LegalZoom.com Inc v. Rocket Lawyer Incorporated

Filing 52

ROCKET LAWYER INCORPORATEDS'OPPOSITION re: 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 51 filed by Defendant Rocket Lawyer Incorporated. (Attachments: # 1 DECLARATION OF HONG-AN VU IN SUPPORT OF ROCKET LAWYER'S OPPOSITION TO EX PARTE APPLICATION TO CONTINUE TRIAL AND RELATED DATES W/ EX A-G)(Vu, Hong-An)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11

Forrest A. Hainline III (SBN 64166)
[e-mail]
Hong-An Vu (SBN 266268)
[e-mail]
GOODWIN PROCTER LLP
Three Embarcadero Center, 24th Floor
San Francisco, California 94111
Tel.: [phone]
Fax.: [phone]
Michael T. Jones (SBN 290660)
[e-mail]
GOODWIN PROCTER LLP
135 Commonwealth Drive
Menlo Park, California 94025-1105
Tel.: [phone]
Fax.: [phone]
Attorneys for Defendant
ROCKET LAWYER INCORPORATED

12

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

13

CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

14

WESTERN DIVISION

15
16
17

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

18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

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

Case No. 2:12-cv-09942-GAF-AGR
DECLARATION OF HONG-AN VU
IN SUPPORT OF ROCKET
LAWYER'S OPPOSITION TO EX
PARTE APPLICATION TO
CONTINUE TRIAL AND RELATED
DATES
Judge:
Courtroom:

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

DECLARATION OF HONG-AN VU

1
2

I, Hong-An Vu, declare as follows:

3

1.

I am an associate at Goodwin Procter LLP, counsel of record for

4

defendant and counterclaimant Rocket Lawyer Incorporated (“Rocket Lawyer”). I

5

submit this declaration in support of Rocket Lawyer’s Opposition to the Ex Parte

6

Application to Continue Trial and Related Dates filed by LegalZoom.com, Inc.

7

(“LegalZoom”). I am over the age of 18 years. Unless otherwise indicated, I have

8

personal knowledge of the matters stated herein and, if called upon to do so, I could

9

and would competently testify to them under oath.

10

2.

On August 23, 2013 and September 4, 2013 when LegalZoom filed its

11

summary judgment motions, the parties had not yet responded to written discovery

12

or produced a single document.

13

3.

Attached hereto as Exhibit A is an online article published on

14

techcrunch.com, and downloaded by me on October 18, 2013, in which LegalZoom

15

states that “we did not expect to win at [the summary judgment] stage.”

16

4.

The parties engaged in numerous meet and confer sessions in fall of

17

2013 in order to resolve ongoing discovery issues, including settling upon mutually

18

agreeable search terms lists and agreeing on a means of exchanging data.

19

5.

Whereas, during the course of the fall 2013 meet and confers, Rocket

20

Lawyer ultimately agreed to search over 70 terms—including most of the terms that

21

LegalZoom proposed—LegalZoom delayed in providing a list of terms that it would

22

be willing to search, ignored Rocket Lawyer’s requests to expand the list of terms,

23

and ultimately refused to search most of the additional terms suggested by Rocket

24

Lawyer. LegalZoom also ignored Rocket Lawyer’s request that the parties discuss

25

providing financial data. Attached hereto as Exhibit B is a letter sent by Rocket

26

Lawyer to LegalZoom on December 20, 2013, summarizing the status of various

27

discovery matters.

28

ACTIVE/72125766.2

1

6.

On January 8, 2014, I attended a meet and confer between the parties,

2

during which LegalZoom agreed to consider possible search terms and provide

3

Rocket Lawyer with a response regarding acceptable search terms.

4

7.

On January 16, 2014, LegalZoom requested to meet and confer

5

regarding timing of production of Rocket Lawyer advertising data, including ad

6

copy and performance data relating to such ads. LegalZoom had not raised the issue

7

of advertisements or data since its November 5, 2013 letter, which had prompted

8

Rocket Lawyer to supplement its Interrogatory responses and prioritize its search

9

and review of documents relating to advertisements and LegalZoom, to be produced

10
11

in the ordinary course of discovery.
8.

The parties made their first productions on January 28, 2014. Rocket

12

Lawyer’s production included emails concerning advertisements, discussions

13

regarding ad copy language, landing pages, and other information requested by

14

LegalZoom.

15

9.

Attached hereto as Exhibit C and Exhibit D are communications sent

16

by Rocket Lawyer to LegalZoom on February 5, 2014 (with confidential exhibits

17

removed) and November 27, 2013, respectively, in which Rocket Lawyer expressed

18

concerns regarding LegalZoom’s delay of the discovery process.

19

10.

Attached hereto as Exhibit E is a letter sent by LegalZoom to Rocket

20

Lawyer on February 14, 2014, rejecting nearly all search terms as had been

21

proposed by Rocket Lawyer to that point, and refusing to review or produce

22

documents relating to non-Rocket Lawyer keyword bidding and LegalZoom’s

23

affiliate program. LegalZoom even rejected searching for “LLC and fee” and

24

“Incorpora* and Fee,” ads central to this dispute, and did not provide other

25

suggestions to capture the responsive advertisements as requested by Rocket Lawyer

26

in its December 20 letter.

27
28

11.

On February 25, 2014, I attended a meet and confer with counsel for

LegalZoom, during which LegalZoom requested that Rocket Lawyer provide hard
-2-

1

copy advertisements believed to be kept in a binder at the Rocket Lawyer offices.

2

Rocket Lawyer informed LegalZoom that there was no such hard copy file of all

3

advertisements, but that it would work try to generate and provide a list of search

4

engine advertisements. Rocket Lawyer also explained that advertisements that

5

appear only on Rocketlawyer.com, such as landing pages, have to be reviewed and

6

produced in the ordinary course of production to the extent they exist. Rocket

7

Lawyer requested that LegalZoom identify the data that they would like to be

8

included in the list, and LegalZoom agreed to do so.

9

12.

Attached hereto as Exhibit F is an email I sent to counsel for

10

LegalZoom on February 28, 2014, suggesting that the mediation communications

11

that had been exchanged earlier in this matter would assist counsel in better

12

understanding what they are requesting from Rocket Lawyer.

13

13.

On March 3, 2014, Rocket Lawyer made its second production,

14

whereas on March 4, 2014, LegalZoom finally re-produced its first production with

15

metadata.

16

14.

On March 6, 2014, I attended a meet and confer between the parties,

17

which was focused in part on determining what information LegalZoom wanted in a

18

list of search engine advertisements, and during which Rocket Lawyer requested

19

that counsel consult with LegalZoom to learn how internet marketing data is tracked

20

and to understand what information it needs from Rocket Lawyer. LegalZoom’s

21

counsel promised to provide clarity regarding the scope of its request for search

22

engine advertisements.

23

15.

Attached hereto as Exhibit G is an email I sent to LegalZoom counsel

24

on March 18, 2014, advising LegalZoom that Rocket Lawyer was working to

25

generate the requested list of search engine advertisements, and requesting the

26

promised guidance regarding the scope of LegalZoom’s request for a list of

27

advertisements.

28
-3-

1

16.

2

18, 2014.

3

17.

4
5

Rocket Lawyer also made its third production of documents on March

On March 21, 2014, LegalZoom made its second production of

documents to Rocket Lawyer.
18.

On March 24, 2014, Rocket Lawyer produced three spreadsheets, Bates

6

RLI0007916-0007918, containing search engine advertisement data including ad

7

copy, click rates, conversion rates, costs, and the quarter in which an ad was

8

published in Excel files that are searchable, sortable, and filterable. Rocket Lawyer

9

provided its free advertisements for the relevant services regardless of whether the

10

advertisement was placed on any search term that had a combination of “legal” and

11

“zoom,” or whether the free advertisement disclosed any applicable state fees.

12

Rocket Lawyer included in the March 24 production separate sheets containing data

13

relating to the advertisements on LegalZoom Keywords. Many of the

14

advertisements included on the spreadsheets are similar, with only small variations

15

in language. LegalZoom can calculate the total number of conversions that have

16

resulted from the advertisements by sorting on a particular column.

17

19.

Rocket Lawyer also sent a letter March 24, 2014 explaining the data

18

content and suggested that LegalZoom counsel consult with their client in order to

19

better understand how advertising data is actually tracked. This letter informed

20

LegalZoom that the rest of the data will be produced by March 28, 2014 and that

21

Rocket Lawyer would oppose any request to continue case deadlines.

22

20.

On March 28, 2014, at approximately 3:00 p.m., Rocket Lawyer

23

produced the second volume of data spreadsheets, Bates RLI0007919-0007925, as

24

well as more than 700 additional responsive documents. LegalZoom counsel

25

contacted Rocket Lawyer counsel via email on March 31, 2014, to inform Rocket

26

Lawyer that they were unable to access the documents produced on March 28, as

27

they had misplaced their file access password.

28
-4-

21.

1

LegalZoom has requested that Rocket Lawyer provide historic

2

screenshots of Rocket Lawyer’s website. To the extent that historic screenshots of

3

RocketLawyer.com exist, they are captured in searches that Rocket Lawyer has

4

performed, and will be reviewed and produced to LegalZoom if responsive.
22.

5

On April 2, 2014, I spoke with LegalZoom counsel regarding

6

LegalZoom’s request for an extension of time within which to complete discovery.

7

During this telephone conference, Ms. Winograd informed me that she had not

8

asked her client what data they tracked in search engine advertising; she was

9

surprised by the volume of Rocket Lawyer’s productions and needed more time to

10

review them; and that she had not investigated whether her client has historic copies

11

of its website, despite seeking “historic screenshots” from Rocket Lawyer.
23.

12

On April 4, 2014, Rocket Lawyer produced over 4,000 documents,

13

Bates RLI0009980-0015440. At 6:23 p.m. on April 4, LegalZoom produced two

14

pages of documents containing a summary of its quarterly revenue and spend related

15

to advertising.
24.

16

To date, Rocket Lawyer has produced over 7,000 documents (over

17

15,400 pages not including native files) and is preparing another few thousand

18

documents for production the week of April 7, 2014. Rocket Lawyer has also

19

produced ten spreadsheets with data relating to over one million of its search engine

20

advertisements over the last five years.
25.

21

To date, LegalZoom has produced just over 1,000 documents,

22

comprising approximately 2,600 pages. At least 150 of these pages are either blank

23

or contain only company logos.
26.

24

LegalZoom has expressed a desire to take depositions and has

25

anticipated a motion to compel for months, but has not noticed or discussed

26

scheduling for any depositions or moved to compel.

27

///

28

///
-5-

1
2

27.

Rocket Lawyer is prepared to proceed under the current discovery and

trial schedule.

3
4
5

I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California
that the foregoing is true and correct. Executed on this 7th day of April, 2014.

6
7
/s/ Hong-An Vu
HONG-AN VU

8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
-6-

EXHIBIT A

EXHIBIT A

Page 1 of 5

News

TCTV Events



ANNNOUNCEMENT Nominate your favorite companies, products, and people for Crunchies!

Advertising Tech

LegalZoom

rocket lawyer

Is Rocket Lawyer Free To Use ‘Free’? Court Denies
Rival LegalZoom Its Motion For Summary Judgment,
Orders Trial For False Ad Claims
Posted Oct 18, 2013 by Ingrid Lunden (@ingridlunden)


3

Like

22

Tweet

55

0



Next Story

Another development in the case between rivals Rocket Lawyer, the online legal services startup,
and LegalZoom, which is suing Rocket Lawyer over claims of false advertising and other Federal
Trade Commission violations. The court has denied LegalZoom’s motion for a summary judgment
in the case and ordered it to trial. Judge Gary Allen Feess, of the U.S. District Court for the Central
District of California, says that LegalZoom “has failed to carry its burden” for a motion for summary
judgment in trying to prove that a consumer would be misled by Rocket Lawyer’s ads — specifically
those offering services claimed as free.
Judge Feess writes: “…a reasonable jury could conclude that when considered as a whole,
Defendant’s advertisements represent only the free processing and filing fees that a customer can
obtain with a free trial, and do not deceptively conceal the state incorporation fees. When viewed
in this context, Defendant’s advertisements are not false, but rather are a truthful promotion of its
free trial that could potentially distinguish its services from other companies by allowing
customers to incorporate without paying any processing and filing fees.”
This does not mean that LegalZoom has lost the case; just that it will have to go to full trial to be
decided.
We’ve embedded the full ruling below.
The case goes back about a year, to November 2012, when LegalZoom first filed its complaint,
which covered a number of claimed violations of FTC regulations, including trademark
infringement and unfair competition.

EXHIBIT A -7http://techcrunch.com/2013/10/18/rocket-lawyer-legalzoom/

12/5/2013

Page 2 of 5

Today’s ruling focuses specifically on the advertising and the “free” claims made by Rocket Lawyer,
with reference not just to how they are not really free claims but to how they potentially put
LegalZoom into a negative light, with statements like “Zoom Charges $99, We’re Free.” The Judge
deemed that the jury will be able to decide whether Rocket Lawyer is transparent in what it is
offering to users. For example, as in the above statement:
“It is true that a customer can save the $99 charged by Plaintiff for its processing and filing
fee by enrolling in the free trial offered by Defendant. And this comparison is further explained
on Defendant’s website through a chart that presents a side-by-side comparison of the
various prices associated with incorporation, including processing fees and state fees, that
are charged by both Defendant and a ‘Competitor.’”
“LegalZoom’s motion was unsupported legally and factually,” noted Forrest Hainline, counsel for
Rocket Lawyer. “LegalZoom’s lawsuit attempts to misuse competition laws to protect its
uncompetitive market position.”
LegalZoom has also provided us with a statement from Chas Rampenthal, its general counsel:
“The overall goals of our lawsuit have already been achieved – Rocket Lawyer has removed
their deceptive statements regarding ‘free filings’ from all their online advertising. We
continue our lawsuit to protect consumers and obtain a ruling that prevents Rocket Lawyer
from reverting back to their false and misleading advertising in the future. The Court’s ruling
this week was simply a procedural decision. While it would have been nice to end the case
early and it was worth taking a shot, we did not expect to win at this stage. The judge has
ordered that this case proceed to trial and we look forward to asking a jury whether they
believe Rocket Lawyer’s ads that stated “Incorporate for Free … Pay No Fees ($0)” meant
customers could incorporate for free and would pay no fees.”
LegalZoom has been around since 1999 and has itself been a disruptive force in the market by
offering users online legal services for a fraction of the price that it might cost to get the same
paperwork done by a physical lawyer. Services include legal help with starting businesses but also
personal work, such as filing for a divorce online. It has raised $66 million in funding and has filed
for a $120 million IPO.
Rocket Lawyer has been around since 2008. While LegalZoom charges for forms, Rocket Lawyer
has gone after disrupting that model by making forms free and charging for legal and advisory
services around getting them completed. It has raised just over $53 million.
“Our mission is to make the law affordable and simple enough for everyone to to benefit from the
protections of our legal system,” noted Charley Moore, Founder of Rocket Lawyer, in a statement.
“We are willing and able to continue to fight for access to low-cost legal services, even when a
bigger competitor like LegalZoom comes along to try to maintain the status quo. We applaud the
decision of the court today as it validates our commitment to delivering the legal services people
need in a way they can both afford and understand.”
Note: We have updated the story with more clarification on the case; specifically that this is not the
end and that the case is still going to trial. The date has not yet been set.

EXHIBIT A -8http://techcrunch.com/2013/10/18/rocket-lawyer-legalzoom/

12/5/2013

Page 3 of 5

Case 2:12-cv-09942-GAF-AGR Documen

UNITED STAT
CENTRAL DIST
CIVIL MIN

SHOW ME MORE LIKE FEESS ORDER 1017
SIMILAR TO FEESS ORDER 1017
BACK TO DOC
More from TechCrunch
Previous | Next
Ditto Motion To Dismiss
TechCrunch
Ditto Court Order
TechCrunch
Complaint.pintrips.finaL (00026704)
TechCrunch
Weneedtoknow Transparency Bills Support Letter
TechCrunch
airbnb vs nyc
TechCrunch
CPUC Ridesharing
TechCrunch
Telecoms Regulation Final Text
TechCrunch
View this document on Scribd

Image: Flickr

ADVERTISEMENT

CrunchBase
LegalZoom
FOUNDED

December 1999

TOTAL FUNDING
$66M

OVERVIEW

LegalZoom is the nation’s most recognized name in law,
the alternative to the traditional law firm. The leading
provider of online legal document services and legal
plans to families and small businesses, LegalZoom offers
high quality, affordable legal services, marrying cuttingedge technology with access to experienced attorneys.
LegalZoom was founded on the idea that all Americans
deserve …

WEBSITE
http://www.legalzoom.com/

Full profile for LegalZoom

Related Videos







Ostrich Pillow | Fly or Die

EXHIBIT A -9http://techcrunch.com/2013/10/18/rocket-lawyer-legalzoom/

12/5/2013

Page 4 of 5

Famo.Us Demos New Open Source
Development Platform

Bonaverde Kickstarts It’s Roast, Grind, &
Brew Machine

8:37

More Related Videos

3 comments
Sign in

+ Follow

Post comment as...

Newest | Oldest | Popular

Montanafreedom

Oct 18, 2013

Stupid judge, stupid legal system. Easy lawsuit. If someone says their product is free, it should cost nothing to use. If this is
not what RocketLawyer is advertising, then they should not be able to use the word free. To many products on the internet say
they are free, until you get to the end when they have some kind of fee and they want your credit card number. Here again,
lawyers are making things complicated so you have to pay a lawyer to understand. Just like our tax system and anything else
lawyers have their hand in.
Reply 2

nitemare004

Like

Nov 1, 2013

@Montanafreedom When you offer a FREE TRIAL (which they do) then they have no choice but to use the words
free, no charge, $0 and also explain that it is only for the trial (which they do). If you search legalzoom you will find a
lot of "scam" "bad service" etc. results but if you search Rocketlawyer you don't. I've never heard of a positive
customer review about Legal Zoom. I know Legal zoom was there first but it's not their say to prevent similar
businesses, especially if they can offer more. They should be happy that the niche isn't saturated. If you watch
commercials you ALWAYS see companies claiming to be better than another specific company, this is competition,
you clearly don't own a big enough franchise to know how it is out there in the real world... Stupid judge? You must be
way too young and/or uneducated to understand how court systems work, really.
Reply Like

JasonM.Lemkin

Oct 18, 2013

Good for RocketLawyer. Litigation is a flawed strategy when companies are at this growth phase.
Reply 1

Like

Powered by Livefyre

UP NEXT

Wishberg Raises $150K To Help Users Achieve Their Goals
Posted Oct 18, 2013
POPULAR ARTICLES

Bitcoin Back Over $1K After Chinese Ban,
BofA Comments, And Greenspan Mockery
Posted 1 hour ago

BlackBerry Messenger Directory Search App
Lands On Android & Charts Uptick In
BBM Interest
Posted 1 hour ago

Microsoft Sheds $12B In Market Cap On
News That Ford’s Alan Mulally Won’t Be Its
Next CEO

Twitter Announces “Tailored Audiences”
For Ad Retargeting
Posted 1 hour ago

Posted 1 hour ago

Brace Launches Dropbox-Powered Hosting
Solution For Static Sites
Posted 1 hour ago

http://techcrunch.com/2013/10/18/rocket-lawyer-legalzoom/

EXHIBIT A -1012/5/2013

Page 5 of 5

Data Portability Win! Google Now Lets You
Export All Your Gmail & Calendar Data Via
Google Takeout
Posted 2 hours ago

Microsoft Launches Bing Maps Preview
With High-Res 3D Imagery
Posted 2 hours ago

CrunchBoard
Job Listings
Senior Software Engineer (Backend)
PayScale

Director of Sales
CrowdTwist

Technical Lead Architect - Bitbucket
Atlassian

Lead Systems Administrator - Bitbucket
Atlassian

Product Engineer
Klout

More from CrunchBoard

About

International

News

Staff

China

TCTV

Contact Us

Europe

Events

Advertise With Us

Japan

CrunchBase

Send Us A Tip

Follow TechCrunch

TechCrunch Apps

Subscribe to CrunchDaily
Latest headlines delivered to you daily
SUBSCRIBE
© 2013 AOL Inc. All rights reserved. Aol Tech Privacy Policy Anti Harassment Policy Terms of Service Powered by WordPress.com VIP Fonts by

EXHIBIT A -11http://techcrunch.com/2013/10/18/rocket-lawyer-legalzoom/

12/5/2013

EXHIBIT B

EXHIBIT B

EXHIBIT B -12-

EXHIBIT B -13-

EXHIBIT B -14-

EXHIBIT B -15-

EXHIBIT B -16-

EXHIBIT B -17-

EXHIBIT B -18-

EXHIBIT A
 free w/2 help w/4 local w/6 attorneys
"$0 Fees"
"better business bureau" AND complaint
"Customer complaints"
"Free incorporation"
"Free legal review"
"Free LLC"
"Free Trial" w/20 "trial period"
"Free trial" w/20 advertis* 
"Free trial" w/20 cancel* 
"Free trial" w/20 complain* 
"Free trial" w/20 confus* 
"Free trial" w/20 enroll* 
"Free trial" w/20 Misle* 
"Free trial" w/20 true 
"Free trial" w/20 understand*
"Free" campaign
"Negative option"
"no fee"
"on call" AND (terms w/2 service)
"on call" and terms w/2 service w/2 modify
"Pay no fees"
"state fee*"
"State fees"
advertis* and confus*
advertis* and misle*
Advertis* w/20 "free trial"
advertis* w/20 "legal review"
Advertis* w/20 incorporation
advertis* w/20 LLC
Advertising campaign
Advertising plan
Advertising policy
Advertising strategy
BBB AND Complaint
Better Business Bureau and complaint
Complaint* w/20 "free help" 
Complaint* w/20 "free legal review"
Complaint* w/20 "free trial" 
Complaint* w/20 incorporation 
Consumer Complaint 
Consumer confusion
EXHIBIT B -19-

consumer deception
Consumer survey
Customer confusion
Disclo* w/20 condition
Disclo* w/20 policy
Estateguidance
False advertising
Federal Trade Commission
fee w/20 confus*
fee w/20 misle*
Free w/20 advertis*
Free w/20 confus*
Free w/20 misle*
free w/2 incorporate
Free w/20 understand*
Free w/20 True
FTC and complaint
Giggy
Legalcenterpro
Legalspring
LegalZoom
Legalzoom
Misleading advertising
Pricing plan
Pricing policy
Pricing strategy
travis
www.estateguidance.com
www.legalcenterpro.com
www.legalzoomer.com
www.lightwavelaw.com
Zoom
Zoom AND charge
Zoom AND cost
Zoom AND fee
Zoom AND incorporat*

EXHIBIT B -20-

EXHIBIT C

EXHIBIT C

EXHIBIT C -21-

EXHIBIT C -22-

EXHIBIT C -23-

EXHIBIT C -24-

EXHIBIT D

EXHIBIT D

From:
Sent:
To:
Cc:
Subject:

Vu, Hong-An
Wednesday, November 27, 2013 5:18 PM
Patricia Jones Winograd ([e-mail])
Jones, Michael T
RLI/LZ - Meet and Confer Follow-up

Patti: 

As discussed yesterday, we will agree to your request to extend the date to supplement discovery responses to Tuesday, 
December 2, but we cannot agree to any additional extensions.  We would like to move discovery along so that the 
parties have sufficient time to complete discovery, including expert discovery, and to also engage in any additional 
dispositive motion practice before the motions deadline. 

Also as discussed, we will produce the BBB and BCA documents to you sometime the first week of December.  All of 
these documents will be stamped “confidential” and Bates stamped BBB or BCA. 

We are still deciding when to have the hearing on our motion for leave to amend.  However, since there will likely  be 
some briefing in December, we are amenable to moving Mr. Giggy’s deposition to January. 

 Hope you have a nice Thanksgiving. 

Hong‐An 

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

1

EXHIBIT D -25-

EXHIBIT E

EXHIBIT E

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

February 14, 2014

Direct Dial
310.282.6207
Direct Fax
310.785.3507
E-mail
pwinograd@glaserweiIsom

VIA E-MAIL AND FIRST CLASS MAIL

Forrest A. Hainline, III, Esq.
Honk-An Vu, Esq.
GOODWIN PROCTER LLP
Three Embarcadero Center, 24th Floor
San Francisco, California 94111
RE:

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

Meet and Confer with RocketLawyer

Dear Counsel:
We write in furtherance of our multiple meet and confers and in connection
with a number of outstanding discovery issues. Please know that we are open to
discuss the content of this letter and the position taken herein if you feel it would be
fruitful.
I.

INITIAL PRODUCTION
A.

CONTENT

RocketLawyer appears to take issue with the content of Le~alZoom's initial
production. Although we appreciate your interest in documents concerning Travis
Gi~gy, the fact that LegalZoom's initial production did not contain documents relating
to Travis Gi~gy should not be regarded as a disregard for discovery or a failure, in any
way, to comply with discovery. As you know, the parties agreed to start with a small
production of approximately 200 documents. Le~alZoom acted in accordance with
this agreement. We have no doubt that what we have both commenced will continue
without significant problems.
With respect to your accusation that the production contained a "large number
of duplicate and blank pages" and many that are "indecipherable," we must disagree.
We have re-reviewed that production in light of your comments and have found only 8
such documents that appear to involve some difficulties with legibility. Insofar as we
have been able to discern, those documents that appeared indecipherable contained
some encoding that was not picked up by our document management system. We are
re-running the production to include copies of those eight documents that are legible.
Moreover, that production, as well as subsequent productions, will also include all of
rMERITAS LAW FIRMS WORLDWIDE
T~
848682.3

EXHIBIT E -26-

Forrest A. Hainline, III, Esq.
Michael T. Jones, Esq.
February 14, 2014
Page 2

the agreed-upon metadata as described in your November 15, 2013, letter. Our
apologies for having inadvertently omitted this information in the first batch. We will
also ensure—to the best of our ability—that our future production is not plagued with
any similar problems.
Finally, concerning our search, you have asked that we confirm the list of
search terms that we are utilizing, or have utilized, in connection with our review
process. The following represents the list of those custodians and search terms,
including those which we have agreed to adopt, that forms the basis of our past and
continuing production:
Custodians:
i.
ii.
iii.
iv.
v.
vi.
vii.
viii.
ix.
x.
xi.
xii.
xiii.
xiv.

Brian Liu,
Dorian Quispe,
Edward Hartman,
Scott MacDonell,
Matthew Withers,
Travis Giggy,
Sheila Tan,
John Suh,
Chas Rampenthal
Patty Chikamagalur
Chyna Smith
Frank Monestere
Jeremy Vernassal
Peter Prucnel

Search Terms:
Rocket Lawyer
Travis AND/OR Giggy
LegalSpring
Free AND advertis*
(Federal Trade Commission AND/OR FTC) AND Le~alZoom AND advertis*
(Federal Trade Commission AND/OR FTC) AND Le~alZoom AND market*
Free AND trial
Domain AND Registr*
Free AND pric*
"Don't Trust Free"
"Negative Option Plan"

848682.3

EXHIBIT E -27-

Forrest A. Hainline, III, Esq.
Michael T. Jones, Esq.
February 14, 2014
Pale 3

Press release AND Rocket Lawyer
Free and LawDepot
Keyword and LawDepot
RLI or RL
Review AND [Confus* OR Misle* OR False OR Advert* OR *Understand* Bad OR
Rebut*]
Policy and Yahoo, Bing, or Google
BBB or "Better Business Bureau" AND Complaint
Complaint* AND advertis*
Complaint* AND market*
Complaint* AND LegalSpring

We know that this list does not reflect a wholesale adoption of all of RocketLawyer's
proposed search terms. We have adopted all of the search terms, which we, in good
faith, believe will adequately yield responsive documents in accordance with the
document requests propounded by RocketLawyer, to date. We are amenable to
meeting and conferring further about the other search terms requested in your
December 18, 2013, correspondence and the reasons why you believe they are
necessary and/or fall within the ambit of the discovery requests.
Moreover, because LegalZoom's collection is ongoing, 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.
B.

TIMEFRAME

With regard to the date range of the requested documents, as we have
previously explained, on account of LegalZoom's in house technology systems, and
changes thereto, ESI generated prior to 2010 is largely inaccessible. The availability
of ESI prior to 2010 depends upon the extent to which individuals, consistent with and
within the parameters of LegalZoom's record management program, manually saved
data. For purposes of the searches identified above, Le~alZoom will agree to perform
individual searches of each of the agreed-upon custodians to see if any responsive
documents exist, provided that RocketLawyer agree to produce its documents dating
back to 2008 irrespective of whether Le~alZoom's search yields responsive
documents. Indeed, the lack of availability of information sought is not itself a
reason for RocketLawyer to refuse to provide relevant information in accordance with
the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. To the extent that it becomes necessary,
LegalZoom will seek the court's intervention in seeking all RocketLawyer responsive

848682.3

EXHIBIT E -28-

Forrest A. Hainline, III, Esq.
Michael T. Jones, Esq.
February 14, 2014
Page 4

documents dating back to at least 2008. Please confirm that RocketLawyer will
conduct a search dating back to 2008 using all of the agreed-upon search terms.
II.

TRAVIS GIGGY AND LEGALSPRING

RocketLawyer Sias requested a variety of information concerning LegalSpring
and Travis Gig~y. Among other things, RocketLawyer has asked for communications
and/or documents concerning Mr. Gi~~y and Legalsprin~, contracts reflecting the
relationship between Mr. Giggy and Le~alspring with LegalZoom and information
concerning payments made to Mr. Giggy whether in connection with Le~alspring. To
the extent that RocketLawyer is making an issue of Travis Giggy's relationship with
LegalZoom, as a principal of the entity Legalspring, LegalZoom is willing to provide
correspondence relating to Le~alSpring and/or Mr. Gi~~y.
However, as RocketLawyer is well aware, Travis Giggy has not been an
employee of LegalZoom for many years, and, in any event, the fact of Mr. Gig~y's
employment with Le~alZoom is NOT an issue in this litigation. Moreover, given
RocketLawyer's failure to articulate any reasonable basis for seeking information
relating to Mr. Giggy's employment, LegalZoom will not produce any additional
correspondence unless RocketLawyer can be more precise than simply demanding the
catch-all "all documents and communications with or concerning Mr. Giggy and
LegalSprin~.com" for all time (which arguably seeks every document within the
organization dating back to the beginning of Mr. Giggy's employment). That said, as
stated above, please understand that files belonging to (received and/or generated
by) Travis Giggy prior to 2010 are not believed to exist any longer.
Le~alZoom will also provide any agreements that exist between Legalspring
and LegalZoom or Mr. Giggy and Le~alZoom having to do with their affiliate
relationship. Finally, Le~alZoom is willing to, and will, provide information
concerning payments Travis Gig~y received through, and in connection with, his
affiliation with Legalsprin~ and no more.
However, LegalZoom will not provide any IRS and state tax filings that it has
submitted concerning LegalSpring or Mr. Giggy. As RocketLawyer should already
know, California courts have created a specific privilege applicable to the disclosure
of tax filings, a privilege that is applied by federal courts when adjudicating issues of
California law. RocketLawyer has not articulated any compelling interest here.
Moreover, lesser intrusive means are available. As RocketLawyer itself admits, the
ONLY reason Rocket Lawyer has been able to proffer in defense of its request for such
information is to ascertain how Le~alZoom characterizes its relationship with Travis
Giggy and Legalspring. It goes without saying that RocketLawyer could simply ask

848682.3

EXHIBIT E -29-

Forrest A. Hainline, III, Esq.
Michael T. Jones, Esq.
February 14, 2014
Page 5

directly for the information it seeks. Again, we are amenable to discussing additional
options but believe that the broad nature of the request liven the limited information
sought is unwarranted.
III.

AFFILIATE PROGRAM

You have stated that RocketLawyer believes it needs to understand
LegalZoom's affiliate program. LegalZoom will provide a supplemental response
explaining its affiliate program. LegalZoom will also agree to provide a list of its top
affiliates by an identifier other than the affiliate's name. However, Le~alZoom will
not provide the list of every one of its affiliates by name. Certainly, a comparison of
the relationship between LegalZoom and LegalSprin~.com and other affiliates with
whom Le~alZoom has a relationship can be ascertained without reference to the
identity of every single one of these affiliates.
IV.

LEGALZOOM KEYWORDS

Le~alZoom has already provided RocketLawyer with the keywords on which it
has bid relating to RocketLawyer. As the only issue that has been raised in this action
(one that is, in fact, contained in RocketLawyer's counterclaim) is the keyword
bidding on the other's mark, LegalZoom will not provide any additional information
concerning its keywords.
We will address issues concerning Travis Giggy under separate cover.
Respectfully,

PATRICIA JONES WINOGRAD
for GLASER WEIL FINK JACOBS HOWARD AVCHEN £t SHAPIRO LLP

PJW/jh

848682.3

EXHIBIT E -30-

EXHIBIT F

EXHIBIT F

From:
Sent:
To:
Cc:
Subject:

Vu, Hong-An
Friday, February 28, 2014 5:36 PM
Mary Ann Nguyen; Hainline, Forrest A; Jones, Michael T; Cook, Brian W
Fred Heather; 'Patricia Winograd'
RE: ROCKET LAWYER'S RESPONSES AND OBJECTIONS TO LEGALZOOM'S SECOND SET
OF INTERROGATORIES AND THIRD SET OF REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION

Mary Ann: 

We have sent you a letter addressing the issues you raised about our responses to recent discovery.  We have 
proposed meet and confer times on Monday and Tuesday next week. Please let us know what works for you. 

We are willing to discuss your items below. In addition to the pre‐mediation data exchanged, we also hope 
you have reviewed the mediation statements to better understand what you are asking and what we may 
have. 

On our end, we also propose discussing: 

1) Confirmation that you are complying with the search, review, and production procedures that we have agreed 
to, because thus far, it appears that you have produced only scanned copies of hard copy documents instead of 
electronic documents and ESI 
2) Confirming when you will correct your first production 
3) Adding additional search terms to your list  
4) The timing of the next productions from LegalZoom, Travis Giggy, and the third party documents in your 
possession 
5) Discussing your limitations on what you will provide regarding LegalZoom’s affiliate program 
6) The limitations on what you are willing to provide relating to Mr. Giggy 
7) Further discussion on the issues with the documents provided by Mr. Giggy as outlined in our February 5 letter 

Best, 
Hong‐An 

Hong‐An Vu  
Goodwin Procter LLP  
Three Embarcadero Center, 24th Floor  
San Francisco, CA  94111  
T: 415‐733‐6114  
F: 415‐677‐9041  
[e-mail]  
www.goodwinprocter.com  

From: Mary Ann Nguyen [mailto:[e-mail]]
Sent: Friday, February 28, 2014 4:20 PM
To: Hainline, Forrest A; Vu, Hong-An; Jones, Michael T; Cook, Brian W
Cc: Fred Heather; 'Patricia Winograd'
Subject: RE: ROCKET LAWYER'S RESPONSES AND OBJECTIONS TO LEGALZOOM'S SECOND SET OF INTERROGATORIES
AND THIRD SET OF REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION
1

EXHIBIT F -31-

Counsel:
We understand that you are amenable to meet and confer on Monday with respect to Rocket Lawyer’s responses and
objections to LegalZoom’s Interrogatories (Set Two) and Requests for Production (Set Three).
To facilitate our meet and confer and to move along our discovery process more efficiently, please be advised that we
would also like to further meet and confer with respect to the following items:
1. Whether Rocket Lawyer will provide pre-2010 documents as raised in our prior meet and confer;
2. When LegalZoom can expect a response to Interrogatory No. 4 as discussed in your prior meet and confer with
Patti Winograd; and
3. Further information relating to customer conversions as briefly discussed in your prior meet and confer with Patti
Winograd in light of the information previously provided in the parties’ pre-mediation information exchange,
which we have now revisited.
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: [e-mail] | www.glaserweil.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.

From: Patti Halverson
Sent: Wednesday, February 26, 2014 4:31 PM
To: '[e-mail]'; '[e-mail]'; '[e-mail]';
'[e-mail]'
Cc: Fred Heather; 'Patricia Winograd'; Mary Ann Nguyen
Subject: ROCKET LAWYER'S RESPONSES AND OBJECTIONS TO LEGALZOOM'S SECOND SET OF INTERROGATORIES
AND THIRD SET OF REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION

Dear Counsel: 

Please see the attached. 

Thank you. 

Patti Halverson | Legal Assistant to:  Barry Fink, Esq. | Tom Levyn, Esq. | Mary Ann Nguyen, Esq.   
10250 Constellation Blvd., 19th Floor, Los Angeles, CA 90067 
Main: 310.553.3000 Ext. 3312 | Fax: [phone] 
E‐Mail: [e-mail] | www.glaserweil.com 

2

EXHIBIT F -32-

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.  

3

EXHIBIT F -33-

EXHIBIT G

EXHIBIT G

From:
Sent:
To:
Cc:
Subject:

Vu, Hong-An
Tuesday, March 18, 2014 5:33 PM
Patricia Jones Winograd ([e-mail])
[e-mail]; Jones, Michael T; Tauman, Sarah
RLI/LZ - Advertisement Information

Patti: 

At our meet and confer on  March 6, you said you were going to give us guidance on whether search engine advertising 
relating to the services other than incorporation/entity formation is an issue in the complaint and in this action.  We 
haven’t heard from you so we just wanted to check up on this issue.    

On our end, we are working with the client to get you a list of the advertisements for incorporation/entity 
formation.  We are investigating and running searches and will get you a comprehensive list as soon as we can.   

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
[e-mail]
www.goodwinprocter.com  

1

EXHIBIT G -34-

1

PROOF OF SERVICE

2

I, the undersigned, certify and declare that I am over the age of 18 years,

3

employed in the County of Los Angeles, State of California, and not a party to the

4

above-entitled cause. On April 7, 2014, I electronically filed the following

5

document(s) using the CM/ECF system:

6

8

DECLARATION OF HONG-AN VU IN SUPPORT OF ROCKET LAWYER'S
OPPOSITION TO EX PARTE APPLICATION TO CONTINUE TRIAL AND
RELATED DATES

9

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

7

10

CM/ECF system. I further certify that some of the participants in the case are not

11

registered CM/ECF users. I have mailed the foregoing document by First Class Mail,

12

Federal Express, postage prepaid, or have dispatched it to a third party commercial

13

carrier for delivery within 3 calendar days, to the following non-CM/ECF participants:

14
15
16

Mary Ann Thi Nguyen
GLASER WEIL FINK JACOBS
HOWARD AVCHEN AND SHAPIRO LLP
10250 Constellation Boulevard, 19th Floor
Los Angeles, CA 90067

17
18
19
20
21

I declare under penalty of perjury that I am employed in the office of a member
of the bar of this Court at whose direction this service was made and that the
foregoing is true and correct.
Executed on April 7, 2014, at Los Angeles, California.

22
23
24

Kemi Oyemade
(Type or print name)

(Signature)

25
26
27
28
1
PROOF OF SERVICE