LegalZoom.com, Inc. v. Rocket Lawyer, Inc.

Filing 14

MOTION for Attorney Fees filed by Google Inc.. Responses due by 4/20/2015. Replies due by 4/27/2015. (Attachments: # 1 Declaration David H. Kramer)(Kramer, David) (Filed on 4/6/2015)

1 DAVID H. KRAMER, State Bar No. 168452

JACOB T. VELTMAN, State Bar No. 247597

2 WILSON SONSINI GOODRICH & ROSATI
Professional Corporation

3 650 Page Mill Road

Palo Alto, CA 94304-1050

4 Telephone: [phone]
Facsimile: [phone]

5 Email: [e-mail]

Email: [e-mail]

6

Attorneys for Nonparty

7 Google Inc.
8
9

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

10

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

11

SAN JOSE DIVISION

12
13 LEGALZOOM.COM, INC.,
Plaintiff,

14
15

v.

16 ROCKET LAWYER INC.,
17

Defendant.

18
19
20

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

CASE NO.: 5:15-mc-80003-NC
DECLARATION OF DAVID H. KRAMER
IN SUPPORT OF NONPARTY GOOGLE
INC.’S MOTION FOR ATTORNEYS’ FEES
Before: Hon. Nathanael M. Cousins

21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

KRAMER DECL. ISO MOTION FOR FEES

CASE NO.: 5:15-MC-80003-NC

1 I, David H. Kramer, declare as follows:
2

1.

I am a partner at Wilson Sonsini Goodrich & Rosati (“WSGR”), counsel for

3 nonparty Google Inc. (“Google”) in this case. I make this Declaration in support of Google’s
4 Motion for Attorneys’ Fees. I have personal knowledge of the facts set forth in this Declaration.
5 If called as a witness, I could and would testify competently to the matters set forth herein.
6

2.

I am the partner responsible for my firm’s representation of Google in this matter.

7 Jacob Veltman (a senior associate) and Patrick McKinley (a senior paralegal) assisted me in
8 preparing Google’s Opposition to LegalZoom.com, Inc.’s (“LegalZoom”) Motion to Compel and
9 in preparing to argue the motion.
10

3.

I have been practicing law for more than twenty years and have been a partner in

11 WSGR’s litigation department for more than fourteen years. I am a member of the firm’s Board
12 of Directors, and head of the Internet Strategy and Litigation practice. I graduated from the
13 Georgetown University Law Center in 1993. I am a member in good standing of the California
14 bar and am also admitted to this Court. My effective billing rate for this matter is $765 per hour.
15

4.

Mr. Veltman graduated from the UCLA School of Law in 2006 and has been an

16 associate in WSGR’s litigation department since the fall of 2006. He is a member in good
17 standing of the California bar and is also admitted to this Court. His effective billing rate for this
18 matter is $550 per hour.
19

5.

Mr. McKinley has nearly twenty years of experience as a paralegal and case

20 assistant. He joined WSGR’s litigation department in 1996. His effective billing rate for this
21 matter is $260 per hour.
22

6.

Below is a summary of the work performed by WSGR in contesting LegalZoom’s

23 Motion to Compel. I certify that Google was actually invoiced for the following hours and in the
24 following amounts (or more). For the Court’s ease of reference, billing entries have been
25 consolidated and summarized.
26
27
28

KRAMER DECL. ISO MOTION FOR FEES

-1-

CASE NO.: 5:15-MC-80003-NC

1
2

Timekeeper

Task

Hours

Cost

J. Veltman

Draft opposition brief and supporting declaration;
conduct legal research regarding primary arguments.

14.5

$7,975

D. Kramer

Review and revise opposition brief and supporting
declaration.

6.2

$4,743

Prepare for hearing, including review of briefs, cases,
and prior decisions; appear at hearing.

6.3

$4,819

Gather exhibits submitted with opposition brief; cite
check and proofread opposition brief.

5.3

$1,378

Assist with hearing preparation; gather relevant
materials for D. Kramer.

1.3

$338

3
4
5
6
7

P. McKinley

8
9
10

$19,253

Total

11

7.

I do not yet know the precise amount of fees that Google has incurred in connection

12

with the preparation of Google’s Motion for Attorneys’ Fees, but I certify that it will exceed

13

$5,000.

14

8.

I believe the fees incurred by Google in this matter are reasonable relative to the

15

nature and complexity of the dispute. WSGR’s billing rates were negotiated at arms-length with

16

Google, and in my experience are equivalent to or lower than those of firms and attorneys with

17

comparable experience. Furthermore, the above amounts do not include any of the fees incurred

18

in connection with the preparation of Google’s objections to LegalZoom’s subpoena or in

19

connection with subsequent meet-and-confer efforts. Although those fees are potentially

20

recoverable under Rule 45, Google is seeking reimbursement only of fees incurred in connection

21

with LegalZoom’s Motion to Compel.

22

9.

I proposed a compromise on the issue of attorneys’ fees with LegalZoom’s counsel

23

prior to bringing this motion. I informed LegalZoom’s counsel via telephone that Google intended

24

to seek attorneys’ fees and inquired as to whether LegalZoom was interested in a compromise.

25

LegalZoom’s counsel said that he would get back to me after conferring with his client. After

26

several days elapsed with no response, I raised the issue again via email and noted that the amount

27

of fees Google intended to seek was approximately $25,000. I offered to forego this motion in

28

exchange for a prompt payment of the fees then-incurred. LegalZoom’s counsel thanked me for

KRAMER DECL. ISO MOTION FOR FEES

-2-

CASE NO.: 5:15-MC-80003-NC

1

offering to compromise but said that he had not received a response from his client yet and would

2

be in trial for the next two days. I did not receive any further response from LegalZoom’s counsel

3

thereafter, necessitating the preparation of both a motion and this declaration.

4
5

I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct. Executed this 6th
day of April 2015 at Palo Alto, California.

6
7

/s David H. Kramer
David H. Kramer

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

KRAMER DECL. ISO MOTION FOR FEES

-3-

CASE NO.: 5:15-MC-80003-NC