is also misleading as to the use of the word “first.” Id. To the extent that it
22
concludes Rocket Lawyer’s free trial is a negative option plan, it is an improper legal
23
conclusion. Fed. R. Civ. Proc. 56(c)(4); L.R. 7-7; see Jones v. Corbis Corp., 815 F.
24
Supp. 2d 1108, 1112 (C.D. Cal. 2011) aff’d, 489 F. App’x 155 (9th Cir. 2012)
25
(agreeing with defendant that “while Plaintiff may testify to facts relevant to the legal
26
determination [at issue], she may not testify as to the legal determination itself.”).
27
28
Response to Rocket Lawyer’s Objection to Separate Statement Paragraph 18:
This statement, based upon Rocket Lawyer’s own Terms of Service clearly is
11
PLAINTIFF LEGALZOOM.COM, INC.’S RESPONSES TO ROCKET LAWYER’S MEMORANDUM OF
EVIDENTIARY OBJECTIONS
829314
1
relevant. Indeed, the conditions under which consumers can actually receive the
2
services that Rocket Lawyer provides and advertises are probative as to whether
3
Rocket Lawyer provides anything for “free,” as it advertises. Rocket Lawyer admits
4
so—having placed in evidence the same document to serve its own purposes. Federal
5
Rule of Evidence 403 does not support the exclusion of this highly-probative
6
evidence as there is no clearly-articulated argument that demonstrates that the
7
probative value of this evidence is outweighed, let alone substantially outweighed, by
8
any purported confusion.
9
Separate Statement Paragraph 19: Objection to Exhibit I to the supporting
10
Nguyen Decl. on the grounds that it is incomplete, misleading, and an improper legal
11
conclusion. To the extent that it is offered to show that this is the only disclosure of
12
Rocket Lawyer’s free trial terms, it is incomplete, misleading, and offers an improper
13
legal conclusion. Fed. R. Evid. 106, 403; Fed. R. Civ. 6 Proc. 56(c)(4); L.R. 7-7. To
14
the extent it concludes that Rocket Lawyer’s free trial is a negative option plan, it is
15
an improper legal conclusion. Fed. R. Civ. Proc. 56(c)(4); L.R. 7-7. Furthermore, to
16
the extent it alleges a violation of the Negative Option law, it is irrelevant since
17
LegalZoom lacks a right of action under that law. See Noll v. eBay Inc., 2013 WL
18
2384250 (N.D. Cal. May 30, 2013) (“The Legislature employed specific language in
19
Section 17602 limiting recovery under Section 17600 et seq. to California consumers.
20
The court will not contravene the Legislature’s clear intention.”) (emphasis added).
21
Response to Rocket Lawyer’s Objection to Separate Statement Paragraph 19:
22
Evidence of the terms and conditions upon which the receipt of “free” services
23
is offered to Rocket Lawyer consumers is undoubtedly relevant to this case. See, e.g,
24
Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code § 17600 et seq. To the extent that Rocket Lawyer here argues
25
for exclusion on the grounds that other information exists on the website also
26
discloses these conditions, Federal Rule of Evidence 106 does not mandate outright
27
exclusion of the subject evidence. Rule 106 would simply permit Rocket Lawyer,
28
under such a circumstance and after it has lain the factual predicate for doing so, to
12
PLAINTIFF LEGALZOOM.COM, INC.’S RESPONSES TO ROCKET LAWYER’S MEMORANDUM OF
EVIDENTIARY OBJECTIONS
829314
1
offer evidence rendering the purportedly incomplete “writing” or “recorded
2
statement” complete. Here, however, Rocket Lawyer has not clearly established why
3
or how the subject screenshots are incomplete. Nor has Rocket Lawyer made the
4
requisite showing indicating that “fairness” requires the introduction of additional
5
material. U.S. v. Branch, 91 F.3d 699 (1996); U.S. v. Boylan, 898 F.2d 230 (1990),
6
cert. denied, 111 S.Ct. 139 (noting that there is no “per se rule requiring the admission
7
of evidence in any case and that a preliminary decision is required concerning what
8
units contained in a document collection constitutes a “fair and reasonably” complete
9
unit of material). In any event, by now, Rocket Lawyer should have proffered
10
whatever evidence it believes is necessary to make this particular Exhibit complete.
11
If not, it certainly had the opportunity to do so.
12
Rocket Lawyer’s objection on the grounds of 403 is also unavailing. Indeed,
13
Rocket Lawyer has proffered no evidence demonstrating that there are other
14
disclosures of Rocket Lawyer’s free trial terms. The document is central to a critical
15
issue in this case and Rocket Lawyer has offered no reason as to why the probative
16
value of a document reflecting its own terms is substantially outweighed by the
17
danger of misleading this Court.
18
Exclusions under Federal Rule of Evidence 403 is also not required in light of
19
the highly probative value of the subject evidence. Finally, the evidence is relevant to
20
the issues in the instant lawsuit whether or not LegalZoom may pursue Rocket
21
Lawyer for remedies in connection with a violation of the Negative Option Law. In
22
fact, to the extent that Rocket Lawyer’s ads violate the Negative Option Law because
23
receipt of free services is conditioned upon the purchase of a paid membership, which
24
is not sufficiently disclosed in Rocket Lawyer’s ads, Rocket Lawyer violates
25
California Business and Professions Code § 17200. See, e.g., In the Matter of Prodigy
26
Servs. Corp., 125 F.T.C. 430, 434 (Mar. 16, 1998) (Prodigy liable for advertising
27
“free” Internet service but failing to disclose at the outset that customers would be
28
charged if they did not cancel during the trial period); 16 C.F.R. § 251.1 (1998).
13
PLAINTIFF LEGALZOOM.COM, INC.’S RESPONSES TO ROCKET LAWYER’S MEMORANDUM OF
EVIDENTIARY OBJECTIONS
829314
1
2
Therefore, it is abundantly relevant to the central issue in this case.
Separate Statement Paragraph 20: Objection to Paragraph 13 (“No further
3
acknowledgement regarding the negative option is provided.”) of and Exhibit I to the
4
supporting Nguyen Decl. on the grounds that it is incomplete, misleading, and an
5
improper legal conclusion. To the extent that it is offered to show that this is the only
6
disclosure of Rocket Lawyer’s free trial terms, it is incomplete and misleading. Fed.
7
R. Evid. 106, 403. To the extent it concludes that Rocket Lawyer’s free trial is a
8
negative option plan, it is an improper legal conclusion. Fed. R. Civ. Proc. 56(c)(4);
9
L.R. 7-7. Furthermore, to the extent it alleges a violation of the Negative Option law,
10
it is irrelevant since LegalZoom lacks a right of action under that law. See Noll v.
11
eBay Inc., 2013 WL 2384250 (N.D. Cal. May 30, 2013) (“The Legislature employed
12
specific language in Section 17602 limiting recovery under Section 17600 et seq. to
13
California consumers. The court will not contravene the Legislature’s clear
14
intention.”) (emphasis added).
15
Response to Rocket Lawyer’s Objection to Separate Statement Paragraph 20:
16
Evidence of the terms and conditions upon which the receipt of “free” services is
17
offered to Rocket Lawyer consumers is undoubtedly relevant to this case. See, e.g,
18
Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code § 17600 et seq. To the extent that Rocket Lawyer argues for
19
exclusion on the ground that other information exists on the website also discloses
20
these conditions, Federal Rule of Evidence 106 does not mandate outright exclusion
21
of the subject evidence. Rule 106 would simply permit Rocket Lawyer, under such a
22
circumstance and after it has lain the factual predicate for doing so, to offer evidence
23
rendering the purportedly incomplete “writing” or “recorded statement” complete.
24
Here, however, Rocket Lawyer has not clearly established why or how the subject
25
screenshots are incomplete. Nor has Rocket Lawyer made the requisite showing
26
indicating that “fairness” requires the introduction of additional material. U.S. v.
27
Branch, 91 F.3d 699 (1996); U.S. v. Boylan, 898 F.2d 230 cert. denied, 111 S.Ct. 139
28
(noting that there is no “per se rule requiring the admission of evidence in any case
14
PLAINTIFF LEGALZOOM.COM, INC.’S RESPONSES TO ROCKET LAWYER’S MEMORANDUM OF
EVIDENTIARY OBJECTIONS
829314
1
and that a preliminary decision is required concerning what units contained in a
2
document collection constitutes a “fair and reasonably” complete unit of material). In
3
any event, by now, Rocket Lawyer should have proffered whatever evidence it
4
believes is necessary to make this particular Exhibit complete. If not, it certainly had
5
the opportunity to do so.
6
Exclusions under Federal Rule of Evidence 403 is also not required in light of
7
the highly probative value of the subject evidence. Finally, the evidence is relevant to
8
the issues in the instant lawsuit whether or not LegalZoom may pursue Rocket
9
Lawyer for remedies in connection with a violation of the Negative Option Law. In
10
fact, to the extent that Rocket Lawyer’s ads violate the Negative Option Law because
11
receipt of free services is conditioned upon the purchase of a paid membership, which
12
is not sufficiently disclosed in Rocket Lawyer’s ads, Rocket Lawyer violates
13
California Business and Professions Code § 17200. See, e.g., In the Matter of Prodigy
14
Servs. Corp., 125 F.T.C. 430, 434 (Mar. 16, 1998) (Prodigy liable for advertising
15
“free” Internet service but failing to disclose at the outset that customers would be
16
charged if they did not cancel during the trial period); 16 C.F.R. § 251.1 (1998).
17
Therefore, it is abundantly relevant to the central issue in this case.
18
Separate Statement Paragraph 21: Objection to Exhibit J to the Nguyen Decl.
19
on the grounds that it is misleading, incomplete and contains irrelevant hearsay. To
20
the extent it is offered to show the exchange between Mssrs. Liu and Nye, it is
21
incomplete. Fed. R. Evid. 106. To the extent it is offered to show that LegalZoom’s
22
legal department raised these alleged issues, it is irrelevant hearsay, since the
23
initiation of the conversation is not at issue. Fed. R. Evid. 401, 402, 801, 802.
24
LegalZoom’s evidence shows no communication between mid-November 2011 and
25
November 2012, when Rocket Lawyer was served with papers for this dispute.
26
Therefore to the extent the evidence is offered to show that LegalZoom sought to
27
resolve this dispute out of court before filing this lawsuit, it is misleading. Fed. R.
28
Evid. 403.
15
PLAINTIFF LEGALZOOM.COM, INC.’S RESPONSES TO ROCKET LAWYER’S MEMORANDUM OF
EVIDENTIARY OBJECTIONS
829314
1
Response to Rocket Lawyer’s Objection to Separate Statement Paragraph 21:
2
The exhibit to which Rocket Lawyer objects, which reflects communications between
3
Rocket Lawyer and LegalZoom principals, are relevant and admissible. The
4
communications are relevant to the extent they indicate Rocket Lawyer’s state of
5
mind concerning the nature of their advertisements and may suggest Rocket Lawyer’s
6
motive in changing critical aspects of their website—thus excepting them form the
7
rule against hearsay since they are not offered to prove the truth of the matter. Fed. R.
8
Evid. 801 (c)(2). To the extent that they involve statements of an opposing party,
9
they are not hearsay at all. Federal Rule of Evidence 801 (d)(2).
10
That there are or may be additional communications does not render these
11
communications irrelevant or preclude introduction on the grounds that they are
12
incomplete or misleading under Federal Rule of Evidence 106. Federal Rule 106
13
does not mandate outright exclusion of the subject evidence. Rule 106 simply permit
14
a responding party, in certain circumstances and where certain factual predicates have
15
been established, to offer evidence rendering a “writing” or “recorded statement”
16
whose contents were allegedly incomplete, to submit the entirety of the writing or that
17
portion in order to make the writing complete. Here, however, Rocket Lawyer has
18
not clearly established why or how the subject screenshots are incomplete. Moreover,
19
Rocket Lawyer has not made the requisite showing indicating that “fairness” requires
20
the introduction of additional material. U.S. v. Branch, 91 F.3d 699 (1996); U.S. v.
21
Boylan, 898 F.2d 230 (1990), cert. denied, 111 S.Ct. 139 (noting that there is no “per
22
se rule requiring the admission of evidence in any case and that a preliminary decision
23
is required concerning what units contained in a document collection constitutes a
24
“fair and reasonably” complete unit of material). Moreover, by now, Rocket Lawyer
25
should have proffered whatever evidence it believes is necessary to make this
26
submission complete. If not, it certainly had the opportunity to do so.
27
28
Finally, the fact that these communications took place nearly a year prior to the
filing of the lawsuit also does not preclude the introduction of this evidence under
16
PLAINTIFF LEGALZOOM.COM, INC.’S RESPONSES TO ROCKET LAWYER’S MEMORANDUM OF
EVIDENTIARY OBJECTIONS
829314
1
Federal Rule of Evidence 403. First, there is nothing inherently misleading about the
2
communications. Second, their having taken place a year before the lawsuit is
3
insufficient, in light of the circumstances, to support a conclusion that the danger of
4
misleading this Court substantially outweighs the probative value of the
5
communications. Proximity in time is only one fact the Court weighs in balancing
6
whether the misleading nature of evidence outweighs the probative value of a piece of
7
evidence. Here, all other indicia point to the inclusion of the evidence, which goes to
8
a central issue in the case—evidence of Rocket Lawyer’s intent.
9
Separate Statement Paragraph 22: Objection to Exhibit J to the Nguyen Decl.
10
on the grounds that it is incomplete. To the extent it is offered to show the exchange
11
between Mssrs. Liu and Nye, it is incomplete. Fed. R. Evid. 106.
12
Response to Rocket Lawyer’s Objection to Separate Statement Paragraph 22:
13
The exhibit to which Rocket Lawyer objects, which reflects communications between
14
Rocket Lawyer and LegalZoom principals, are relevant and admissible. The
15
communications are relevant to the extent they indicate Rocket Lawyer’s state of
16
mind concerning the nature of their advertisements and may suggest Rocket Lawyer’s
17
motive in changing critical aspects of their website—thus excepting them form the
18
rule against hearsay since they are not offered to prove the truth of the matter. Fed. R.
19
Evid. 801 (c)(2). To the extent that they involve statements of an opposing party,
20
they are not hearsay at all. Federal Rule of Evidence 801 (d)(2).
21
That there are or may be additional communications does not render these
22
communications irrelevant or preclude introduction on the grounds that they are
23
incomplete or misleading under Federal Rule of Evidence 106. Federal Rule 106
24
does not mandate outright exclusion of the subject evidence. Rule 106 simply permit
25
a responding party, in certain circumstances and where certain factual predicates have
26
been established, to offer evidence rendering a “writing” or “recorded statement”
27
whose contents were allegedly incomplete, to submit the entirety of the writing or that
28
portion in order to make the writing complete. Here, however, Rocket Lawyer has
17
PLAINTIFF LEGALZOOM.COM, INC.’S RESPONSES TO ROCKET LAWYER’S MEMORANDUM OF
EVIDENTIARY OBJECTIONS
829314
1
not clearly established why or how the subject screenshots are incomplete. Moreover,
2
Rocket Lawyer has not made the requisite showing indicating that “fairness” requires
3
the introduction of additional material. U.S. v. Branch, 91 F.3d 699 (1996); U.S. v.
4
Boylan, 898 F.2d 230 (1990), cert. denied, 111 S.Ct. 139 (noting that there is no “per
5
se rule requiring the admission of evidence in any case and that a preliminary decision
6
is required concerning what units contained in a document collection constitutes a
7
“fair and reasonably” complete unit of material). Moreover, by now, Rocket Lawyer
8
should have proffered whatever evidence it believes is necessary to make this
9
submission complete. If not, it certainly had the opportunity to do so.
10
Separate Statement Paragraph 23: Objection to Exhibit K to the Nguyen Decl.
11
on the grounds that it is irrelevant and contains irrelevant hearsay and an improper
12
legal conclusion. To the extent that it is offered to show that LegalZoom took issue
13
with Rocket Lawyer’s advertising, it is irrelevant hearsay since LegalZoom’s state of
14
mind is not at issue. Fed. R. 401, 402, 801, 802. To the extent it is offered to show
15
that state-imposed fees negate a free service, it is an improper legal conclusion. Fed.
16
R. Civ. Proc. 56(c)(4); L.R. 7-7.
17
Response to Rocket Lawyer’s Objection to Separate Statement Paragraph 23:
18
LegalZoom offers evidence of communications between principals of Legal Zoom
19
and Rocket Lawyer not for the truth of the matter—here, the content of the FTC’s
20
guidance in connection with advertisements—but to show that Rocket Lawyer
21
received communications questioning the ads. The receipt of such communications is
22
relevant to the state of mind of Rocket Lawyer and whether Rocket Lawyer was on
23
notice regarding the legality of its practices prior to the time of the filing of the
24
Complaint. To the extent that they involve statements of an opposing party, they are
25
not hearsay at all. Federal Rule of Evidence 801 (d)(2). Contrary to Rocket Lawyer’s
26
assertions, simply because the document may support LegalZoom’s position here
27
does not render the document itself a legal conclusion; it is simply a communication.
28
Separate Statement Paragraph 24: Objection to Exhibit K to the Nguyen Decl.
18
PLAINTIFF LEGALZOOM.COM, INC.’S RESPONSES TO ROCKET LAWYER’S MEMORANDUM OF
EVIDENTIARY OBJECTIONS
829314
1
on the grounds that it is irrelevant, misleading, and contains irrelevant hearsay and an
2
improper legal conclusion. To the extent it is offered to show that Rocket Lawyer has
3
violated the Federal Trade Commission’s guidelines regarding the use of the word
4
free (“FTC Guide”), it is irrelevant, since compliance with the FTC Guide is not at
5
issue, hearsay, misleading, and an improper legal conclusion. Fed. R. Evid. 401, 402,
6
403, 801, 802; Fed. R. Civ. Proc. 56(c)(4); L.R. 7-7. Furthermore, to the extent it is
7
offered to show the requirements of the FTC Guide, it is not the best evidence, which
8
would be the Guide itself. Fed. R. Evid. 1001, 1002.
9
Response to Rocket Lawyer’s Objection to Separate Statement Paragraph 24:
10
LegalZoom offers evidence of communications between principals of Legal Zoom
11
and Rocket Lawyer, which are relevant to the extent that they show that Rocket
12
Lawyer received communications questioning the ads. Moreover, the receipt of such
13
communications is relevant to the state of mind of Rocket Lawyer and whether
14
Rocket Lawyer was on notice regarding the legality of its practices prior to the time
15
of the filing of the Complaint. As such, these communications do not represent
16
hearsay. See, e.g., Drew v. Equifax Information Services, LLC, 690 F.3d 1100, 1008
17
(9th Cir. 2012). To the extent that they involve statements of an opposing party, they
18
are not hearsay at all. Federal Rule of Evidence 801 (d)(2).
19
Finally, no other purported objection compels a conclusion that the evidence
20
should be excluded. Contrary to Rocket Lawyer’s representations, the evidence is not
21
being submitted to prove the contents of the FTC Guide. Federal Rule of Evidence
22
1002, is, therefore, not an issue here. Moreover, there is nothing inherently
23
misleading about these communications or anything that has been asserted by Rocket
24
Lawyer that would lay the foundation for exclusion of the evidence on the ground that
25
its probative value is substantially outweighed by the danger of confusing this Court.
26
Separate Statement Paragraph 25: Objection to Exhibit K to the Nguyen Decl.
27
on the grounds that it is misleading, prejudicial, hearsay, and an improper legal
28
conclusion. To the extent that it is offered to show that any of Rocket Lawyer’s
19
PLAINTIFF LEGALZOOM.COM, INC.’S RESPONSES TO ROCKET LAWYER’S MEMORANDUM OF
EVIDENTIARY OBJECTIONS
829314
1
advertisements were misleading, the exhibit is misleading and prejudicial, hearsay,
2
and an improper legal conclusion. Fed. R. Evid. 403, 801, 802; Fed. R. Civ.
3
Proc.56(c)(4); L.R. 7-7.
4
Response to Rocket Lawyer’s Objection to Separate Statement Paragraph 25:
5
LegalZoom offers evidence of communications between principals of Legal
6
Zoom and Rocket Lawyer, which are relevant to the extent that they show that Rocket
7
Lawyer received communications questioning the ads. Moreover, the receipt of such
8
communications is relevant to the state of mind of Rocket Lawyer and whether
9
Rocket Lawyer was on notice regarding the legality of its practices prior to the time
10
of the filing of the Complaint. As such, these communications do not represent
11
hearsay. See, e.g., Drew v. Equifax Information Services, LLC, 690 F.3d 1100, 1008
12
(9th Cir. 2012). To the extent that they involve statements of an opposing party, they
13
are not hearsay at all. Federal Rule of Evidence 801 (d)(2).
14
Finally, no other purported objection compels a conclusion that the evidence
15
should be excluded. Contrary to Rocket Lawyer’s representations, the evidence is not
16
being submitted to prove the contents of the ads themselves, and both Rocket Lawyer
17
and LegalZoom have submitted original source documents for the ads themselves.
18
Federal Rule of Evidence 1002, is, therefore, not an issue here. Moreover, there is
19
nothing inherently misleading about these communications or anything that has been
20
asserted by Rocket Lawyer that would lay the foundation for exclusion of the
21
evidence on the ground that its probative value is substantially outweighed by the
22
danger of confusing this Court.
23
Separate Statement Paragraph 26: Objection to Exhibit L to the Nguyen Decl.
24
on the grounds that it is hearsay and not the best evidence. To the extent that it is
25
offered to show that Rocket Lawyer’s advertisements of free services had not been
26
changed or removed, it is hearsay and not the best evidence of that purported fact.
27
Fed. R. Evid. 801, 802, 1001, 1002.
28
Response to Rocket Lawyer’s Objection to Separate Statement Paragraph 26:
20
PLAINTIFF LEGALZOOM.COM, INC.’S RESPONSES TO ROCKET LAWYER’S MEMORANDUM OF
EVIDENTIARY OBJECTIONS
829314
1
LegalZoom offers evidence of communications between principals of Legal Zoom
2
and Rocket Lawyer, which are relevant to the extent that they show that Rocket
3
Lawyer received communications questioning the ads. Moreover, the receipt of such
4
communications is relevant to the state of mind of Rocket Lawyer and whether
5
Rocket Lawyer was on notice regarding the legality of its practices prior to the time
6
of the filing of the Complaint. As such, these communications do not represent
7
hearsay. See, e.g., Drew v. Equifax Information Services, LLC, 690 F.3d 1100, 1008
8
(9th Cir. 2012). To the extent that they involve statements of an opposing party, they
9
are not hearsay at all. Federal Rule of Evidence 801 (d)(2).
10
Finally, no other purported objection compels a conclusion that the evidence
11
should be excluded. There is nothing inherently misleading about these
12
communications or anything that has been asserted by Rocket Lawyer that would lay
13
the foundation for exclusion of the evidence on the ground that its probative value is
14
substantially outweighed by the danger of confusing this Court.
15
Separate Statement Paragraph 27: Objection to Exhibit L to the Nguyen Decl.
16
on the grounds that it is hearsay, misleading and prejudicial, and an improper legal
17
conclusion. To the extent it is offered to show that Rocket Lawyer’s conduct
18
constituted false advertising or unfair competition, it is misleading and prejudicial,
19
hearsay, and an improper legal conclusion. Fed. R. Evid. 403, 801, 802; Fed. R. Civ.
20
Proc. 56(c)(4); L.R. 7-7.
21
Response to Rocket Lawyer’s Objection to Separate Statement Paragraph 27:
22
LegalZoom offers evidence of communications between principals of Legal Zoom
23
and Rocket Lawyer, which are relevant to the extent that they show that Rocket
24
Lawyer received communications questioning the ads. Moreover, the receipt of such
25
communications is relevant to the state of mind of Rocket Lawyer and whether
26
Rocket Lawyer was on notice regarding the legality of its practices prior to the time
27
of the filing of the Complaint. As such, these communications do not represent
28
hearsay. See, e.g., Drew v. Equifax Information Services, LLC, 690 F.3d 1100, 1008
21
PLAINTIFF LEGALZOOM.COM, INC.’S RESPONSES TO ROCKET LAWYER’S MEMORANDUM OF
EVIDENTIARY OBJECTIONS
829314
1
(9th Cir. 2012). To the extent that they involve statements of an opposing party, they
2
are not hearsay at all. Federal Rule of Evidence 801 (d)(2).
3
Finally, no other purported objection compels a conclusion that the evidence
4
should be excluded. There is nothing inherently misleading about these
5
communications or anything that has been asserted by Rocket Lawyer that would lay
6
the foundation for exclusion of the evidence on the ground that its probative value is
7
substantially outweighed by the danger of confusing this Court.
8
9
10
DATED: October 7, 2013
Respectfully submitted,
GLASER WEIL FINK JACOBS
HOWARD AVCHEN & SHAPIRO LLP
11
12
13
14
15
By: /s/ Fred Heather
PATRICIA L. GLASER
FRED D. HEATHER
MARY ANN T. NGUYEN
Attorneys for Plaintiff
LegalZoom.com, Inc.
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
22
PLAINTIFF LEGALZOOM.COM, INC.’S RESPONSES TO ROCKET LAWYER’S MEMORANDUM OF
EVIDENTIARY OBJECTIONS
829314
1
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
2
STATE OF CALIFORNIA, COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES
3
I am employed in the County of Los Angeles, State of California; I am over the
4
age of 18 and not a party to the within action; my business address is 10250
5
Constellation Boulevard, 19th Floor, Los Angeles, California 90067.
6
On October 7, 2013, I electronically filed the following document(s) using the
7
CM/ECF system.
8
9
PLAINTIFF LEGALZOOM.COM, INC.’S RESPONSE TO ROCKET
LAWYER’S MEMORANDUM OF EVIDENTIARY OBJECTIONS
10
Participants in the case are registered CM/ECF users and will be served by the
11
CM/ECF system.
12
I declare that I am employed in the office of a member of the bar of this court at
13
whose direction the service was made. I declare under penalty of perjury that the
14
above is true and correct.
15
Executed on October 7, 2013 at Los Angeles, California.
16
17
18
/s/ Fred Heather
Fred Heather
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
1
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
829314
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?