LegalZoom.com Inc v. Rocket Lawyer Incorporated

Filing 82

ROCKET LAWYER INCORPORATED'S REDACTED OPPOSITION TO re: MOTION for Partial Summary Judgment 69 filed by Defendant Rocket Lawyer Incorporated. (Attachments: # 1 ROCKET LAWYER INCORPORATED'S REDACTED STATEMENT OF GENUINE ISSUES IN SUPPORT OF OPPOSITION TO LEGALZOOM.COM, INC.'S MOTION FOR PARTIAL SUMMARY JUDGMENT, # 2 ROCKET LAWYER INCORPORATED'S MEMORANDUM OF EVIDENTIARY OBJECTIONS IN OPPOSITION TO LEGALZOOM'S MOTION FOR PARTIAL SUMMARY JUDGMENT)(Jones, Michael)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15

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]
Brian W. Cook (Pro Hac Vice)
[e-mail]
GOODWIN PROCTER LLP
53 State Street
Boston, MA 02109-2802
Tel.: [phone]
Fax.: [phone]
Attorneys for Defendant
ROCKET LAWYER INCORPORATED

16

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

17

CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

18

WESTERN DIVISION

19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

LEGALZOOM.COM, INC., a Delaware
corporation,
Plaintiff,
v.
ROCKET LAWYER
INCORPORATED, a Delaware
corporation,
Defendant.

Case No. 2:12-cv-09942-GAF-AGR
ROCKET LAWYER
INCORPORATED’S REDACTED
STATEMENT OF GENUINE ISSUES
IN SUPPORT OF OPPOSITION TO
LEGALZOOM.COM, INC.’S
MOTION FOR PARTIAL
SUMMARY JUDGMENT
Date:
Time:
Judge:
Courtroom:
Action Filed:

August 18, 2014
9:30 a.m.
Judge Gary A. Feess
740
November 20, 2012

1

Pursuant to Rule 56 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and Local Rule

2

56-2 of the Central District of California, Defendant Rocket Lawyer Incorporated

3

(“Rocket Lawyer”) hereby submits the following Statement of Genuine Issues in

4

support of its opposition to LegalZoom.com, Inc.’s (“LegalZoom”) motion for

5

partial summary judgment:
STATEMENT OF GENUINE ISSUES1

6
7

LEGALZOOM’S ALLEGED
UNDISPUTED FACT

8
9

1.

ROCKET LAWYER’S RESPONSE
& EVIDENTIARY SUPPORT

Legalspring.com is a website that

Undisputed that Giggy formerly owned,

10

was formerly owned, operated and

operated, and moderated

11

moderated by Travis Giggy.

Legalspring.com. Disputed to the extent

12

it implies that Giggy is the only former

13

operator and/or moderator of

14

Legalspring.com.

15

Moving Party’s Evidence: Declaration

16

of Travis Giggy (“Giggy Decl.”) ¶ 3.

17

Rocket Lawyer’s Evidence:

18

Declaration of Hong-An Vu (“Vu

19

Decl.”), filed concurrently herewith, ¶ 7,

20
21
22
23

2.

Mr. Giggy is a former employee of Undisputed.

24

LegalZoom.

Moving Party’s Evidence: Giggy Decl.

25
1

26
27
28

Rocket Lawyer notes that LegalZoom has submitted “Conclusions of Law” as part
of its Separate Statement of Uncontroverted Facts. As the Court’s standing order
states clearly that “[n]o argument should be set forth in” the Statement of Genuine
Issues, all issues of law are addressed in Rocket Lawyer’s Opposition, rather than
here.

ACTIVE/74694298.3

1

1

LEGALZOOM’S ALLEGED
UNDISPUTED FACT

2

ROCKET LAWYER’S RESPONSE
& EVIDENTIARY SUPPORT
¶ 2.

3
4

3.

Based on a sale which took place

Undisputed.

5

March 1, 2013, the Legalspring.com

Moving Party’s Evidence: Giggy Decl.

6

website is now owned by Inenvi, Inc.

¶ 3.

7

4.

Undisputed that Legalspring.com

8

“opinion” about various online providers includes the content specified. Disputed

9

as well as the posting of third party

that said content is selected and

10

customer reviews, and this content is

published exclusively by

11

selected and published exclusively by

Legalspring.com.

12

Legalspring.com.

Moving Party’s Evidence: Declaration

Legalspring.com includes an

13

of Aaron P. Allan (“Allan Decl.), ¶ 2,

14

Ex. C (Exhibit 15 to Rocket Lawyer’s

15

Answer and Amended Counterclaims,

16

ECF No. 17) and ¶ 3, Ex. D (customer

17

reviews of LegalZoom from

18

Legalspring.com); Declaration of Dorian

19

Quispe (“Quispe Decl.”), ¶ 4; Giggy

20

Decl. ¶¶ 5-6, Ex. A (various

21

Legalspring.com webpages).

22

Rocket Lawyer’s Evidence: Vu Decl., ¶

23

5, Ex. 4 at LZ001628

24
25
26
27

); id. at ¶ 3, Ex. 2

28
ACTIVE/74694298.3

2

1

LEGALZOOM’S ALLEGED
UNDISPUTED FACT

2

ROCKET LAWYER’S RESPONSE
& EVIDENTIARY SUPPORT
(

3
4

); id. at ¶ 13, Ex.

5
6

12 (LegalZoom requesting and Giggy

7

confirming removal of negative reviews

8

including at least two from verified

9

LegalZoom customers); id. at ¶ 14, Ex.

10

13 (Giggy notifying LegalZoom of

11

negative reviews that had been or would

12

soon be removed).

13

Objection: Misleading (Fed. R.

14

Evid. 403).

15

5.

LegalZoom has not authored any

16

of the reviews on Legalspring.com, and

Moving Party’s Evidence: Quispe Decl.

17

has no responsibility for the reviews

¶ 4.

18

which are actually posted.

Rocket Lawyer’s Evidence: Vu Decl., ¶

Disputed.

¶ 3, Ex. 2 (

19
20

id. at ¶ 21, Ex. 20

21
22

(same).

23

Objection: Misleading (Fed. R.

24

Evid. 403).

25

6.

26

Legalspring.com and LegalZoom is that

Decl., ¶ 3.

27

of affiliate and client.

Objection: Misleading (Fed. R.

The current relationship between

Moving Party’s Evidence: Quispe

28
ACTIVE/74694298.3

3

1

LEGALZOOM’S ALLEGED
UNDISPUTED FACT

2

ROCKET LAWYER’S RESPONSE
& EVIDENTIARY SUPPORT
Evid. 403).

3
4

7.

To the extent that consumers visit

5

LegalZoom’s web site as a result of

Moving Party’s Evidence: Quispe

6

having first visited Legalspring.com,

Decl., ¶ 5; Giggy Decl., ¶ 8.

7

LegalZoom has provided compensation

8

to Legalspring.com.

9

8.

Undisputed.

While Mr. Giggy, at one time,

Undisputed that Giggy was

10

received compensation from LegalZoom

11

for any products sold by LegalZoom as a Disputed that this was the full nature of

12

result of a consumer first visiting

the relationship between LegalZoom and

13

Legalspring.com., that relationship

Legalspring.com.

14

terminated as of March 2013.

Moving Party’s Evidence: Quispe

compensated for referrals to LegalZoom.

15

Decl., ¶ 6; Giggy Decl., ¶ 8.

16

Rocket Lawyer’s Evidence: Vu Decl., ¶

17

7, Ex. 6 (

18
19

; id. at ¶ 17, Ex. 16 (indicating

20

that LegalZoom would be accessing and

21

making changes to Legalspring.com); id.

22

at ¶ 18, Ex. 17 (internal LegalZoom

23

email stating “if you haven’t already, we

24

can relaunch legalspring as a brand

25

defense website”).

26

Objections: Incomplete (Fed. R. Evid.

27

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

28
ACTIVE/74694298.3

4

1

LEGALZOOM’S ALLEGED
UNDISPUTED FACT

2

ROCKET LAWYER’S RESPONSE
& EVIDENTIARY SUPPORT
Disputed. Legalspring.com includes

3

9.

All of the content at

4

Legalspring.com is expressed as matters

factual assertions regarding the dates of

5

of opinion – not facts.

customer reviews and the overall rating

6

of LegalZoom by customers posting on

7

the site.

8

Moving Party’s Evidence: Allan Decl.,

9

¶ 2, Ex. C; ¶ 3, Ex. D.

10

Rocket Lawyer’s Evidence:

11

Legalspring.com; ¶ 10, infra.
Undisputed that the two examples

12

10.

Statements of fact provided by

13

Legalspring.com, e.g., that the reviewer

provided are unchallenged. Disputed

14

and his family members have used

that Rocket Lawyer is not challenging

15

LegalZoom, and that the site moderator

statements of fact present on

16

has been running the review site for

Legalspring.com.

17

many years, are not being challenged by

Moving Party’s Evidence: Rocket

18

Rocket Lawyer as being either false or

Lawyer’s Answer and Amended

19

misleading.

Counterclaims, ECF No. 17, pp. 18-20.

20

Rocket Lawyer’s Evidence: See Rocket

21

Lawyer’s Opposition at 10-17.

22

11.

23

Legalspring.com for which LegalZoom

24

provided any authorship is the disclaimer only content controlled by LegalZoom.

25

which appears at the bottom of the first

Moving Party’s Evidence: Quispe

26

web page which states: “The moderator

Decl., ¶ 8; Giggy Decl., ¶ 9, Ex. B.

27

of this Site has affiliate relationships

Rocket Lawyer’s Evidence: Vu Decl., ¶

Undisputed that LegalZoom authored

The only content on

the disclaimer. Disputed that this is the

28
ACTIVE/74694298.3

5

1

LEGALZOOM’S ALLEGED
UNDISPUTED FACT

2
3

with third party sites reviewed on this

4

ROCKET LAWYER’S RESPONSE
& EVIDENTIARY SUPPORT
5, Ex. 4 (

Site.”

5
6
id. at ¶ 3, Ex. 2 (

7
8
9

; id. at ¶ 13, Ex. 12

10
11

(LegalZoom requesting and Giggy

12

confirming removal of negative reviews

13

including at least two from verified

14

LegalZoom customers); id. at ¶ 14, Ex.

15

13 (Giggy notifying LegalZoom of

16

negative reviews that had been or would

17

soon be removed).

18

Objections: Incomplete (Fed. R. Evid.

19

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

20

12.

There is no language at

21

Legalspring.com suggesting that

22

Legalspring.com has no relationship with ¶ 2, Ex. C; ¶ 3, Ex. D.

23

the online providers being reviewed.

24

13.

25

market research or consumer surveys to

Moving Party’s Evidence: Allan Decl.,

26

establish that consumers are being

¶ 5.

27

misled by Legalspring.com into

Undisputed.
Moving Party’s Evidence: Allan Decl.,

Rocket Lawyer has produced no

Undisputed.

28
ACTIVE/74694298.3

6

1

LEGALZOOM’S ALLEGED
UNDISPUTED FACT

2

ROCKET LAWYER’S RESPONSE
& EVIDENTIARY SUPPORT

3

believing that “all” online providers are

4

being reviewed by a “neutral” reviewer.

5

14.

6

Legalspring.com that the reviews being

representation is made. Disputed to the

7

provided are either objective or

extent it implies Legalspring.com

8

“neutral,” as alleged by Rocket Lawyer.

represents itself as something other than

Undisputed that no such affirmative

There is no representation made at

a neutral review site.

9
10

Moving Party’s Evidence: Allan Decl.,

11

¶ 2, Ex. C; ¶ 3, Ex. D.

12

Rocket Lawyer’s Evidence:

13

Legalspring.com home page, ECF No.

14

17, Ex. 15 at 1 (“What does Legalspring

15

do? We offer reviews of companies that

16

provide online legal services like

17

incorporation, forming an LLC, getting

18

your last will and testament, or getting a

19

divorce.”); id. Ex. 15 at 15 (Legalspring

20

FAQ, no longer available online: “Who

21

is the best Incorporator online? This is

22

why LegalSpring.com was formed - to

23

find the answer to questions like this.”);

24

Vu Decl., ¶ 24, Ex. 23 (LegalSpring.com

25

strives to be the industry leading legal

26

site review destination. By providing

27

unbiased comments and reviews from

28
ACTIVE/74694298.3

7

1

LEGALZOOM’S ALLEGED
UNDISPUTED FACT

2

ROCKET LAWYER’S RESPONSE
& EVIDENTIARY SUPPORT

3

real users of a company's service,

4

LegalSpring.com can help propective

5

(sic) users of these services to choose a

6

cost-effective, reputable and reliable

7

company to execute their legal needs”).

8

15.

The Legalspring.com website

9

merely provides “opinions” and

Moving Party’s Evidence: Allan Decl.,

10

“reviews” by the site moderator and by

¶ 2, Ex. C and ¶ 3, Ex. D; ; Giggy Decl.,

11

actual customers.

¶ 5 and ¶ 6, Ex. A.

Disputed.

12

Rocket Lawyer’s Evidence: Vu Decl., ¶

13

3, Ex. 2 (

14
); id. at ¶ 21, Ex. 20

15
(same).

16
17

16.

18

LegalZoom at Legalspring.com are very

Moving Party’s Evidence: Giggy Decl.,

19

positive, several of them are not.

¶ 7; Allan Decl., ¶ 3, Ex. D.

20

17.

Disputed.

21

allegation, and has no evidence, that any

Moving Party’s Evidence: Rocket

22

of these posted customer reviews are not

Lawyer’s Answer and Amended

23

genuine.

Counterclaims, ECF No. 17, pp. 18-20.

While many of the reviews of

Undisputed.

Rocket Lawyer has made no

24

Rocket Lawyer’s Evidence: Vu Decl., ¶

25

3, Ex. 2 (

26
27

); id. at ¶

28
ACTIVE/74694298.3

8

1

LEGALZOOM’S ALLEGED
UNDISPUTED FACT

2

ROCKET LAWYER’S RESPONSE
& EVIDENTIARY SUPPORT

3

13, Ex. 12 (LegalZoom requesting and

4

Giggy confirming removal of negative

5

reviews including at least two from

6

verified LegalZoom customers); id. at ¶

7

14, Ex. 13 (Giggy notifying LegalZoom

8

of negative reviews that had been or

9

would soon be removed); id. at ¶ 22, Ex.

10

21 (Giggy modified timestamps on

11

negative reviews to “push ‘em down the

12

list a little ways” with knowledge and/or

13

approval from LegalZoom); id. at ¶ 15,

14

Ex. 14 (MacDonnell on 12/12/2011:

15

“Any way you not have the first wo

16

reviews be one stars?” ; Giggy

17

12/15/2011: “I also moved the second

18

poor rating down the page a couple of

19

notches”).
Undisputed.

20

18.

There is no statement at

21

Legalspring.com which suggests that

Moving Party’s Evidence: Allan Decl.,

22

“all” online providers are being

¶ 2, Ex. C; ¶ 3, Ex. D.

23

reviewed; to the contrary, the website

24

states “only the best online legal service

25

providers are reviewed.”

26

19.

27

advertisements which do not mention its

Rocket Lawyer has its own

Undisputed.
Moving Party’s Evidence: Allan Decl.,

28
ACTIVE/74694298.3

9

1

LEGALZOOM’S ALLEGED
UNDISPUTED FACT

2

ROCKET LAWYER’S RESPONSE
& EVIDENTIARY SUPPORT
¶ 4, Ex. E.

3

competitors, but that does not make the

4

advertisements either false or

5

misleading.

6

20.

7

for its third affirmative defense of

Moving Party’s Evidence: Rocket

8

unclean hands: (1) that LegalZoom bids

Lawyer’s Answer and Amended

9

on keywords to place its own

Counterclaims, ECF No. 17, pp. 18-20.

10

advertisements in searches for Rocket

Rocket Lawyer’s Evidence: : Rocket

11

Lawyer; (2) that LegalZoom uses the

Lawyer’s Answer and Amended

12

word “free” in a manner similar to how

Counterclaims, ECF No. 17, pp. 18-20.

13

Rocket Lawyer uses the term in its

(“First, LegalZoom engages in the

14

advertisements; and (3) that LegalZoom

conduct it complains about in the

15

uses Legalspring.com to falsely

Complaint. . . . Second, LegalZoom

16

advertise.

engages in unlawful conduct that is

Rocket Lawyer alleges three bases Disputed.

17

confusing and misleading to consumers

18

and is anti-competitive.”)

19

ADDITIONAL UNDISPUTED FACTS

20
ROCKET LAWYER’S
UNDISPUTED FACT

21

EVIDENTIARY SUPPORT

22
23
24
25
26
27

21.

LegalSpring has been reviewing

Giggy Decl., ¶ 5.

online legal service providers since 2004.
22.

Vu Decl. ¶ 8, Ex. 7; id. ¶ 35, Ex. 34.

LegalZoom has been a company

reviewed and listed on LegalSpring since
at least 2005.

28
ACTIVE/74694298.3

10

1

ROCKET LAWYER’S
UNDISPUTED FACT

2
3

EVIDENTIARY SUPPORT

23.

Vu Decl., ¶ 5, Ex. 4 at § 4.7 (emphasis

4

added); see also id. at § 4.3 (

5
6
7
8
9

);

10

id. at § 4.4 (

11
12
13
14

[.]”).

15

24.

16

LegalZoom and Own Vision, LLC,

17

which does business as

18

LegalSpring.com.

The contract is between

Vu Decl., ¶ 12, Ex. 11 .

19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
ACTIVE/74694298.3

11

1

ROCKET LAWYER’S
UNDISPUTED FACT

2

EVIDENTIARY SUPPORT

3

25.

4

LegalZoom’s relationship with Own

you inquired as to Le~alZoom's April 1,

5

Vision, LLC and LegalSpring prior to

2010 "cut-off" date. Please be advised

6

2011 may exist; however, LegalZoom

that LegalZoom converted to a new

7

has stated that it is unable to produce

document management system on or

8

documents from before April 2010 when

about April 1, 2010. As a result,

9

it changed document management

LegalZoom's PST archives date back

systems.

only to April 1, 2010. LegalZoom's PST

10

Other agreements relating to

Vu Decl., ¶ 11, Ex. 10 (“In your letter,

11

files dated prior to this date are largely

12

inaccessible and/or are accessible only

13

with undue burden and cost to

14

LegalZoom.”).

15

26.

Vu Decl., ¶¶ 8-9, Exs. 7-8.

16
17
18
19
20

.

21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
ACTIVE/74694298.3

12

1

ROCKET LAWYER’S
UNDISPUTED FACT

2
3

EVIDENTIARY SUPPORT

27.

Vu Decl., ¶ 3, Ex. 2 at GIG02400 (“

4
5
6

’”); see also id. at ¶

7

8, Ex. 7 (

8
9

.

10
11

28.

In

Vu Decl., ¶ 4, Ex. 3.

12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
ACTIVE/74694298.3

13

1

ROCKET LAWYER’S
UNDISPUTED FACT

2
3

EVIDENTIARY SUPPORT

29.

Vu Decl., ¶ 8, Ex. 7 (

4
5
6
7

id. at ¶ 19, Ex. 18 (April

8

predates the disclaimer on

4, 2012, email from Scott MacDonell to

9

LegalSpring.com disclosing companies’

Travis Giggy requesting disclaimer be

10

ability to add/remove reviews by nearly

added to Legalspring.com).

11

six years.

12

30.

Vu Decl., ¶ 3, Ex. 2.

13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
ACTIVE/74694298.3

14

1

ROCKET LAWYER’S
UNDISPUTED FACT

2
3

EVIDENTIARY SUPPORT

31.

Vu Decl., ¶ 3, Ex. 2 (emphasis added).

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
ACTIVE/74694298.3

15

1

ROCKET LAWYER’S
UNDISPUTED FACT

2
3

EVIDENTIARY SUPPORT

32.

Vu Decl., ¶ 3, Ex. 2.

33.

Vu Decl., ¶ 3, Ex. 2 (emphasis added).

34.

Vu Decl., ¶ 3, Ex. 2.

35.

Vu Decl., ¶ 3, Ex. 2.

4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20

36.

21

Legalspring.com, held out as consumer

site=1&sitename=LegalZoom; Vu Decl.,

22

reviews posted on Legalspring.com.

¶¶ 10, 33-34, Exs. 9, 32-33.

Yet they appear to this day on

http://www.legalspring.com/Site.aspx?

23
24
25
26
27
28
ACTIVE/74694298.3

16

1

ROCKET LAWYER’S
UNDISPUTED FACT

2
3

EVIDENTIARY SUPPORT

37.

Vu Decl., ¶ 10, Ex. 9 (Dr. Mark S.

4

posting 1/28/2009 11:38:44 PM); id. at ¶

5

– were posted on

33, Ex. 32 (Linda H. posting on 2/5/2009

6

LegalSpring.com at various times for the

9:08:44 AM); id. at ¶ 34, Ex. 33 (Matt

7

appearance of authenticity.

S. posting 2/13/2009 12:41:10 PM).

38.

Vu Decl., ¶ 13, Ex. 12 .

8
9

In May 2010, Brian Liu asked

10

Giggy if “a lot of negativity” on

11

Legalspring is “something [Giggy] can

12

help with,” receiving Giggy’s assurance

13

that “a grouping of 8 posts [] will be

14

removed by tomorrow, end of day.”

15

39.

16

MacDonell with a list of negative

17

reviews that had been removed or would

18

soon be removed, including two from

19

verified LegalZoom customers.

20

40.

21

through a Google review of [his] site and

22

want[ed] to maintain a feel of

23

impartiality.”

In August 2011, Giggy provided

Vu Decl., ¶ 14, Ex. 13.

Giggy noted that he was “going

Vu Decl., ¶ 14, Ex. 13.

24
25
26
27
28
ACTIVE/74694298.3

17

1

ROCKET LAWYER’S
UNDISPUTED FACT

2
3

41.

4

the timestamps on negative reviews to

5

“push ‘em down the list a ways” with

6

knowledge and/or approval from

7

LegalZoom.

8

42.

9

EVIDENTIARY SUPPORT

MacDonell asked Giggy “Any way you

Giggy also affirmatively modified

On December 15, 2011,

Vu Decl., ¶ 22, Ex. 21.

Vu Decl., ¶ 15, Ex. 14.

10

not have the first two reviews be one

11

stars?” On the same day, Giggy said “I

12

also moved the second poor rating down

13

the page a couple of notches.”

14

43.

Vu Decl. ¶ 3, Ex. 2 (GIG02399).

15
16
17

44.

18

group of positive reviews” and asking

19

Giggy to “throw this on legalspring,”

20

LegalZoom stated its goal of artificially

21

inflating its rating on Legalspring.com:

22

“[s]hould get us into the high 4 stars

23

range.”

In transmitting “a pretty large

Vu Decl., ¶ 21, Ex. 20.

24
25
26
27
28
ACTIVE/74694298.3

18

1

ROCKET LAWYER’S
UNDISPUTED FACT

2
3

45.

4

conceal their manipulation of review

5

sites by avoiding reviews from work

6

computers. As one employee explained

7

to another, “Don’t do any reviews from

8

work computer” because “You have to

9

EVIDENTIARY SUPPORT

do it from an ‘unbiased’ location to

Vu Decl., ¶ 20, Ex. 19.

Employees may have sought to

10

avoid raising red flags.”

11

46.

12

employee of LegalZoom, Giggy

LegalZoom from May 2003 to June

13

published an article promoting the

2006. . . .”); Vu Decl., ¶ 24, Ex. 23.

14

neutrality of LegalSpring.com in

15

assisting consumers in their decision to

16

use online legal services:

17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25

On June 23, 2004, when he was an Giggy Decl., ¶ 2 (“I was an employee of

LegalSpring.com strives to
be the industry leading legal
site review destination. By
providing unbiased
comments and reviews from
real users of a company's
service, LegalSpring.com
can help propective (sic)
users of these services to
choose a cost-effective,
reputable and reliable
company to execute their
legal needs.

26
27
28
ACTIVE/74694298.3

19

1

ROCKET LAWYER’S
UNDISPUTED FACT

2

EVIDENTIARY SUPPORT

3

47.

4

and appearance of neutrality was also

(Legalspring.com FAQ, no longer

5

stated on LegalSpring.com, at least as of

available online).

6

January 2013:
Who is the best
Incorporator online?
This is why
LegalSpring.com was
formed - to find the answer
to questions like this.
Legalzoom is hands-down
the LegalSpring.com editors
(sic) choice for legal
services - including
Incorporation and LLC
formation. There are
however, many reputable
and reliable companies on
the Internet that will handle
your Incorporation or LLC
formation. Read up on them
here. (Exhibit 15 at p.71).

7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

48.

This goal of helping consumers

ECF No. 17, Ex. 15 at 15

See Vu Decl., ¶¶ 10, 33-34, Exs. 9, 32-

At Legalspring.com, consumers

viewing the reviews can indicate whether 33.
they are “helpful” or not.
49.

For example, at least three reviews See Vu Decl., ¶¶ 10, 33-34, Exs. 9, 3233.

added at LegalZoom’s instruction in
January 2009 indicate that a majority of
consumers who responded found those
reviews helpful. 21 of 28 people have
found Matt S.’s review helpful, 17 of 21
people have found Linda H.’s review
helpful, and 11 of 16 people have found
Dr. Mark S.’s review helpful.

ACTIVE/74694298.3

20

1

ROCKET LAWYER’S
UNDISPUTED FACT

2
3

EVIDENTIARY SUPPORT

50.

Vu Decl., ¶ 9, Ex. 8.

4
5
6
7

.
51.

Vu Decl., ¶ 6, Ex. 5.

8
9
10
11
12
13

52.

14

with Giggy to transfer operation of

Giggy to Scott MacDonell and Dorian

15

LegalSpring.com to LegalZoom.

Quispe, forwarding a customer

Accordingly, LegalZoom worked

Vu Decl., ¶ 16, Ex. 15 (email from

16

complaint posted to Legalspring.com and

17

saying “[t]his is the fun kind of stuff you

18

get to deal with from now on.”); id. at ¶

19

17, Ex. 16 (requesting a “mini lesson”

20

from Giggy for LegalZoom on how to

21

reorder customer reviews on

22

Legalspring.com in advance of a fuller

23

lesson); id. at ¶ 18, Ex. 17 (internal

24

LegalZoom email stating “if you haven’t

25

already, we can relaunch legalspring as a

26

brand defense website”).

27
28
ACTIVE/74694298.3

21

1

ROCKET LAWYER’S
UNDISPUTED FACT

2
3

EVIDENTIARY SUPPORT

53.

Vu Decl., ¶ 7, Ex. 6.

4
5
6

54.

7

representations LegalZoom has made to

(“LegalZoom has not authored any of the

8

this Court that “LegalZoom has not

reviews on Legalspring.com, and has no

9

authored and has no responsibility for the responsibility for the reviews which are

This conduct directly contradicts

Supra ¶ 5 (citing Quispe Decl. ¶ 4

10

reviews which are actually posted.”

actually posted.”).

11

55.

Vu Decl., ¶ 19, Ex. 18 (April 4, 2012,

12

April 2012 – many years after

email from Scott MacDonell to Travis

13

LegalSpring.com was created and

Giggy requesting disclaimer be added to

14

became affiliated with LegalZoom such

Legalspring.com)..

15

that LegalZoom was allowed to alter

16

content on the website.

The disclaimer was only added in

17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
ACTIVE/74694298.3

22

1

ROCKET LAWYER’S
UNDISPUTED FACT

2

EVIDENTIARY SUPPORT

3

56.

4

added, LegalZoom was not merely

Giggy to Scott MacDonell and Dorian

5

treating LegalSpring like any affiliate,

Quispe, forwarding a customer

6

but instead had leased and was operating

complaint posted to Legalspring.com and

7

LegalSpring.com.

saying “[t]his is the fun kind of stuff you

Vu Decl., ¶ 16, Ex. 15 (email from

At the time the disclaimer was

8

get to deal with from now on.”); id. at ¶

9

17, Ex. 16 (requesting a “mini lesson”

10

from Giggy for LegalZoom on how to

11

reorder customer reviews on

12

Legalspring.com in advance of a fuller

13

lesson); id. at ¶ 18, Ex. 17 (internal

14

LegalZoom email stating “if you haven’t

15

already, we can relaunch legalspring as a

16

brand defense website”).

17

57.

18

LegalZoom continues to obfuscate its

19

relationship with Giggy and

20

LegalSpring, stating that LegalSpring

21

“acted as an affiliate of LegalZoom to

22

generate leads.”

Vu Decl., ¶ 35, Ex. 34 (emphasis added).

Indeed, in this litigation

23
24
25
26
27
28
ACTIVE/74694298.3

23

1

ROCKET LAWYER’S
UNDISPUTED FACT

2
3

58.

4

EVIDENTIARY SUPPORT

alteration of timestamps.

The disclaimer says nothing about

Quispe Decl. ¶ 8 (“Reviews may be
added or removed at third party sites’

5

request. All reviews are actual users of

6

this Site or third party sites and were

7

authorized for display by the actual

8

customer. The moderator of this Site has

9

affiliate relationships with third party

10

sites reviewed on this Site.”).

11

59.

12

the manipulation of LegalZoom’s

added or removed at third party sites’

13

average review score.

request. All reviews are actual users of

The disclaimer says nothing about

Quispe Decl. ¶ 8 (“Reviews may be

14

this Site or third party sites and were

15

authorized for display by the actual

16

customer. The moderator of this Site has

17

affiliate relationships with third party

18

sites reviewed on this Site.”).

19

60.

20

explanation for what grounds justify

added or removed at third party sites’

21

removal.

request. All reviews are actual users of

Quispe Decl. ¶ 8 (“Reviews may be

The disclaimer provides no

22

this Site or third party sites and were

23

authorized for display by the actual

24

customer. The moderator of this Site has

25

affiliate relationships with third party

26

sites reviewed on this Site.”).

27
28
ACTIVE/74694298.3

24

1

ROCKET LAWYER’S
UNDISPUTED FACT

2

EVIDENTIARY SUPPORT

3

61.

4

LegalZoom, expressly intended that

5

consumers rely on LegalSpring as a

6

resource in deciding which online legal

7

services company to use.

8

62.

Supra at ¶¶ 30-37.

63.

Vu Decl., ¶ 3, Ex. 2

Giggy, while still an employee of

Vu Decl., ¶ 24, Ex. 23.

9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
ACTIVE/74694298.3

25

1

ROCKET LAWYER’S
UNDISPUTED FACT

2
3

EVIDENTIARY SUPPORT

64.

Vu Decl. ¶ 4, Ex. 3; id. at ¶ 21, Ex. 20.

4
5
6

” which led

7

LegalZoom to direct Giggy to

8

manipulate the number of positive and

9

negative reviews to ensure that

10

LegalZoom would have a four star

11

rating.

12

65.

Vu Decl., ¶ 4, Ex. 3.

66.

Vu Decl., ¶ 4, Ex. 3 (

13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21

”).

22
23
24
25

67.

Vu Decl., ¶ 3, Ex. 2 (

26
27
28
ACTIVE/74694298.3

26

1

ROCKET LAWYER’S
UNDISPUTED FACT

2
3

EVIDENTIARY SUPPORT

68.

Vu Decl., ¶ 9, Ex. 8.

4
5
6
7
8

69.

9

its services without disclosing the

LegalZoom advertises the price of

Vu Decl., ¶¶ 2, 25-26, 32, Exs. 1, 24-25,
31.

10

additional cost of state fees, merely

11

provides a link to its website, where such

12

fees are disclosed.

13

70.

Of the companies listed on

See www.LegalSpring.com; Vu Decl. ¶¶

14

LegalSpring.com, only LegalZoom has

23, 28-31, Exs. 22, 27-30 (RLI0063406;

15

rebutted negative reviews.

RLI0063436; RLI0063444;

16

RLI0063449; RLI0063487;

17

RLI0063502).

18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26

71.

Travis Giggy is a shareholder of

Vu Decl. at ¶ 36, Ex. 35.

LegalZoom and was a LegalZoom
employee from May 2003 to June 2006
and January 2007 to April 2008, and then
a consultant to LegalZoom from July
2006 to December 2006 and May 2008
to June 2012 providing services relating
to coding, customer interfacing, and the
affiliate program.

27
28
ACTIVE/74694298.3

27

1

Dated: July 28, 2014

GOODWIN PROCTER LLP

2
By: /s/ Michael T. Jones

3

Forrest A. Hainline III (SBN 64166)
[e-mail]
Hong-An Vu (SBN 266268)
[e-mail]
Michael T. Jones (SBN 290660)
[e-mail]
Brian W. Cook (Pro Hac Vice)
[e-mail]
GOODWIN PROCTER LLP

4
5
6
7
8
9

Attorneys for Defendant
ROCKET LAWYER INCORPORATED

10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
ACTIVE/74694298.3

28