Legalzoom.Com Inc v. Rocket Lawyer Incorporated

Filing 17

ORDER denying 1 Plaintif's Motion to Compel, by Judge James L. Robart.(MD)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON
AT SEATTLE

8
9
10

LEGALZOOM.COM, INC.,
Plaintiff,

11
12

ORDER DENYING MOTION TO
COMPEL

v.

13

CASE NO. C15-0265JLR

ROCKET LAWYER, INC.,
Defendant.

14
15

Before the court is Plaintiff LegalZoom.com, Inc.’s (“LegalZoom”) motion to

16 compel the production of documents by and deposition of non-party Michael Margolis.
17 (See Mot. (Dkt. # 1).) LegalZoom seeks documents pertaining to a project that Mr.
18 Margolis worked on as an employee of Google Ventures, a subsidiary of Google, Inc.
19 (“Google”). (Veltman Decl. (Dkt. # 7) ¶ 3.) LegalZoom recently filed a similar motion
20 to compel against Google in the Northern District of California (“Northern District”).
21 (See 3/25/15 Letter (Dkt. # 14)); see also LegalZoom.com v. Rocket Lawyer, Inc., No.
22 5:15-mc-80003-NC (N.D. Cal.) Dkt. # 1. The subpoena to Google at issue in that motion
ORDER- 1

1 is virtually identical to the subpoena to Mr. Margolis at issue in this motion. (Compare
2 Margolis Sub. (Dkt. # 7-1) with Google Sub. (Dkt. # 7-2).) On March 23, 2015,
3 Magistrate Judge Cousins denied LegalZoom’s motion to compel in the Northern
4 District. See LegalZoom.com v. Rocket Lawyer, Inc., No. 5:15-mc-80003-NC (N.D. Cal.)
5 Dkt. # 10.
This court stayed the case pending adjudication of LegalZoom’s motion for relief

6

7 from Judge Cousins’ order. (See 4/7/15 Order (Dkt. # 15).) On April 15, 2015, Judge
8 Koh denied LegalZoom’s motion. See LegalZoom.com v. Rocket Lawyer, Inc., No. 5:159 mc-80003-NC (N.D. Cal.) Dkt. # 15 (finding that “there is no support for [LegalZoom’s]
10 position in either the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure or case law”); (see also 4/16/16
11 Letter (Dkt. # 16) Ex. A.) Accordingly, the court LIFTS the stay in this matter.
Having examined the parties’ submissions, the record, and the relevant law, the

12

13 court finds that the reasoning of the Northern District is persuasive. The court
14 independently adopts the Northern District’s reasoning and incorporates it herein.
15 Consistent with that reasoning, the court concludes that LegalZoom has not met its
16 burden under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 45(d)(1) to take “reasonable steps to avoid
17 imposing undue burden or expense” on non-party Mr. Margolis. See LegalZoom.com v.
18 Rocket Lawyer, Inc., No. 5:15-mc-80003-NC (N.D. Cal.) Dkt. # 10; Fed. R. Civ. P.
19 45(d)(1).
20 //
21 //
22 //
ORDER- 2

1 Accordingly, the court DENIES LegalZoom’s motion to compel (Dkt. # 1).
2

Dated this 17th day of April, 2015.

3

5

A

6

JAMES L. ROBART
United States District Judge

4

7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
ORDER- 3