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
[e-mail]
FRED D. HEATHER - State Bar No. 110650
[e-mail]
MARY ANN T. NGUYEN - State Bar No. 269099
[e-mail]
GLASER WEIL FINK JACOBS
HOWARD AVCHEN & SHAPIRO LLP
10250 Constellation Boulevard, 19th Floor
Los Angeles, California 90067
Telephone: [phone]
Facsimile: [phone]
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

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 SEPARATE
STATEMENT OF UNDISPUTED
MATERIAL FACTS IN SUPPORT
OF ITS OPPOSITION TO
LEGALZOOM.COM’S MOTION
FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT

19
20
21
22

Date:
October 21, 2013
Time:
9:30 a.m.
Courtroom: 740
255 East Temple Street
Los Angeles, CA 90012

23
24
25
26
27
28
1
LEGALZOOM’S RESPONSE TO ROCKET LAWYER’S SEPARATE STATEMENT OF UNDISPUTED
MATERIAL FACTS
828681

Plaintiff LegalZoom.com, Inc. (“LegalZoom”) hereby submits its Response to

1
2

Defendant Rocket Lawyer Incorporated’s (“Rocket Lawyer”) alleged “Separate

3

Statement of Undisputed Material Facts”:

4
5

ROCKET LAWYER’S ALLEGED

ROCKET LAWYER’S ALLEGED

6

STATEMENT

EVIDENTIARY SUPPORT/
LEGALZOOM’S RESPONSE

7
8

28.

In 2000, LegalZoom developed a

9

business model whereby it would sell

Vu Decl., ¶2, Ex. 1, ¶ 7, Ex. 20; ¶ 7, Ex.
21.

10

legal products to consumers on the

11

Internet, but only deliver final documents

Undisputed that LegalZoom developed a

12

in hard copy by mail.

business model whereby it would sell

13

legal products to consumers on the

14

Internet. However, disputed that

15

LegalZoom only delivers final documents

16

in hard copy by mail. Supplemental

17

Declaration of Mary Ann T. Nguyen in

18

Support of LegalZoom’s Motion for

19

Summary Judgment, ¶ 6, Ex. D.

20

Objection: Irrelevant and Immaterial

21

(Fed. R. Evid. 401, 402).

22

29.

LegalZoom has provided services

23

Vu Decl., ¶ 2, Ex.1.

to approximately two million customers.

24

Undisputed that LegalZoom has

25

approximately two million paying

26

customers.

27

Objection: Irrelevant and Immaterial

28

(Fed. R. Evid. 401, 402).
2
LEGALZOOM’S RESPONSE TO ROCKET LAWYER’S SEPARATE STATEMENT OF UNDISPUTED
MATERIAL FACTS

828681

1

ROCKET LAWYER’S ALLEGED

ROCKET LAWYER’S ALLEGED

2

STATEMENT

EVIDENTIARY SUPPORT/
LEGALZOOM’S RESPONSE

3
4

30.

Beginning in 2007, Rocket Lawyer

5

has offered users various online legal

6

services, many for free or included in a

7

subscription plan.

Vu Decl., ¶ 3, Exs. 2, 3, 4; Hollerbach
Decl., ¶ 3.
Disputed that “many” or any “legal

8

services” have been provided by Rocket

9

Lawyer for “free” at all times since 2007.
Vu Decl., Exs. 2, 3, 4.Objection:

10
11

Irrelevant and Immaterial (Fed. R. Evid.

12

401, 402); Misleading (Fed. R. Evid.

13

403).

14

31.

Free to all Rocket Lawyer users are Hollerbach Decl., ¶ 4.

15

a number of legal forms, letter templates,

16

and informative articles about many areas

Disputed on the ground that LegalZoom

17

of law.

has insufficient facts to confirm or deny

18

that Rocket Lawyer offers for “free” to

19

all Rocket Lawyer users “a number of

20

legal forms, letter templates, and

21

informative articles about many areas of

22

law.”

23

Objection: Irrelevant and Immaterial

24

(Fed. R. Evid. 401, 402); Misleading

25

(Fed. R. Evid. 403).
Rocket Lawyer’s subscription plans Hollerbach Decl., ¶ 5.

26

32.

27

provide access to all of Rocket Lawyer’s

28

legal software, enabling users to create,

Disputed on the ground the LegalZoom

3
LEGALZOOM’S RESPONSE TO ROCKET LAWYER’S SEPARATE STATEMENT OF UNDISPUTED
MATERIAL FACTS
828681

1

ROCKET LAWYER’S ALLEGED

ROCKET LAWYER’S ALLEGED

2

STATEMENT

EVIDENTIARY SUPPORT/
LEGALZOOM’S RESPONSE

3
4

edit, store, e-sign, download, print, or

has insufficient facts to confirm or deny

5

share with an attorney for review all legal

that Rocket Lawyer’s subscription plans

6

documents created on Rocketlawyer.com.

provide access to “all of Rocket

7

Lawyer’s legal software, enabling users

8

to create, edit, store, e-sign, download,

9

print, or share with an attorney for review

10

all documents created on

11

Rocketlawyer.com” (emphasis added).

12

Objection: Irrelevant and Immaterial

13

(Fed. R. Evid. 401, 402); Misleading

14

(Fed. R. Evid. 403).

15

33.

The Rocket Lawyer service has

Hollerbach Decl., ¶ 6.

16

always been built on a cloud-computing

17

platform that helps consumers to satisfy

Disputed on the ground that LegalZoom

18

their legal needs without waiting for

has insufficient facts to confirm or deny

19

delivery of a physical document by mail.

that Rocket Lawyer’s service “has always

20

been built on cloud-computing platform”

21

or that such platform “helps consumers to

22

satisfy their legal needs without waiting

23

for delivery of a physical document by

24

mail..

25

Objection: Irrelevant and Immaterial

26

(Fed. R. Evid. 401, 402).

27

34.

Rocket Lawyer has served

28

Hollerbach Decl., ¶¶ 7, 8.

approximately nine million customers,
4
LEGALZOOM’S RESPONSE TO ROCKET LAWYER’S SEPARATE STATEMENT OF UNDISPUTED
MATERIAL FACTS

828681

1

ROCKET LAWYER’S ALLEGED

ROCKET LAWYER’S ALLEGED

2

STATEMENT

EVIDENTIARY SUPPORT/
LEGALZOOM’S RESPONSE

3
4

over 90% of whom have never paid

Disputed on the ground that LegalZoom

5

anything to Rocket Lawyer for use of its

has insufficient facts to confirm or deny

6

services.

that over 90% of customers who have

7

provided an email address to Rocket

8

Lawyer have never paid anything to

9

Rocket Lawyer for use of its “services.”

10

Objection: Lacks Foundation (Fed. R.

11

Evid. 602).
Rocket Lawyer’s service is

12

35.

Hollerbach Decl., ¶ 9, Ex. A.

13

constantly progressing in support of its

14

mission to make legal help affordable to

Disputed on the ground that LegalZoom

15

everyone.

has insufficient facts to confirm or deny

16

that Rocket Lawyer’s service is

17

“constantly progressing” or that its

18

“mission” is “to make legal help

19

affordable to everyone.”

20

Objection: Irrelevant and Immaterial

21

(Fed. R. Evid. 401, 402
At the time LegalZoom’s complaint Hollerbach Decl., ¶ 10.

22

36.

23

was filed, Rocket Lawyer offered two

24

types of subscription plans—a Pro Legal

Undisputed that at the time LegalZoom’s

25

Plan with premium access to all Rocket

complaint was filed, Rocket Lawyer

26

Lawyer functionality, and a Basic Legal

offered a Pro Legal Plan and a Basic

27

Plan, which excluded only the

Legal Plan; however, disputed on the

28

functionality related to forming or

ground that LegalZoom has insufficient

5
LEGALZOOM’S RESPONSE TO ROCKET LAWYER’S SEPARATE STATEMENT OF UNDISPUTED
MATERIAL FACTS
828681

1

ROCKET LAWYER’S ALLEGED

ROCKET LAWYER’S ALLEGED

2

STATEMENT

EVIDENTIARY SUPPORT/
LEGALZOOM’S RESPONSE

3
4

running a business.

facts to confirm or deny that the Basic

5

Legal Plan excludes only the

6

“functionality related to forming or

7

running a business.”

8

Objection: Irrelevant and Immaterial

9

(Fed. R. Evid. 401, 402).

10

37.

Similar to free trials offered by

Vu Decl., ¶ 3, Exs. 5, 6, 7; Hollerbach

11

many consumer businesses, any consumer Decl., ¶ 11, Ex. B.

12

could try a Basic or Pro Legal Plan and all

13

services available under the selected plan, Undisputed that consumers can enroll in

14

for seven days at no cost, provided that

15

the consumer canceled the plan by the end Legal Plan for up to seven days;

16

of the seventh day.

Rocket Lawyer’s trial of its Basic or Pro
however, disputed that Rocket Lawyer’s

17

trials are “similar” to free trials offered

18

by many consumer businesses or that any

19

consumer can try all services available

20

under the selected plan for “free.”

21

Vu Decl., ¶ 7, Exs. 21, 22, 23;

22

Declaration of Mary Ann T. Nguyen in

23

Support of LegalZoom’s Motion for

24

Summary Judgment (“Nguyen Decl.”),

25

Ex. D.

26

Objection: Improper Legal Conclusion

27

(Fed. R. Civ. Proc. 56(c)(4); L.R. 7-7);

28

Lacks Foundation (Fed. R. Evid. 602);
6
LEGALZOOM’S RESPONSE TO ROCKET LAWYER’S SEPARATE STATEMENT OF UNDISPUTED
MATERIAL FACTS

828681

1

ROCKET LAWYER’S ALLEGED

ROCKET LAWYER’S ALLEGED

2

STATEMENT

EVIDENTIARY SUPPORT/
LEGALZOOM’S RESPONSE

3
4

Speculative (Fed. R. Evid. 602);

5

Irrelevant and Immaterial (Fed. R. Evid.

6

401, 402).

7

38.

If a consumer chose not to cancel

8

their trial plan by the end of the seventh

9

day of the plan, the trial converted to a

Vu Decl., ¶ 3, Exs. 5, 6, 7, 8.

Disputed that consumers whose trial

10

paid version of the plan on the eighth day. plans converted to a paid version of the

11

plan are consumers who “chose” not to

12

cancel their trial plan by the end of the

13

seventh day of the plan. Nguyen Decl., ¶

14

13, Ex. I.

15

Objection: Misleading (Fed. R. Evid.

16

403).

17

39.

Even if a consumer canceled the

Vu Decl., ¶ 3, Ex. 7; Hollerbach Decl., ¶

18

free trial, he would continue to have full

19

access to Rocketlawyer.com for the

20

remainder of the trial period, and have

21

post-trial access to any documents created disputed on the ground that LegalZoom

22

during the trial.

12.
Disputed that the trial is “free” and

has insufficient facts to confirm or deny

23

that even if a consumer cancelled the

24

trial, he would continue to have full

25

access to Rocketlawyer.com for the

26

remainder of the trial period, and have

27

post-trial access to any documents

28

created during the trial. Nguyen Decl., ¶
7
LEGALZOOM’S RESPONSE TO ROCKET LAWYER’S SEPARATE STATEMENT OF UNDISPUTED
MATERIAL FACTS

828681

1

ROCKET LAWYER’S ALLEGED

ROCKET LAWYER’S ALLEGED

2

STATEMENT

EVIDENTIARY SUPPORT/
LEGALZOOM’S RESPONSE

3
4

13, Ex. I.

5

Objection: Irrelevant and Immaterial

6

(Fed. R. Evid. 401, 402).

7

40.

A typical user would enroll in a

Hollerbach Decl., ¶¶ 13, 14.

8

free trial by clicking on a search engine

9

ad, such as an ad for a legal document;

Undisputed that a user can currently

10

the link would direct the user to an

enroll in a trial by clicking on a search

11

interactive interview for the document.

engine ad, which currently directs the

12

user to the Rocket Lawyer website and an

13

interactive interview for the document.

14

41.

At the end of the interview, the user Vu Decl., ¶ 3, Ex. 8; Hollerbach Decl., ¶

15

had the option to enroll in a free trial or a

16

paying plan; if the user elected to enroll in

17

a free trial, the user would be taken to a

Undisputed users can currently enroll in

18

web page explaining the Pro or Basic

a trial or a paying plan and the Rocket

19

Legal Plan.

Lawyer website currently has web pages

14; ¶ 15, Ex. C; ¶ 16.

20

that provide information on the Pro or

21

Basic Legal Plan; however, disputed that

22

the trial is “free.” Nguyen Decl., ¶13, Ex.

23

I.

24

Objection: Misleading (Fed. R. Evid.

25

403); Improper Legal Conclusion (Fed.

26

R. Civ. Proc. 56(c)(4), L.R. 7-7).

27

42.

28

also available through Rocket Lawyer’s

The explanatory web pages were

Hollerbach Decl., ¶ 17.

8
LEGALZOOM’S RESPONSE TO ROCKET LAWYER’S SEPARATE STATEMENT OF UNDISPUTED
MATERIAL FACTS
828681

1

ROCKET LAWYER’S ALLEGED

ROCKET LAWYER’S ALLEGED

2

STATEMENT

EVIDENTIARY SUPPORT/
LEGALZOOM’S RESPONSE

3
4

homepage and other channels.

Undisputed that the Rocket Lawyer

5

homepage currently provides links to web

6

pages relating to its subscription plans;

7

however, disputed on the ground that

8

LegalZoom has insufficient facts to

9

ascertain what “other channels” Rocket

10

Lawyer refers.

11

Objection: Misleading (Fed. R. Evid.

12

403) ); Improper Legal Conclusion (Fed.

13

R. Civ. Proc. 56(c)(4), L.R. 7-7).

14

43.

By toggling between the Pro and

15

Basic plan options, a consumer could

16

choose which type of plan he or she

17

would like to try.

Vu Decl., ¶ 3, Exs. 5, 6; Hollerbach
Decl., ¶ 16.

Undisputed that customers can currently

18

view information about Rocket Lawyer’s

19

Pro and Basic plan options on the Rocket

20

Lawyer website and can choose which

21

type of plan he or she would like to try.

22

44.

The explanatory pages for both

Vu Decl., ¶ 3, Exs. 5, 6.

23

plans contained information regarding the

24

free trial and conversion to subscription

Undisputed that the Rocket Lawyer

25

plans, and included a toll free phone

website currently contains information

26

number the user could call to cancel the

regarding Rocket Lawyer’s subscription

27

free trial plan; the toll free number was,

plans and currently has a toll free phone

28

and still is, at the top of the registration

number at the top of its web pages;

9
LEGALZOOM’S RESPONSE TO ROCKET LAWYER’S SEPARATE STATEMENT OF UNDISPUTED
MATERIAL FACTS
828681

1

ROCKET LAWYER’S ALLEGED

ROCKET LAWYER’S ALLEGED

2

STATEMENT

EVIDENTIARY SUPPORT/
LEGALZOOM’S RESPONSE

3
4

however, disputed that the trial is “free.”

pages.

5

Nguyen Decl., ¶ 13, Ex. I.

6

Objection: Misleading (Fed. R. Evid.

7

403); Improper Legal Conclusion (Fed.

8

R. Civ. Proc. 56(c)(4), L.R. 7-7); Best

9

Evidence (Fed. R. 1001, 1002).

10

45.

In addition, to ensure that

Vu Decl., ¶ 3, Ex. 7.

11

customers have answers to questions

12

about the free trial, Rocket Lawyer has an Undisputed as to the FAQ shown in the

13

FAQ section devoted to them, which also

exhibit; however, disputed that the trial

14

details the different ways a customer can

is “free.” Nguyen Decl., ¶ 13, Ex. I.

15

cancel any plan—through the customer’s

Objection: Misleading (Fed. R. Evid.

16

account page, via chat, email, or

403); Improper Legal Conclusion (Fed.

17

telephone.

R. Civ. Proc. 56(c)(4), L.R. 7-7).

18

46.

19

conditions for the website in general on

20

each page of Rocketlawyer.com, and must

21

acknowledge the same terms and

Undisputed that a link to Rocket

22

conditions before acting to enroll in any

Lawyer’s terms and conditions are

23

Rocket Lawyer subscription plan.

available on the Rocket Lawyer web

Customers can access the terms and Vu Decl., ¶ 3, Exs. 5, 6; Hollerbach
Decl., ¶ 17.

24

pages contained in the Exhibits.

25

Objection: Misleading (Fed. R. Evid.

26

403); Improper Legal Conclusion (Fed.

27

R. Civ. Proc. 56(c)(4), L.R. 7-7).

28

47.

All members enrolled in a free or

Vu Decl., ¶ 3, Exs. 9, 10,11; Hollerbach

10
LEGALZOOM’S RESPONSE TO ROCKET LAWYER’S SEPARATE STATEMENT OF UNDISPUTED
MATERIAL FACTS
828681

1

ROCKET LAWYER’S ALLEGED

ROCKET LAWYER’S ALLEGED

2

STATEMENT

EVIDENTIARY SUPPORT/
LEGALZOOM’S RESPONSE

3
4

paying Pro Legal Plan receive free

5

incorporation services; Rocket Lawyer

6

charges no fee for its services in assisting

Disputed that members receive “free”

7

in the filing and processing of

incorporation or that the enrollment in a

8

incorporation or entity formation papers

Pro Legal Plan is “free.” Nguyen Decl.,

9

submitted by free trial or paying Pro

¶¶ 5, 13, Exs. C and I.

Legal Plan members.

Objection: Misleading (Fed. R. Evid.

10

Decl., ¶ 19.

403).

11
12

48.

Members enrolled in a free or

Vu Decl., ¶ 3, Exs. 9, 10, 11.

13

paying Pro Legal Plan who require

14

incorporation services only pay the state-

Undisputed that members enrolled in a

15

mandated filing fees, which Rocket

Rocket Lawyer plan who require

16

Lawyer discloses at various stages of the

incorporation services pay the state-

17

incorporation interview prior to requiring

mandated filing fees; however, disputed

18

any payment information.

that the enrollment in a Pro Legal Plan is

19

“free” Nguyen Decl., ¶¶ 5, 6, 13, Exs. C,

20

D and I.

21

Objection: Misleading (Fed. R. Evid.

22

403); Improper Legal Conclusion (Fed.

23

R. Civ. Proc. 56(c)(4), L.R. 7-7).

24

49.

Members enrolled in a free or

Vu Decl., ¶ 3, Exs. 9,11.

25

paying Pro Legal Plan who require

26

incorporation services may also add

Undisputed that members enrolled in a

27

services not required, though commonly

Rocket Lawyer plan who require

28

preferred, related to incorporation or

incorporation services may currently add

11
LEGALZOOM’S RESPONSE TO ROCKET LAWYER’S SEPARATE STATEMENT OF UNDISPUTED
MATERIAL FACTS
828681

1

ROCKET LAWYER’S ALLEGED

ROCKET LAWYER’S ALLEGED

2

STATEMENT

EVIDENTIARY SUPPORT/
LEGALZOOM’S RESPONSE

3
4

entity formation—such as a federal tax

services not required; however, disputed

5

ID, a registered agent, etc.—which

that the enrollment in a Pro Legal Plan is

6

Rocket Lawyer provides at a discount

“free.” Nguyen Decl., ¶¶ 5, 6, 13, Exs.

7

over its competitors.

C, D and I.

8

Objection: Irrelevant and Immaterial

9

(Fed. R. Evid. 401, 402).
Rocket Lawyer’s subscription plans Vu Decl., ¶ 3, Exs. 12, 13; Hollerbach

10

50.

11

include access to Rocket Lawyer’s On

12

Call attorneys who can provide legal

13

advice or live consultations, answer

Undisputed that Rocket Lawyer’s

14

written questions, and/or review legal

current subscription plans include access

15

documents.

to Rocket Lawyer’s On Call attorneys;

Decl., ¶ 22.

16

however, disputed that Rocket Lawyer’s

17

“free” subscription plans prior to the

18

filing of the Complaint included access to

19

Rocket Lawyer’s On Call attorneys.

20

Nguyen Decl., ¶ 8-10, Exs. F and G.

21

Objection: Misleading (Fed. R. Evid.

22

403); Improper Legal Conclusion (Fed.

23

R. Civ. Proc. 56(c)(4), L.R. 7-7);

24

Irrelevant and Immaterial (Fed. R. Evid.

25

401, 402).

26
27
28
12
LEGALZOOM’S RESPONSE TO ROCKET LAWYER’S SEPARATE STATEMENT OF UNDISPUTED
MATERIAL FACTS
828681

1

ROCKET LAWYER’S ALLEGED

ROCKET LAWYER’S ALLEGED

2

STATEMENT

EVIDENTIARY SUPPORT/
LEGALZOOM’S RESPONSE

3
4

51.

Outside of the On Call program,

Hollerbach Decl., ¶ 23.

5

Rocket Lawyer registered users, whether

6

on a free trial or a legal plan, can contact

Disputed that the trial is “free.” Nguyen

7

an attorney for a free consultation at any

Decl., ¶ 13, Ex. I. Disputed further on

8

time.

the ground that LegalZoom has
insufficient facts to confirm or deny that

9
10

users can currently contact an attorney

11

for a “free” consultation outside of the

12

“On Call” program.

13

Objection: Misleading (Fed. R. Evid.

14

403); Improper Legal Conclusion (Fed.

15

R. Civ. Proc. 56(c)(4), L.R. 7-7);

16

Irrelevant and Immaterial (Fed. R. Evid.

17

401, 402).
A search on Google.com for “legal

18

52.

Vu Decl., ¶ 4, Ex. 14; ¶ 5, Ex.15; ¶ 6, Ex.

19

documents” generates information for

20

over a dozen companies on the first page

21

of the search alone; many of these

Undisputed that a search on Google.com

22

companies offer services similar to

for “legal documents” generates

23

Rocket Lawyer’s and advertise such

information for over a dozen companies

24

services in a similar fashion.

on the first page of the search; however,

16.

25

disputed that “many” of these companies

26

offer services “similar” to Rocket

27

Lawyer’s and advertise such services in a

28

“similar” fashion.
13
LEGALZOOM’S RESPONSE TO ROCKET LAWYER’S SEPARATE STATEMENT OF UNDISPUTED
MATERIAL FACTS

828681

1

ROCKET LAWYER’S ALLEGED

ROCKET LAWYER’S ALLEGED

2

STATEMENT

EVIDENTIARY SUPPORT/

3

LEGALZOOM’S RESPONSE

4

Objection: Irrelevant and Immaterial

5

(Fed. R. Evid. 401, 402).

6

53.

LegalZoom now offers packaged

7

documents, such as real estate leases, and

8

allows customers to edit and download

Disputed. Supp. Nguyen Decl., ¶ 6, Ex.

9

these forms electronically; however,

D.

10

LegalZoom charges $29 for the forms

Objection: Irrelevant and Immaterial

11

about one area of law and only allows

(Fed. R. Evid. 401, 402).

12

customers to edit the forms for one week,

13

unless they pay an additional $20 for

14

unlimited revisions.

15

54.

16

incorporation services; however, unlike

17

Rocket Lawyer or other competitors such

18

as Law Depot, Incforfree, and

Undisputed that LegalZoom currently

19

Mycorporation, LegalZoom continues to

charges a fee for incorporation services;

20

charge a fee for its assistance with the

however, disputed on the ground that

21

filing process.

LegalZoom has insufficient facts to

LegalZoom also began to offer

Vu Decl., ¶ 7, Ex. 17.

Vu Decl., ¶ 7, Exs. 21, 22, 23.
Hollerbach Decl., ¶ 21.

22

confirm or deny that it is unlike its

23

competitors.

24

Objection: Irrelevant and Immaterial

25

(Fed. R. Evid. 401, 402).

26

55.

27

subscription plans with attorney

28

consultation time in 2011; however,

LegalZoom also began offering

Vu Decl., ¶ 7, Exs. 18, 19; ¶ 12, Ex. 30.

Undisputed that LegalZoom offers

14
LEGALZOOM’S RESPONSE TO ROCKET LAWYER’S SEPARATE STATEMENT OF UNDISPUTED
MATERIAL FACTS
828681

1

ROCKET LAWYER’S ALLEGED

ROCKET LAWYER’S ALLEGED

2

STATEMENT

EVIDENTIARY SUPPORT/
LEGALZOOM’S RESPONSE

3
4

LegalZoom still adheres to the postal mail subscription plans with attorney

5

business model and does not appear to

consultation. However disputed that

6

offer any single plan comparable to

LegalZoom began offering such

7

Rocket Lawyer’s Pro Plan (i.e. a plan that

subscription plans in 2011 and disputed

8

combines business and personal support).

that LegalZoom does not offer a plan that
combines business and personal support.

9
10

Supp. Nguyen Decl., ¶ 7, Ex. E.

11

Objection: Irrelevant and Immaterial

12

(Fed. R. Evid. 401, 402).

13

56.

Legal Zoom only discounts

14

attorney services outside of the

15

subscription plans by 25%.

Vu Decl., ¶ 7, Ex. 19.

Undisputed that LegalZoom currently

16

discounts other attorney services

17

provided by plan attorneys by 25%.

18

Objection: Irrelevant and Immaterial

19

(Fed. R. Evid. 401, 402).
Rocket Lawyer’s On Call attorneys

20

57.

21

agree to discount services by 40% or

22

charge $125 an hour.

Vu Decl., ¶ 3, Exs. 12, 13.

Disputed on the ground that Rocket

23

Lawyer has insufficient facts to confirm

24

or deny that Rocket lawyer’s On Call

25

attorneys have agreed to discount

26

services by 50% or charge $125 an hour.

27

Objection: Irrelevant and Immaterial

28

(Fed. R. Evid. 401, 402).
15
LEGALZOOM’S RESPONSE TO ROCKET LAWYER’S SEPARATE STATEMENT OF UNDISPUTED
MATERIAL FACTS

828681

1

ROCKET LAWYER’S ALLEGED

ROCKET LAWYER’S ALLEGED

2

STATEMENT

EVIDENTIARY SUPPORT/
LEGALZOOM’S RESPONSE

3
4

58.

LegalZoom has advertised its

Vu Decl., ¶ 7, Exs. 21, 22.

5

incorporation services without disclosing

6

the additional state-imposed fees in the

Undisputed that LegalZoom has used

7

same way Rocket Lawyer has.

advertisements for incorporation that do

8

not state the additional state-imposed fees

9

on the advertisements themselves.

10

However, disputed that LegalZoom has

11

advertised its incorporation services in

12

the “same” way Rocket Lawyer has or

13

that LegalZoom does not disclose the

14

additional state-imposed fees.

15

Vu Decl., ¶ 7, Exs. 21, 22; Nguyen Decl.

16

Ex. D.

17

Objection: Incomplete (Fed. R. Evid.

18

106); Misleading (Fed. R. Evid. 403);

19

Improper Legal Conclusion (Fed. R. Civ.

20

Proc. 56(c)(4), L.R. 7-7); Irrelevant and

21

Immaterial (Fed. R. Evid. 401, 402).

22

59.

LegalZoom and Rocket Lawyer

Vu Decl., ¶ 7, Exs. 21, 22, 23.

23

each have published advertisements in

24

which state fees are not referenced;

Undisputed that LegalZoom has used

25

whereas the Rocket Lawyer ad provides a

advertisements for incorporation that do

26

link with more information regarding

not state the additional state-imposed fees

27

pricing, where state fees are disclosed,

on the advertisements themselves.

28

when a consumer clicks on the referenced However, disputed that the link to the
16
LEGALZOOM’S RESPONSE TO ROCKET LAWYER’S SEPARATE STATEMENT OF UNDISPUTED
MATERIAL FACTS

828681

1

ROCKET LAWYER’S ALLEGED

ROCKET LAWYER’S ALLEGED

2

STATEMENT

EVIDENTIARY SUPPORT/
LEGALZOOM’S RESPONSE

3
4

LegalZoom ad, they are brought to a

LegalZoom webpage does not disclose

5

LegalZoom webpage that displays

the additional state-imposed fees since

6

incorporation pricing with no reference to

Exhibit 23 to the Vu Declaration

7

state fees.

specifically shows LegalZoom’s

8

disclosure “+ state fee.” Vu Decl., ¶ 7,

9

Ex. 23.

10

Objection: Incomplete (Fed. R. Evid.

11

106); Misleading (Fed. R. Evid. 403);

12

Improper Legal Conclusion (Fed. R. Civ.

13

Proc. 56(c)(4), L.R. 7-7); Irrelevant and

14

Immaterial (Fed. R. Evid. 401, 402).

15

60.

In a direct comparison,

Vu Decl., ¶ 7, Ex. 23.

16

LegalZoom’s prices are higher than

17

Rocket Lawyer’s even if state fees were

Undisputed that LegalZoom currently

18

listed, because LegalZoom always

charges for the incorporation service it

19

charges for the incorporation service it

provides to consumers. However,

20

provides.

disputed that LegalZoom’s prices are

21

“higher” than Rocket Lawyer’s prices.

22

Objection: Irrelevant and Immaterial

23

(Fed. R. Evid. 401, 402); Lacks

24

Foundation (Fed. R. Evid. 602).

25
26
27
28
17
LEGALZOOM’S RESPONSE TO ROCKET LAWYER’S SEPARATE STATEMENT OF UNDISPUTED
MATERIAL FACTS
828681

1

ROCKET LAWYER’S ALLEGED

ROCKET LAWYER’S ALLEGED

2

STATEMENT

EVIDENTIARY SUPPORT/
LEGALZOOM’S RESPONSE

3

Rocket Lawyer’s disclosure of state See Vu Decl., ¶ 14, 32; ¶ 15, Ex. 33.

4

61.

5

incorporation fees has been described as

6

clearer than LegalZoom’s disclosure.

Undisputed as to the review shown in

7

the exhibit. However, disputed that

8

Rocket Lawyer’s disclosure of state

9

incorporation fees has been described as

10

“clearer” than LegalZoom’s disclosure.

11

Supp. Nguyen Decl., ¶ 4, Ex. C.

12

Objection: Irrelevant and Immaterial

13

(Fed. R. Evid. 401, 402); Hearsay (Fed.

14

R. Evid. 801, 802); Incompetent Lay

15

Opinion (Fed. R. Evid.701); Misleading

16

(Fed. R. Evid. 403).

17

62.

LegalZoom does not disclose in its

Vu Decl., ¶ 7, Ex. 24.

18

own advertisements the third party costs

19

associated with using LegalZoom.com

Undisputed that LegalZoom does not

20

identified in its Supplemental Terms of

state in its advertisements the standard

21

Use.

internet access rates as set forth in its

22

Supplemental Terms of Use (Exhibit 24

23

to the Vu Declaration), which internet

24

users must generally pay to their online

25

service providers for general internet

26

access; however, disputed that there are

27

other third party costs associated with

28

using LegalZoom.com identified in
18
LEGALZOOM’S RESPONSE TO ROCKET LAWYER’S SEPARATE STATEMENT OF UNDISPUTED
MATERIAL FACTS

828681

1

ROCKET LAWYER’S ALLEGED

ROCKET LAWYER’S ALLEGED

2

STATEMENT

EVIDENTIARY SUPPORT/

3

LEGALZOOM’S RESPONSE

4

LegalZoom’s Supplemental Terms of

5

Use.

6

Objection: Incomplete (Fed. R. Evid.

7

106); Misleading (Fed. R. Evid. 403);

8

Irrelevant and Immaterial (Fed. R. Evid.

9

401, 402).

10

63.

LegalZoom has published and

11

continues to publish advertisements

12

claiming that it has an ‘A’ rating with the

13

Better Business Bureau (“BBB”).

14

64.

15

rating with the BBB since March of 2013. Ex. 29.

LegalZoom has not had an ‘A’

Vu Decl., ¶ 7, Ex. 25; ¶ 8, Ex. 26.

Undisputed.

Vu Decl., ¶ 9, Ex. 27; ¶ 10, Ex. 28; ¶ 11,

16
17

Disputed.

18

Vu Decl., Ex. 27; Declaration of Patty

19

Chikamagalur, ¶ 2.

20

Objections: Misleading (Fed. R. Evid.

21

403).

22

65.

23

its assistance in processing and filing

24

incorporation papers for trial and paid Pro Disputed that Rocket Lawyer charges no

25

Legal Plan Members.

26

Rocket Lawyer charges no fee for

Hollerbach Decl., ¶ 19.

fee for incorporation. Nguyen Decl., ¶5,
Ex. C.

27
28
19
LEGALZOOM’S RESPONSE TO ROCKET LAWYER’S SEPARATE STATEMENT OF UNDISPUTED
MATERIAL FACTS
828681

1

ROCKET LAWYER’S ALLEGED

ROCKET LAWYER’S ALLEGED

2

STATEMENT

EVIDENTIARY SUPPORT/
LEGALZOOM’S RESPONSE

3
4

66.

Rocket Lawyer does not retain any

Vu Decl., ¶ 3, Ex. 11; Hollerbach Decl., ¶

5

portion of the state fees charged in

6

connection with incorporation; all such

7

charges are assessed by the state, and thus Disputed on the ground that LegalZoom

8

are entirely passed on to the state through

has insufficient facts to confirm or deny

9

a third party.

that Rocket Lawyer does not retain any

20.

10

portion of the state fees charged in

11

connection with incorporation.
“Free legal help” has always been

12

67.

Nguyen Decl., ¶ 7, Ex. E; Hollerbach

13

available to registered users in the form of Decl., ¶ 23.

14

free consultations with On Call attorneys.

15

Disputed that legal help as advertised

16

(“Free help from local attorneys” and

17

“Free legal review”) has “always” been

18

available to users for “free.” Nguyen

19

Decl. ¶¶ 7, 8, 9, Exs. E, F.

20

Objections: Irrelevant and Immaterial

21

(Fed. R. Evid. 401, 402); Misleading

22

(Fed. R. Evid. 403).

23

68.

24

at issue contains a link to

25

Rocketlawyer.com or is published on

Undisputed that the Rocket Lawyer

26

Rocketlawyer.com.

advertisements at issue in the complaint

27
28

Each Rocket Lawyer advertisement Nguyen Decl., ¶ 4, Ex. B

contained links to Rocket Lawyer.com or
were published on Rocketlawyer.com.
20
LEGALZOOM’S RESPONSE TO ROCKET LAWYER’S SEPARATE STATEMENT OF UNDISPUTED
MATERIAL FACTS

828681

1

ROCKET LAWYER’S ALLEGED

ROCKET LAWYER’S ALLEGED

2

STATEMENT

EVIDENTIARY SUPPORT/

3

LEGALZOOM’S RESPONSE

4

Objection: Misleading (Fed. R. Evid.

5

403); Improper Legal Conclusion (Fed.

6

R. Civ. Proc. 56(c)(4), L.R. 7-7).

7

69.

Rocket Lawyer discloses the state

Vu Decl., ¶ 3, Exs. 9, 10, 11.

8

fees on the incorporation and entity

9

formation page of its website, and at other Undisputed that Rocket Lawyer

10

points prior to the customer inserting any

currently provides information regarding

11

credit card information.

state fees on its website. Nguyen Decl., ¶

12

6, Ex. D.

13

Objection: Misleading (Fed. R. Evid.

14

403); Improper Legal Conclusion (Fed.

15

R. Civ. Proc. 56(c)(4), L.R. 7-7).

16

70.

Rocket Lawyer does in fact provide Hollerbach Decl., ¶ 23.

17

the “free legal help” advertised by making

18

attorney consultation available to all

Disputed that legal help was “free” since

19

registered users.

registration as a user was required.

20

Nguyen Decl. ¶¶ 7, 8, 9, Exs. E, F.

21

Disputed further on the ground that

22

LegalZoom has insufficient facts to

23

confirm or deny that Rocket Lawyer

24

currently provides legal help in the form

25

of attorney consultation to its registered

26

users.

27

Objections: Irrelevant and Immaterial

28

(Fed. R. Evid. 401, 402); Misleading
21
LEGALZOOM’S RESPONSE TO ROCKET LAWYER’S SEPARATE STATEMENT OF UNDISPUTED
MATERIAL FACTS

828681

1

ROCKET LAWYER’S ALLEGED

ROCKET LAWYER’S ALLEGED

2

STATEMENT

EVIDENTIARY SUPPORT/
LEGALZOOM’S RESPONSE

3

(Fed. R. Evid. 403).

4
5

71.

All of the details of Rocket

6

Lawyer’s free trial plan are disclosed on

7

Rocketlawyer.com.

Vu Decl., ¶ 3, Exs. 5, 6, 7.

Undisputed that the Rocket Lawyer

8

website has information relating to

9

Rocket Lawyer’s “free trial plan”;

10

however, disputed that the trial plan is

11

“free.” Nguyen Decl., ¶ 13, Ex. I.

12

Objection: Misleading (Fed. R. Evid.

13

403); Improper Legal Conclusion (Fed.

14

R. Civ. Proc. 56(c)(4), L.R. 7-7).

15

72.

Regarding the Rocket Lawyer

Vu Decl., ¶ 7, Exs. 22, 23.

16

advertisement which states that “Zoom

17

Charges $99, We’re Free,” LegalZoom’s

Undisputed that LegalZoom’s

18

incorporation services start at $99; the

incorporation services start at $99;

19

advertisement therefore fairly references

however, disputed that Rocket Lawyer’s

20

the lowest price offered by LegalZoom.

advertisement “fairly” references the

21

lowest price offered by LegalZoom.

22

Objection: Misleading (Fed. R. Evid.

23

403); Improper Legal Conclusion (Fed.

24

R. Civ. Proc. 56(c)(4), L.R. 7-7).

25

73.

26

services, neutralizing the materiality of

27

price, and customers differentiate among

28

them based on speed, quality, ease of use,

All competitors offer low-cost

Vu Decl., ¶ 4, Ex. 14; ¶ 5, Ex.15; ¶ 6, Ex.
16; 13, Ex. 31.

Disputed that competitors neutralize the

22
LEGALZOOM’S RESPONSE TO ROCKET LAWYER’S SEPARATE STATEMENT OF UNDISPUTED
MATERIAL FACTS
828681

1

ROCKET LAWYER’S ALLEGED

ROCKET LAWYER’S ALLEGED

2

STATEMENT

EVIDENTIARY SUPPORT/
LEGALZOOM’S RESPONSE

3
4

and breadth of services.

materiality of price and disputed on the

5

ground that LegalZoom has insufficient

6

facts to confirm or deny that “all”

7

competitors offer low-cost services.

8

Objection: Irrelevant and Immaterial

9

(Fed. R. Evid. 401, 402).

10

74.

After March 2013, when Rocket

Hollerbach Decl., ¶¶ 24, 25.

11

Lawyer began to mention state fees in all

12

of its incorporation advertisements, the

Disputed on the ground that LegalZoom

13

average number of incorporations

has insufficient facts to confirm or deny

14

performed using Rocket Lawyer services

that Rocket Lawyer’s average number of

15

each month remained basically

incorporations performed remained

16

unchanged.

unchanged.

17

Objection: Lacks Foundation (Fed. R.

18

Evid. 602).
Rocket Lawyer’s free trial is not

19

75.

20

Vu Decl., ¶ 3, Exs. 5, 6, 7.

contingent upon the purchase of any item.

21

Disputed that Rocket Lawyer’s trial is

22

“free” or have contingencies.

23

Objection: Misleading (Fed. R. Evid.

24

403); Improper Legal Conclusion (Fed.

25

R. Civ. Proc. 56(c)(4), L.R. 7-7).

26

76.

27

webpage conspicuously discloses that the

28

service is available for free trial and

The incorporation services

Vu Decl., ¶ 3, Ex. 8.
Undisputed that Rocket Lawyer’s

23
LEGALZOOM’S RESPONSE TO ROCKET LAWYER’S SEPARATE STATEMENT OF UNDISPUTED
MATERIAL FACTS
828681

1

ROCKET LAWYER’S ALLEGED

ROCKET LAWYER’S ALLEGED

2

STATEMENT

EVIDENTIARY SUPPORT/
LEGALZOOM’S RESPONSE

3
4

paying Pro Legal Plan members and the

website states that the incorporation

5

price of these plans – free and $39.95 per

service is available for trial and paying

6

month.

Pro Legal Plan members. However,

7

disputed that the disclosure is

8

“conspicuous.” Nguyen Decl., ¶¶12, 13;

9

Exs. H, I.

10

Objection: Misleading (Fed. R. Evid.

11

403); Improper Legal Conclusion (Fed.

12

R. Civ. Proc. 56(c)(4), L.R. 7-7).

13

77.

The FTC has never initiated an

Hollerbach Decl., ¶ 26.

14

action nor contacted Rocket Lawyer about

15

any of its advertisements.

Undisputed.

16
17
18
19
20

DATED: October 7, 2013

Respectfully submitted,
GLASER WEIL FINK JACOBS
HOWARD AVCHEN & SHAPIRO LLP

21
22
23
24

By:
/s/ Fred Heather
PATRICIA L. GLASER
FRED D. HEATHER
MARY ANN T. NGUYEN
Attorneys for Plaintiff
LegalZoom.com, Inc.

25
26
27
28
24
LEGALZOOM’S RESPONSE TO ROCKET LAWYER’S SEPARATE STATEMENT OF UNDISPUTED
MATERIAL FACTS
828681

1

PROOF 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 SEPARATE STATEMENT OF UNDISPUTED MATERIAL

10

FACTS IN SUPPORT IN SUPPORT OF ITS OPPOSITION TO
11

LEGALZOOM.COM’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT
12

Participants in the case are registered CM/ECF users and will be served by the
13

CM/ECF system.
14

I declare that I am employed in the office of a member of the bar of this court at
15

whose direction the service was made. I declare under penalty of perjury that the
16

above is true and correct.
17

Executed on October 7, 2013 at Los Angeles, California.
18
19
20

/s/ Fred Heather
Fred Heather

21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
1
PROOF OF SERVICE
810030