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

Filing 5

RESPONSE (re 1 MOTION to Compel ) Nonparty Google Inc.'s Opposition to LegalZoom.com, Inc.'s Motion to Compel Compliance with Subpoena filed byGoogle Inc.. (Attachments: # 1 Declaration of Jacob T. Veltman, # 2 Exhibit 1, # 3 Exhibit 2, # 4 Exhibit 3, # 5 Exhibit 4, # 6 Exhibit 5, # 7 Exhibit 6, # 8 Exhibit 7, # 9 Exhibit 8, # 10 Exhibit 9)(Kramer, David) (Filed on 1/20/2015)

EXHIBIT 4
TO THE DECLARATION OF
JACOB T. VELTMAN

,~"

10250 Constellation Blvd.
19th Floor
Los Angeles, CA 90067
310.553.3000 TEL
310.556.2920 FAX
Aaron P. Allan

December 9, 2014

VIA FACSIMILE &EMAIL

Direct Dial
310.282.6279
Direct Fax
310.785.3579
Email
[e-mail]

David H. Kramer
Jacob T. Veltman
Wilson Sonsini Goodrich &Rosati
650 Page Mill Road
Palo Alto, CA 94304
Re:

LegalZoom.com,Inc. v. Rocket Lawyer Incorporated — USDC Case No. 2:12-CV09942 —Subpoena to Google

Dear Counsel:
I write in response to your November 26, 2014 Responses and Objections regarding the
deposition subpoena served on Google, Inc., and further to the various communications that I
have had with Jacob Veltman to meet and confer regarding those objections.
United States District Judge Gary Feess has ordered in the above matter that LegalZoom
be permitted to take third party discovery from Google, Inc. on a limited basis, and we have a
limited amount of time by which to complete this and other discovery in the case. By an email
sent on December 3, 2014, I provided you with a copy of Judge Feess' order. The subjects for
production identified in our subpoena conformed to the narrow parameters of the Court's order.
We also provided, at your request, a copy of the protective order entered in this case.
Notwithstanding that any denial by Google of the requested information would be
inconsistent with the Court's Order, we agreed as part of a meet and confer effort to limit the
scope of the production to 1/1/10 — 12/31/13, and we also agreed to provide you with some
information that you ret~uested to assist your search: (a)the Rocket Lawyer email addresses
associated with the subject Google adwords account; and (b)the customer ID number, bank
reference number or URL transfer number/address associated with the adwords account. In
reviewing our documents, we have found the following responsive emails addresses:
[e-mail]
[e-mail]
[e-mail]
ITi MERITAS Lr1W FIRMS WORLDWIpE

976758.1

David H. Kramer
Jacob T. Veltman
Wilson Sonsini Goodrich &Rosati
December 9, 2014
Page 2

[e-mail]
We were unable to locate any customer ID number, bank reference number or URL transfer
number/address associated with the adwords account, but I offered to "work with" Google to
help alleviate any burden associated with locating and producing responsive documents. For
example, we agreed to accept a declaration from a custodian of records in lieu of live testimony
for authenticating any responsive documents produced. We are open to considering other
proposals.
In my email dated December 3, 2014, I made clear our desire that Google adhere to the
December 17, 2014, date for production, if possible. Part of the reason for our need to expedite
the production is that we have a January 16, 2015, deadline to complete all discovery in the case,
including a deposition of"Katherine K" who was a Google employee (based on emails
communications with Rocket Lawyer)that we have requested be identified by Google.
Katherine K. was an instrumental party regarding some of the Rocket Lawyer advertisements
that are at issue in this lawsuit and that violated Google's Offer Not Found Policy. Katherine
K's knowledge, understanding, and actions taken with regards to Rocket Lawyer's violation of
Google's Offer Not Found Policy are not within the possession of Rocket Lawyer, and are
matters that we may appropriately inquire about from her at a deposition once her identity has
been produced to us.
We remain willing to work with your firm and with Google to extend out the December
17 production date, but only if I receive some confirmation from your office that the production
is proceeding and that Google is not intending to rely upon its objections to avoid producing
responsive documents and information. During our December 3 telephone call, Mr. Veltman
agreed to get back to me on this subject by December 5. On December 5, Mr. Veltman emailed
me to tell me that he had no update, and that he was still discussing the issue internally and
would respond "as soon as [he] can."
Given our January 16, 2015, deadline to complete all discovery, we must insist upon a
response by elope of business tomorrow, December 10, 2014, confirming Google's intentions
with respect to the subpoena, or we will have no alternative but to begin the process to pursue a
motion to compel. Because the original subpoena provided adequate notice under the rules, and
was limited in scope to the subjects allowed by the Court order, we would move with respect to
that original subpoena and would not have a need to serve any new subpoena (as I mistakenly
indicated we planned to do in my email earlier today). We would also seek monetary sanctions
based on the legal fees required to bring the motion.
As I previously indicated, we greatly prefer to work this out with Google on a consensual
basis rather than to involve the Court with expensive motion practice. But absent hearing from

976758.1

David H. Kramer
Jacob T. Veltman
Wilson Sonsini Goodrich &Rosati
December 9, 2014
Page 3

you by tomorrow on this subject, you leave us with no alternative but to proceed with motion
practice. I look forward to hearing from you as soon as possible on this subject.
Sincerely,

AARON P. ALLAN
of GLASER WEIL FINK HOWARD AVCHEN & SHAPIRO LLP

APA:cc

976758.1