LegalZoom.com Inc v. Rocket Lawyer Incorporated

Filing 93

DECLARATION of Hong-An Vu In Support of MOTION for Summary Judgment as to AND/OR ADJUDICATION; MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT THEREOF (REDACTED) 60 filed by Defendant Rocket Lawyer Incorporated. (Attachments: # 1 Ex A-D and F)(Vu, Hong-An)

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
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26

CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
WESTERN DIVISION
LEGALZOOM.COM, INC., a Delaware Case No. 2:12-cv-09942-GAF-AGR
corporation,
DECLARATION OF HONGPlaintiff,
AN VU III IN SUPPORT OF
ROCKET LAWYER
v.
INCORPORATED'S MOTION FOR
SUMMARY JUDGMENT
ROCKET LAWYER
INCORPORATED, a Delaware
Date:
August 18, 2014
corporation,
Time:
9:30 a.m.
Judge:
Judge Gary A. Feess
Defendant.
Courtroom: 740
255 East Temple Street
Los Angeles, CA 90012
Action Filed: November 20, 2012

27
28

ACTIVE/74760488.1

1

I, Hong-An Vu, declare as follows:

2

1.

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

3

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

4

submit this declaration in support of Rocket Lawyer’s Motion for Summary

5

Judgment and/or Adjudication (the “Motion”). I am over the age of 18 years.

6

Unless otherwise indicated, I have personal knowledge of the matters stated herein

7

and, if called upon to do so, I could and would competently testify to them under

8

oath.

9

2.

Rocket Lawyer and LegalZoom.com, Inc. (“LegalZoom”)

10

corresponded about exchanging database information for their respective survey

11

experts on May 12, 2014. Attached hereto as Exhibit A is a copy of an email chain

12

between me and Ms. Winograd, counsel for LegalZoom, from May 12 to May 13,

13

2014, discussing the exchange of expert data.

14

3.

At that time, both Rocket Lawyer and LegalZoom agreed to

15

independently investigate the best manner to transfer the data related to those

16

surveys. Rocket Lawyer had previously produced this data to LegalZoom in PDF

17

format twice. LegalZoom had previously produced this data to Rocket Lawyer in

18

PDF document format as well.

19

4.

As indicated in Exhibit A, on May 13, 2014, counsel for Rocket

20

Lawyer contacted counsel for LegalZoom to further discuss that transfer of data.

21

Ms. Winograd had stated she was still determining in what format she would prefer

22

Rocket Lawyer’s survey data and whether the Isaacson survey data could be

23

provided to Rocket Lawyer in a non-PDF format.

24
25
26

5.

Counsel for LegalZoom, did not subsequently follow-up about

transferring the survey data until over two months later.
6.

Counsel for LegalZoom requested Rocket Lawyer’s survey data in a

27

database format on July 15, 2014 during Professor Wind’s deposition. The parties

28

agreed at that time to discuss the matter outside of the deposition. This July 15,

ACTIVE/74760488.1

1

1

2014 conversation was, to my knowledge, the first time that such request was raised

2

by LegalZoom since the May 13, 2014 correspondence between the parties.

3

7.

On July 15, 2014, also during the deposition of Professor Wind,

4

counsel for LegalZoom requested a link to Professor Wind’s survey as respondents

5

would have viewed it. I understood this request to mean that the parties would also

6

discuss exchanging links to the survey after the deposition as well. To my

7

knowledge, this was the first time counsel for LegalZoom ever requested this link to

8

Professor Wind’s survey.

9

8.

Counsel for LegalZoom has not contacted counsel for Rocket Lawyer

10

since Professor Wind’s deposition on July 15, 2014 to discuss (1) exchanging

11

databases of survey information, (2) the most helpful format for such exchange of

12

survey databases, or (3) obtaining a link to view Professor Wind’s survey as

13

respondents would have viewed it.

14
15
16

9.

As of today’s date, Rocket Lawyer has provided all of the supporting

data for Professor Wind’s survey to LegalZoom.
10.

LegalZoom has flatly refused to produce documents in response to

17

Rocket Lawyer’s request for documents which were relied upon by LegalZoom’s

18

experts, as evidenced by LegalZoom’s Response to Rocket Lawyer’s Third Set of

19

Requests for Production (a true and correct copy of which is attached hereto as

20

Exhibit B), at No. 2.

21
22
23

11.

As of the time of Rocket Lawyer’s filing of the Motion, Rocket Lawyer

had produced in excess of 22,000 documents.
12.

As of July 18, 2014, Rocket Lawyer completed its production of

24

documents (over 37,000 documents, 85,000 pages excluding native files) except for

25

potentially a small number of documents that may be declassified as privileged.

26

13.

To date, LegalZoom has produced only approximately 3,300

27

documents (less than 10,000 pages)between itself and nonparty Travis Giggy.

28

LegalZoom has not confirmed whether its document production is complete.

ACTIVE/74760488.1

2

14.

1
2

the Deposition of Professor Jerry (Yoram) Wind, taken July 15, 2014.
15.

3
4

Attached hereto as Exhibit D is a true and correct copy of a document

Bates labeled LZ007420, produced by LegalZoom in this case.
16.

5
6

Attached hereto as Exhibit C is a true and correct copy of excerpts of

Attached here as Exhibit E is a true and correct copy of Professor

Wind’s invoices, Bates RLI0062117-0062125.
17.

7

Attached hereto as Exhibit F is a true and correct copy of a report

8

issued by IBIS World, Cyber Security: Cheaper legal services online will lead to

9

higher revenue, IBISWorld Industry Report OD5638 Online Legal Services in the

10

US, May 2014, 16,692 business providing online legal services with LegalZoom

11

taking only 5.8% of market share.
18.

12

LegalZoom first noticed depositions of Rocket Lawyer and its

13

employees in July 2014, 19 months since this action began, and 10 months since the

14

discovery stay was lifted.
19.

15

RLI0003225, which is Exhibit 9 to the Declaration of Patricia

16

Winograd, is a log relating to customer service calls received by Rocket Lawyer.

17

By using the native version of the document produced by Rocket Lawyer and using

18

Excel’s filtering feature, I calculated that out of the 638,816 calls referenced in the

19

log, 1,781 calls related to complaints or questions relating to “free.” Therefore, the

20

customer calls relating to free account for 0.27% of Rocket Lawyer’s calls based on

21

the evidenced provided by LegalZoom.
20.

22

On August 1, 2014, I reviewed the BBB profiles of Rocket Lawyer and

23

LegalZoom. Over the last three years, Rocket Lawyer has received 181 complaints

24

(a vast majority of which have been resolved) which is approximately 5 complaints

25

a month. LegalZoom has received 133 complaints since March 10, 2013, which is

26

approximately 8.3 complaints a month.

27

///

28

///

ACTIVE/74760488.1

3

1
2
3

I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California
that the foregoing is true and correct.
Executed this 4th day of August, 2014, at San Francisco, California.

4
5
6
/s/ Hong-An Vu
Hong-An Vu

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

ACTIVE/74760488.1

4