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)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Forrest A. Hainline III (SBN 64166) fhainline@goodwinprocter.com Hong-An Vu (SBN 266268) hvu@goodwinprocter.com GOODWIN PROCTER LLP Three Embarcadero Center 24th Floor San Francisco, California 94111 Tel.: 415.733.6000 Fax.: 415.677.9041 Michael T. Jones (SBN 290660) mjones@goodwinprocter.com GOODWIN PROCTER LLP 135 Commonwealth Drive Menlo Park, California 94025-1105 Tel.: 650.752.3100 Fax.: 650.853.1038 Brian W. Cook (Pro Hac Vice) bcook@goodwinprocter.com GOODWIN PROCTER LLP 53 State Street Boston, MA 02109-2802 Tel.: 617.570.1000 Fax.: 617.523.1231 Attorneys for Defendant ROCKET LAWYER INCORPORATED 16 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 17 CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 18 WESTERN DIVISION 19 20 21 LEGALZOOM.COM, INC., a Delaware corporation, Plaintiff, 22 23 24 25 v. ROCKET LAWYER INCORPORATED, a Delaware corporation, Defendant. 26 27 28 ACTIVE/74718449.1 Case No. 2:12-cv-09942-GAF-AGR ROCKET LAWYER INCORPORATED’S MEMORANDUM OF EVIDENTIARY OBJECTIONS IN OPPOSITION TO LEGALZOOM’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 the Court’s current standing Scheduling Order, Defendant Rocket 2 Lawyer Incorporated (“Rocket Lawyer”) submits this Memorandum of Evidentiary 3 Objections to Plaintiff Legalzoom.com, Inc.’s Separate Statement of Undisputed 4 Material Facts. Separate Statement Paragraph 4: Objection to Paragraph 4 of the Declaration 5 6 of Dorian Quispe (“Quispe Decl.”) (“LegalZoom has not authored any of the 7 reviews on Legalspring.com, and has no responsibility for the reviews which are 8 actually posted.”) on the grounds that it is misleading. To the extent this statement 9 implies that LegalZoom had no involvement in selecting the reviews that were 10 posted on or removed from Legalspring.com, it is misleading. Fed. R. Evid. 403. 11 Objection to Paragraph 4 of the Declaration of Travis Giggy (“Giggy Decl.”) 12 (“Between 2004 and March 1, 2013, I selected and published on the 13 Legalspring.com website opinions as well as third party customer reviews about 14 various online legal service providers, including LegalZoom.”) on the grounds that 15 it is misleading. To the extent this statement implies that Giggy acted alone in 16 selecting customer reviews for publication, it is misleading. Fed. R. Evid. 403. Separate Statement Paragraph 5: Same objection to Paragraph 4 of the Quispe 17 18 Decl. as identified with respect to Separate Statement Paragraph 4, above. Separate Statement Paragraph 6: Objection to Paragraph 3 of the Quispe Decl. 19 20 (“The relationship between Legalspring.com and LegalZoom is, and always has 21 been, that of affiliate and client.”) on the grounds that it is misleading. To the extent 22 it is offered to show that the current relationship between LegalZoom and 23 Legalspring.com is the same as it always has been, it is misleading. Fed. R. Evid. 24 403. 25 Separate Statement Paragraph 8: Objection to Paragraph 6 of the Quispe Decl. 26 (“While Mr. Giggy, at one time, received compensation from LegalZoom for any 27 products sold by LegalZoom as a result of a consumer first visiting 28 Legalspring.com, that relationship terminated as of March 2013.”) and Paragraph 8 ACTIVE/74718449.1 1 1 of the Giggy Decl. (“Like other affiliate referral sites, Legalspring.com received 2 commissions and/or compensation from its affiliates, including from LegalZoom.”) 3 on the grounds that the evidence is incomplete and misleading. To the extent these 4 statements imply that this is the only form of compensation paid by LegalZoom to 5 Mr. Giggy with respect to Legalspring.com, it is incomplete and misleading. Fed. 6 R. Evid. 106, 403. 7 Separate Statement Paragraph 10: Objection to Paragraph 8 of the Quispe 8 Decl. (“”) and Paragraph 9, Exhibit B, of the Giggy Decl. on the grounds that they 9 are misleading. To the extent the evidence is offered to show that this is the only 10 content on Legalspring.com that was authored by LegalZoom, it is incomplete and 11 misleading. Fed. R. Evid. 106, 403. 12 13 Dated: July 28, 2014 GOODWIN PROCTER LLP 14 By: /s/ Michael T. Jones Forrest A. Hainline III (SBN 64166) fhainline@goodwinprocter.com Hong-An Vu (SBN 266268) hvu@goodwinprocter.com Michael T. Jones (SBN 290660) mjones@goodwinprocter.com Brian W. Cook (Pro Hac Vice) bcook@goodwinprocter.com GOODWIN PROCTER LLP 15 16 17 18 19 20 Attorneys for Defendant ROCKET LAWYER INCORPORATED 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 ACTIVE/74718449.1 2

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.


Why Is My Information Online?