LegalZoom.com Inc v. Rocket Lawyer Incorporated

Filing 51

EX PARTE APPLICATION to Continue the Trial and Related Date Set in the Court's January 22, 2014 Order for Good Cause; Memorandum of Points and Authorities; Declarations of Patricia Jones Winograd and Mary Ann Nguyen filed by Plaintiff LegalZoom.com Inc.(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

v.
ROCKET LAWYER INCORPORATED,
a Delaware corporation,

17

Defendants.

18
19

CASE NO.: CV 12-9942-GAF (AGRx)
Hon. Gary A. Feess
Courtroom: 740
EX PARTE APPLICATION AND
APPLICATION TO CONTINUE
THE TRIAL AND RELATED
DATES SET IN THE COURT’S
JANUARY 22, 2014 ORDER FOR
GOOD CAUSE; MEMORANDUM
OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES;
DECLARATIONS OF PATRICIA
JONES WINOGRAD AND MARY
ANN NGUYEN

20
21

[[PROPOSED] ORDER FILED
CONCURRENTLY HEREWITH]

22

Complaint Filed: November 20, 2012

23
24
25
26
27
28
i
EX PARTE APPLICATION AND APPLICATION TO CONTINUE TRIAL AND RELATED DATES
868051.1

1

TO THE DEFENDANT AND ITS ATTORNEYS OF RECORD:
PLEASE TAKE NOTICE THAT Plaintiff LegalZoom.com, Inc.

2
3

(“LegalZoom”) will and hereby does apply, ex parte, for an Order continuing the

4

expert discovery cut-off and disclosure date in this case. Indeed, despite

5

LegalZoom’s persistent and diligent efforts to obtain factual information critical to its

6

expert disclosures, Rocket Lawyer has only, belatedly, supplied LegalZoom with a

7

voluminous amount of information, amounting to more than 1.5 million separate

8

entries relating to the ads that are the centerpiece of this case. Other information,

9

including information relating to RocketLawyer’s damages, still remains outstanding.

10

Under the circumstances, adherence to the current discovery cut-off dates would

11

prevent LegalZoom from being afforded an ample and meaningful opportunity to

12

consider all relevant information in connection with its expert disclosures in this case,

13

and thereby prejudice LegalZoom.
This application is made based upon the accompanying Memorandum of Points

14
15

and Authorities, the Declarations of Patricia Jones Winograd and Mary Ann Nguyen

16

filed concurrently herewith, the relevant pleadings, documents and matters of which

17

this Court may take judicial notice, and on such other matters which may properly

18

come before this Court at the hearing on this Ex parte Application.

19

DATED: April 4, 2014

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

20
21
22

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

23
24
25
26
27
28

ii
EX PARTE APPLICATION AND APPLICATION TO CONTINUE TRIAL AND RELATED DATES
868051.1

MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES

1
2

I.

INTRODUCTION
Plaintiff LegalZoom.com, Inc. (“LegalZoom”) requests that this Court continue

3
4

the expert discovery disclosure date, and any other date impacted thereby, in order

5

that LegalZoom be provided with a meaningful opportunity to complete its fact and

6

expert discovery. The current expert discovery cut-off date is April 15, 2014; the

7

current fact discovery cut-off is June 24, 2014. Notwithstanding the imminence of

8

the expert disclosure deadline, Defendant Rocket Lawyer Incorporated (“Rocket

9

Lawyer”) has just provided LegalZoom with more than 1.5 million separately-

10

itemized line items involving multiple data points relating to the ads that are at issue

11

in this action and which LegalZoom has repeatedly requested since last year. Other

12

data, including information relating to its allegedly false ads, remains outstanding.

13

Although the precise scope and import of this information requires analysis and

14

possible follow-up discovery, the recently-disclosed information will comprise or

15

provide the foundation for expert opinion in this case. Given the belated and

16

voluminous nature of Rocket Lawyer’s recent productions and absence of other

17

important information, adherence to the current schedule (which establishes the

18

expert disclosure deadline 70 days prior to the fact discovery cut off) would result in

19

unfair prejudice to LegalZoom’s rights to fully and meaningfully prepare this case for

20

trial. Accordingly, LegalZoom respectfully submits that good cause exists for the

21

instant application.

22

II.

FACTUAL BACKGROUND

23

A.

LegalZoom’s Claims.

24

The gravamen of this case is LegalZoom’s contention that Rocket Lawyer

25

engaged in false advertising in violation of the Lanham Act and Business and

26

Professions Code by, among other things, using LegalZoom’s mark in its advertising

27

and falsely advertising that various of its products and services were free. (See First

28

Amended Complaint, “FAC” ¶¶ 12-14.) At the heart of LegalZoom’s claims, then,
1
MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES
868051.1

1

are the ads that Rocket Lawyer has published during the operative time period. Id.

2

B.

Discovery Relating to LegalZoom’s Claims

3

Although LegalZoom’s complaint was premised on at least five RocketLawyer

4

ads, since the commencement of discovery, LegalZoom has requested information in

5

discovery concerning all ads Rocket Lawyer has published that relate to its allegedly

6

“free” offer of services and/or the use of LegalZoom’s mark. (Declaration of Mary

7

Ann Nguyen, “Nguyen Decl. ¶¶ 2, 3.) LegalZoom also requested, among other

8

things, information relating to RocketLawyer’s ads, including the ads themselves and

9

information concerning the time periods during which Rocket Lawyer’s ads ran, the

10

number of consumers converted on account of the ads and information relating to the

11

revenue Rocket Lawyer earned in connection with the ads, in order to allow

12

LegalZoom to ascertain and assess damages, among other things. (Nguyen Decl. ¶ 3.)
Notably, RocketLawyer also requested information that hinges on data about

13
14

those ads, including the dates when the ads were published. For example,

15

RocketLawyer requested information concerning revenues LegalZoom made while

16

the ads were running. (Nguyen Decl. ¶ 4.)

17

C.

Sequence/History of Discovery Efforts

18

Although the parties have been actively involved in discovery—efforts, to date,

19

which have involved the preparation of supplemental discovery responses, the

20

preparation of additional discovery, including third-party discovery, and extensive

21

meet and confers on numerous occasions in an effort to resolve various discovery

22

issues—the parties are still engaged in significant fact discovery. (Nguyen Decl. ¶5.)

23

To date, not a single deposition has been taken by either party. (Declaration of

24

Patricia Jones Winograd, “Winograd Decl.” ¶ 8.) Motions to compel are

25

contemplated or have been raised by both sides. And, pursuant to their mutual

26

agreement, the parties commenced rolling document productions in earnest on

27

January 24, 2014. (Winograd Decl. ¶ 2.)
Moreover, the parties are still in the midst of meeting and conferring in

28

2
MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES
868051.1

1

connection with certain issues (some of which may ultimately require judicial

2

resolution). In fact, on account of the many such meet and confers and the state of

3

discovery, the parties have now twice agreed that more time than that originally

4

contemplated was necessary to complete discovery. 1

5

D.

Attempts to Meet and Confer.

6

Information regarding Rocket Lawyer’s misleading advertisements, which are

7

at the heart of LegalZoom’s claims and contentions and some of which still remains

8

outstanding, has been the subject of continued and repeated dialogue amongst the

9

parties since the commencement of discovery. (Winograd Decl. ¶ 2.) Indeed, the

10

specific requests that yielded the production that has just been made, were the subject

11

of at least three separate meet and confer letters and at least two telephonic meet and

12

confers dating back to November of last year. Indeed, LegalZoom communicated

13

with RocketLawyer about the importance of the ads and information relating to the

14

ads in writing as early as November 5, 2013, and again on January 16, 2014.

15

(Winograd Decl., ¶ 2). Then, and during telephonic meet and confers, LegalZoom

16

emphasized the need for the information pertaining to RocketLawyer ads and their

17

centrality in this case.
Again, just before Rocket Lawyer’s submission of the voluminous production,

18
19

and without the knowledge that RocketLawyer would imminently produce

20
1

21
22
23
24
25
26
27

Twice before now, the parties initially agreed that additional time was
necessary to complete discovery. (Nguyen Decl. ¶ 5.) Indeed, on October 2, 2013,
the parties jointly stipulated to an extension of the Court’s April 11, 2013 Scheduling
Order deadlines by approximately 120 days. (Nguyen Decl. ¶6.) On October 6,
2013, the Court entered an order granting the parties’ joint stipulation to continue the
trial and discovery dates set in the Court’s April 11, 2013 Scheduling Order. Id.
Then, On January 21, 2014, the parties jointly stipulated to an additional extension of
the Court’s October 6, 2013 Scheduling Order deadlines by approximately 60 days.
(Nguyen Decl. ¶7.) On January 22, 2014, the Court entered an order granting the
parties’ joint stipulation to continue the trial and discovery dates set in the Court’s
October 6, 2013 Scheduling Order. Id.

28
3
MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES
868051.1

1

voluminous and seemingly informative spreadsheets containing hundreds of

2

thousands of ads and other related information, Legal Zoom again conveyed to

3

RocketLawyer the centrality of this information and warned that failure to produce

4

the information would undoubtedly impact LegalZoom’s ability to complete its expert

5

disclosures and would require that it extend the expert dislosure date and any other

6

deadlines that were impacted thereby. (Winograd Decl. ¶ 2, 7).
In the last week, Rocket Lawyer has made significant seriatim productions.

7
8

Specifically, Rocket Lawyer produced spreadsheets containing more than 1.5 million

9

separate entries identifying thousands of ads, the dates on which such advertisements

10

began and some apparent associated financial and conversion data under the cloak of

11

attorneys’ eyes only designations. (Winograd Decl. ¶ 4.) The data not only requires

12

consideration, as the information needs to be decoded and synthesized by LegalZoom

13

and its experts, but may also require additional discovery in the form of depositions.

14

The information is not entirely clear. For example, RocketLawyer appears to be

15

providing “conversion” information related to each of the more than 1.5 million

16

entries. LegalZoom is unsure what this number represents. And, because the

17

information has been designated as attorneys’ eyes only under the parties’ Protective

18

Order, there will be additional steps—some of which LegalZoom has already

19

initiated—designed to ensure that it can properly deal with and decipher the

20

information with its experts. LegalZoom may, in fact, need to take depositions

21

concerning the information to the extent necessary. In short, while it may be entirely

22

comprehensible to RocketLawyer, LegalZoom needs to be afforded the time to

23

consider and assess the impact of the information and to synthesize it within the

24

context of its expert analyses.

25

Moreover, LegalZoom is still without some other information it has requested.

26

For example, RocketLawyer appears not to have yet provided LegalZoom with all of

27

the damages information it requested. And, RocketLawyer has repeatedly indicated

28

that some of the other information LegalZoom has requested, in the form of its ads
4
MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES
868051.1

1

and website landing pages—both also relevant to LegalZoom’s disclosures—are still

2

being obtained.

3

Notwithstanding the entirely absent, on the one hand, and recent disclosures of

4

certain fact discovery, on the other, Rocket Lawyer has been steadfast in its refusal to

5

extend the deadlines in this case. (Winograd Decl. ¶ 6.) Following Rocket Lawyer’s

6

voluminous and belated productions, on March 28, 2014, LegalZoom immediately

7

requested that Rocket Lawyer agree to continue upcoming deadlines and informed

8

Rocket Lawyer that, in the absence of Rocket Lawyer’s agreement to continue the

9

deadlines, LegalZoom would have no choice but to seek a court order to extend the

10

deadlines. (Nguyen Decl. ¶ 8.) Rocket Lawyer refused. Then, when on April 2,

11

2014, LegalZoom notified Rocket Lawyer of its intention to apply ex parte on April

12

3, 2014 for a continuance of the deadlines, RocketLawyer still refused to move the

13

deadlines to provide LegalZoom with a meaningful opportunity to review the data

14

produced and receive other data despite its own acknowledgement that some

15

extension may be appropriate. (Nguyen Decl. ¶ 9.; Winograd Decl., ¶ 6).

16

RocketLawyer first agreed to provide LegalZoom with a four-day extension; its last

17

offer was only a seven-day extension of the expert disclosure date. (Id.)
This application and the Proposed Order is filed more than a week in advance

18
19

of any deadlines in this case.

20

III.

LEGAL STANDARD AND SUPPORT FOR EX PARTE APPLICATION
To justify ex parte relief, the moving party must show: (1) that the moving

21
22

party’s cause will be irreparably prejudiced if the underlying motion is heard

23

according to regular noticed motion procedures; and (2) it must be established that the

24

moving party is without fault in creating the crisis that requires ex parte relief, or that

25

the crisis occurred as a result of excusable neglect. Mission Power Eng’g Co. v.

26

Continental Cas. Co., 883 F. Supp. 488, 492 (C.D. Cal. 1995).
A regularly-noticed motion under the circumstances would be impracticable

27
28

and would leave LegalZoom in a significantly more prejudiced position than the
5
MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES
868051.1

1

currently prejudiced position it now finds itself. The expert disclosure date under the

2

current schedule (which is required to predate the fact discovery cut-off by 70 days),

3

is currently set for April 15, 2014. Yet, on the near eve of the cut-off date,

4

RocketLawyer produced a voluminous amount of information (and other information

5

is still outstanding) that LegalZoom should be entitled to meaningfully consider in

6

conjunction with its expert disclosures. If LegalZoom were required to wait to seek,

7

or be required to postpone seeking, the herein requested continuance for the requisite

8

regular motion notice period, LegalZoom would be irreparably prejudiced in that it

9

would have to provide its expert disclosures without the benefit of an opportunity to

10

consider this information and other outstanding information in connection with its

11

expert disclosures.

12

IV.

GOOD CAUSE EXISTS FOR THE REQUESTED CONTINUANCE
When good cause exists, as it does in this case, a schedule may be modified

13
14

with the Court’s consent. Fed. R. Civ. Proc. 16(b)(4). Furthermore, the “matter of

15

continuance is traditionally within the discretion of the trial judge.” Ungar v.

16

Sarafite, 376 U.S. 575, 589 (U.S. 1964). In order to establish good cause, a party

17

must establish that, even with the exercise of due diligence, they cannot meet the

18

court’s timetable. Johnson v. Mammoth Recreations, Inc. (9th Cir. 1992) 975 F2d

19

604, 609 (Rule 16(b)’s “good cause standard primarily considers the diligence of the

20

party seeking the amendment.” ).
The relief herein is being sought to enable LegalZoom a full and complete

21
22

opportunity to investigate and conduct discovery of the matters relating to its

23

Complaint and defenses in order to fully prepare the case for a trial on the merits;

24

LegalZoom’s request comes only after its diligence and despite its efforts to obtain

25

the requested information.2 Faced with RocketLawyer’s refusals or justificiation as to

26
2

27
28

RocketLawyer contends that its delay in providing the information stems from its
uncertainty about the nature of the information LegalZoom was requesting. Even if
this were true—which LegalZoom contends it is not—there is still no credible
argument that LegalZoom should be blamed for RocketLawyer’s delay in providing
6
MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES
868051.1

1

why this information was not previously notwithstanding before now aside,

2

LegalZoom’s ability to appropriately complete its expert disclosures is now

3

threatened. RocketLawyer itself admits that it is still in the process of compiling and

4

obtaining other information that LegalZoom has requested. The current pretrial and

5

trial schedule simply does not provide LegalZoom enough time to complete its certain

6

fact expert discovery necessary to prepare for trial. RocketLawyer should be not

7

permitted to obtain advantage from its delay in providing LegalZoom with

8

information that is at the very heart of this case. Simply put, if the current schedule is

9

maintained, LegalZoom will necessarily and inevitably be irreparably prejudiced in

10

its ability to prepare for trial and effectively prosecute its claims and defenses in this

11

action despite its efforts to do so.

12

VI.

CONCLUSION

13

Based on the foregoing, LegalZoom respectfully requests that this Court grant

14

this Ex parte Application in its entirety and continue the trial and any and all related

15

dates consistent with the Proposed Order lodged concurrently herewith.

16
17

DATED: April 4, 2014

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

18
19
20

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

21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

the information that it now has and its continued refusal to provide other information.
Again, LegalZoom still has no damages information it has requested. Further,
although it may be that some of the conversion information is in the belatedlyproduced charts, LegalZoom is not sure, without follow-up, whether the material
include the conversion information that LegalZoom seeks. And, as to the information
it did provide, if ever it were confused, RocketLawyer could have, at the very least,
provided information about the ads that it did know were at issue because they were
specifically identified in LegalZoom’s complaint and its motion for summary
judgment.
7
MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES
868051.1

LegalZoom.com, Inc.

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

8
MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES
868051.1

DECLARATION OF MARY ANN NGUYEN

1
2

I, MARY ANN T. NGUYEN, declare and state as follows:

3

1.

I am an attorney at law duly licensed to practice before all courts of the

4

State of California and am an Associate of the law firm of Glaser Weil Fink Jacobs

5

Howard Avchen & Shapiro LLP, attorneys of record herein for Plaintiff

6

LegalZoom.com, Inc. (“LegalZoom”). I make this declaration in support of Plaintiff

7

LegalZoom’s Ex parte Application to Continue the Trial and Related Dates Set Forth

8

in the Court’s January 22, 2014 Scheduling Order. The facts set forth herein are true

9

of my own personal knowledge, and if called upon to testify thereto, I could and

10

would competently do so under oath.
2.

11

LegalZoom’s complaint was premised on at least five “free” ads,

12

including, “incorporate for free… pay no fees ($0),” “free incorporation,” “free help

13

from local attorneys,” “free legal review,” and “free” trials of Rocket Lawyer’s “Pro

14

Legal Plan” as set forth in Paragraph 14 in the FAC.
3.

15

LegalZoom has requested, since the commencement of discovery,

16

information concerning all ads Rocket Lawyer has published that relate to its

17

allegedly “free” offer of services and/or the use of LegalZoom’s mark, including the

18

dates on which such ads ran and any information concerning the conversion of

19

consumers on account of the ads, as evidenced by LegalZoom’s Requests for

20

Production of Documents, Requests Nos. 1, 5, 9, 10, 11, 17, 19, 49 and 50. Attached

21

hereto as Exhibit A is a true and correct copy of LegalZoom’s Request for Production

22

of Documents, which was served on Rocket Lawyer on March 12, 2013.
4.

23

Rocket Lawyer’s own request for damages information requires that

24

LegalZoom make reference to such Rocket Lawyer advertisements and the dates on

25

which the advertisements ran as evidenced by Rocket Lawyer’s Request for

26

Production of Documents, Request No. 21. Attached hereto as Exhibit B is a true

27

and correct copy of Rocket Lawyer’s Request for Production of Documents, which

28

was served on LegalZoom on March 11, 2013.
1
DECLARATION OF MARY ANN NGUYEN
868051.1

5.

1

Discovery, to date, has involved the service of supplemental discovery

2

responses, third-party discovery, and meet and confers on numerous occasions in an

3

effort to resolve various discovery issues and disputes. In so doing, the parties

4

engaged in multiple meet and confers and twice agreed that additional time was

5

necessary to complete discovery.
6.

6

On October 2, 2013, the parties jointly stipulated to an extension of the

7

Court’s April 11, 2013 Scheduling Order deadlines by approximately 120 days. On

8

October 6, 2013, the Court entered an order granting the parties’ joint stipulation to

9

continue the trial and discovery dates set in the Court’s April 11, 2013 Scheduling

10

Order.
7.

11

On January 21, 2014, the parties jointly stipulated to an additional

12

extension of the Court’s October 6, 2013 Scheduling Order deadlines by

13

approximately 60 days. On January 22, 2014, the Court entered an order granting the

14

parties’ joint stipulation to continue the trial and discovery dates set in the Court’s

15

October 6, 2013 Scheduling Order.
8.

16

On March 28, 2014, LegalZoom requested for a second time that Rocket

17

Lawyer agree to continue upcoming deadlines and informed Rocket Lawyer that, in

18

the absence of Rocket Lawyer’s agreement to continue the deadlines, LegalZoom

19

would have no choice but to seek a court order to extend the deadlines. Attached

20

hereto as Exhibit C is true and correct copy of LegalZoom’s letter to Rocket Lawyer,

21

dated March 28, 2014.
9.

22

On April 2, 2014, LegalZoom notified Rocket Lawyer of its intention to

23

apply ex parte on April 3, 2014 for a continuance of the deadlines. Rocket Lawyer

24

was steadfast that it opposed the application. Attached hereto as Exhibit D are true

25

and correct copies of LegalZoom’s notification to Rocket Lawyer, dated April 2,

26

2014, and Rocket Lawyer’s response on April 2, 2014.
I declare under penalty of perjury pursuant to the laws of the State of California

27
28

that the foregoing facts are true and correct.
2
DECLARATION OF MARY ANN NGUYEN
868051.1

Executed on April 4, 2014 at Los Angeles, California.

1
2

/s/ Mary Ann T. Nguyen
MARY ANN T. NGUYEN

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

3
DECLARATION OF MARY ANN NGUYEN
868051.1

DECLARATION OF PATRICIA JONES WINOGRAD

1
2

I, PATRICIA JONES WINOGRAD, declare and state as follows:

3

1.

I am an attorney at law duly licensed to practice before all courts of the

4

State of California and am Of Counsel to the law firm of Glaser Weil Fink Jacobs

5

Howard Avchen & Shapiro LLP, attorneys of record herein for Plaintiff

6

LegalZoom.com, Inc. (“LegalZoom”). I make this declaration in support of Plaintiff

7

LegalZoom’s Ex parte Application to Continue the Trial and Related Dates Set Forth

8

in the Court’s January 22, 2014 Scheduling Order. The facts set forth herein are true

9

of my own personal knowledge, and if called upon to testify thereto, I could and

10

would competently do so under oath.
2.

11

Pursuant to the parties’ mutual agreement, rolling document productions

12

began in earnest by both parties on January 24, 2014. Since that time, the parties

13

have continued to meet and confer regarding various discovery issues and disputes.

14

Attached hereto as Exhibits E, F and G are true and correct copies of meet and

15

confer letters I sent to counsel for RocketLawyer on November 5, 2013, January 16,

16

2014 and March 20 2014, respectively.
3.

17

I, or associates at my direction, have reviewed the documents produced

18

by RocketLawyer. To date, there are approximately 20-30 documents that appear to

19

constitute an ad (and we are unsure whether these ads were actually test ads or actual

20

ads) or landing pages on RocketLawyer’s website. In the last ten days, Rocket

21

Lawyer has produced spreadsheets containing more than 1.5 million separate entries

22

identifying thousands of ads, the dates on which such advertisements began and the

23

associated financial and conversion data under the cloak of attorneys’ eyes only

24

designations.
4.

25
26

Attached hereto as Exhibit H is true and correct copy of Rocket

Lawyer’s response, dated March 24, 2014.

27

5.

There have been no depositions taken by either party in the case.

28

6.

On April 2, 2014, I telephoned RocketLawyer’s counsel, who called in
1
DECLARATION OF PATRICIA JONES WINOGRAD

868051.1

1

response to LegalZoom’s notice of the ex parte application. Ms. Vu stated, among

2

other things, that RocketLawyer would be willing to provide a four day extension. At

3

the end of our conversation, she conveyed that RocketLawyer would consider a

4

seven-day extension of the expert disclosure deadline. I communicated that

5

LegalZoom believed it needed much more time, at a minimum, three to four

6

additional weeks.
7.

7
8

Ms. Vu providing notice again of the ex parte application.
I declare under penalty of perjury pursuant to the laws of the State of California

9
10

Attached hereto as Exhibit I is a true and correct copy of my email to

that the foregoing facts are true and correct.
Executed on April 4, 2014 at Los Angeles, California.

11
12

/s/ Patricia Jones Winograd
PATRICIA JONES WINOGRAD

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

2
DECLARATION OF PATRICIA JONES WINOGRAD
868051.1

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 April 4, 2014, I electronically filed the following document(s) using the
7

CM/ECF system.
8

EX PARTE APPLICATION AND APPLICATION TO CONTINUE the
9

trial and RELATED dates set in the court’s January 22, 2014 order for
10

good cause; MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES;
11

DECLARATION OF PATRICIA JONES WINOGRAD
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 April 4, 2014 at Los Angeles, California.
18
19

/s/ Fred Heather
Fred Heather

20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

1
PROOF OF SERVICE
868051.1

EXHIBIT A

t PATRICIA L. GLASER -State Bar No. 55668
pgl_a~ser gl~as~erweil.com
2 FRED .HEAT~-~R -State Bar No. 110650
(heather ~~la~serweil.com
3 MARY ~NN T. NGiJYEN —State Bar No.269099
mngu en(a~glaserweil.com
4 GLA~ER~EIL FINK JACOBS

xowAxn Avc~rr & sx~nzo Lr.P

s 10250 Constellation Boulevard, 19th Floor
Los Angeles, California 90067
6 Telephone: [phone]
Facsimile: ~310~ 556-2920
7

Attorneys for Plaintiff
a LegalZoom.com,Inc.
9

UI~TTTED STATES DISTRICT COURT

io

CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORTTIA

ii

WESTERN DIVISION

12
13

LEGALZOOM.COM,INC., a Delaware

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

COTPOIdt10II

Hon. Gary A.Feess

is

Plaintiff,

is v.
16

ROCKET LAWYER INCORPORATED,
i~ a Delaware corporation
Defendant.
is

PLAINTIFF LEGALZOOM.COM
INC.'S FIRST SET OF REQUEST
FOR PRODUCTION OF
DOCUMENTS AND THINGS TO
DEFENDANT ROCKET LAWYER
INCORPORATED [NOS.1-55]

19
20
21
0
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
LEGALZOOM'S FIRST SET OF REQUESTS FOR DOCUMENTS TO ROCKETI,AWYER

t

Pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 26 and 34,Plaintiff

2 LegalZoom.com,Inc.("LegalZoom" or "Plaintiff') hereby requests that Defendant
s Rocket Lawyer Incorporated("RocketLawyer" or "Defendant")produce the
a documents and/or things specified below at the offices of Glaser Weil Fink Jacobs
s Howard Avchen &Shapiro LLP, 10250 Constellation Blvd., 19th Floor,Los Angeles,
6 California 90067 within thirty(30)days after service.
DEFIlVITIONS

~
s

A.

"LEGALZOOM" and "PLAINTIFF" mean and refer, without limitation,

9 to PlaintiffLegalZoom.com,Inc., its attorneys, agents and all PERSONS,as defined
io below, acting on its behalf.
ii
~~
~I~"
,
N

B.

"LEGALZOOM MARKS" means and refers to the trademarks owned

i2 and used by LEGALZOOM in connection with the marketing and sale ofits products
t3 and services, including, but not limited to the following marks:
is

LEGALZOOM

Q

is

LEGALZOOM.COM

N~

i6

~=

t~ names www.legalzoomgad eg t.com and www.leQalzoomer.com.

C.

"LEGALZOOM DOMAINS" means and refers to the Internet domain

is

D.

"LEGALZOOM's HOMEPAGE" means http://www.legalzoom.com/.

t9

E.

"ROCKETLAWYER,""DEFENDANT,""YOU"and"YOUR" mean

ao and refer, without limitation, to Rocket Lawyer Incorporated, its employees,
Zi attorneys, agents, independent contractors, officers, directors, shareholders,
22 representatives, and all PERSONS or entities.acting on its behalf.
23

F.

"ROCKETLAWYER PRODUCTS AND SERVICES" mean and~refer to

Za the products and services ROCKETLAWYER offers for sale,including, but not
is limited to, online legal services, legal documents and prepaid legal services plans.
26

G.

"ROCKETLAWYER FREE ADVERTISEMENTS" mean and refer to

2~ any marketing, advertising and/or promotion of ROCKETLAWYER and/or
2s ROCKETLAWYER PRODUCTS AND SERVICES,in which the term "free"
LEGALZOOM'S FIRST SET OF REQUESTS FOR DOCUMENTS TO ROCKETLAWYER

i appears in the marketing, advertisement and promotion and/or in which the term
2

"free" is used as a keyword or other search term to trigger the marketing,

3

advertisement and/or promotion ofROCKET'LAWYER and/or ROCKETLAWYER

4

PRODUCTS AND SERVICES.

s
6

"LEGALZOOM TRIGGERED FREE ADVERTISEMENTS" shall

H.

mean any marketing, advertising and/or promotion ofROCKETLAWYER and/or
ROCKETLAWYER PRODUCTS AND SERVICES,which uses the term "free" in

s the marketing, advertisement and promotion Qnd which uses a LEGALZOOM
9

MARK as a keyword or other search term to trigger the marketing, advertisement

io and/or promotion.
ii
12
13
14

is
16

"FAC" refers to the LEGALZOOM's First Amended Complaint, filed on

I.

or about January 7, 2013,in this action.
"AMENDED COUNTERCLAIMS" refer to ROCKETLAWYER's

J.

Amended Counterclaims, filed on or about January 23,2013,in this action.
"GROSS REVENUE" means money generated by ROCKETLAYER's

K.

operations, before deductions for expenses,from the sale ofROCKETLAWYER

~~ PRODUCTS AND SERVICES.
is
19

20
21

"NET REVENUE" means GROSS REVENUE less actual state filing fee

L.

or other governmental fee paid.
M.

"NEGATIVE OPTION" means a practice in which goods andlor services

are provided automatically, whether through free trial or otherwise, and the customer

za must either pay for the goods and/or services or specifically decline it in advance of
23
24

billing, such as through subscription.
N.

"COMMU1vICATION'includes, without limitation, communications

Zs by whatever means transmitted (i.e., whether oral, written, electronic, or other
26
27

methods are used), as well as any note, memorandum,or other document record
V thereof.

28
LEGALZOOM'S FIRST SET OF REQUESTS FORDOCUNIENTS TO ROCKETLAWYER

i

O.

"DOCUMENT"has the full meaning ascribed to it by the Federal Rules

2 of Civil Procedure and the Federal Rules ofEvidence, and includes without limitation
s any writing, COMMUIVICATIQN,correspondence or tangible thing on which
a information can be stored or from which information can be retrieved, whether signed
s or unsigned,in draft or final form,an original or a copy,including electronic formats.
6

P.

"CONSTITiJ'TING,""CONCERI~iING,""REFERRING TO,"

~ "RELATED TO," and "RELATING TO," whether used alone or in conjunction with
s one another, are used in their broadest sense and shall mean and refer to, without
9 limitation, constituting, summarizing, memorializing, or directly or indirectly
io referring to, discussing, pertaining to, regarding, evidencing, supporting,
i i contradicting, containing information regarding, embodying, comprising,identifying,
~Q

i2 stating, reflecting, dealing with, commenting on,responding to, describing, analyzing,

~I~'
~N
c
~~
r
Q

is or in any way pertinent to the subject matter ofthe type ofDOCUMENTS sought.
~a

Q.

"IDENTIFY" with respect to a"PERSON," means to provide the

is PERSON'S name,title, last known business and residential address and last known

a~ ~

i6 business and residential telephone numbers.

c~ z

i~

R.

"PERSON" means an individual,firm, partnership, corporation,

is proprietorship, association, governmental body, or any other organization or entity.
i9

S.

"Each" and "any" include both "each" and "every" whenever

ao appropriate. The terms "and" as well as "or" shall be construed either disjunctively or
2i conjunctively as necessary to bring within the scope ofthe inquiry or request any
Za information which might otherwise be construed to be outside ofthe scope.
23

T.

"Or,""and," and "and/or" shall be interpreted both conjunctively and

24 disjunctively, so as fo be inclusive rather than exclusive, and each term sha11 include
is the other whenever such construction will serve to bring within the scope of a request
a6 documents,information or tangible things which would not otherwise be within its
2~ scope, and these terms shall not be interpreted to exclude any information, documents
Zs or tangible things otherwise within the scope of a request.
LEGALZOOM'S FIRST SET OF REQUESTS FOR DOCUMENTS TO ROCKETLAWYER

i

U.

The present tense of any verb shall include the past tense, and vice versa,

2

whenever such construction will serve to bring within the scope ofa request

3

documents,information or tangible things which would not otherwise be within its

4

scope.

s
6

V.

The singular shall include the plural and vice versa, and words in one

gender shall include the other gender.
.INSTRUCTIONS

s
9

A.

YOU are requested to produce all responsive documents and things that

are in YOUR possession, custody or control, or the possession, custody or control of

io any of YOUR representatives, including PERSONS consulted concerning any factual
ii matters or matters ofopinion relating to any ~ofthe facts or issues involved in this
iz case; such PERSONS shall include attorneys with whom YOU consulted unless
13
14

YOU claim such documents are privileged or otherwise protected.
B.

Each request for production, and the portions thereof, is to be responded

is to separately, but responses to one request for production, or portion thereof, may be
incorporated by reference in responses to other requests for production, ox portions
thereof.
C.

If YOU object to any part or portion ofa request for production, YOU

shall respond to such parts)or portions)to which YOU do not object and produce
Zo ~ accordingly to such extent.
21

D.

IfYOU object on the basis of not understanding a word or phrase in the

22

request, YOU shall identify'YOUR best understanding ofthe word or phrase and

23

produce accordingly to such extent.

24

E.

All documents and/or things produced pursuant to these requests for

2s production shall be produced either in separate groups ofdocuments and things
26

responsive to each separate request or in the form and order in which they were kept

2~

by YOU in the ordinary course of business before being produced.

28
LEGALZOOM'S FIRST SET OF REQUESTS FOR DOCUMENTS TO ROCKETLAWYER

t

F.

Electronically stored information shall be produced electronically as

a single-page, uniquely and sequentially numbered Tagged Image File Format("T'IFFs"
3

or ".TIFF format")files not less than 300 dpi resolution. The TIFFS sha11 be

4

accompanied by an image cross-reference load file indicating the beginning and

s ending endorsed number (i.e., production number)ofeach document,the number of
6

pages it comprises, and related seazchable text using Optical Character Recognition

("OCR"). Hard copy documents shall be produced in.TIFF format, as defined above,
s with an OCR and image cross-reference load file. If production in .TIFF format is not
9

practicable due to the nature of a particular production document, such as some large

io spreadsheet documents,such documents sha11 be produced in native format.
a
.~ ~

ii

J

G.

Each request for a document, whether memoranda,reports,letters,

minutes or other documents ofany description, requires the production ofthe
document in its entirety, including all pages and attachments or exhibits, without

ul cd'

mt
--•v~
~ ~
c ~
ii t
~

redaction or expurgation.
H.

~a

If any document or thing responsive to these requests is withheld from

production, please furnish a log providing the following information with respect to

L ~

a~

N
fd

each withheld document and thing:

~~~

(1) The type ofdocument or thing (e.g., a letter, memorandum,note,
19

etc.);

Zo

(2) The date ofthe document or thing(if applicable);

zt

(3) The title of the document or thing(if applicable);

22

(4) The identity(including the job title, where available) ofeach

23

individual who was an author, addressee, or recipient ofthe

24

document or thing(if applicable);

Zs

(5) A brief description ofthe subject matter ofthe docwnent or thing

26

detailed enough to permit analysis ofthe basis upon which it is being

2~

withheld; and

28
S
LEGALZOOM' FIRST SET OF REQUESTS FOR DOCUMENTS TO ROCKETLAWYER

i
2
'

(6) A statement ofthe facts that constitute the basis for any claim of
privilege, work product ox other grounds of nondisclosure.

s

I.

These requests for production are continuing in nature and require

4 amendment or supplementation pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(e)if
s YOU or YOUR attorneys later become aware offacts or documents or things that
6 indicate that the response previously given was incorrect or incomplete. If YOU do
~ not have all ofthe information YOU need to make a complete response to any request
s for production,then provide all documents or things that YOU do have, state that
9 YOUR information is incomplete, identify the information YOU would need to make
io a complete production ofdocuments and/or things and provide a supplemental
i i production when YOU obtain the information necessary to do so.
These requests for production are without limitation as to time, unless

~~

t2

°I ~'
bs
,~
~
~~
a

is otherwise specified.
is

~, ~

i6

~=

1~ ADVERTISEMENTS placed during the period between January 1,2008 and present.

J.

REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION

~s REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO.1:
All DOCUMENTS RELATING TO ROCKETLAWYER FREE

t8 RE VEST FOR PRODUCTION NO.2:
t9

All COMMUI~IICATIONS between YOU and any PERSON RELATING TO

Zo the ROCKETLAWYER FREE ADVERTISEMENTS.
2i REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO.3:
s2

All DOCUMENTS RELATING TO YOUR pricing and pricing policies for

2s ROCKETLAWYER PRODUCTS AND SERVICES that were marketed, advertised
za and/or promoted by a ROCKETLAWYER FREE ADVERTISEMENT placed during
zs the period between January 1, 2008 and present.
z6 REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO.4:
z~

All COMMUrTICATIONS between YOU and any PERSON RELATING TO

Zs YOUR pricing and pricing policies for ROCKETLAWYER PRODUCTS AND
LEGALZOOM'S FIRST SET OF REQUESTS FOR DOCUMENTS TO ROCKETLAWYER

1 SERVICES that were marketed, advertised and/or promoted by a
a ROCKETLAWYER FREE ADVERTISEMENT.
s REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO.S:
a

All DOCUMENTS sufficient to identify every LEGALZOOM TRIGGERED

s FREE ADVERTISEMENT placed during the period between January 1, 2008 and
6 present.
~ REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO.6:
s

All COMMUNICATIONS between YOU and any PERSON RELATING TO

9 LEGALZOOM TRIGGERED FREE ADVERTISEMENTS.
io REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO.7:
ii

All DOCUMENTS RELATING TO YOUR pricing and pricing policies for

a

Q
°) ~'
,N

i2 ROCKETLAWYER PRODUCTS AND SERVICES that were marketed,.advertised
~3 and/or promoted by a LEGALZOOM TRIGGERED FREE ADVERTISEMENTS
is placed during the period between January 1,2008 and present.

~s

Q

is REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO.8:
All COMMUNICATIONS between YOU and any PERSON RELATING TO

N~

i6

~=

i~ YOUR pricing and pricing policies for ROCKETLAWYER PRODUCTS AND
is SERVICES that were marketed, advertised and/or promoted by a LEGALZOOM
i9 TRIGGERED FREE ADVERTISEMENTS.
zo REOiJEST FOR PRODUCTION NO.9:
ai

All DOCUMENTS RELATING TO every marketing, advertisement and/or

z2 promotion YOU published using a LEGALZOOM MARK or any iteration thereto
2s during the period between January 1, 2008 and present
a4 REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO.10:
2s

All COMMIJI~ICATIONS between YOU and any PERSON RELATING TO

26 the any marketing, advertisement and/or promotion YOU published using a
2~ LEGALZOOM MARK or nay iteration thereto.
2a REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO.11:
LEGALZOOM'S N~RST SET OF REQUESTS FOR DOCUMENTS TO ROCKETLAWYER

~~

2

All DOCUMENTS RELATING TO every marketing, advertisement and/or
promotion YOU published using the term "zoom"or any iteration thereto during the

3

period between January 1, 2008 and present

4

REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION N0.12:

s

All COMMUTTICATIONS between YOU and any PERSON RELATING TO
the any marketing, adverkisement and/or promotion YOU published using the term

t

6

"zoom" or any iteration thereto.
s REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION N0.13:
9~

All DOCUMENTS RELATING TO your registration and/or purchase ofthe

io LEGALZOOM DOMAINS.
ii REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION N0.14:
i~

All COMMU1vICATIONS between YOU and any PERSON RELATING TO

13

the LEGALZOOM DOMAINS.

14

REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO.15:

is

All DOCUMENTS RELATING TO your registration and/or purchase ofany
other domain using the LEGALZOOM MARI~S and/or any similar variations.thereto.

16

i~ REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION N0.16:

19

All C01~1MCTNICATIONS between YOU and any PERSON RELATING TO
your registration and/or purchase of any other domain using the LEGALZOOM

20

MARKS and/or any similar variations thereto.

21

REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 17:

is

2i
23

All DOCUMENTS RELATING TO YOUR advertisement,"incorporate for
free... pay no fees($0)," as referenced in paragraphs 13 and 14 and attached as

za Exhibit C to the FAC or any iteration thereto.
zs REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION N0.18:
26

All COMMiJI~IICATIONS between YOU and any PERSON RELATING TO

YOUR advertisements,"incorporate for free... pay no fees($0)" and "incorporate for
Zs 'free," as referenced in paragraphs 13 and 14 and attached as Exhibit C to the FAC or

27

LEGALZOOM'S FIILST SET OF REQUESTS FOR DOCUMENTS TO ROCKETLAWYER

t any iteration thereto.
s REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION N0.19:

4

All DOCUMENTS RELATING TO YOUR advertisements,"free help from
local attorneys" and "free legal review," as referenced in paragraphs 13 and 15 and

5

attached as Exhibit C to the FAC or any iteration thereto.

6

REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO.20:

3

All COM1viUNICATIONS between YOU and any PERSON RELATING TO
s YOUR advertisements,"free help from local attorneys" and "free legal review," as
9

referenced in paragraphs 13 and 15 and attached as Exhibit C to the FAC or any

io iteration thereto.
ii REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO.21:
a
J

~Q
bl~
~~ .
Y aS

c ~
i.~ t
~

~a
L ~L

a~
a
~' o

c~ _

All DOCUMENTS RELATING TO the modification ofYOUR"On Call

12
13

Terms of Service" on or after November 20,2013, including, but not limited to, all

14

drafts, versions and/or iterations ofthe "On Call Terms of Service."

is

REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO.22:

All CONIlVIU1vICATIONS between YOU and any PERSON RELATING TO
i~ the modification ofYOUR"On Call Terms of Service" on or after November 20,

16

to 2013.
19

Zo

REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO.23:
All DOCUMENTS RELATING TO YOUR disclosures ofYOUR NEGATNE

21

OPTION program.

22

REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO.24:

23
24

All COMMiJl~TICATIONS between YOU and any PERSON RELATING TO
YOUR disclosures ofYOUR NEGATIVE OPTION program.

2s REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO.25:
26
2~

All DOCUMENTS sufficient to identify the economic value that YOU derived
from YOUR use ofthe ROCKETLAWYER FREE ADVERTISEMENTS including,

2s but not limited to, any analyses, report, investigation, or valuation performed.
I.EGALZOOM'S FIRST SET OF REQiJESTS FOR DOCUMENTS TO ROCKETLAWYER

i REOUE5T FOR PRODUCTION NO.26:
z

All DOCUMENTS RELATING TO the economic value that YOU derived

3 from YOUR use ofthe LEGALZOOM TRIGGERED FREE ADVERTISEMENT
a including, but not limited to, any analyses, report, investigation, or valuation
s performed.
6 REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO._27:
~

All DOCUMENTS RELATING TO any marketing, advertisement and/or

s promotion published by YOU,which points to, other otherwise provides a link that
9 directs customers to,LEGALZOOM's HOMEPAGE ox other pages ofthe
io LEGALZOOM website.
ii REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO.28:
a

All DOCUMENTS RELATING TO YOUR allegation that"LegalSpring.com

~g

is

~I~
~N
~
~~
s
Q

is acts as LegalZoom's agent in making the promotional statements about LegalZoom's
is products and services on LegalSpring.com," as contained in pazagraph 37 of YOUR
is AMENDED COUNTERCLAIlVIS.
16

c~ s

i~

REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO.29:
~ All DOCUMENTS RELATING TO YOUR allegation that "Legalspring.com

1g conceals its relationship with LegalZoom and misleadingly states that it is merely
i9 affiliated with third party websites that appear on its website," as contained in
20 pazagraph 38 ofYOUR AMENDED COUNTERCLAIMS.
2i REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO.30:
22

All DOCUMENTS evidencing any actual consumer deception and/or

z3 confusion YOU claim to have been caused by the alleged "omission of
2a Legalspring.com's relationship to LegalZoom and Legalspring.com's
2s misrepresentation of neutrality," as contained in paragraphs 57 and 73 ofYOUR
a6 AMENDED COUNTERCLAIMS.
a~ REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO.31:
2s

All DOCUMENTS evidencing any actual influence on consumers' decision
LEGALZOOM'S FIRST SET OF REQUESTS FOR DOCUMENTS TO ROCKETLAWYER

i whether to purchase and where to purchase legal services YOU claim resulted from
2 LEGALZOOM's alleged "deception," as contained in paragraph 58 of YOUR
3

AMENDED COi.TN'fERCLAIMS.

4

REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO.32:

s
6

All DOCUMENTS evidencing the alleged "direct diversion ofsales from
[YOU]to LegalZoom and/or by decreased goodwill with the buying public," YOU
claim YOU have suffered as a result ofLEGALZOOM's alleged "misleading andlor

s false business practices," as contained in pazagraph 59 of YOUR AMENDED
9

COUNTERCLAIMS.

io REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO.33:
ii

All DOCUMENTS evidencing the alleged "lost money," YOU claim YOU

is have suffered as a result ofLEGALZOOM's alleged "misleading and/or false
13

business practices," as contained in paragraphs 59 and 75 ofYOUR AMENDED

14

COUNTERCLAIMS.

15

REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO.34:

16

All DOCUMENTS evidencing LEGALZOOM's alleged "unjust[)

i~ enrichment]", as contained in paragraphs 67 and 74 ofYOUR AMENDED
is COUNTERCLAIMS.
19

20
21

REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO.35:
All DOCUMENTS evidencing YOUR alleged "loss of business from
consumers who relied on LegalZoom's reviews on Legalspring.com and were
directed to LegalZoom's website," as contained in paragraph 68 ofYOUR

23

AMENDED COUNTERCLAIMS.

24

REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO.36:

25

All DOCUMENTS evidencing any actual consumer deception and/or

26

confusion caused by the ROCKETLAWYER FREE ADVERTISEMENTS.

2~

REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO.37:

28

All DOCUMENTS evidencing any actual consumer deception and/or
LEGALZOOM'S FIILST SET OF REQUESTS FOR DOCUI~NT'S TO ROCKETLAWYER

i confusion caused by the LEG.ALZOOM TRIGGERED FREE ADVERTISEMENT.
2 REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO.38:
s

All DOCUMENTS evidencing any actual influence on consumers' decision

4 whether to purchase and where to purchase legal services resulting from the
s ROCKETLAWYER FREE ADVERTISEMENTS.
6 REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO.39:
~

All DOCUMENTS evidencing any actual influence on consumers' decision

s whether to purchase and where to purchase legal services resulting from the
9 LEGALZOOM TRIGGERED FREE ADVERTISEMENT.
io REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO.40:
it

All DOCUMENTS evidencing any direct diversion ofsales from

~, J

i2 LEGALZOOM to YOU resulting from the ROCKETLAWYER FREE

°i ~

i3 ADVERTISEMENTS.

~N

~~
~s
Q

is REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO.41:
is

All DOCUMENTS evidencing any direct diversion ofsales from

16 LEGALZOOM to YOU resulting from the LEGALZOOM TRIGGERED FREE
~z

i~ ADVERTISEMENT.
ts REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO.42:
~9

All DOCUMENTS RELATING TO the answers provided in YOUR responses

20 to LegalZoom's First Set ofInterrogatories.
Zi REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO.43:
2z

All DOCUMENTS RELATING TO customer complaints regarding the

23 ROCKETLAWYER FREE ADVERTISEMENTS.
2a REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO.44:
Zs

All DOCUMENTS RELATING TO customer complaints regarding the

26 LEGALZOOM TRIGGERED FREE ADVERTISEMENT.
2~ REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO.45:
28

All DOCUIV~NTS RELATING TO customer complaints regarding YOUR
LEGALZOOM'S FIRST SET OF REQUESTS FOR DOCUMENTS TO ROCKETLAWYER

t NEGATIVE OPTION program.
2 REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO.46:
To the extent not specifically requested above, All DOCUMENTS RELATING

3

a TO YOUR marketing, advertisements and/or promotions, whether published or
s tested, containing the word "free."
6 REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO.47:
To the extent not specifically requested above, all DOCUMENTS RELATING

~

a TO the allegations in the AMENDED COUNTERCLAIMS and/or YOUR affirmative
9 defenses.
io REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO.48:
To the extent not specifically requested above, all DOCUMENTS RELATING

ii
~
~~
GIs'
,~
_ ~

iz TO YOUR alleged damages, the cause ofthe alleged damages, and how the amount
is of damages was calculated..
is REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO.49:

~L

All DOCUMENTS RELATING TO the number ofcustomers converted using

Q

~s

~

is ROCKETLAWYER FREE ADVERTISEMENTS,that do not disclose the state filing

~7 =

t~ fees and/or other fees in the mazk~ting, advertisement and/or promotion.
is REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO.50:
All DOCUMENTS RELATING TO the number ofcustomers converted using

i9

Zo LEGALZOOM TRIGGERED FREE ADVERTISEMENTS,that do not disclose the
21 state filing fees and/or other fees in the marketing, advertisement and/or promotion.
Zz REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO.51:
23

~

All DOCUMENTS RELATING TO YOUR GROSS REVENUE from

za customers converted using ROCKETLAWYER FREE ADVERTISEMENTS,that do
is not disclose the state filing fees and/or other fees in the marketing, advertisement
26 and/or promotion.
2~ REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO.52:
is

All DOCUMENTS RELATING TO YOUR GROSS REVENUE from
LEGALZOOM'S FIRST SET OF REQUESTS FOR DOCUIv~NTS TO ROGKETLAWYER

i customers converted using LEGALZOOM TRIGGERED FREE
a ADVERTISEMENTS,that do not disclose the state filing fees andJor ofiher fees in the '~
3

marketing, advertisement and/or promotion.

4

REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO.53:

s

All DOCUMENTS RELATING TO YOUR NET REVENUE from customers

6

converted using ROCKETLAWYER FREE ADVERTISEMENTS,that do not
disclose the state filing fees andlor other fees in the marketing, advertisement andlor

s promotion.
9

io
a

J

~~
ol'g.
-~ N
b
~ ~
c ~
~
i.~ L
— u

~Q
L~

REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO.54:
All DOCUMENTS RELATING TO YOUR NET REVENUE from customers

ii converted using LEGALZOOM TRIGGERED FREE ADVERTISEMENTS,that do
12 not disclose.the state filing fees and/or other fees in the marketing, advertisement
13

and/or promotion.

l4

REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO.55:

is

All COMMCJNICATIONS between YOU and LEGALZOOM.

v

16

C7

i~ DATED: March 12,2013

GLASER WELL FINK JACOBS
HOWARD AVCHEN & SHAPIRO ii.r

is
19
By:
20
21

z2
23

PATRICIA L. G AS R
FRED D.HEAT~~R
MARY ANN T. NGUYEN
Attorneys for Plaintiff
LegalZoom.com,Inc.

24
25
26
27
28
LEGALZOOM'S FIRST SET OF REQUESTS FOR DOCiJMENTS TO ROCKETLAWYER

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

~~

On March Imo, 2013,I served the foregoing documents)described as
PLAINTIFF LEGALZOOM.COM,INC.'S FIRST SET OF REQUESTS FOR
PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS AND THINGS TO DEFENDANT ROCKET
LAWYER INCORPORATED on the interested parties to this action by delivering
thereofin a sealed envelope addressed to each of said interested parties at the
following address(es): SEE ATTACHED LIST
O

O

~7i2

(BY ELECTRO1vIC SERVICE)by causing the foregoing documents)to be
electronically filed using the Court's Electronic Filing System which
constitutes service ofthe filed documents)on the indvidual(s) listed on the
attached mailing list.

D

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

u

~~

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

(BY OVERNIGHT DELIVERS I served the foregoing document by FedEx,
an express service carrier which provides overnight delivery as follows: I
placed true copies ofthe foregoing document in sealed enve~o es or packages
designated by the express service carrier addressed to each interested party as
set forth above, with fees for overnight delivery paid or provided for.

u

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

u

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

D

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

is
19

Zo
zi
22
23
24

2s
26

Executed on March ~,2013 at Los Angeles, Calif mia.
27

zg

A

SSIEL OMERO
PROOF OF SERVICE

SERVICE LIST
1
2 Forrest A. Hainline
fhainline o~ odwinprocter.com
3 Anna Hsia
4 ahsia(a, o~odwinprocter.com
Hong-An vu
5 hvu~a~goodwinprocter.com
GOODWIN PROCTER LLP
6 Three Embarcadero Center, 24th Floor
~ San Francisco, California 94111
8 Te1:415-733-6000
Fax: [phone]
9
10
11
a
J

~I~

.0 ~

7^
yL

13

~N
Y ~

~ c
~s
j
Q
>~
w ~
N

14
15
16

~ O
V .J~

17

10
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
PROOF OF SERVICE

EXHIBIT B

1
2
3

5
6
7

.Forrest A. Hainlne IIl(SBN .641 ~`6)
fhainlne~a ovdwinprocter.com
Anna Hsia~BlV 234179)
ahsia goodwinprocter.com
Hon ~n Vu(SBN 2b6268)
hvu oodwin~ procter.cr~m
WIN PROCTER LLP
GU
Three Embarcadero Center, 24th Floor
San Francisco, California X4111
Tel.: [phone]Q4
Fax.: 415:677.9041
Attvrneys~~or De enddnt
ROCKET'"LAR INCORPORATED

8
9

UNITED STATES DIST~CT COURT

10

CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFQRNIA

1.1

WESTERN DIVISION

12
13

LEGALZOOIVI.COM,INC., a Qelaware
corporation,.

14

Plaintiff,

15
v.
16
17

ROCKET LAWYER
INCORPQRATED,a Delaware
corporation,

18

Defendant.

19
20
21
22
23
2A~
2~
26
27
2$

LIBAl2372744.2

bass No.2:i2-cv-U99.42-GAF-AGR
ROCKET LAWYER
INCORPORATED'S FIRST SFT ON'
REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION
Date:
March 1.1, 2U13
Judge Gary A.~eess
fudge:
Courtroom: 74Q
255 Easti Tem le Street
Los .Angeles,~A 90U 12
Action Filed:.November 20,.2012

1

Pursuant 'to Rule 33 ofthe'Federal Rules of Civil Procedure,,Defendant

2

Rocl~et Lawyer Incorporated (`Rocket lawyer").propounds the following Firs#.Set of

3

Requests for Production on LegalZoom.corn, Inc.("LegalZoam"):
DEFINITTQN~S

4
5

1.

The term "You" means L~gatZoom and its pest and present agents,

6

representatives, and all persons now or previously under its control, and all persons

7

currently or previously acting or purporting to act on its behalf.

8
9

2.

The term "Document(s)" is defined to be synonymous:in meaning,and.

equal in scope- to the usage ofthi's term in Federal Rule of Civil Procedui-e 34(a),

10

including, without limitation; Electronic or computerised data compilations. A draft

11

or nan-identical:copy is a separate- document within the meaning of this term.,

12
13
14

3.

The term "Communicat on(s)~' means-the transmilfal ofinformation (in

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

The term "Person" includes both singular and plural. and, whenever

15

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

16

uninca~porated association,joint venture, nonprofit organ zatiion, or other business

17

entity or association.of persons, anti also :any governmental. agency, ~ffiee,

18

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

19 .having knowledge offacts or custody ofthe.documents refers to a.natural person.
20

5.

The term "Keyword" means .words that maybe bid on through

21

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

22

search results.

2~

6.

The teen "Complaint" means the First Amended Complaint in

24

Legalzoom.com, lnc. v. Rocket Lawyer.Incorporated, Case No. C;V 12-9942-GAF'

25

(AGR~c)filed in the Central District of California.

26
2?

7.

The- term "Concerning" means relating to, referring.to, reflecting,.

describing, evidencing, bearing on, or constituting.

28

LIl3A/2372744.2

1

RULES OF CON5TRUCTYUN

1
2

The following rules of construction apple to these interrogatories:
AIILEach, The terms"all" ar~d "each"'sha11 be construed as all and each..

3
4

2,

'
And/Or. The connectives "and".and "ors sha11 be construed either

5

disjunctively or conjunctively as necessary to bring within the scope oftl~e

6

discovery request all responses that might otherwise be construed to be-outside of its ',

7

scope.
c~
Number. The use ofthe singular farm ofany word includes the plural.

8

3.

9

and vice versa.
DOCUMENTS TO BE PRObUCED

10
11
12.

1.

Any and all. Documents anal Communications Concerning the answers

provided in Your response to Rocket Lavrryer's -First Set ofInterrogatories,
Any and all Documents and Communications with: and/or Concerning

13

2.

14

Rocket.Lawyer.

15

3,

16

Travis Giggy.

17

4.

18
19

Any and all Documents and `Communications with and/or Concerning

Any and all Documents and Communications with andCor ConEernng

Legalspring,com.
5.

Any and all Doeutnens and Communications Cancerning.Your

20

advertisements andlor marketing materials offering, promising, orxeferr ng to free

21

services or benefits,or otherwise containing the word "free:" V

22

6:

Any and all Doeurnents:and Communications, whether oral or written,

23

Concerning Keyword bidding,.. whether by You:or Your competitors,including

24

metrics tracked by Your search engine optimization{"SEO")team and any

25

consultants..

26

7.

Any and all Documents and Goznmunicat ans with or Concerning

27

Google.com, Yahoo.corn, Bi~ng.eom, and/or any- other search engine or search

28

engine provtder or their agents.

LfBA12372744:2

2

1

8.

Any and_ all Documents and Communications with and/ax Concerning

2

the Federal Trade Commission .related to LegalZoom's advertising practices or the

3

allegations in the Complaint.

4

9.

Any and all Documents and Communications Concerning free- or

5

purportedly free- services or benefits You provide,:including, bud not limited to, free

6

trials ofYour products nr services.

7
8
9
1'a
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
1;9
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28'

10.

Any and all Documents and Communications'Cc~neerning Your use of

the word "free" in advertising.
1l ~

Any and. all Documents and Communications Concerning customer

complaints regarding Your advertising,
12.

Any and all Documents and Communications Concerning

Legalspring.com, including customer complaints.
13.

Any and_ all Documents and Communications Concerning the

registration of any domain name.
14.

Ariy and all Documents and Communications C'orrcerning payment to

or for Travis Giggy.
15.

Any and all I?ocuments and. Communications with and/or Concerning•

payment to or for Legalsprng.corri.
16.

Any and all Documents and. Cgmmunications with andlor Goneerning

contracts and/or agreements with Travis Giggy:
17.

Any- and all Documents and Communications with and/or Concerning

contracts. and/or.agreements. with Legalspr ng.com.
18,

Any and all IRS- or state tax filings that You have submitted

Concerning Travis Giggy.
19.

Any and. all. IRS or state tax filings that You have submitted

Concerning Legalspring.com.
20.

To the.extent not specifically requested .above, all Documents

Concerning the allegations in the Complaint andlorYour- affirmative defenses.

LIDA/237274A.2

3

1
2

21;

All Documents Concerning-Your alleged damages, the cause ofthe

alleged damages,,and how the amount of damages was calculated,

3
4

Dated.: Maxch 11, 2013

S

Respectfully submitted,
By:
a~n ine
o
t
fhaindin @goodwinprocter:com
.Anna Asia

b
7
8

huu goodwin~pr~octer.com
GO DWIN PRQCTER LI.,~
Three EmbarcaderQ Center, 24th
Floor
San Francisco, California.94111
T~1.: 415.733:60Q~
Fax.: 415:677..904

9
10
11
12

Attorne s or ~e endant
IsR ~NG'ORI'014A TED
RQC"K~ LA

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

C1BA/i3727443

4

.PROOF OF SERVICE.
At the time of service I was over 18 years.of age and not a p~y to this action,
My residence or business address is: Three Embarcad~ero Center, 24th Flaor, fan
Francisco, CA 9411.L.
On March. 1:1, 2013,I served the following documents by placing a true :copy
thereofin a sealed envelopes) on the persons-below as fo]Iows:
5
ROCKET LAWYER INCORPORATED'S
FIRST SET OF REQUESTS- FOR PRODUCTION]

10

.Patricia L. Glaser
Fred D. Heather
1VIary Ann T. N~~ guyen
GLA.SER WEIL FINK JACOBS
HOWARD AVCHEN & SHAPIRO LLY
1 Q250.Constellation Boulevard, 19th
Floor
Los Angeles, ~alifarnia 90067

Counsel for
Plaintiff Lega~~lZoom.com, Inc.
TI'e1.310.553:3UOQ
Fax. [phone]
glaser . glaserweil.com
Bather glaserweil.cocn
mnguyen glaserweil.com

~

11
12

D

(MAIL}. By Unified States mail.. I enclosed the documents in a sealed
envelope or package addressed to the persons at the addresses listed and
placed the envelope for calleetion and mailing following our ordinary
business practices. I am readily familiar with thi s business's practice for
collecting and processing comespondence for mailing. Qn the same day that
d
correspondence is~placed for coIlection an: mailing, it is deposited in the
ordinary course..ofbusiness with the' United States Fostal Service,in a
sealed .envelope with postage fully ;prepaid at San Francisco, California.

Cl

(OVERNIGHT DELIVERY). By overnight delivery. I enclosed the
c~acuments in an envelope or package provided by an overnight delivery
carrier and addressed to the persons at the addresses listed. I placed the.
envelope or package for coliectian and overnight delivery at:an office or a
regularly utilized drop box ofthe overnight'delivery carrzer.

13
]4
15
16
17
18
19
20

D

service, I caused the documents io be sent to the persons at the electronic
service addresses listed.

21
. 22

O

(FACSIMILE). By fax transmission. Based on an agreement ofthe parties
to acrept service by fax transmission,I faced the documents to the persons
at;the fzx numbers listed: No error was,reported by the fax machine that I
used. A copy ofthe record ofthefax transmission, which 1printed out, is
attached.

D

MESSENGER SERVICE) By messenger service. I served the documents
by placing~ them in an envelope or package addressed to the persons at the
addresses-listed and providing them to a professional messenger service for
service.(A declaration by the messenger must aceomparey this Proofof
Service or be contained in the Declaration ofMessenger belotiv.)

23
24
25
2b
27

~E-MAIL or ELECTROT]IC T~4NSMISSION) By electronic service;.
Based on ~ court order ar an agreement of''~he parties to acce~pt electronic . _ ,, .

28

LIDA/337274~:2

1
2
3
4
S

u

(PERSONAI.SERVICE). By personal service. I personally delivered the
documents to-the persons at the addresses listed,[1] For a party represented
by an attorney, delivery was made to the ~ttomey or at the attorney's office
by leaving the documents, in an envelope. or package cle~.t]y labeled to
identify the attorney being served with a receptionist or an individual in
f
charge ofthe office between.the ~iours ofnine (9) in the morning and ve
r5) in the evening.- ~2] Far a party, delivery was made to the party or by
leaving the documents at the party's residence:with some person not
younger than 18 years- of age between the- hours of eight(8)in the morning
and six (6)in the- evening.

6.
7

Y declare under penalty of perjury that I am employed in the office. of a
member ofthe bar of t1~is Court at whose direc#ion this service was made and.that
the foregoing is true and correct.

$:
Executed an March ~ 1, 2Q13, at San Francisco, California.
9
10
L1

16
17
18
l9
20
2;1
22
23
24
25
26
2'7
28

C. J. IvlcCall
~e or print name.

ignature

EXHIBIT C

Glaser Weil Fink Jacobs
Howard Avchen & Shapiro ~~P

10250 Constellation BNd.
19th Floor
Los Mgeles, CA 90087
310.553.3000 TEL
310.556.2920 FAX
Patricia Jones Winograd

March 28, 2014

VIA E-MAIL
Forrest A. Hainline, III, Esq.
Hong-An Vu, Esq.
GOODWIN PROCTER LLP
Three Embarcadero Center, 24th Floor
San Francisco, California 94111
[e-mail]
hvuCa).~oodwinprocter.com

Direct Dlal
310.556.7809
Direct Fax
310.843.2609
E-mail
mnguyen~glaservveil.com

Michael T. Jones, Esq.
GOODWIN PROCTER LLP
135 Commonwealth Drive
Menlo Park, California 94025-1105
miones(rD400dwinnrocter.com

Brian W. Cook, Esq.
GOODWIN PROCTER LLP
53 State Street Exchange Place
Boston, Massachusetts 02109
bcookCc~Qoodwinprocter.com
RE:

LestalZoom.com, Inc, v. Rocket Lawyer Incoruorated -Response to Rocket
Lawyer's March 24, 2014 Letter

Dear Counsel:
We write in response to your letter, dated March 24, 2014, regarding the
parties' various pending discovery issues. Unfortunately, we do not believe that the
letter accurately describes the state of discovery in this case. For the reasons set
forth below, we still continue to believe that an extension of the discovery cut-off
date is in order.
First, since the outset of discovery and this case—as articulated in LegalZoom's
Complaint in this action—LegalZoom has contended that all of Rocket Lawyer's false
and misleading advertisements relating to all Rocket Lawyer products and services are
at issue in this litigation. Just this month, more than one year after discovery
commenced, you raised for the very first time an idea that some distinction was to be
drawn between incorporation/ entity formation advertisements and "intraweb"
advertisements and expressed your purported befuddlement over what LegalZoom is
requesting. As discussed in our various meet and confers, LegalZoorn's claims relate
to both "extraweb" as well as "intraweb" advertisements, and always have. For
example, Rocket Lawyer's advertisements for "Free l.e~al Help"(and other similar
7R ME~IiAS LAW FIRMS WORLDWIDE

865938.2

Forrest A. Hainline, III, Esq.
Michael T. Jones, Esq.
March 28, 2014
Page 2
iterations) appear in both "extraweb" advertisements and "intraweb"
advertisements. Rocket Lawyer's advertisements are in no way shielded from
production simply because they appear "intraweb" rather than "extraweb."Your
belated claim that LegalZoom has been "unclear" and have communicated "shifting
requests and standards" about what LegalZoom wants regarding Rocket Lawyer's
advertisements is simply not supported by the facts or history of our dialogue
concerning the nature of the discovery that is at issue in this action.
Second, we are surprised by your statement that we have raised for the first
time in our March 20, 2014 letter that we also wanted dates for when each Rocket
Lawyer advertisement at issue was published. Not only is this statement patently
false, the suggestion that Rocket Lawyer did not understand the dates on which its
advertisements ran to be a critical part of this case is belied by Its own discovery.
Indeed, Rocket Lawyer's request for damages information requires that LegalZoom
make reference to the dates that the Rocket Lawyer advertisements ran. Rocket
Lawyer's failure to provide information related to the dates of its advertisements has
contributed to LegalZoom being unable to provide such damages information to
Rocket Lawyer. Moreover, LegalZoom has long requested documents evidencing the
Rocket Lawyer advertisements, along with the dates on which such advertisements
were published. Not only was it clear from our discovery, it was discussed in our
various meet and confers in 2013 and reiterated in our letter, dated January 16, 2014
(a copy is attached hereto as Exhibit A for your convenience).
Third, you have raised the issue of when LegalZoom will produce damages
data. We note that Rocket Lawyer has yet to provide any such information. And, as
stated above, LegalZoom's ability to provide data and information requires that it
make reference to the dates that the Rocket Lawyer advertisements ran. Rocket
Lawyer's attempt to provide us with partial information, which includes the date on
which an advertisement "campaign" began, is not sufficient to discharge its obligation
to provide LegalZoom with full information upon which it can provide the requested
information.
Finally, you stated that we have refused to run any searches relating to
LegalZoom's incorporation and LLC advertisements. In particular, you have requested
that LegalZoom add "Incorpora' AND fee`," "LLC AND fee"' and "state AND fees" to
its search. A search for "Incorpora* AND fee'," "LLC AND fee•" and "state AND fee"'
is overbroad and over inclusive. In addition, given that Rocket Lawyer has only
alleged that LegalZoom advertisements do not properly disclose state fees in its
incorporation and LLC advertisements, it is difficult to see how broad search terms
such as those are likely to lead to responsive documents within the scope of Rocket
Lawyer's requests. In any event, as stated before, we have adopted all of the search

865938.2

Forrest A. Hainline, III, Esq.
Michael T. Jones, Esq.
March 28, 2814
Page 3
terms which we, in good faith, believe will adequately yield responsive documents in
response to the actual document requests propounded by Rocket Lawyer.
Rocket Lawyer's only recent and incomplete production (just 3 weeks prior to
the expert discovery deadline) containing information relating to more than 330,000
advertisements that Rocket Lawyer has run in the operative time period, which are
among the advertisements at the very heart of LegalZoom's claims and allegations,
along with Rocket Lawyer's continued delay in providing LegatZoom with, among
other things, the dates upon which advertisements ran and the requested financial/
conversion data, impacts the progression of this case. Accordingly, we still believe it
is necessary to continue upcoming deadlines. As we have informed you in our letter,
dated March 20, 2014, and again on March 24, 2014 via telephone, in the absence of
Rocket Lawyer's agreement to continue upcoming deadlines, LegalZoom will have no
choice but to move to compel and seek a court order further extending discovery.
As always, we are willing to further meet and confer with you regarding these
issues. Of course, this letter is sent without waiver of any of LegalZoom's rights and
remedies, all of which are expressly reserved.
Rega ds,

MARY AN N T. G UYEN
for GLASER WEIL FINK JACOBS HOWARD AVCHEN ~t SHAPIRO LLP
MTN:mtn
cc: Fred Heather, Esq.
Patricia Jones Winograd, Esq.

865938.2

EXHIBIT D

Mary Ann Nguyen
Mary Ann Nguyen
Wednesday, April 02, 2014 8:51 AM
Hainline, Forrest A; Jones, Michael T;'Vu, Hong-An;Cook, Brian W
Fred Heather; Patricia Jones Winograd
LegalZoom_Ex Parte Application for Continuance

From:
Sent:
To:
Cc:
Subject:
Counsel:

Please be advised that, pursuant to our prior communications with you, LegalZoom intends to and will apply ex pane for
a continuance of the trial and related dates set in the Court's January 22, 2014 order for good cause tomorrow morning.
You previously stated that you will oppose any such ex parte application. Please let us know if your position has
changed.
Regards,

~'~'~'~
~.
Mary Ann T. Nguyen ~ Associate
10250 Constellation Blvd., 19th Floor, Los Angeles, CA 90067
Main: 310.553.3000 ~ Direct: 310.556.7809 ~ Fax:[phone]
E-Mail: mn~[e-mail] ~ www.Qlaserweil.com

This message and any attached documents may contain information from the law firm of Glaser Weil Fink Jacobs Howard Avchen &Shapiro LLP
that is confidential and/or privileged. If you are not the intended recipient, you may not read, copy, distribute or use this information. If you have
received this transmission in error, please notify the sender immediately by reply e-mail and then delete this message.

Mary Ann Nguyen

Subject:
Attachments:

Vu, Hong-An [[e-mail]]
Wednesday, April 02, 2014 11:16 AM
Mary Ann Nguyen
Fred Heather; Patricia Jones Winograd; Hainline, Forrest A; Jones, Michael T; Tauman,
Sarah
RE: LegalZoom_Ex Parte Application for Continuance
140402 RLI Letter to LegalZoom re Discovery.PDF

Follow Up Flag:
Flag Status:

Follow up
Flagged

From:
Sent:
To:
Cc:

Mary Ann:
Our position has not changed regarding a continuance of case deadlines. Please see the attached.
Regards,
Hong-An
Hong-An Vu
Goodwin Procter LLP
Three Embarcadero Center, 24th Floor
San Francisco, CA 94111
T: 415-733-6114
F: 415-677-9041
hvu(a~goodwinprocter.com
www.aoodwinarocter.com

From: Mary Ann Nguyen [mailto:Mnguven ,glasen~veil.coml
Sent: Wednesday, April 02, 2014 8:51 AM
To: Hainline, Forrest A; Jones, Michael T; Vu, Hong-An; Cook, Brian W
Cc: Fred Heather; Patricia Jones Winograd
Subject: LegalZoom_Ex Parte Application for Continuance
Counsel:
Please be advised that, pursuant to our prior communications with you, LegalZoom intends to and will apply ex parte for
a continuance of the trial and related dates set in the Court's January 22, 2014 order for good cause tomorrow morning.
You previously stated that you will oppose any such ex parte application. Please let us know if your position has
changed.
Regards,

Mary Ann T. Nguyen ~ Associate
10250 Constellation Blvd., 19th Floor, Los Angeles, CA 90067

Main: 310.553.3000 ~ Direct: 310.556.7809 ~ Fax: [phone]
E-Mail: mnzuven@~laserweil.com ~ www.elaserweil.com
il'1
This message and any attached documents may contain information from the law firm of Glaser Weil Fink Jacobs Howard Avchen &Shapiro LLP
that is confidential and/or privileged. If you are not the intended recipient, you may not read, copy, distribute or use this information. If you have
received this transmission in error, please notify the sender immediately by reply e-mail and then delete this message.

********************************+k********#************************

IRS CIRCULAR 230 DISCLOSURE: To ensure compliance with requirements imposed by the IRS, we inform
you that any U.S. tax advice contained in this communication (including any attachments) is not intended or
written to be used, and cannot be used, for the purpose of(i)avoiding penalties under the Internal Revenue
Code or (ii) promoting, marketing or recommending to another party any transaction or matter addressed herein.
*******************************************************************
*******************************************************************
This message is intended only for the designated recipient(s). It may contain confidential or proprietary
information and maybe subject to the attorney-client privilege or other confidentiality protections. If you are
not a designated recipient, you may not review, copy or distribute this message. If you receive this in error,
please notify the sender by reply e-mail and delete this message. Thank you.
*******************************************************************

GOODVNIN I PROCTER

Hong-An Vu
415.733.6114
HVu~goodwinprnrter.com

Goodwin Procter ~~v.
Counselofs at Law
Three Embarcadero Center
24th:Floor
SanFranclsco, CA 941 t7
Ti 495,733.6Qa0
F: 415'.677.9041

ApriL2, 2014.

VIA.E-MAIL
jMNGUYEN('}a,GLASERWEIL:CQMI
Mary Ann Nguyen
Glaser Weil Fink Jacobs- Howard Avchen &.Shapiro- L[.P
10250 Constellation:Blvd..,.19th Floor
Los Angeles, CA 90067
Re

LegalZoom.com,lnc: v. Rocket Law,~er Incorporated

Dear Mazy Ann:.
We received your March 28~ 2014 letter, in which you purport to respond to the various discovery issues
we raised on March 24, 2014.: In spite of our productions to date and the'dElivery of twelve generated
spreadsheets of data relating to Rocket Lawyer's search engine advertisements, you suggest-that the
discovery cut-off date:should be: moved because of discovery delays.
We maintain our position that I,egalZoom is and has been the source of any delay in this case. Racket
Lawyer has been diligently responding to I;egalZoom's discovery requests even in the absence of
similar cooperation from LegalZoom, which has flatly refused to identify affiliates other than
Legalspring.com and provide keywords relating to competitors other than Racket Lawyer. This case has
been pending since November'2012 and the ease deadlines,including the.expezt and fact discovery
deadlines, have been pnsl~ed back twice already. Rocket Lawyer has been moving discovery along_ to
prevent a third continuance. There is simply no basis to extend the deadlines at this time:.
For these reasons and others enumerated below, we remain, unwilling to agree to any extension ofthe
:discovery and case deadlines.
First, you contend that LegalZoom is entitled to all advertisements regazding all Racket Lawyer
products and,services, But the First Amended Complaint and your motion for summary judgment have
limited the advertisements at issue to just three services: business formation, Rocket Lawyer's free trial,
The parties have agreed to provide summary/generated data in response to certain interrogatories and Requestsfor
Production instead of reviewing and producing.documents responsive to those Interrogatories and Requests.

GOOQWIN ~ PROCTER

Mary Ann 1Vguyen
Apr1.2, 2014
page 2

and;free legal help andlor free legal review.. In.September 2U13, Rocket Lawyer objected to your
Requests for Production, stating that any requests related to ROCKET LAWYER PRODUCTS AND
.
SER~ICES.were overly-broad and beyond the scope of the allegations in the First Amended Compta nt;
Rocket Lawyer's objections to producing documents and infgrmation
-Thus, you have.had notice of
~yond the services expressly alleged for some time. Indeed, it was with reference to the First Amended
Complaint and your summaryjudgment motion that Rocket Lawyer designed,and you agreed to, the
search terms itis employing in discovery. The pleadings frame the issues and we do mot believe-that
you have a basis for claiming that you are entitled to more.
Second, you contend that Rocket Lawyer only recently sought to distinguish"ntrawebsite"
advertisements from advertisements on Google or Bing. This is:inaccurate. The two types of
;advertisements.is aknown fact. Indeed,LegalZoom's Eirst Amended Complaint provided examples.of
"intrawebsite" ad and search.engine ads.. Rocket Lawyer also raised this issue in its opposition to
LegalZoom's motion for summaryjudgment and of is referenced in the. Court's order denying your
motion. See Qrder re; Plaintiffs' IVlotion for Summary Judgment{Doc.44)at p,Z("Each advertisement
.either contains a link to Defendant's website or is published directly on Def~ndanYs website"). At the.
February 25,2014 meet-and confer to discuss your January 16, 2~141etter, you asked us for a binder of
advertisements that we may have in hard copy azound the office or a list of advertisements: 'We
informed you thaf (i~ we did not have hard-copy advertisements in the manner you were envisioning, and
('ti) we could work on giving-you a °`list" of our advertisements for the.. sere ces'at issue from search
engine marketing, but that adverkisements published only on our website would hive to be produced in
:
the- ordinary course—asit vuould be unduly burdensome,if not- impossible, to create a "list" ofthe exact
language .for every "advertisement" thak has appeared on-our website for the last five years.
We asked you for what information you were. seeking in a "list" and -you said ;you would get back to us.
W.e informed you multipletimes-at subsequent meet and confers that we were willing to provide you
with a list of our search engine advertisements, but you did not provide clarity on what you wanted in
such list. ~Ve have now provided you with data beyond whet,you have requested. Furthermore,
although we do not- believe that:"intrawebsite"-only advertisements are:at issue(because we do not
believe-,you can contend that you have been harmed when a user encounters ~n ad after already having
arrived at Rocketlawyer.com), we are reviewing and producing information to you relating to these
.types of advertisements.
Third, you insist that Rocket Lawyer provide the specific dates on which each ofits advertisements -was
published—information that Racket Lawyer has informed you on multiple occasions it does not have.
-Your request demonstrates an apparent lack of understanding about the.industry and search engine
marketing. Google and Bing emplo}~ algorithms that take into account at least the amount bid.on a
keyword and the zelevance ofthe company to the seazch employed.by a user in order to determine which
ads to publish (see i.e. httu:l/www.~~le:com/ad~vords/how-it-

GOODWIN I PROCTER

Mary Ann Nguyen
Apri12,2014
Page 3

works/costshtml?sourceid=awha8csubid=us-en-ha-awbkup~M29971872605). Thus,Rocket Lawyer is
not in control of~when its advertisements appear:
We have`provided-you with detailed spreadsheets with information relating to our search engine ads,
including,(i~ our advertisements for the services at issue,(ii)the ad campaign,(iu)the quarter irx which
the ad campaign was run,(iv) the ads as they relate to LegalZoam keywords,and (v)data relating to the
clicks, impressions, costs, and conversion ofthe advertisements. These spreadsheets gu well beyond our
discovery burden. And yet you have continued to ask for information not normally tracked in web
advertising. You have also ignored .our requests that you discuss with your client how search engine.
marketing works to assist'you in understanding what data is tracked compared to what you are.
requesting, All of Phis demonstrates tha# your requests are unreasonable. We are prepared to seek a
protective order if necessary..
Fourfh, youstate your.refusal to provide.requested financial performance data.on the basis that Rocket
Lawyer has not provided the exact.publication dates for each.of its advertisements. We refer you to our
response.above regarding specific dates. LegalZoom appears to be taking atit-for-tat approach that is
improper. LegalZoomhas an independent obligation to meet ifs discovery burden, and documents -and.
information.should be produced..as they are reviewed and become.available:. Please provide us with the:
:generated data you have promised to rprovide, organized quarterly, as requested in Rocket Lawyer's
December 20,2013 letter.
Fifth, you claim that your ongoing refusal to run searches related to LegalZoom's incorporation and
LLC advertisements.is due to the .factthat searches proposed.by Rocket Lawyer are.overbroad. You
ignore the facts that we have proposed these seairch terms-:and. expressly asked you to O leC us know if
any terms are overly bzoad, and (u)suggest other combinations- or location modifiers that will reduce
your burden. All you have done is complain about the alleged burden,. which seems unlikely when. you
are searching merely 2U or so terms compared to the over 70 terms we have agreed to search.:Rocket
Lawler remains open.to discussing search.terms.that I;egalZoom believes would constitute a more:
practical alternative. But,if you continue to refuse to cooperate;►n discussions regarding search terms,
we-will seek guidance from the court.
Finall ,you accuse Rocket Lawyer ofdelaying producrion ofrequested financial and conversion data.
This a~cusaCion is without merit. As you know, we had been seeking clarification of LegalZoom's
.some:time- before your
overbroad and unduly-burdensome requests.for financial and conversion data forMarch 20,2014..In fact, we had been waiting for you to check with
demand for even broader data on
your clients and colleagues to provide us with the requested parameters ifthey were going to be
different than what was produced previously by Rocket Lawyer. Those parameters were never
provided. Despite your arbitrazy-and unreasonably constrained four-day response deadline, Rocket
Lawyer.provided all ofthe requested information by March2~,2014,}ust.eight days after you sent us
the-demand letter, an..d about three months before the discovery cut-off..

GOODW'IN (PROCTER

Mary Ann Nguyen.
Apri12,2Q14
Page 4

Rs~cket Lawyer has demonstrated its.commitment to the discovery process in this matter and witI not
agree fo an extension ofthe case deadlines. As sEated in our March 24,2014:letter, we have already
produced to you thousands of pages ofdocuments, not including numerous native files. On March_28,.
2014, we produced Co you an additiona17U0+ doc5, bringing.oiu total document count to over 3,000
documents(nearly 1 O,000 pages,,not including native files).. We are currently working on a production
ofat least a couple thousand doeurnents to be delivered to.you this week.. To date, you have only
produced 1,015 or so docurr~ents(approximately 2,60 pages), of which about 1S0 are blank documents
-and company logos. We expect that you will speedup your review and production of documents and
data,requested by Rocket L~vvy~er.
As always, we are willing to meet.and confer regarding any or all of the issues raised above,

Sincerely,

ong
cc:

n Vu
Fred Heather
[e-mail]
Patricia Jones Winograd
[e-mail]

EXHIBIT E

Glaser Veil _..Find Jacobs
--_.._.m.__~_~~._....w._.
_ __ ~ . _ m.,~.~~ _ ....~.,~.~._....W
I-~owar~ Avchen Shapiro ~.

10250 Constellation Blvd.
19th Floor
'Lns Angeles, CA 90Q67
310.553.3000 TEL
X10.556.2920 FAX
Patricia;Jones Winograd

January ~ 6, 20~4

Direct Dial
310.282:627
Direct Fax
310.785.35~T'
E-mail
pwinograd~glasenrreil.corn

VIA E-MAIL AND FIRST CLASS MAIL
Forrest A. Hairline,'III, Esq.
Hand-An Vu, Esq.
GOODW[N PROCTER LLP
Three Embarcadero Center, 24th Fls~or
San Francisco, Galifgrnia 94111'
RE:

Michael T, Jones, Esq.
GOODWIN PROCTER LLP
135 Commonwealth give
Menlo Park, California 94Q25-1105

Meet and Confer Re~ar~lin~ Supplemental Responses

Dear Counsel;
We writs to further meet and confer regarding Rocket Lawyer lncc~rparated's
":Rocket Lawyer")supplemental discovery responses.
I'

ROCKET LAWYER'S RESPONSES TO REQUESTS fOR ARODUCTION
a.

Marketin~fAdvertisinQ using "Zoom"(Document Request Nos.. 11 Er 12).

Le~alZoom has requested that Rocket Lawyer produce alt documents and
communications relating to its marketing, advertisement and/or promotions published
using the term "Zoom." Rocket Lawyer has objected to these requests on grounds of
breadth and the purported lack of relevance and appears to have refused to provide.
the requested information. However,. the fore~oin~ requests are neither overly broad
nor irrelevant. The requests are narrowly tailored to seek only documents thatpertain to Rocket Lawyer's advertisements which contain the specific term "Zoom,"
Likewise, the documents responsive t~ these requests are directly relevant to
Le~alZoom's allegation that RocketLawyer purchased LegalZoom related search terms
such as "Zoom" from Internet search engines to improperly divert potential
consumers of LegalZoom to Rocketlawyer by tri~~erin~ sponsored links to
RocketLawyer's deceptive "free" advertisements. See Le~alZoom.com, lnc.'S First
Amended Complaint, ~ 13. See Fed. R. Civ. Prot. ~ 26(b}(a)("the court may order
discovery of any matter r~le~ant to the subject matter of involved ~n the litigation.")
Thus, we request that you supplement. your responses and produce documents
responsive to these requests. Jf this is symply an aversi~ht and Rc~cketLawy~r intends
to produce responsive documents, please amend your response aec~rdin~ly.

,r-,~`R1~RItAS lA3i HRMS WORLDWIDE

-.._.. _.

_-.~ _~....,.,..____~

-.-.~.»._... _._..~..__~....~,..~

_.,... ...,.-......._...... r:::....._.m_

850129.1

Forresf A. Hanline, III, Esq
Michael T. Jones, Esq.
January 16, 2014
Page 2

b.

Customer ~Cornpiaints (Document Request Nos. ~3-45).

Le~alZaom has requested that Rocketi Lawyer produce all documents relating to
customer complaints in connection with: the Rocket Lawyer advertisements at issue in
the litigation, all LegalZoom triggered free advertisement and its negative option
program. Given Rocket Lawyer's proposed search terms, as provided by your
December 20, 2013 letter, it appears that. Rocket lawyer intends to provide the
requested information. Please confirm that. Rocket Lawyer is producing the requested..
information and supplement your responses accordingly. If there are addifiional issues
with respect to which RocketLawyer w~utd like to meet and confer, however, please
advise immediately.
c.

Converted Customers (Document Request. Nos. 49-50}.

Le~alZoom has requested that :Rocket Lawyer produce all documents relating to
the number of customers converted using Rocket Lavryer's "free" advertisements and
Le~alZaom triggered advertisements. Roeket Lawyer has indicated only that it will
produce documents after a meet and confer re~;ardin~ the "farm and scope" of data
to be produced in response to these requests, .For purposes of clarification,
Le~alZoom will accept RocketLawyer's ur~derstandin~ that. the information sought I,
among other thins, that which refte~ts the number of customers who "clicked an a
RocketLawyer search engine advertisement that uses "free" with respect to
'incorporation or formation of a limited liability company or entity that did not
mention state filing fees ...and thereafter enrolled in a paying account." LegalZoom
reserves all rights to request further information relating to and responsive to these
requests. Please advise of the nature of specific information RocketLawyer seeks as
to the "form and scope" of the data requested. We are happy to discuss this matter
in a telephonic meet and confer as well.
d.

Financial Data (Document Request Nos. 57-54).

Le~alZoom has requested that Racket Lawyer produce:;.

ii.
iii.
iv.

Quarterly financial performance.from 2008 to present;
Gross and net revenue from customers converted using Rocket
Lawyer Free ads that do not disclose filing fees.(RFP 51 ~t 53);
Grass and net revenue from customers converted using Le~atZoom
triggered free ads (RFP 52 Ft 54);
Documents sufficient to identify the economic vakue that it
derived from use of the RocketLawyer free advertisements (RFF
25,)

850129'.1

Forresfi A. Hanline, III, Est{.
Michael T. Jones, Esq.
.~anuary 16, 2014
Pale 3

v.
vi.
vii
viii.

Documents relating to economic value it derived from use of
Le~alZoom triggered advertisements {RFP 26);
Documents evidencing lost rrtoney on account of alleged unfair
practices (RFP 33),
Documents evidencing unjust enrichment {RFP 34); and
Documents evidencing loss of business (RFP 35).

These requests seek information relating to damages. Rocket Lawyer has indicated
that it intends to produce infarmakion responsive to these requests in summary form
"organized quarterly." Please advise as to when we might expect such production..
11:.

R4CKE~f' LAWYER'S RESPONSES TO INTERRQGATORIES

a. 7). Identification of Rocket Lawyer's Specific Ads (Interrogatory Request
IVos. 4 ~t
1e~alZoam :has. requested that Rocket Lawyer identify its free ads and its
Le~alZoom tri~~ered free ads published since 2Q~8. In lieu of providing Le~alZoom
'with an answer, Rocket Lawyer has indicated that it will identify Rocket Lawyer's free
advertisements and LegalZoom triggered free advertisements published since 2008
once such ads have been reviewed and produced. Le~alZoom awaits the
identiification ultimately of all ads requested by the Interrogatory. However,
Le~alZoom requests that RocketLawyer, at a minimum, supplement its responses to
identify those ads that are the subject of fihis lawsuit of which it clearly knows,
including, at least, those that have been identified in LegatZoom's Complaint.. Please
note that, in identifying such ads: the request requires that RocketLawyer include the
,
da~e(s) of the document, its author, the type, the document's present and/or last
known location and custodian and all othee means of identifying the document with
sufficient particularity. Given that the documents referred to constitute ads that
would have been available to the consuming public over a range of dates, Le~alZoom
would expect the date to include the range of dates such. ads were available on
RocketLawyer's website.
b.

Number of Converted. Customers (Interrogatory Request Nos. 17 ~t 1$).

Le~alZoom has requested that Rocket Lawyer identify the number of customers
converted using Rocket Lawyer free ads and Le~alZaom triggered free ads. Rocket
Lawyer's supplemental response indicates that. it will prepare data. after khe parties
have met and conferred re~ardin~ the 'form and scope cif the data to be produced in
response to this interro~ate~ry. Le~at~aom has indicated, above (Section I.c.), what it
believes is an acceptably rQ~po~se. R~~ase confirm that RoGketLawyer will provide

850129.1

Forrest A,. Hainline, III, Esq.
MichaeC T, Jones, Esq.
January 16, 2Q14
Page 4
this information and advise as t~ when we might expect it. Alain, if an additional
meet and confer is necessary, please so advise and we can address this issue in a
tetephor►ic meet and confer on Monday or Tuesday of next week..
Respectfully,

.
~f r
PAT#~ICIA`~JONES WINOGRAD
forGLASER WE1L FINK JACOBS HOWARp AVCHEN £t SHAPIRa LLP

PJW/rjc

8541'Z9.3

EXHIBIT F

Glaser Weil Fink Jacobs
Howard Avchen &Shapiro ~~P

10250 Constellation Blvd.
19th Floor
Los Angeles, CA 90067
310.553.3000 TEL
310.556.2920 FAX
Patricia Jones Winograd

March 20, 2014

Direct Dial
310.282.6207
Direct Fax
310.785.3507
E-mail
pwinograd@glaserweil,com

VIA E-MAIL

Forrest A. Hainline, III, Esq.
Hong-An Vu, Esq.
GOODWIN PROCTER LLP
Three Embarcadero Center, 24th Floor
San Francisco, California 94111
fhainlineC~~oodwinprocter.com
hvuC~~oodwinProcter.com

Michael T. Jones, Esq.
GOODWIN PROCTER LLP
135 Commonwealth Drive
Menlo Park, California 94025-1105
mionesC~Qoodwinprocter.com

Brian W. Cook, Esq.
GOODWIN PROCTER LLP
53 State Street Exchange Place
Boston, Massachusetts 02109
bcookC~goodwinprocter.com
RE:

Le~alZoom.com, Inc. v. Rocket Lawyer Incorporated

Dear Counsel:
We write to follow up with respect to our meet and confer on Thursday, March
6, 2014, and in connection with our ongoing efforts to meet and confer with Rocket
Lawyer concerning the content and substance of its responses to discovery, to date.
1.

Information concerning Rocket Lawyer's Ads

As Rocket Lawyer knows, LegalZoom has requested information concerning the
ads run by Rocket Lawyer, including specifically the dates on which those ads ran.
You indicated in a meet and confer last month that you would inquire of your client as
to when LegalZoom could expect a full and complete response to its Interrogatory No.
4, an answer which has been outstanding since the commencement of discovery. We
appreciate your representation that Rocket Lawyer will endeavor to provide full and
complete information as soon as it can. However, unless Rocket Lawyer can produce
this information by Monday, March 24, 2014, LegalZoom requests that Rocket Lawyer
immediately agree to extend the expert discovery deadline and any other deadlines
that are impacted thereby. In the absence of Rocket Lawyer's agreement, LegalZoom
will have no choice but to move to compel and seek a court order further extending
...
TIT MERITAS LAW FIRMS WORLDWIDE

86452.2

Forrest A. Hainline, III, Esq.
Michael T. Jones, Esq.
March 20, 2014
Page 2

discovery. As Rocket Lawyer should be able to appreciate, this information is central
to Le~alZoom's case and it, like other factual information in this case, to the extent
that Rocket Lawyer has delayed in getting LegalZoom the information, impacts the
progression of this case, including expert disclosures. Please let us know no later
than close of business tomorrow whether Rocket Lawyer will agree to move the dates
if it cannot provide the requested information by the date specified above.
2.

Consumer Conversion Data

As we again articulated in our most recent meet and confer, LegalZoom also
awaits data and information concerning the number of customer conversions. Until
our last meet and confer, LegalZoom expected that this information would be
forthcoming. However, in our last meet and confer, Rocket Lawyer indicated—for the
first time—that it believed that such information was already provided in connection
with the parties' mediation last May. As Rocket Lawyer well knows, however, the
mediation data was limited in at least two respects. First, there was a date limitation
on that information; it contained only conversion data from October 12, 2011 to
March 25, 2013. Second, that data was limited to the number of customers converted
from advertisements using the term "free" but not stating "plus state filing fees" or
the equivalent.
LegalZoom's discovery requests seek broader information than provided in the
mediation in that they: (1) do not contain any date limitation; and (2) request all
information concerning consumer conversions. Specifically, LegalZoom has requested

information relating to the number of customers converted using Rocket Lawyer's
"free" advertisements and LegalZoom triggered advertisements. See LegalZoom's
Requests for Production of Documents, Nos. 49, 50. Therefore, LegalZoom believes
that it is entitled to any and all information concerning consumers who converted on
the basis of ads published by Rocket Lawyer.
Notably, for the first time, Rocket Lawyer articulated in our meet and confer
its position that there is a distinction to be drawn between Rocket Lawyer's
"external" advertisements for "free" corporations and LLCs and those appearing on
its website. In this week's email, you described this as a difference between
incorporation vs. non-incorporation ads. This distinction is neither understood nor
warranted. As you are aware, LegalZoom has alleged that all of Rocket Lawyer's false
and misleading advertisements (not only those relating to "free" corporations and
LLCs) have deceived a substantial segment of the audience exposed to it, or have the
capacity for such deception, and have, or are likely to, influence consumer purchasing
decisions. See First Amended Complaint, ¶ 22. As such, LegalZoom anticipates
receiving data, documents and information responsive to its requests relating to all

864502.2

Forrest A. Hainline, III, Esq.
Michael T. Jones, Esq.
March 20, 2014
Page 3
Rocket Lawyer ads, including specifically conversion data relating to all ads of any
sort that have been published by Rocket Lavryer in the relevant time period.
Please confirm that Rocket Lawyer will produce conversion data relating to all
of Rocket Lawyer's advertisements during the relevant period without the restrictions
recently proposed by you. Again, given the centrality of this information to our case,
we will need Rocket Lawyer's definitive position concerning whether it will provide
additional information no later than close of business tomorrow.
3.

LegalZoom's Additional Search Terms

We have done further investigation into Rocket Lawyer's additional proposed
search terms. We reiterate that the terms LegalZoom has not agreed to accept are
overly broad, already captured in searches that are well underway, duplicative or not
reasonably related to the allegations in the case or the discovery that has been
propounded by Rocket Lawyer, to date. For example, Rocket Lawyer requests that
LegalZoom add "incorpor* AND fee" and/or "State AND Fee"' to its search. Given
that Rocket Lawyer's singular allegation concerning LegalZoom's advertisements is
that they do not properly disclose state fees, it is hard to see how broad search terms
such as those are likely to lead to responsive documents within the scope of what
Rocket Lawyer has requested. LegalZoom believes that the searches it is undertaking
more than adequately cover Rocket Lawyers' contentions and requests.
Again, we have considered your request that LegalZoom add search terms
relating to Legalcenterpro, Lightwavelaw and Estateguidance; however, a search for
"Legalcenterpro," "Lightwavelaw" and "Estateguidance" without any qualifiers, as
proposed by you will be overbroad and over inclusive. Pursuant to Paragraph 42 of
Rocket Lawyer's Amended Counterclaims, Rocket Lawyer alleges that "LegalZoom has
used each of these websites to bid on search terms and ultimately place multiple
advertisements on Google and other search engines and drive supplemental Internet
traffic -and therefore consumers - to www.legalzoom.com." A search for
"L~galcenterpro," "Lightwavelaw" and "Estateguidance" with qualifiers such as
"[Google OR Bing OR Yahoo] AND [LLC OR incorporate*]," may more adequately yield
documents responsive to Rocket Lawyer's allegations without being overly broad or
inclusive. Thus, LegalZoom proposes to add the search term "[Legalcenterpro OR
Lightwavelaw OR Estateguidance] AND [Google OR Bing OR Yahoo] AND [LLC OR
incorporate']."

864502.2

Forrest A. Hainline, III, Esq.
Michael T. Jones, Esq.
March 20, 2014
Page 4
We continue to test those terms that have been proposed to ensure that we are
producing relevant and responsive documents. Please let us know if Rocket Lawyer
would like to propose anything else that LegalZoom can consider.
As before, we reserve the right to modify the search terms should we discover
that. any of the proposed terms are overly broad and/or otherwise ineffective.

Re

,

RICIA JONES WINOGRAD
for GLASER WEIL FINK JACOBS HOWARD AVCHEN ~t SHAPIRO LLP

PJW/PJW
cc:

Fred Heather, Esq.
Mary Ann T. Nguyen, Esq.

864502.2

EXHIBIT G

GQODWIN I PROCTER

Hong-An Vu
415.733.6114
HVu~goodwinprocter.com

Goodwin Procter Div
Counselors at Law
Three Embarcade►o Center
24th Floor
San Francisco, CA 94111
T: 415.733.6000
F: 415.677.9041

March 24, 2014
BY EMAIL
Patricia Jones Winograd
Glaser Weil Fink Jacobs Howard Avchen &Shapiro LLP
[e-mail]
Re:

LegalZoom.com,Inc. v. Rocket Lawyer Incorporated
LegalZoom's March 20,2014 Letter

Dear Patti,
This evening you shall receive a link to download the data we have currently been able to generate
relating to Rocket Lawyer's search engine advertisements. We will provide the rest of the data we aze
able to generate by the end of week.
We will not agree to any extension of the case deadlines and will oppose any motion requesting relief
from the Court's current scheduling order. LegalZoom has been the reason for any delay in this case.
Your demand that we provide you with all the information relating to our advertisements is
unreasonable.
First, although we have communicated our willingness to provide you the requested information, you
have been unclear and have communicated shifting requests and standards about what you want
regazding Rocket Lawyer's advertisements. We raised for you at the March 6, 2014 meet and confer our
confusion. We told you that we believed that the advertisements concerning services other than
incorporation/entity formation are only intrawebsite "advertisements." These "advertisements" can only
be produced in the ordinary course of productions because there is no way for us to generate a report of
the language we have had on our website. We asked for your guidance on whether search engine
advertisements for legal help/review and free trial services were at issue in this case. You said that you
would get back to us with references to the First Amended Complaint.
We did not hear from you for almost two weeks and so we emailed you on March 18, 2014 to update
you on our investigations and to request again the guidance you promised. You waited another two days
to respond and then, on March 20,2014, instead of providing any real guidance, you stated that you
want data on "all ads of any sort" and demanded that we produce such data in just four days(of which
two are weekend days).
Your demand provides an unreasonable amount oftime to respond, and is also a revised request seeking
information well beyond the scope of any issues in this litigation. Accordingly, we will provide you
with data relating to the services at issue in this litigation —entity formation, free trial, and free legal
help/review services — by the end ofthe week.

GOODWIN (PROCTER

Patricia Jones Winograd
March 24, 2014.
Page 2

Second, you raised for the first time in your March 20,20141etter that you also want dates for when
each Rocket Lawyer advertisement was published. In all prior conversations, you have simply requested
a "list" ofthe advertisements. This additional request makes your demand unreasonable. We have told
you time and again that some ofthe information you seek is not tracked by Rocket Lawyer. Indeed, we
have suggested several times that you consult with your client on what type of data is typically compiled
and determine specifically what information you are requesting You have never responded to this
inquiry. We are unable to provide you with the exact dates of when an advertisement was published.
But in the interest of cooperation, we will provide you the quarter for when the advertisement's
campaign was launched.
On a related note, Rocket Lawyer has also asked for and you have agreed to produce data relating to
LegalZoom's advertisements and related conversion/financial data (see Requests for Production 4-6).
And yet, you have not generated any data thus far. In addition, you have refused to run any searches
relating to one of the central advertisements at issue here — LegalZoom's incorporation or LLC
advertisements. We have found examples of your failure to disclose state fees. Your refusal to search
or propose a modified search for your incorporation/LLC advertisements is unacceptable. Please
propose an appropriate set of search terms that ensure that you are reviewing your incorporation and
LLC advertisements or we will seek guidance from the Court.
Rocket Lawyer has thus far made three productions totaling over 7,000 pages(excluding native files)
and is working on another large production to be delivered by the end ofthe week. We are diligently
reviewing documents and have met and conferred with you to get you the information you have
requested. Your lack of cooperation and unclear and overly broad requests have led to any delay that
you have experienced.
Rocket Lawyer is prepared to continue with this case as scheduled and will not agree to any extension of
the deadlines. We look forward to your next production and expect that you too will provide the
requested data and revise your search terms to comply with your discovery burden.
Sincerely,

Hong-An V u
Cc:

Fred Heather (fheather(c~,glaserweil.com)
Mary Ann T. Nguyen (mngavenna,glaserweil.com)

EXHIBIT H

Patricia Jones Winograd
Patricia Jones Winograd
Thursday, April 03, 2014 1:05 PM
'Vu, Hong-An'
Jones, Michael T; Hainline, Forrest A; Fred Heather; Mary Ann Nguyen
RE: LegalZoom_Ex Parte Application for Continuance

From:
Sent:
To:
Cc:
Subject:

Hong An:
We are in receipt of your email of yesterday's date (below).
We have considered RocketLawyer's offer to push the expert discovery deadline by seven days. Unfortunately, for the
reasons we have previously stated, we believe that additional time for the completion of expert discovery is necessary,
and will move ex parte to extend the deadline tomorrow.
That said, I respond briefly to the content of your email below. First, you clearly misunderstood my communications to
you. All I communicated was that we,of course, had not shared RocketLawyer's recent production with our client, given
that it was designated as Attorney's Eyes Only. I by no means indicated that we had not discussed the issue of
producing information concerning advertisements published by LegalZoom containing the word "free." And, your
accusation that LegalZoom has not taken its discovery obligations seriously is not well taken. In fact, LegalZoom's ads
using the word free were the subject of RocketLawyer's Interrogatory No. 12. LegalZoom responded to this
interrogatory, in full, on December 3, 2013. At no time since then has RocketLawyer ever indicated that the information
that LegalZoom provided was insufficient. To the contrary, until just days ago, RocketCawyer had refused to provide any
information responsive to LegalZoom's Interrogatory No.4 seeking information concerning RocketLawyer's ads and the
dates upon which those ads ran—a request outstanding for over a year. LegalZoom had also requested information
concerning customer conversions relating to the use of RocketLawyer's free ads. Both categories of information had
been the constant subject of our meet and confers since we propounded the discovery last year.
We maintain our position that the voluminous nature of the information that RocketLawyer has just provided, alone,
warrants an extension of the expert discovery cut-off. We note further that RocketLawyer still has not produced its
financial information and that its requests relating to LegalZoom's financial information is, insubstantial part, tied to the
information that Rocketlawyer has just disclosed—thus further warranting an extension.
Please let us know if you would reconsider an extension of the expert discovery deadline in line with our request
Thanks,

'~+1~.
~ir~w~r~$ rL.~khi~. r.

i , ;rs'e ie3

Patricia Jones Winograd
10250 Constellation Blvd., 19th Floor, Los Angeles, CA 90067
Main: 310.553.3000 ~ Direct:310.282.6207~ Fax: [phone]
E-Mail: pwino~rad@~laserweil.com ~ www.elaserweil.com
-~~
This message and any attached documentsmay contain information from the law firm of Glaser Weil Fink Jacobs Howard Avchen &Shapiro LLP that is confidential
and/or privileged. If you are not the intended recipient, you may not read, copy, distribute or use this information. If you have received this transmission in error,
please notify the sender immediately by reply e-mail and then delete this message.

From: Vu, Hong-An [mailto:[e-mail]]
Sent: Wednesday, April 02, 2014 4:42 PM
To: Patricia ]ones Winograd
Cc: Jones, Michael T; Hainline, Forrest A; Fred Heather; Mary Ann Nguyen
Subject: RE: LegalZoom_Ex Parte Application for Continuance

Patti:
Thank you for calling me back regarding the extension. As stated, we are willing to increase the extension to seven days,
but no more. Rocket Lawyer is ready to proceed with fact and expert discovery and to litigate this case.
There are a couple of issues that concerned me. First, when I asked whether we will receive from your clients something
similar to the we data produced on March 24 and 28, you said that you will have to ask them whether they are able to
generate similar information because they have not been in the loop about the discussions regarding producing
advertisements. Had you done so earlier, we would not have wasted the last month trying to obtain clarity from you
about what you wanted, when you did not even understand what you were requesting. Furthermore, the fact that you
have nat yet begun working with your client to identify and produce the information we requested more than a year ago
underscores the fact that you and your client are not taking yaur discovery obligations seriously.
Second, you stated that you were surprised by the volume of data that was produced and that you need 3-4 weeks to
process and absorb this data. As we have explained to you in multiple meet and confer sessions and correspondence,
the overwhelming majority of our advertisements are search engine ads. Given the nature of search engine
advertisements, a large amount of data should have been expected. Although the ad copy itself is similar across mast of
the ads, because many of the ads are state specific, use slightly different language, and/ar cover several years, they add
up. This, too, you could have learned from your client. This was a reason why we objected to giving you data relating to
all free advertisements on all services —you did not allege anything about other services, and the amount of data to
review and produce would certainty be overly burdensome as you admitted that the amount of data already produced is
incredible. Also, you should node that we produced this information to you in a form that is searchable, sortable, and
filterable which allows for more efficient analysis.
Finally, as explained an our call, we are reviewing for what you would consider an "advertisement" and will produce
what is responsive in the ordinary course. Rocket Lawyer is an Internet company and most of its advertisements are an
the web. It likely does not have ad copy and layouts like what you are envisioning in terms of traditional advertising.
Regarding advertisements on Rocketlawyer.com, as we have discussed, the website is constantly changing — as is
LegaiZoom.com. We will provide to you historic screenshots that we have, but like I said, LegaiZoom probably cannot
give us the exact landing page it had an a specific day. We are reviewing far screenshots and will produce to you what is
available and within a reasonable interpretation of the discovery burden in this case. If you want historic webpages, you
may also want to check www.archive.org which is a third party website that has historic screenshots of many popular
websites. But even this website whose sale purpose is to archive webpages does not have historic landing pages as you
have requested.
Please let us know if you are willing to accept a one week extension. Otherwise, we will need to brief this matter for the
Court.
Regards,
Hong-An

Hong-An Vu
Goodwin Procter LLP
Three Embarcadero Center, 24th Floor
San Francisco, CA 94111
T: 415-733-6114
F: 415-677-9041
hvu(u~goodwinprocter.com
www.goodwin procter.com

From: Vu, Hong-An
Sent: Wednesday, April 02, 2014 3:12 PM
To: [e-mail]; Patricia Jones Winograd (pwinograd glaserweil.com)
Cc: Jones, Michael T; Hainline, Forrest A ([e-mail]); [e-mail]
Subject: FW: LegalZoom_Ex Parte Application for Continuance
Mary Ann and Patti:
When you originally requested an extension, it was contingent upon us producing the ad data to you by March 24,
2008. We provided you some data by March 24, and the rest of the data on March 28. Given this timeline, we are
willing to agree to a four-day extension of the expert disclosure deadline. We do not agree that all case deadlines need
to be moved.
Please let us know if you are agreeable to this short extension.
Thanks,
Hong-An

Hong-An Vu
Goodwin Procter LLP
Three Embarcadero Center, 24th Floor
San Francisco, CA 94111
T: 415-733-6114
F: 415-677-9041
hvu~goodwinprocter.com
www.Qoodwin Procter.com

From: Mary Ann Nguyen [mailto:Mnguyen(a~glaserweil.com]
Sent: Wednesday, April 02, 2014 8:51 AM
To: Hainline, Forrest A; Jones, Michael T; Vu, Hong-An; Cook, Brian W
Cc: Fred Heather; Patricia Jones Winograd
Subject: LegalZoom_Ex Parte Application for Continuance
Counsel:
Please be advised that, pursuant to our prior communications with you, LegalZoom intends to and will apply ex parte for
a continuance of the trial and related dates set in the Court's January 22, 2014 order for good cause tomorrow morning.
You previously stated that you will oppose any such ex parte application. Please let us know if your position has
changed.
Regards,

~~r'
k w~~ hv~t:e,~ ~ 5t~.~~~rr, ;:.r
~

Mary Ann T. Nguyen ~ Associate
10250 Constellation Blvd., 19th Floor, Los Angeles, CA 90067
Main: 310.553.3000 ~ Direct: 310.556.7809 ~ Fax: [phone]
E-Mail: mn~uven@~laserweil.com ~ www.~laserweil.com

This message and any attached documents may contain information from the law firm of Glaser Weil Fink Jacobs Howard Avchen &Shapiro LLP
that is confidential and/or privileged. If you are not the intended recipient, you may not read, copy, distribute or use this information. If you have
received this transmission in error, please notify the sender immediately by reply e-mail and then delete this message.

******************************************************************

IRS CIRCULAR 230 DISCLOSURE: To ensure compliance with requirements imposed by the IRS, we inform
you that any U.S. tax advice contained in this communication (including any attachments) is not intended or
written to be used, and cannot be used,for the purpose of(i) avoiding penalties under the Internal Revenue
Code or (ii) promoting, marketing or recommending to another party any transaction or matter addressed herein.
*******************************************************************
This message is intended only for the designated recipient(s). It may contain confidential or proprietary
information and may be subject to the attorney-client privilege or other confidentiality protections. If you are
not a designated recipient, you may not review, copy or distribute this message. If you receive this in error,
please notify the sender by reply e-mail and delete this message. Thank you.
*******************************************************************