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 5
TO THE DECLARATION OF
JACOB T. VELTMAN

December 11, 2014
Via E-Mail
Aaron P. Allan
Glaser Weil Fink Howard Avchen & Shapiro LLP
10250 Constellation Blvd.
19th Floor
Los Angeles, CA 90067
Re:

LegalZoom.com, Inc. v. Rocket Lawyer Incorporated – USDC Case No. 2:12CV-09942 – Subpoena to Google

Dear Aaron:
I write in response to your letter dated December 9, 2014. I frankly do not appreciate the
false urgency and unreasonable, artificial deadlines you and your colleagues continue to inject in
this routine discovery process.
Although the Court authorized additional discovery on November 10, you waited until
the day before Thanksgiving to serve Mr. Margolis with a subpoena, and that subpoena
demanded his appearance at a deposition only four business days later despite the fact that
discovery does not close until January 16, 2015. You similarly waited a week to serve Google
with a second subpoena yet demanded that it produce documents the day after Thanksgiving
weekend. After Google timely asserted objections despite your unnecessarily compressed time
frame, you waited a week before communicating further with my office, at which point you
insisted that we call you back that afternoon. After I complied and discussed the subpoena with
you that day, you provided a copy of the study necessary for us to evaluate your requests on
Friday, December 5. Then on December 9, you demanded that I “confirm[] that the production
is proceeding.”
As I communicated to you on Friday, we are continuing to discuss your subpoena with
Google and will provide you with a substantive response regarding which documents we are
willing to produce as soon as possible. Your insistence that we conclude this process within
three business days of having received the study at issue is simply unreasonable. Google is an
extremely large corporation and ascertaining what documents are available to be produced, what
the burden associated with that production would be, and whether there are privacy or
confidentiality concerns relating to those documents takes time, particularly given that Google is
a third party and had no familiarity with this dispute until our conversation last week.
Although your subpoenas seek documents that are largely in the possession of Rocket
Lawyer Inc. and that therefore should have been sought from Rocket Lawyer, I assure you that
they have not been forgotten or ignored and that we will respond to you as soon as possible, and

Aaron P. Allan
December 11, 2014
Page 2
within a reasonable time frame. I realize you would prefer to receive Google’s production by
December 17, but that may not be practicable. Yours are certainly not the only subpoenas
currently being processed by Google at this time, and any firm expectation that discovery from
Google would be concluded in less than a month from the service of your subpoenas is, again,
unreasonable. This case has been pending for more than two years. If there is any urgency in
your discovery demands, it is due to your decision to wait until the eleventh hour to seek
discovery from Google.
You may opt to short-circuit the meet and confer process and move to compel as you
seem to threaten. Doing so, however, will not get you the discovery you seek any faster, and
Google will seek redress for your failure to abide by Rule 45’s mandate to avoid undue burden
on non-parties.
Sincerely,
WILSON SONSINI GOODRICH & ROSATI
Professional Corporation
Jacob Veltman