EX PARTE APPLICATION to Continue the Trial and Related Date Set in the Court's January 22, 2014 Order for Good Cause; Memorandum of Points and Authorities; Declarations of Patricia Jones Winograd and Mary Ann Nguyen filed by Plaintiff LegalZoom.com Inc.(Heather, Fred)
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 PATRICIA L. GLASER - State Bar No. 55668 pglaser@glaserweil.com FRED D. HEATHER - State Bar No. 110650 fheather@glaserweil.com MARY ANN T. NGUYEN - State Bar No. 269099 mnguyen@glaserweil.com GLASER WEIL FINK JACOBS HOWARD AVCHEN & SHAPIRO LLP 10250 Constellation Boulevard, 19th Floor Los Angeles, California 90067 Telephone: (310) 553-3000 Facsimile: (310) 556-2920 Attorneys for Plaintiff LegalZoom.com, Inc. 9 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 10 CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 11 WESTERN DIVISION 12 13 LEGALZOOM.COM, INC., a Delaware corporation, Plaintiff, 14 15 16 v. ROCKET LAWYER INCORPORATED, a Delaware corporation, 17 Defendants. 18 19 CASE NO.: CV 12-9942-GAF (AGRx) Hon. Gary A. Feess Courtroom: 740 EX PARTE APPLICATION AND APPLICATION TO CONTINUE THE TRIAL AND RELATED DATES SET IN THE COURT’S JANUARY 22, 2014 ORDER FOR GOOD CAUSE; MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES; DECLARATIONS OF PATRICIA JONES WINOGRAD AND MARY ANN NGUYEN 20 21 [[PROPOSED] ORDER FILED CONCURRENTLY HEREWITH] 22 Complaint Filed: November 20, 2012 23 24 25 26 27 28 i EX PARTE APPLICATION AND APPLICATION TO CONTINUE TRIAL AND RELATED DATES 868051.1 1 TO THE DEFENDANT AND ITS ATTORNEYS OF RECORD: PLEASE TAKE NOTICE THAT Plaintiff LegalZoom.com, Inc. 2 3 (“LegalZoom”) will and hereby does apply, ex parte, for an Order continuing the 4 expert discovery cut-off and disclosure date in this case. Indeed, despite 5 LegalZoom’s persistent and diligent efforts to obtain factual information critical to its 6 expert disclosures, Rocket Lawyer has only, belatedly, supplied LegalZoom with a 7 voluminous amount of information, amounting to more than 1.5 million separate 8 entries relating to the ads that are the centerpiece of this case. Other information, 9 including information relating to RocketLawyer’s damages, still remains outstanding. 10 Under the circumstances, adherence to the current discovery cut-off dates would 11 prevent LegalZoom from being afforded an ample and meaningful opportunity to 12 consider all relevant information in connection with its expert disclosures in this case, 13 and thereby prejudice LegalZoom. This application is made based upon the accompanying Memorandum of Points 14 15 and Authorities, the Declarations of Patricia Jones Winograd and Mary Ann Nguyen 16 filed concurrently herewith, the relevant pleadings, documents and matters of which 17 this Court may take judicial notice, and on such other matters which may properly 18 come before this Court at the hearing on this Ex parte Application. 19 DATED: April 4, 2014 Respectfully submitted, GLASER WEIL FINK JACOBS HOWARD AVCHEN & SHAPIRO LLP 20 21 22 By: /s/ Fred Heather PATRICIA L. GLASER FRED D. HEATHER MARY ANN T. NGUYEN Attorneys for Plaintiff LegalZoom.com, Inc. 23 24 25 26 27 28 ii EX PARTE APPLICATION AND APPLICATION TO CONTINUE TRIAL AND RELATED DATES 868051.1 MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES 1 2 I. INTRODUCTION Plaintiff LegalZoom.com, Inc. (“LegalZoom”) requests that this Court continue 3 4 the expert discovery disclosure date, and any other date impacted thereby, in order 5 that LegalZoom be provided with a meaningful opportunity to complete its fact and 6 expert discovery. The current expert discovery cut-off date is April 15, 2014; the 7 current fact discovery cut-off is June 24, 2014. Notwithstanding the imminence of 8 the expert disclosure deadline, Defendant Rocket Lawyer Incorporated (“Rocket 9 Lawyer”) has just provided LegalZoom with more than 1.5 million separately- 10 itemized line items involving multiple data points relating to the ads that are at issue 11 in this action and which LegalZoom has repeatedly requested since last year. Other 12 data, including information relating to its allegedly false ads, remains outstanding. 13 Although the precise scope and import of this information requires analysis and 14 possible follow-up discovery, the recently-disclosed information will comprise or 15 provide the foundation for expert opinion in this case. Given the belated and 16 voluminous nature of Rocket Lawyer’s recent productions and absence of other 17 important information, adherence to the current schedule (which establishes the 18 expert disclosure deadline 70 days prior to the fact discovery cut off) would result in 19 unfair prejudice to LegalZoom’s rights to fully and meaningfully prepare this case for 20 trial. Accordingly, LegalZoom respectfully submits that good cause exists for the 21 instant application. 22 II. FACTUAL BACKGROUND 23 A. LegalZoom’s Claims. 24 The gravamen of this case is LegalZoom’s contention that Rocket Lawyer 25 engaged in false advertising in violation of the Lanham Act and Business and 26 Professions Code by, among other things, using LegalZoom’s mark in its advertising 27 and falsely advertising that various of its products and services were free. (See First 28 Amended Complaint, “FAC” ¶¶ 12-14.) At the heart of LegalZoom’s claims, then, 1 MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES 868051.1 1 are the ads that Rocket Lawyer has published during the operative time period. Id. 2 B. Discovery Relating to LegalZoom’s Claims 3 Although LegalZoom’s complaint was premised on at least five RocketLawyer 4 ads, since the commencement of discovery, LegalZoom has requested information in 5 discovery concerning all ads Rocket Lawyer has published that relate to its allegedly 6 “free” offer of services and/or the use of LegalZoom’s mark. (Declaration of Mary 7 Ann Nguyen, “Nguyen Decl. ¶¶ 2, 3.) LegalZoom also requested, among other 8 things, information relating to RocketLawyer’s ads, including the ads themselves and 9 information concerning the time periods during which Rocket Lawyer’s ads ran, the 10 number of consumers converted on account of the ads and information relating to the 11 revenue Rocket Lawyer earned in connection with the ads, in order to allow 12 LegalZoom to ascertain and assess damages, among other things. (Nguyen Decl. ¶ 3.) Notably, RocketLawyer also requested information that hinges on data about 13 14 those ads, including the dates when the ads were published. For example, 15 RocketLawyer requested information concerning revenues LegalZoom made while 16 the ads were running. (Nguyen Decl. ¶ 4.) 17 C. Sequence/History of Discovery Efforts 18 Although the parties have been actively involved in discovery—efforts, to date, 19 which have involved the preparation of supplemental discovery responses, the 20 preparation of additional discovery, including third-party discovery, and extensive 21 meet and confers on numerous occasions in an effort to resolve various discovery 22 issues—the parties are still engaged in significant fact discovery. (Nguyen Decl. ¶5.) 23 To date, not a single deposition has been taken by either party. (Declaration of 24 Patricia Jones Winograd, “Winograd Decl.” ¶ 8.) Motions to compel are 25 contemplated or have been raised by both sides. And, pursuant to their mutual 26 agreement, the parties commenced rolling document productions in earnest on 27 January 24, 2014. (Winograd Decl. ¶ 2.) Moreover, the parties are still in the midst of meeting and conferring in 28 2 MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES 868051.1 1 connection with certain issues (some of which may ultimately require judicial 2 resolution). In fact, on account of the many such meet and confers and the state of 3 discovery, the parties have now twice agreed that more time than that originally 4 contemplated was necessary to complete discovery. 1 5 D. Attempts to Meet and Confer. 6 Information regarding Rocket Lawyer’s misleading advertisements, which are 7 at the heart of LegalZoom’s claims and contentions and some of which still remains 8 outstanding, has been the subject of continued and repeated dialogue amongst the 9 parties since the commencement of discovery. (Winograd Decl. ¶ 2.) Indeed, the 10 specific requests that yielded the production that has just been made, were the subject 11 of at least three separate meet and confer letters and at least two telephonic meet and 12 confers dating back to November of last year. Indeed, LegalZoom communicated 13 with RocketLawyer about the importance of the ads and information relating to the 14 ads in writing as early as November 5, 2013, and again on January 16, 2014. 15 (Winograd Decl., ¶ 2). Then, and during telephonic meet and confers, LegalZoom 16 emphasized the need for the information pertaining to RocketLawyer ads and their 17 centrality in this case. Again, just before Rocket Lawyer’s submission of the voluminous production, 18 19 and without the knowledge that RocketLawyer would imminently produce 20 1 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 Twice before now, the parties initially agreed that additional time was necessary to complete discovery. (Nguyen Decl. ¶ 5.) Indeed, on October 2, 2013, the parties jointly stipulated to an extension of the Court’s April 11, 2013 Scheduling Order deadlines by approximately 120 days. (Nguyen Decl. ¶6.) On October 6, 2013, the Court entered an order granting the parties’ joint stipulation to continue the trial and discovery dates set in the Court’s April 11, 2013 Scheduling Order. Id. Then, On January 21, 2014, the parties jointly stipulated to an additional extension of the Court’s October 6, 2013 Scheduling Order deadlines by approximately 60 days. (Nguyen Decl. ¶7.) On January 22, 2014, the Court entered an order granting the parties’ joint stipulation to continue the trial and discovery dates set in the Court’s October 6, 2013 Scheduling Order. Id. 28 3 MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES 868051.1 1 voluminous and seemingly informative spreadsheets containing hundreds of 2 thousands of ads and other related information, Legal Zoom again conveyed to 3 RocketLawyer the centrality of this information and warned that failure to produce 4 the information would undoubtedly impact LegalZoom’s ability to complete its expert 5 disclosures and would require that it extend the expert dislosure date and any other 6 deadlines that were impacted thereby. (Winograd Decl. ¶ 2, 7). In the last week, Rocket Lawyer has made significant seriatim productions. 7 8 Specifically, Rocket Lawyer produced spreadsheets containing more than 1.5 million 9 separate entries identifying thousands of ads, the dates on which such advertisements 10 began and some apparent associated financial and conversion data under the cloak of 11 attorneys’ eyes only designations. (Winograd Decl. ¶ 4.) The data not only requires 12 consideration, as the information needs to be decoded and synthesized by LegalZoom 13 and its experts, but may also require additional discovery in the form of depositions. 14 The information is not entirely clear. For example, RocketLawyer appears to be 15 providing “conversion” information related to each of the more than 1.5 million 16 entries. LegalZoom is unsure what this number represents. And, because the 17 information has been designated as attorneys’ eyes only under the parties’ Protective 18 Order, there will be additional steps—some of which LegalZoom has already 19 initiated—designed to ensure that it can properly deal with and decipher the 20 information with its experts. LegalZoom may, in fact, need to take depositions 21 concerning the information to the extent necessary. In short, while it may be entirely 22 comprehensible to RocketLawyer, LegalZoom needs to be afforded the time to 23 consider and assess the impact of the information and to synthesize it within the 24 context of its expert analyses. 25 Moreover, LegalZoom is still without some other information it has requested. 26 For example, RocketLawyer appears not to have yet provided LegalZoom with all of 27 the damages information it requested. And, RocketLawyer has repeatedly indicated 28 that some of the other information LegalZoom has requested, in the form of its ads 4 MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES 868051.1 1 and website landing pages—both also relevant to LegalZoom’s disclosures—are still 2 being obtained. 3 Notwithstanding the entirely absent, on the one hand, and recent disclosures of 4 certain fact discovery, on the other, Rocket Lawyer has been steadfast in its refusal to 5 extend the deadlines in this case. (Winograd Decl. ¶ 6.) Following Rocket Lawyer’s 6 voluminous and belated productions, on March 28, 2014, LegalZoom immediately 7 requested that Rocket Lawyer agree to continue upcoming deadlines and informed 8 Rocket Lawyer that, in the absence of Rocket Lawyer’s agreement to continue the 9 deadlines, LegalZoom would have no choice but to seek a court order to extend the 10 deadlines. (Nguyen Decl. ¶ 8.) Rocket Lawyer refused. Then, when on April 2, 11 2014, LegalZoom notified Rocket Lawyer of its intention to apply ex parte on April 12 3, 2014 for a continuance of the deadlines, RocketLawyer still refused to move the 13 deadlines to provide LegalZoom with a meaningful opportunity to review the data 14 produced and receive other data despite its own acknowledgement that some 15 extension may be appropriate. (Nguyen Decl. ¶ 9.; Winograd Decl., ¶ 6). 16 RocketLawyer first agreed to provide LegalZoom with a four-day extension; its last 17 offer was only a seven-day extension of the expert disclosure date. (Id.) This application and the Proposed Order is filed more than a week in advance 18 19 of any deadlines in this case. 20 III. LEGAL STANDARD AND SUPPORT FOR EX PARTE APPLICATION To justify ex parte relief, the moving party must show: (1) that the moving 21 22 party’s cause will be irreparably prejudiced if the underlying motion is heard 23 according to regular noticed motion procedures; and (2) it must be established that the 24 moving party is without fault in creating the crisis that requires ex parte relief, or that 25 the crisis occurred as a result of excusable neglect. Mission Power Eng’g Co. v. 26 Continental Cas. Co., 883 F. Supp. 488, 492 (C.D. Cal. 1995). A regularly-noticed motion under the circumstances would be impracticable 27 28 and would leave LegalZoom in a significantly more prejudiced position than the 5 MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES 868051.1 1 currently prejudiced position it now finds itself. The expert disclosure date under the 2 current schedule (which is required to predate the fact discovery cut-off by 70 days), 3 is currently set for April 15, 2014. Yet, on the near eve of the cut-off date, 4 RocketLawyer produced a voluminous amount of information (and other information 5 is still outstanding) that LegalZoom should be entitled to meaningfully consider in 6 conjunction with its expert disclosures. If LegalZoom were required to wait to seek, 7 or be required to postpone seeking, the herein requested continuance for the requisite 8 regular motion notice period, LegalZoom would be irreparably prejudiced in that it 9 would have to provide its expert disclosures without the benefit of an opportunity to 10 consider this information and other outstanding information in connection with its 11 expert disclosures. 12 IV. GOOD CAUSE EXISTS FOR THE REQUESTED CONTINUANCE When good cause exists, as it does in this case, a schedule may be modified 13 14 with the Court’s consent. Fed. R. Civ. Proc. 16(b)(4). Furthermore, the “matter of 15 continuance is traditionally within the discretion of the trial judge.” Ungar v. 16 Sarafite, 376 U.S. 575, 589 (U.S. 1964). In order to establish good cause, a party 17 must establish that, even with the exercise of due diligence, they cannot meet the 18 court’s timetable. Johnson v. Mammoth Recreations, Inc. (9th Cir. 1992) 975 F2d 19 604, 609 (Rule 16(b)’s “good cause standard primarily considers the diligence of the 20 party seeking the amendment.” ). The relief herein is being sought to enable LegalZoom a full and complete 21 22 opportunity to investigate and conduct discovery of the matters relating to its 23 Complaint and defenses in order to fully prepare the case for a trial on the merits; 24 LegalZoom’s request comes only after its diligence and despite its efforts to obtain 25 the requested information.2 Faced with RocketLawyer’s refusals or justificiation as to 26 2 27 28 RocketLawyer contends that its delay in providing the information stems from its uncertainty about the nature of the information LegalZoom was requesting. Even if this were true—which LegalZoom contends it is not—there is still no credible argument that LegalZoom should be blamed for RocketLawyer’s delay in providing 6 MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES 868051.1 1 why this information was not previously notwithstanding before now aside, 2 LegalZoom’s ability to appropriately complete its expert disclosures is now 3 threatened. RocketLawyer itself admits that it is still in the process of compiling and 4 obtaining other information that LegalZoom has requested. The current pretrial and 5 trial schedule simply does not provide LegalZoom enough time to complete its certain 6 fact expert discovery necessary to prepare for trial. RocketLawyer should be not 7 permitted to obtain advantage from its delay in providing LegalZoom with 8 information that is at the very heart of this case. Simply put, if the current schedule is 9 maintained, LegalZoom will necessarily and inevitably be irreparably prejudiced in 10 its ability to prepare for trial and effectively prosecute its claims and defenses in this 11 action despite its efforts to do so. 12 VI. CONCLUSION 13 Based on the foregoing, LegalZoom respectfully requests that this Court grant 14 this Ex parte Application in its entirety and continue the trial and any and all related 15 dates consistent with the Proposed Order lodged concurrently herewith. 16 17 DATED: April 4, 2014 Respectfully submitted, GLASER WEIL FINK JACOBS HOWARD AVCHEN & SHAPIRO LLP 18 19 20 By: /s/ Fred Heather PATRICIA L. GLASER FRED D. HEATHER MARY ANN T. NGUYEN Attorneys for Plaintiff 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 the information that it now has and its continued refusal to provide other information. Again, LegalZoom still has no damages information it has requested. Further, although it may be that some of the conversion information is in the belatedlyproduced charts, LegalZoom is not sure, without follow-up, whether the material include the conversion information that LegalZoom seeks. And, as to the information it did provide, if ever it were confused, RocketLawyer could have, at the very least, provided information about the ads that it did know were at issue because they were specifically identified in LegalZoom’s complaint and its motion for summary judgment. 7 MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES 868051.1 LegalZoom.com, Inc. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 8 MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES 868051.1 DECLARATION OF MARY ANN NGUYEN 1 2 I, MARY ANN T. NGUYEN, declare and state as follows: 3 1. I am an attorney at law duly licensed to practice before all courts of the 4 State of California and am an Associate of the law firm of Glaser Weil Fink Jacobs 5 Howard Avchen & Shapiro LLP, attorneys of record herein for Plaintiff 6 LegalZoom.com, Inc. (“LegalZoom”). I make this declaration in support of Plaintiff 7 LegalZoom’s Ex parte Application to Continue the Trial and Related Dates Set Forth 8 in the Court’s January 22, 2014 Scheduling Order. The facts set forth herein are true 9 of my own personal knowledge, and if called upon to testify thereto, I could and 10 would competently do so under oath. 2. 11 LegalZoom’s complaint was premised on at least five “free” ads, 12 including, “incorporate for free… pay no fees ($0),” “free incorporation,” “free help 13 from local attorneys,” “free legal review,” and “free” trials of Rocket Lawyer’s “Pro 14 Legal Plan” as set forth in Paragraph 14 in the FAC. 3. 15 LegalZoom has requested, since the commencement of discovery, 16 information concerning all ads Rocket Lawyer has published that relate to its 17 allegedly “free” offer of services and/or the use of LegalZoom’s mark, including the 18 dates on which such ads ran and any information concerning the conversion of 19 consumers on account of the ads, as evidenced by LegalZoom’s Requests for 20 Production of Documents, Requests Nos. 1, 5, 9, 10, 11, 17, 19, 49 and 50. Attached 21 hereto as Exhibit A is a true and correct copy of LegalZoom’s Request for Production 22 of Documents, which was served on Rocket Lawyer on March 12, 2013. 4. 23 Rocket Lawyer’s own request for damages information requires that 24 LegalZoom make reference to such Rocket Lawyer advertisements and the dates on 25 which the advertisements ran as evidenced by Rocket Lawyer’s Request for 26 Production of Documents, Request No. 21. Attached hereto as Exhibit B is a true 27 and correct copy of Rocket Lawyer’s Request for Production of Documents, which 28 was served on LegalZoom on March 11, 2013. 1 DECLARATION OF MARY ANN NGUYEN 868051.1 5. 1 Discovery, to date, has involved the service of supplemental discovery 2 responses, third-party discovery, and meet and confers on numerous occasions in an 3 effort to resolve various discovery issues and disputes. In so doing, the parties 4 engaged in multiple meet and confers and twice agreed that additional time was 5 necessary to complete discovery. 6. 6 On October 2, 2013, the parties jointly stipulated to an extension of the 7 Court’s April 11, 2013 Scheduling Order deadlines by approximately 120 days. On 8 October 6, 2013, the Court entered an order granting the parties’ joint stipulation to 9 continue the trial and discovery dates set in the Court’s April 11, 2013 Scheduling 10 Order. 7. 11 On January 21, 2014, the parties jointly stipulated to an additional 12 extension of the Court’s October 6, 2013 Scheduling Order deadlines by 13 approximately 60 days. On January 22, 2014, the Court entered an order granting the 14 parties’ joint stipulation to continue the trial and discovery dates set in the Court’s 15 October 6, 2013 Scheduling Order. 8. 16 On March 28, 2014, LegalZoom requested for a second time that Rocket 17 Lawyer agree to continue upcoming deadlines and informed Rocket Lawyer that, in 18 the absence of Rocket Lawyer’s agreement to continue the deadlines, LegalZoom 19 would have no choice but to seek a court order to extend the deadlines. Attached 20 hereto as Exhibit C is true and correct copy of LegalZoom’s letter to Rocket Lawyer, 21 dated March 28, 2014. 9. 22 On April 2, 2014, LegalZoom notified Rocket Lawyer of its intention to 23 apply ex parte on April 3, 2014 for a continuance of the deadlines. Rocket Lawyer 24 was steadfast that it opposed the application. Attached hereto as Exhibit D are true 25 and correct copies of LegalZoom’s notification to Rocket Lawyer, dated April 2, 26 2014, and Rocket Lawyer’s response on April 2, 2014. I declare under penalty of perjury pursuant to the laws of the State of California 27 28 that the foregoing facts are true and correct. 2 DECLARATION OF MARY ANN NGUYEN 868051.1 Executed on April 4, 2014 at Los Angeles, California. 1 2 /s/ Mary Ann T. Nguyen MARY ANN T. NGUYEN 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 3 DECLARATION OF MARY ANN NGUYEN 868051.1 DECLARATION OF PATRICIA JONES WINOGRAD 1 2 I, PATRICIA JONES WINOGRAD, declare and state as follows: 3 1. I am an attorney at law duly licensed to practice before all courts of the 4 State of California and am Of Counsel to the law firm of Glaser Weil Fink Jacobs 5 Howard Avchen & Shapiro LLP, attorneys of record herein for Plaintiff 6 LegalZoom.com, Inc. (“LegalZoom”). I make this declaration in support of Plaintiff 7 LegalZoom’s Ex parte Application to Continue the Trial and Related Dates Set Forth 8 in the Court’s January 22, 2014 Scheduling Order. The facts set forth herein are true 9 of my own personal knowledge, and if called upon to testify thereto, I could and 10 would competently do so under oath. 2. 11 Pursuant to the parties’ mutual agreement, rolling document productions 12 began in earnest by both parties on January 24, 2014. Since that time, the parties 13 have continued to meet and confer regarding various discovery issues and disputes. 14 Attached hereto as Exhibits E, F and G are true and correct copies of meet and 15 confer letters I sent to counsel for RocketLawyer on November 5, 2013, January 16, 16 2014 and March 20 2014, respectively. 3. 17 I, or associates at my direction, have reviewed the documents produced 18 by RocketLawyer. To date, there are approximately 20-30 documents that appear to 19 constitute an ad (and we are unsure whether these ads were actually test ads or actual 20 ads) or landing pages on RocketLawyer’s website. In the last ten days, Rocket 21 Lawyer has produced spreadsheets containing more than 1.5 million separate entries 22 identifying thousands of ads, the dates on which such advertisements began and the 23 associated financial and conversion data under the cloak of attorneys’ eyes only 24 designations. 4. 25 26 Attached hereto as Exhibit H is true and correct copy of Rocket Lawyer’s response, dated March 24, 2014. 27 5. There have been no depositions taken by either party in the case. 28 6. On April 2, 2014, I telephoned RocketLawyer’s counsel, who called in 1 DECLARATION OF PATRICIA JONES WINOGRAD 868051.1 1 response to LegalZoom’s notice of the ex parte application. Ms. Vu stated, among 2 other things, that RocketLawyer would be willing to provide a four day extension. At 3 the end of our conversation, she conveyed that RocketLawyer would consider a 4 seven-day extension of the expert disclosure deadline. I communicated that 5 LegalZoom believed it needed much more time, at a minimum, three to four 6 additional weeks. 7. 7 8 Ms. Vu providing notice again of the ex parte application. I declare under penalty of perjury pursuant to the laws of the State of California 9 10 Attached hereto as Exhibit I is a true and correct copy of my email to that the foregoing facts are true and correct. Executed on April 4, 2014 at Los Angeles, California. 11 12 /s/ Patricia Jones Winograd PATRICIA JONES WINOGRAD 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 2 DECLARATION OF PATRICIA JONES WINOGRAD 868051.1 1 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 2 STATE OF CALIFORNIA, COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES 3 I am employed in the County of Los Angeles, State of California; I am over the 4 age of 18 and not a party to the within action; my business address is 10250 5 Constellation Boulevard, 19th Floor, Los Angeles, California 90067. 6 On April 4, 2014, I electronically filed the following document(s) using the 7 CM/ECF system. 8 EX PARTE APPLICATION AND APPLICATION TO CONTINUE the 9 trial and RELATED dates set in the court’s January 22, 2014 order for 10 good cause; MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES; 11 DECLARATION OF PATRICIA JONES WINOGRAD 12 Participants in the case are registered CM/ECF users and will be served by the 13 CM/ECF system. 14 I declare that I am employed in the office of a member of the bar of this court at 15 whose direction the service was made. I declare under penalty of perjury that the 16 above is true and correct. 17 Executed on April 4, 2014 at Los Angeles, California. 18 19 /s/ Fred Heather Fred Heather 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 1 PROOF OF SERVICE 868051.1 EXHIBIT A t PATRICIA L. GLASER -State Bar No. 55668 pgl_a~ser gl~as~erweil.com 2 FRED .HEAT~-~R -State Bar No. 110650 (heather ~~la~serweil.com 3 MARY ~NN T. NGiJYEN —State Bar No.269099 mngu en(a~glaserweil.com 4 GLA~ER~EIL FINK JACOBS xowAxn Avc~rr & sx~nzo Lr.P s 10250 Constellation Boulevard, 19th Floor Los Angeles, California 90067 6 Telephone: 310 553-3000 Facsimile: ~310~ 556-2920 7 Attorneys for Plaintiff a LegalZoom.com,Inc. 9 UI~TTTED STATES DISTRICT COURT io CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORTTIA ii WESTERN DIVISION 12 13 LEGALZOOM.COM,INC., a Delaware CASE NO.: CV 12-9942-GAF(AGRx) COTPOIdt10II Hon. Gary A.Feess is Plaintiff, is v. 16 ROCKET LAWYER INCORPORATED, i~ a Delaware corporation Defendant. is PLAINTIFF LEGALZOOM.COM INC.'S FIRST SET OF REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS AND THINGS TO DEFENDANT ROCKET LAWYER INCORPORATED [NOS.1-55] 19 20 21 0 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 LEGALZOOM'S FIRST SET OF REQUESTS FOR DOCUMENTS TO ROCKETI,AWYER t Pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 26 and 34,Plaintiff 2 LegalZoom.com,Inc.("LegalZoom" or "Plaintiff') hereby requests that Defendant s Rocket Lawyer Incorporated("RocketLawyer" or "Defendant")produce the a documents and/or things specified below at the offices of Glaser Weil Fink Jacobs s Howard Avchen &Shapiro LLP, 10250 Constellation Blvd., 19th Floor,Los Angeles, 6 California 90067 within thirty(30)days after service. DEFIlVITIONS ~ s A. "LEGALZOOM" and "PLAINTIFF" mean and refer, without limitation, 9 to PlaintiffLegalZoom.com,Inc., its attorneys, agents and all PERSONS,as defined io below, acting on its behalf. ii ~~ ~I~" , N B. "LEGALZOOM MARKS" means and refers to the trademarks owned i2 and used by LEGALZOOM in connection with the marketing and sale ofits products t3 and services, including, but not limited to the following marks: is LEGALZOOM Q is LEGALZOOM.COM N~ i6 ~= t~ names www.legalzoomgad eg t.com and www.leQalzoomer.com. C. "LEGALZOOM DOMAINS" means and refers to the Internet domain is D. "LEGALZOOM's HOMEPAGE" means http://www.legalzoom.com/. t9 E. "ROCKETLAWYER,""DEFENDANT,""YOU"and"YOUR" mean ao and refer, without limitation, to Rocket Lawyer Incorporated, its employees, Zi attorneys, agents, independent contractors, officers, directors, shareholders, 22 representatives, and all PERSONS or entities.acting on its behalf. 23 F. "ROCKETLAWYER PRODUCTS AND SERVICES" mean and~refer to Za the products and services ROCKETLAWYER offers for sale,including, but not is limited to, online legal services, legal documents and prepaid legal services plans. 26 G. "ROCKETLAWYER FREE ADVERTISEMENTS" mean and refer to 2~ any marketing, advertising and/or promotion of ROCKETLAWYER and/or 2s ROCKETLAWYER PRODUCTS AND SERVICES,in which the term "free" LEGALZOOM'S FIRST SET OF REQUESTS FOR DOCUMENTS TO ROCKETLAWYER i appears in the marketing, advertisement and promotion and/or in which the term 2 "free" is used as a keyword or other search term to trigger the marketing, 3 advertisement and/or promotion ofROCKET'LAWYER and/or ROCKETLAWYER 4 PRODUCTS AND SERVICES. s 6 "LEGALZOOM TRIGGERED FREE ADVERTISEMENTS" shall H. mean any marketing, advertising and/or promotion ofROCKETLAWYER and/or ROCKETLAWYER PRODUCTS AND SERVICES,which uses the term "free" in s the marketing, advertisement and promotion Qnd which uses a LEGALZOOM 9 MARK as a keyword or other search term to trigger the marketing, advertisement io and/or promotion. ii 12 13 14 is 16 "FAC" refers to the LEGALZOOM's First Amended Complaint, filed on I. or about January 7, 2013,in this action. "AMENDED COUNTERCLAIMS" refer to ROCKETLAWYER's J. Amended Counterclaims, filed on or about January 23,2013,in this action. "GROSS REVENUE" means money generated by ROCKETLAYER's K. operations, before deductions for expenses,from the sale ofROCKETLAWYER ~~ PRODUCTS AND SERVICES. is 19 20 21 "NET REVENUE" means GROSS REVENUE less actual state filing fee L. or other governmental fee paid. M. "NEGATIVE OPTION" means a practice in which goods andlor services are provided automatically, whether through free trial or otherwise, and the customer za must either pay for the goods and/or services or specifically decline it in advance of 23 24 billing, such as through subscription. N. "COMMU1vICATION'includes, without limitation, communications Zs by whatever means transmitted (i.e., whether oral, written, electronic, or other 26 27 methods are used), as well as any note, memorandum,or other document record V thereof. 28 LEGALZOOM'S FIRST SET OF REQUESTS FORDOCUNIENTS TO ROCKETLAWYER i O. "DOCUMENT"has the full meaning ascribed to it by the Federal Rules 2 of Civil Procedure and the Federal Rules ofEvidence, and includes without limitation s any writing, COMMUIVICATIQN,correspondence or tangible thing on which a information can be stored or from which information can be retrieved, whether signed s or unsigned,in draft or final form,an original or a copy,including electronic formats. 6 P. "CONSTITiJ'TING,""CONCERI~iING,""REFERRING TO," ~ "RELATED TO," and "RELATING TO," whether used alone or in conjunction with s one another, are used in their broadest sense and shall mean and refer to, without 9 limitation, constituting, summarizing, memorializing, or directly or indirectly io referring to, discussing, pertaining to, regarding, evidencing, supporting, i i contradicting, containing information regarding, embodying, comprising,identifying, ~Q i2 stating, reflecting, dealing with, commenting on,responding to, describing, analyzing, ~I~' ~N c ~~ r Q is or in any way pertinent to the subject matter ofthe type ofDOCUMENTS sought. ~a Q. "IDENTIFY" with respect to a"PERSON," means to provide the is PERSON'S name,title, last known business and residential address and last known a~ ~ i6 business and residential telephone numbers. c~ z i~ R. "PERSON" means an individual,firm, partnership, corporation, is proprietorship, association, governmental body, or any other organization or entity. i9 S. "Each" and "any" include both "each" and "every" whenever ao appropriate. The terms "and" as well as "or" shall be construed either disjunctively or 2i conjunctively as necessary to bring within the scope ofthe inquiry or request any Za information which might otherwise be construed to be outside ofthe scope. 23 T. "Or,""and," and "and/or" shall be interpreted both conjunctively and 24 disjunctively, so as fo be inclusive rather than exclusive, and each term sha11 include is the other whenever such construction will serve to bring within the scope of a request a6 documents,information or tangible things which would not otherwise be within its 2~ scope, and these terms shall not be interpreted to exclude any information, documents Zs or tangible things otherwise within the scope of a request. LEGALZOOM'S FIRST SET OF REQUESTS FOR DOCUMENTS TO ROCKETLAWYER i U. The present tense of any verb shall include the past tense, and vice versa, 2 whenever such construction will serve to bring within the scope ofa request 3 documents,information or tangible things which would not otherwise be within its 4 scope. s 6 V. The singular shall include the plural and vice versa, and words in one gender shall include the other gender. .INSTRUCTIONS s 9 A. YOU are requested to produce all responsive documents and things that are in YOUR possession, custody or control, or the possession, custody or control of io any of YOUR representatives, including PERSONS consulted concerning any factual ii matters or matters ofopinion relating to any ~ofthe facts or issues involved in this iz case; such PERSONS shall include attorneys with whom YOU consulted unless 13 14 YOU claim such documents are privileged or otherwise protected. B. Each request for production, and the portions thereof, is to be responded is to separately, but responses to one request for production, or portion thereof, may be incorporated by reference in responses to other requests for production, ox portions thereof. C. If YOU object to any part or portion ofa request for production, YOU shall respond to such parts)or portions)to which YOU do not object and produce Zo ~ accordingly to such extent. 21 D. IfYOU object on the basis of not understanding a word or phrase in the 22 request, YOU shall identify'YOUR best understanding ofthe word or phrase and 23 produce accordingly to such extent. 24 E. All documents and/or things produced pursuant to these requests for 2s production shall be produced either in separate groups ofdocuments and things 26 responsive to each separate request or in the form and order in which they were kept 2~ by YOU in the ordinary course of business before being produced. 28 LEGALZOOM'S FIRST SET OF REQUESTS FOR DOCUMENTS TO ROCKETLAWYER t F. Electronically stored information shall be produced electronically as a single-page, uniquely and sequentially numbered Tagged Image File Format("T'IFFs" 3 or ".TIFF format")files not less than 300 dpi resolution. The TIFFS sha11 be 4 accompanied by an image cross-reference load file indicating the beginning and s ending endorsed number (i.e., production number)ofeach document,the number of 6 pages it comprises, and related seazchable text using Optical Character Recognition ("OCR"). Hard copy documents shall be produced in.TIFF format, as defined above, s with an OCR and image cross-reference load file. If production in .TIFF format is not 9 practicable due to the nature of a particular production document, such as some large io spreadsheet documents,such documents sha11 be produced in native format. a .~ ~ ii J G. Each request for a document, whether memoranda,reports,letters, minutes or other documents ofany description, requires the production ofthe document in its entirety, including all pages and attachments or exhibits, without ul cd' mt --•v~ ~ ~ c ~ ii t ~ redaction or expurgation. H. ~a If any document or thing responsive to these requests is withheld from production, please furnish a log providing the following information with respect to L ~ a~ N fd each withheld document and thing: ~~~ (1) The type ofdocument or thing (e.g., a letter, memorandum,note, 19 etc.); Zo (2) The date ofthe document or thing(if applicable); zt (3) The title of the document or thing(if applicable); 22 (4) The identity(including the job title, where available) ofeach 23 individual who was an author, addressee, or recipient ofthe 24 document or thing(if applicable); Zs (5) A brief description ofthe subject matter ofthe docwnent or thing 26 detailed enough to permit analysis ofthe basis upon which it is being 2~ withheld; and 28 S LEGALZOOM' FIRST SET OF REQUESTS FOR DOCUMENTS TO ROCKETLAWYER i 2 ' (6) A statement ofthe facts that constitute the basis for any claim of privilege, work product ox other grounds of nondisclosure. s I. These requests for production are continuing in nature and require 4 amendment or supplementation pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(e)if s YOU or YOUR attorneys later become aware offacts or documents or things that 6 indicate that the response previously given was incorrect or incomplete. If YOU do ~ not have all ofthe information YOU need to make a complete response to any request s for production,then provide all documents or things that YOU do have, state that 9 YOUR information is incomplete, identify the information YOU would need to make io a complete production ofdocuments and/or things and provide a supplemental i i production when YOU obtain the information necessary to do so. These requests for production are without limitation as to time, unless ~~ t2 °I ~' bs ,~ ~ ~~ a is otherwise specified. is ~, ~ i6 ~= 1~ ADVERTISEMENTS placed during the period between January 1,2008 and present. J. REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION ~s REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO.1: All DOCUMENTS RELATING TO ROCKETLAWYER FREE t8 RE VEST FOR PRODUCTION NO.2: t9 All COMMUI~IICATIONS between YOU and any PERSON RELATING TO Zo the ROCKETLAWYER FREE ADVERTISEMENTS. 2i REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO.3: s2 All DOCUMENTS RELATING TO YOUR pricing and pricing policies for 2s ROCKETLAWYER PRODUCTS AND SERVICES that were marketed, advertised za and/or promoted by a ROCKETLAWYER FREE ADVERTISEMENT placed during zs the period between January 1, 2008 and present. z6 REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO.4: z~ All COMMUrTICATIONS between YOU and any PERSON RELATING TO Zs YOUR pricing and pricing policies for ROCKETLAWYER PRODUCTS AND LEGALZOOM'S FIRST SET OF REQUESTS FOR DOCUMENTS TO ROCKETLAWYER 1 SERVICES that were marketed, advertised and/or promoted by a a ROCKETLAWYER FREE ADVERTISEMENT. s REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO.S: a All DOCUMENTS sufficient to identify every LEGALZOOM TRIGGERED s FREE ADVERTISEMENT placed during the period between January 1, 2008 and 6 present. ~ REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO.6: s All COMMUNICATIONS between YOU and any PERSON RELATING TO 9 LEGALZOOM TRIGGERED FREE ADVERTISEMENTS. io REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO.7: ii All DOCUMENTS RELATING TO YOUR pricing and pricing policies for a Q °) ~' ,N i2 ROCKETLAWYER PRODUCTS AND SERVICES that were marketed,.advertised ~3 and/or promoted by a LEGALZOOM TRIGGERED FREE ADVERTISEMENTS is placed during the period between January 1,2008 and present. ~s Q is REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO.8: All COMMUNICATIONS between YOU and any PERSON RELATING TO N~ i6 ~= i~ YOUR pricing and pricing policies for ROCKETLAWYER PRODUCTS AND is SERVICES that were marketed, advertised and/or promoted by a LEGALZOOM i9 TRIGGERED FREE ADVERTISEMENTS. zo REOiJEST FOR PRODUCTION NO.9: ai All DOCUMENTS RELATING TO every marketing, advertisement and/or z2 promotion YOU published using a LEGALZOOM MARK or any iteration thereto 2s during the period between January 1, 2008 and present a4 REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO.10: 2s All COMMIJI~ICATIONS between YOU and any PERSON RELATING TO 26 the any marketing, advertisement and/or promotion YOU published using a 2~ LEGALZOOM MARK or nay iteration thereto. 2a REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO.11: LEGALZOOM'S N~RST SET OF REQUESTS FOR DOCUMENTS TO ROCKETLAWYER ~~ 2 All DOCUMENTS RELATING TO every marketing, advertisement and/or promotion YOU published using the term "zoom"or any iteration thereto during the 3 period between January 1, 2008 and present 4 REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION N0.12: s All COMMUTTICATIONS between YOU and any PERSON RELATING TO the any marketing, adverkisement and/or promotion YOU published using the term t 6 "zoom" or any iteration thereto. s REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION N0.13: 9~ All DOCUMENTS RELATING TO your registration and/or purchase ofthe io LEGALZOOM DOMAINS. ii REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION N0.14: i~ All COMMU1vICATIONS between YOU and any PERSON RELATING TO 13 the LEGALZOOM DOMAINS. 14 REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO.15: is All DOCUMENTS RELATING TO your registration and/or purchase ofany other domain using the LEGALZOOM MARI~S and/or any similar variations.thereto. 16 i~ REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION N0.16: 19 All C01~1MCTNICATIONS between YOU and any PERSON RELATING TO your registration and/or purchase of any other domain using the LEGALZOOM 20 MARKS and/or any similar variations thereto. 21 REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 17: is 2i 23 All DOCUMENTS RELATING TO YOUR advertisement,"incorporate for free. pay no fees($0)," as referenced in paragraphs 13 and 14 and attached as za Exhibit C to the FAC or any iteration thereto. zs REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION N0.18: 26 All COMMiJI~IICATIONS between YOU and any PERSON RELATING TO YOUR advertisements,"incorporate for free. pay no fees($0)" and "incorporate for Zs 'free," as referenced in paragraphs 13 and 14 and attached as Exhibit C to the FAC or 27 LEGALZOOM'S FIILST SET OF REQUESTS FOR DOCUMENTS TO ROCKETLAWYER t any iteration thereto. s REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION N0.19: 4 All DOCUMENTS RELATING TO YOUR advertisements,"free help from local attorneys" and "free legal review," as referenced in paragraphs 13 and 15 and 5 attached as Exhibit C to the FAC or any iteration thereto. 6 REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO.20: 3 All COM1viUNICATIONS between YOU and any PERSON RELATING TO s YOUR advertisements,"free help from local attorneys" and "free legal review," as 9 referenced in paragraphs 13 and 15 and attached as Exhibit C to the FAC or any io iteration thereto. ii REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO.21: a J ~Q bl~ ~~ . Y aS c ~ i.~ t ~ ~a L ~L a~ a ~' o c~ _ All DOCUMENTS RELATING TO the modification ofYOUR"On Call 12 13 Terms of Service" on or after November 20,2013, including, but not limited to, all 14 drafts, versions and/or iterations ofthe "On Call Terms of Service." is REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO.22: All CONIlVIU1vICATIONS between YOU and any PERSON RELATING TO i~ the modification ofYOUR"On Call Terms of Service" on or after November 20, 16 to 2013. 19 Zo REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO.23: All DOCUMENTS RELATING TO YOUR disclosures ofYOUR NEGATNE 21 OPTION program. 22 REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO.24: 23 24 All COMMiJl~TICATIONS between YOU and any PERSON RELATING TO YOUR disclosures ofYOUR NEGATIVE OPTION program. 2s REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO.25: 26 2~ All DOCUMENTS sufficient to identify the economic value that YOU derived from YOUR use ofthe ROCKETLAWYER FREE ADVERTISEMENTS including, 2s but not limited to, any analyses, report, investigation, or valuation performed. I.EGALZOOM'S FIRST SET OF REQiJESTS FOR DOCUMENTS TO ROCKETLAWYER i REOUE5T FOR PRODUCTION NO.26: z All DOCUMENTS RELATING TO the economic value that YOU derived 3 from YOUR use ofthe LEGALZOOM TRIGGERED FREE ADVERTISEMENT a including, but not limited to, any analyses, report, investigation, or valuation s performed. 6 REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO._27: ~ All DOCUMENTS RELATING TO any marketing, advertisement and/or s promotion published by YOU,which points to, other otherwise provides a link that 9 directs customers to,LEGALZOOM's HOMEPAGE ox other pages ofthe io LEGALZOOM website. ii REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO.28: a All DOCUMENTS RELATING TO YOUR allegation that"LegalSpring.com ~g is ~I~ ~N ~ ~~ s Q is acts as LegalZoom's agent in making the promotional statements about LegalZoom's is products and services on LegalSpring.com," as contained in pazagraph 37 of YOUR is AMENDED COUNTERCLAIlVIS. 16 c~ s i~ REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO.29: ~ All DOCUMENTS RELATING TO YOUR allegation that "Legalspring.com 1g conceals its relationship with LegalZoom and misleadingly states that it is merely i9 affiliated with third party websites that appear on its website," as contained in 20 pazagraph 38 ofYOUR AMENDED COUNTERCLAIMS. 2i REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO.30: 22 All DOCUMENTS evidencing any actual consumer deception and/or z3 confusion YOU claim to have been caused by the alleged "omission of 2a Legalspring.com's relationship to LegalZoom and Legalspring.com's 2s misrepresentation of neutrality," as contained in paragraphs 57 and 73 ofYOUR a6 AMENDED COUNTERCLAIMS. a~ REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO.31: 2s All DOCUMENTS evidencing any actual influence on consumers' decision LEGALZOOM'S FIRST SET OF REQUESTS FOR DOCUMENTS TO ROCKETLAWYER i whether to purchase and where to purchase legal services YOU claim resulted from 2 LEGALZOOM's alleged "deception," as contained in paragraph 58 of YOUR 3 AMENDED COi.TN'fERCLAIMS. 4 REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO.32: s 6 All DOCUMENTS evidencing the alleged "direct diversion ofsales from [YOU]to LegalZoom and/or by decreased goodwill with the buying public," YOU claim YOU have suffered as a result ofLEGALZOOM's alleged "misleading andlor s false business practices," as contained in pazagraph 59 of YOUR AMENDED 9 COUNTERCLAIMS. io REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO.33: ii All DOCUMENTS evidencing the alleged "lost money," YOU claim YOU is have suffered as a result ofLEGALZOOM's alleged "misleading and/or false 13 business practices," as contained in paragraphs 59 and 75 ofYOUR AMENDED 14 COUNTERCLAIMS. 15 REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO.34: 16 All DOCUMENTS evidencing LEGALZOOM's alleged "unjust[) i~ enrichment]", as contained in paragraphs 67 and 74 ofYOUR AMENDED is COUNTERCLAIMS. 19 20 21 REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO.35: All DOCUMENTS evidencing YOUR alleged "loss of business from consumers who relied on LegalZoom's reviews on Legalspring.com and were directed to LegalZoom's website," as contained in paragraph 68 ofYOUR 23 AMENDED COUNTERCLAIMS. 24 REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO.36: 25 All DOCUMENTS evidencing any actual consumer deception and/or 26 confusion caused by the ROCKETLAWYER FREE ADVERTISEMENTS. 2~ REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO.37: 28 All DOCUMENTS evidencing any actual consumer deception and/or LEGALZOOM'S FIILST SET OF REQUESTS FOR DOCUI~NT'S TO ROCKETLAWYER i confusion caused by the LEG.ALZOOM TRIGGERED FREE ADVERTISEMENT. 2 REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO.38: s All DOCUMENTS evidencing any actual influence on consumers' decision 4 whether to purchase and where to purchase legal services resulting from the s ROCKETLAWYER FREE ADVERTISEMENTS. 6 REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO.39: ~ All DOCUMENTS evidencing any actual influence on consumers' decision s whether to purchase and where to purchase legal services resulting from the 9 LEGALZOOM TRIGGERED FREE ADVERTISEMENT. io REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO.40: it All DOCUMENTS evidencing any direct diversion ofsales from ~, J i2 LEGALZOOM to YOU resulting from the ROCKETLAWYER FREE °i ~ i3 ADVERTISEMENTS. ~N ~~ ~s Q is REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO.41: is All DOCUMENTS evidencing any direct diversion ofsales from 16 LEGALZOOM to YOU resulting from the LEGALZOOM TRIGGERED FREE ~z i~ ADVERTISEMENT. ts REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO.42: ~9 All DOCUMENTS RELATING TO the answers provided in YOUR responses 20 to LegalZoom's First Set ofInterrogatories. Zi REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO.43: 2z All DOCUMENTS RELATING TO customer complaints regarding the 23 ROCKETLAWYER FREE ADVERTISEMENTS. 2a REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO.44: Zs All DOCUMENTS RELATING TO customer complaints regarding the 26 LEGALZOOM TRIGGERED FREE ADVERTISEMENT. 2~ REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO.45: 28 All DOCUIV~NTS RELATING TO customer complaints regarding YOUR LEGALZOOM'S FIRST SET OF REQUESTS FOR DOCUMENTS TO ROCKETLAWYER t NEGATIVE OPTION program. 2 REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO.46: To the extent not specifically requested above, All DOCUMENTS RELATING 3 a TO YOUR marketing, advertisements and/or promotions, whether published or s tested, containing the word "free." 6 REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO.47: To the extent not specifically requested above, all DOCUMENTS RELATING ~ a TO the allegations in the AMENDED COUNTERCLAIMS and/or YOUR affirmative 9 defenses. io REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO.48: To the extent not specifically requested above, all DOCUMENTS RELATING ii ~ ~~ GIs' ,~ _ ~ iz TO YOUR alleged damages, the cause ofthe alleged damages, and how the amount is of damages was calculated.. is REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO.49: ~L All DOCUMENTS RELATING TO the number ofcustomers converted using Q ~s ~ is ROCKETLAWYER FREE ADVERTISEMENTS,that do not disclose the state filing ~7 = t~ fees and/or other fees in the mazk~ting, advertisement and/or promotion. is REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO.50: All DOCUMENTS RELATING TO the number ofcustomers converted using i9 Zo LEGALZOOM TRIGGERED FREE ADVERTISEMENTS,that do not disclose the 21 state filing fees and/or other fees in the marketing, advertisement and/or promotion. Zz REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO.51: 23 ~ All DOCUMENTS RELATING TO YOUR GROSS REVENUE from za customers converted using ROCKETLAWYER FREE ADVERTISEMENTS,that do is not disclose the state filing fees and/or other fees in the marketing, advertisement 26 and/or promotion. 2~ REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO.52: is All DOCUMENTS RELATING TO YOUR GROSS REVENUE from LEGALZOOM'S FIRST SET OF REQUESTS FOR DOCUIv~NTS TO ROGKETLAWYER i customers converted using LEGALZOOM TRIGGERED FREE a ADVERTISEMENTS,that do not disclose the state filing fees andJor ofiher fees in the '~ 3 marketing, advertisement and/or promotion. 4 REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO.53: s All DOCUMENTS RELATING TO YOUR NET REVENUE from customers 6 converted using ROCKETLAWYER FREE ADVERTISEMENTS,that do not disclose the state filing fees andlor other fees in the marketing, advertisement andlor s promotion. 9 io a J ~~ ol'g. -~ N b ~ ~ c ~ ~ i.~ L — u ~Q L~ REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO.54: All DOCUMENTS RELATING TO YOUR NET REVENUE from customers ii converted using LEGALZOOM TRIGGERED FREE ADVERTISEMENTS,that do 12 not disclose.the state filing fees and/or other fees in the marketing, advertisement 13 and/or promotion. l4 REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO.55: is All COMMCJNICATIONS between YOU and LEGALZOOM. v 16 C7 i~ DATED: March 12,2013 GLASER WELL FINK JACOBS HOWARD AVCHEN & SHAPIRO ii.r is 19 By: 20 21 z2 23 PATRICIA L. G AS R FRED D.HEAT~~R MARY ANN T. NGUYEN Attorneys for Plaintiff LegalZoom.com,Inc. 24 25 26 27 28 LEGALZOOM'S FIRST SET OF REQUESTS FOR DOCiJMENTS TO ROCKETLAWYER PROOF OF SERVICE STATE OF CALIFORNIA,COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES I am employed in the County ofLos Angeles, State of California,• I am over the a$e of 18 and not a party to the wittliiin action; my business address is 10250 Constellation Boulevard, 19th Floor, Los Angeles, California 90067. ~~ On March Imo, 2013,I served the foregoing documents)described as PLAINTIFF LEGALZOOM.COM,INC.'S FIRST SET OF REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS AND THINGS TO DEFENDANT ROCKET LAWYER INCORPORATED on the interested parties to this action by delivering thereofin a sealed envelope addressed to each of said interested parties at the following address(es): SEE ATTACHED LIST O O ~7i2 (BY ELECTRO1vIC SERVICE)by causing the foregoing documents)to be electronically filed using the Court's Electronic Filing System which constitutes service ofthe filed documents)on the indvidual(s) listed on the attached mailing list. D (BY E-MAIL SERVICE)I caused such document to be delivered electronically via e-mail to the e-mail address of the addressees)set forth in the attached service list. u ~~ (BY MAIL)I am readily familiar with the business~ practice for collection and ,I pr -o_cessing of correspondence for mailing with the United States Postal Service. This conespondence shall be deposited with the United States Postal Service this same day in the ordinary course of business at our Firm's office address in Los Angeles, California. Service made pursuant to this paragraph, upon motion of a party served, shall be presumed invalid ifthe postarcancellation date of postage meter date on the envelope is more than one day after the date ofdeposit for mailing contained in this affidavit. (BY OVERNIGHT DELIVERS I served the foregoing document by FedEx, an express service carrier which provides overnight delivery as follows: I placed true copies ofthe foregoing document in sealed enve~o es or packages designated by the express service carrier addressed to each interested party as set forth above, with fees for overnight delivery paid or provided for. u (BY PERSONAL SERVICE)I caused such envelope to be delivered by hand to the offices ofthe above named addressee(s). u (State) I declare under pmalty of perjury under the laws ofthe State of California that the above is true and correct. D (Federal) I declare that I am employed in the office ofa member ofthe baz of this court at whose direction the service was made. I declare under penalty of perjury that the above is true and correct. is 19 Zo zi 22 23 24 2s 26 Executed on March ~,2013 at Los Angeles, Calif mia. 27 zg A SSIEL OMERO PROOF OF SERVICE SERVICE LIST 1 2 Forrest A. Hainline fhainline o~ odwinprocter.com 3 Anna Hsia 4 ahsia(a, o~odwinprocter.com Hong-An vu 5 hvu~a~goodwinprocter.com GOODWIN PROCTER LLP 6 Three Embarcadero Center, 24th Floor ~ San Francisco, California 94111 8 Te1:415-733-6000 Fax: 415-677-9041 9 10 11 a J ~I~ .0 ~ 7^ yL 13 ~N Y ~ ~ c ~s j Q >~ w ~ N 14 15 16 ~ O V .J~ 17 10 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 PROOF OF SERVICE EXHIBIT B 1 2 3 5 6 7 .Forrest A. Hainlne IIl(SBN .641 ~`6) fhainlne~a ovdwinprocter.com Anna Hsia~BlV 234179) ahsia goodwinprocter.com Hon ~n Vu(SBN 2b6268) hvu oodwin~ procter.cr~m WIN PROCTER LLP GU Three Embarcadero Center, 24th Floor San Francisco, California X4111 Tel.: 415.733.60Q4 Fax.: 415:677.9041 Attvrneys~~or De enddnt ROCKET'"LAR INCORPORATED 8 9 UNITED STATES DIST~CT COURT 10 CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFQRNIA 1.1 WESTERN DIVISION 12 13 LEGALZOOIVI.COM,INC., a Qelaware corporation,. 14 Plaintiff, 15 v. 16 17 ROCKET LAWYER INCORPQRATED,a Delaware corporation, 18 Defendant. 19 20 21 22 23 2A~ 2~ 26 27 2$ LIBAl2372744.2 bass No.2:i2-cv-U99.42-GAF-AGR ROCKET LAWYER INCORPORATED'S FIRST SFT ON' REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION Date: March 1.1, 2U13 Judge Gary A.~eess fudge: Courtroom: 74Q 255 Easti Tem le Street Los .Angeles,~A 90U 12 Action Filed:.November 20,.2012 1 Pursuant 'to Rule 33 ofthe'Federal Rules of Civil Procedure,,Defendant 2 Rocl~et Lawyer Incorporated (`Rocket lawyer").propounds the following Firs#.Set of 3 Requests for Production on LegalZoom.corn, Inc.("LegalZoam"): DEFINITTQN~S 4 5 1. The term "You" means L~gatZoom and its pest and present agents, 6 representatives, and all persons now or previously under its control, and all persons 7 currently or previously acting or purporting to act on its behalf. 8 9 2. The term "Document(s)" is defined to be synonymous:in meaning,and. equal in scope- to the usage ofthi's term in Federal Rule of Civil Procedui-e 34(a), 10 including, without limitation; Electronic or computerised data compilations. A draft 11 or nan-identical:copy is a separate- document within the meaning of this term., 12 13 14 3. The term "Communicat on(s)~' means-the transmilfal ofinformation (in the form of facts, ideas, inquiries, or otherwise). 4. The term "Person" includes both singular and plural. and, whenever 15 appropriate, includes- not only a natural person,. but also a corporation, partnership, 16 uninca~porated association,joint venture, nonprofit organ zatiion, or other business 17 entity or association.of persons, anti also :any governmental. agency, ~ffiee, 18 : administrative, board, or other body. However, any request:to identify the Verson 19 .having knowledge offacts or custody ofthe.documents refers to a.natural person. 20 5. The term "Keyword" means .words that maybe bid on through 21 Google.com, Yahoo.com,Bing.com or other search..engines- for advertising on 22 search results. 2~ 6. The teen "Complaint" means the First Amended Complaint in 24 Legalzoom.com, lnc. v. Rocket Lawyer.Incorporated, Case No. C;V 12-9942-GAF' 25 (AGR~c)filed in the Central District of California. 26 2? 7. The- term "Concerning" means relating to, referring.to, reflecting,. describing, evidencing, bearing on, or constituting. 28 LIl3A/2372744.2 1 RULES OF CON5TRUCTYUN 1 2 The following rules of construction apple to these interrogatories: AIILEach, The terms"all" ar~d "each"'sha11 be construed as all and each.. 3 4 2, ' And/Or. The connectives "and".and "ors sha11 be construed either 5 disjunctively or conjunctively as necessary to bring within the scope oftl~e 6 discovery request all responses that might otherwise be construed to be-outside of its ', 7 scope. c~ Number. The use ofthe singular farm ofany word includes the plural. 8 3. 9 and vice versa. DOCUMENTS TO BE PRObUCED 10 11 12. 1. Any and all. Documents anal Communications Concerning the answers provided in Your response to Rocket Lavrryer's -First Set ofInterrogatories, Any and all Documents and Communications with: and/or Concerning 13 2. 14 Rocket.Lawyer. 15 3, 16 Travis Giggy. 17 4. 18 19 Any and all Documents and `Communications with and/or Concerning Any and all Documents and Communications with andCor ConEernng Legalspring,com. 5. Any and all Doeutnens and Communications Cancerning.Your 20 advertisements andlor marketing materials offering, promising, orxeferr ng to free 21 services or benefits,or otherwise containing the word "free:" V 22 6: Any and all Doeurnents:and Communications, whether oral or written, 23 Concerning Keyword bidding. whether by You:or Your competitors,including 24 metrics tracked by Your search engine optimization<"SEO")team and any 25 consultants.. 26 7. Any and all Documents and Goznmunicat ans with or Concerning 27 Google.com, Yahoo.corn, Bi~ng.eom, and/or any- other search engine or search 28 engine provtder or their agents. LfBA12372744:2 2 1 8. Any and_ all Documents and Communications with and/ax Concerning 2 the Federal Trade Commission .related to LegalZoom's advertising practices or the 3 allegations in the Complaint. 4 9. Any and all Documents and Communications Concerning free- or 5 purportedly free- services or benefits You provide,:including, bud not limited to, free 6 trials ofYour products nr services. 7 8 9 1'a 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 1;9 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28' 10. Any and all Documents and Communications'Cc~neerning Your use of the word "free" in advertising. 1l ~ Any and. all Documents and Communications Concerning customer complaints regarding Your advertising, 12. Any and all Documents and Communications Concerning Legalspring.com, including customer complaints. 13. Any and_ all Documents and Communications Concerning the registration of any domain name. 14. Ariy and all Documents and Communications C'orrcerning payment to or for Travis Giggy. 15. Any and all I?ocuments and. Communications with and/or Concerning• payment to or for Legalsprng.corri. 16. Any and all Documents and. Cgmmunications with andlor Goneerning contracts and/or agreements with Travis Giggy: 17. Any- and all Documents and Communications with and/or Concerning contracts. and/or.agreements. with Legalspr ng.com. 18, Any and all IRS- or state tax filings that You have submitted Concerning Travis Giggy. 19. Any and. all. IRS or state tax filings that You have submitted Concerning Legalspring.com. 20. To the.extent not specifically requested .above, all Documents Concerning the allegations in the Complaint andlorYour- affirmative defenses. LIDA/237274A.2 3 1 2 21; All Documents Concerning-Your alleged damages, the cause ofthe alleged damages,,and how the amount of damages was calculated, 3 4 Dated.: Maxch 11, 2013 S Respectfully submitted, By: a~n ine o t fhaindin @goodwinprocter:com .Anna Asia b 7 8 huu goodwin~pr~octer.com GO DWIN PRQCTER LI.,~ Three EmbarcaderQ Center, 24th Floor San Francisco, California.94111 T~1.: 415.733:60Q~ Fax.: 415:677..904 9 10 11 12 Attorne s or ~e endant IsR ~NG'ORI'014A TED RQC"K~ LA 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27~ 28~ C1BA/i3727443 4 .PROOF OF SERVICE. At the time of service I was over 18 years.of age and not a p~y to this action, My residence or business address is: Three Embarcad~ero Center, 24th Flaor, fan Francisco, CA 9411.L. On March. 1:1, 2013,I served the following documents by placing a true :copy thereofin a sealed envelopes) on the persons-below as fo]Iows: 5 ROCKET LAWYER INCORPORATED'S FIRST SET OF REQUESTS- FOR PRODUCTION] 10 .Patricia L. Glaser Fred D. Heather 1VIary Ann T. N~~ guyen GLA.SER WEIL FINK JACOBS HOWARD AVCHEN & SHAPIRO LLY 1 Q250.Constellation Boulevard, 19th Floor Los Angeles, ~alifarnia 90067 Counsel for Plaintiff Lega~~lZoom.com, Inc. TI'e1.310.553:3UOQ Fax. 310.556.2.920 glaser . glaserweil.com Bather glaserweil.cocn mnguyen glaserweil.com ~ 11 12 D (MAIL>. By Unified States mail.. I enclosed the documents in a sealed envelope or package addressed to the persons at the addresses listed and placed the envelope for calleetion and mailing following our ordinary business practices. I am readily familiar with thi s business's practice for collecting and processing comespondence for mailing. Qn the same day that d correspondence is~placed for coIlection an: mailing, it is deposited in the ordinary course..ofbusiness with the' United States Fostal Service,in a sealed .envelope with postage fully ;prepaid at San Francisco, California. Cl (OVERNIGHT DELIVERY). By overnight delivery. I enclosed the c~acuments in an envelope or package provided by an overnight delivery carrier and addressed to the persons at the addresses listed. I placed the. envelope or package for coliectian and overnight delivery at:an office or a regularly utilized drop box ofthe overnight'delivery carrzer. 13 ]4 15 16 17 18 19 20 D service, I caused the documents io be sent to the persons at the electronic service addresses listed. 21 . 22 O (FACSIMILE). By fax transmission. Based on an agreement ofthe parties to acrept service by fax transmission,I faced the documents to the persons at;the fzx numbers listed: No error was,reported by the fax machine that I used. A copy ofthe record ofthefax transmission, which 1printed out, is attached. D MESSENGER SERVICE) By messenger service. I served the documents by placing~ them in an envelope or package addressed to the persons at the addresses-listed and providing them to a professional messenger service for service.(A declaration by the messenger must aceomparey this Proofof Service or be contained in the Declaration ofMessenger belotiv.) 23 24 25 2b 27 ~E-MAIL or ELECTROT]IC T~4NSMISSION) By electronic service;. Based on ~ court order ar an agreement of''~he parties to acce~pt electronic . _ ,, . 28 LIDA/337274~:2 1 2 3 4 S u (PERSONAI.SERVICE). By personal service. I personally delivered the documents to-the persons at the addresses listed,[1] For a party represented by an attorney, delivery was made to the ~ttomey or at the attorney's office by leaving the documents, in an envelope. or package cle~.t]y labeled to identify the attorney being served with a receptionist or an individual in f charge ofthe office between.the ~iours ofnine (9) in the morning and ve r5) in the evening.- ~2] Far a party, delivery was made to the party or by leaving the documents at the party's residence:with some person not younger than 18 years- of age between the- hours of eight(8)in the morning and six (6)in the- evening. 6. 7 Y declare under penalty of perjury that I am employed in the office. of a member ofthe bar of t1~is Court at whose direc#ion this service was made and.that the foregoing is true and correct. $: Executed an March ~ 1, 2Q13, at San Francisco, California. 9 10 L1 16 17 18 l9 20 2;1 22 23 24 25 26 2'7 28 C. J. IvlcCall ~e or print name. ignature EXHIBIT C Glaser Weil Fink Jacobs Howard Avchen & Shapiro ~~P 10250 Constellation BNd. 19th Floor Los Mgeles, CA 90087 310.553.3000 TEL 310.556.2920 FAX Patricia Jones Winograd March 28, 2014 VIA E-MAIL Forrest A. Hainline, III, Esq. Hong-An Vu, Esq. GOODWIN PROCTER LLP Three Embarcadero Center, 24th Floor San Francisco, California 94111 fhainline@goodwinarocter.com hvuCa).~oodwinprocter.com Direct Dlal 310.556.7809 Direct Fax 310.843.2609 E-mail mnguyen~glaservveil.com Michael T. Jones, Esq. GOODWIN PROCTER LLP 135 Commonwealth Drive Menlo Park, California 94025-1105 miones(rD400dwinnrocter.com Brian W. Cook, Esq. GOODWIN PROCTER LLP 53 State Street Exchange Place Boston, Massachusetts 02109 bcookCc~Qoodwinprocter.com RE: LestalZoom.com, Inc, v. Rocket Lawyer Incoruorated -Response to Rocket Lawyer's March 24, 2014 Letter Dear Counsel: We write in response to your letter, dated March 24, 2014, regarding the parties' various pending discovery issues. Unfortunately, we do not believe that the letter accurately describes the state of discovery in this case. For the reasons set forth below, we still continue to believe that an extension of the discovery cut-off date is in order. First, since the outset of discovery and this case—as articulated in LegalZoom's Complaint in this action—LegalZoom has contended that all of Rocket Lawyer's false and misleading advertisements relating to all Rocket Lawyer products and services are at issue in this litigation. Just this month, more than one year after discovery commenced, you raised for the very first time an idea that some distinction was to be drawn between incorporation/ entity formation advertisements and "intraweb" advertisements and expressed your purported befuddlement over what LegalZoom is requesting. As discussed in our various meet and confers, LegalZoorn's claims relate to both "extraweb" as well as "intraweb" advertisements, and always have. For example, Rocket Lawyer's advertisements for "Free l.e~al Help"(and other similar 7R ME~IiAS LAW FIRMS WORLDWIDE 865938.2 Forrest A. Hainline, III, Esq. Michael T. Jones, Esq. March 28, 2014 Page 2 iterations) appear in both "extraweb" advertisements and "intraweb" advertisements. Rocket Lawyer's advertisements are in no way shielded from production simply because they appear "intraweb" rather than "extraweb."Your belated claim that LegalZoom has been "unclear" and have communicated "shifting requests and standards" about what LegalZoom wants regarding Rocket Lawyer's advertisements is simply not supported by the facts or history of our dialogue concerning the nature of the discovery that is at issue in this action. Second, we are surprised by your statement that we have raised for the first time in our March 20, 2014 letter that we also wanted dates for when each Rocket Lawyer advertisement at issue was published. Not only is this statement patently false, the suggestion that Rocket Lawyer did not understand the dates on which its advertisements ran to be a critical part of this case is belied by Its own discovery. Indeed, Rocket Lawyer's request for damages information requires that LegalZoom make reference to the dates that the Rocket Lawyer advertisements ran. Rocket Lawyer's failure to provide information related to the dates of its advertisements has contributed to LegalZoom being unable to provide such damages information to Rocket Lawyer. Moreover, LegalZoom has long requested documents evidencing the Rocket Lawyer advertisements, along with the dates on which such advertisements were published. Not only was it clear from our discovery, it was discussed in our various meet and confers in 2013 and reiterated in our letter, dated January 16, 2014 (a copy is attached hereto as Exhibit A for your convenience). Third, you have raised the issue of when LegalZoom will produce damages data. We note that Rocket Lawyer has yet to provide any such information. And, as stated above, LegalZoom's ability to provide data and information requires that it make reference to the dates that the Rocket Lawyer advertisements ran. Rocket Lawyer's attempt to provide us with partial information, which includes the date on which an advertisement "campaign" began, is not sufficient to discharge its obligation to provide LegalZoom with full information upon which it can provide the requested information. Finally, you stated that we have refused to run any searches relating to LegalZoom's incorporation and LLC advertisements. In particular, you have requested that LegalZoom add "Incorpora' AND fee`," "LLC AND fee"' and "state AND fees" to its search. A search for "Incorpora* AND fee'," "LLC AND fee•" and "state AND fee"' is overbroad and over inclusive. In addition, given that Rocket Lawyer has only alleged that LegalZoom advertisements do not properly disclose state fees in its incorporation and LLC advertisements, it is difficult to see how broad search terms such as those are likely to lead to responsive documents within the scope of Rocket Lawyer's requests. In any event, as stated before, we have adopted all of the search 865938.2 Forrest A. Hainline, III, Esq. Michael T. Jones, Esq. March 28, 2814 Page 3 terms which we, in good faith, believe will adequately yield responsive documents in response to the actual document requests propounded by Rocket Lawyer. Rocket Lawyer's only recent and incomplete production (just 3 weeks prior to the expert discovery deadline) containing information relating to more than 330,000 advertisements that Rocket Lawyer has run in the operative time period, which are among the advertisements at the very heart of LegalZoom's claims and allegations, along with Rocket Lawyer's continued delay in providing LegatZoom with, among other things, the dates upon which advertisements ran and the requested financial/ conversion data, impacts the progression of this case. Accordingly, we still believe it is necessary to continue upcoming deadlines. As we have informed you in our letter, dated March 20, 2014, and again on March 24, 2014 via telephone, in the absence of Rocket Lawyer's agreement to continue upcoming deadlines, LegalZoom will have no choice but to move to compel and seek a court order further extending discovery. As always, we are willing to further meet and confer with you regarding these issues. Of course, this letter is sent without waiver of any of LegalZoom's rights and remedies, all of which are expressly reserved. Rega ds, MARY AN N T. G UYEN for GLASER WEIL FINK JACOBS HOWARD AVCHEN ~t SHAPIRO LLP MTN:mtn cc: Fred Heather, Esq. Patricia Jones Winograd, Esq. 865938.2 EXHIBIT D Mary Ann Nguyen Mary Ann Nguyen Wednesday, April 02, 2014 8:51 AM Hainline, Forrest A; Jones, Michael T;'Vu, Hong-An;Cook, Brian W Fred Heather; Patricia Jones Winograd LegalZoom_Ex Parte Application for Continuance From: Sent: To: Cc: Subject: Counsel: Please be advised that, pursuant to our prior communications with you, LegalZoom intends to and will apply ex pane for a continuance of the trial and related dates set in the Court's January 22, 2014 order for good cause tomorrow morning. You previously stated that you will oppose any such ex parte application. Please let us know if your position has changed. Regards, ~'~'~'~ ~. Mary Ann T. Nguyen ~ Associate 10250 Constellation Blvd., 19th Floor, Los Angeles, CA 90067 Main: 310.553.3000 ~ Direct: 310.556.7809 ~ Fax:310.843.2609 E-Mail: mn~uven@Qlaserweil.com ~ www.Qlaserweil.com This message and any attached documents may contain information from the law firm of Glaser Weil Fink Jacobs Howard Avchen &Shapiro LLP that is confidential and/or privileged. If you are not the intended recipient, you may not read, copy, distribute or use this information. If you have received this transmission in error, please notify the sender immediately by reply e-mail and then delete this message. Mary Ann Nguyen Subject: Attachments: Vu, Hong-An [HVu@goodwinprocter.com] Wednesday, April 02, 2014 11:16 AM Mary Ann Nguyen Fred Heather; Patricia Jones Winograd; Hainline, Forrest A; Jones, Michael T; Tauman, Sarah RE: LegalZoom_Ex Parte Application for Continuance 140402 RLI Letter to LegalZoom re Discovery.PDF Follow Up Flag: Flag Status: Follow up Flagged From: Sent: To: Cc: Mary Ann: Our position has not changed regarding a continuance of case deadlines. Please see the attached. Regards, Hong-An Hong-An Vu Goodwin Procter LLP Three Embarcadero Center, 24th Floor San Francisco, CA 94111 T: 415-733-6114 F: 415-677-9041 hvu(a~goodwinprocter.com www.aoodwinarocter.com From: Mary Ann Nguyen [mailto:Mnguven ,glasen~veil.coml Sent: Wednesday, April 02, 2014 8:51 AM To: Hainline, Forrest A; Jones, Michael T; Vu, Hong-An; Cook, Brian W Cc: Fred Heather; Patricia Jones Winograd Subject: LegalZoom_Ex Parte Application for Continuance Counsel: Please be advised that, pursuant to our prior communications with you, LegalZoom intends to and will apply ex parte for a continuance of the trial and related dates set in the Court's January 22, 2014 order for good cause tomorrow morning. You previously stated that you will oppose any such ex parte application. Please let us know if your position has changed. Regards, Mary Ann T. Nguyen ~ Associate 10250 Constellation Blvd., 19th Floor, Los Angeles, CA 90067 Main: 310.553.3000 ~ Direct: 310.556.7809 ~ Fax: 310.843.2609 E-Mail: mnzuven@~laserweil.com ~ www.elaserweil.com il'1 This message and any attached documents may contain information from the law firm of Glaser Weil Fink Jacobs Howard Avchen &Shapiro LLP that is confidential and/or privileged. If you are not the intended recipient, you may not read, copy, distribute or use this information. If you have received this transmission in error, please notify the sender immediately by reply e-mail and then delete this message. ********************************+k********#************************ IRS CIRCULAR 230 DISCLOSURE: To ensure compliance with requirements imposed by the IRS, we inform you that any U.S. tax advice contained in this communication (including any attachments) is not intended or written to be used, and cannot be used, for the purpose of(i)avoiding penalties under the Internal Revenue Code or (ii) promoting, marketing or recommending to another party any transaction or matter addressed herein. ******************************************************************* ******************************************************************* This message is intended only for the designated recipient(s). It may contain confidential or proprietary information and maybe subject to the attorney-client privilege or other confidentiality protections. If you are not a designated recipient, you may not review, copy or distribute this message. If you receive this in error, please notify the sender by reply e-mail and delete this message. Thank you. ******************************************************************* GOODVNIN I PROCTER Hong-An Vu 415.733.6114 HVu~goodwinprnrter.com Goodwin Procter ~~v. Counselofs at Law Three Embarcadero Center 24th:Floor SanFranclsco, CA 941 t7 Ti 495,733.6Qa0 F: 415'.677.9041 ApriL2, 2014. VIA.E-MAIL jMNGUYEN('>a,GLASERWEIL:CQMI Mary Ann Nguyen Glaser Weil Fink Jacobs- Howard Avchen &.Shapiro- L[.P 10250 Constellation:Blvd. 19th Floor Los Angeles, CA 90067 Re LegalZoom.com,lnc: v. Rocket Law,~er Incorporated Dear Mazy Ann:. We received your March 28~ 2014 letter, in which you purport to respond to the various discovery issues we raised on March 24, 2014.: In spite of our productions to date and the'dElivery of twelve generated spreadsheets of data relating to Rocket Lawyer's search engine advertisements, you suggest-that the discovery cut-off date:should be: moved because of discovery delays. We maintain our position that I,egalZoom is and has been the source of any delay in this case. Racket Lawyer has been diligently responding to I;egalZoom's discovery requests even in the absence of similar cooperation from LegalZoom, which has flatly refused to identify affiliates other than Legalspring.com and provide keywords relating to competitors other than Racket Lawyer. This case has been pending since November'2012 and the ease deadlines,including the.expezt and fact discovery deadlines, have been pnsl~ed back twice already. Rocket Lawyer has been moving discovery along_ to prevent a third continuance. There is simply no basis to extend the deadlines at this time:. For these reasons and others enumerated below, we remain, unwilling to agree to any extension ofthe :discovery and case deadlines. First, you contend that LegalZoom is entitled to all advertisements regazding all Racket Lawyer products and,services, But the First Amended Complaint and your motion for summary judgment have limited the advertisements at issue to just three services: business formation, Rocket Lawyer's free trial, The parties have agreed to provide summary/generated data in response to certain interrogatories and Requestsfor Production instead of reviewing and producing.documents responsive to those Interrogatories and Requests. GOOQWIN ~ PROCTER Mary Ann 1Vguyen Apr1.2, 2014 page 2 and;free legal help andlor free legal review.. In.September 2U13, Rocket Lawyer objected to your Requests for Production, stating that any requests related to ROCKET LAWYER PRODUCTS AND . SER~ICES.were overly-broad and beyond the scope of the allegations in the First Amended Compta nt; Rocket Lawyer's objections to producing documents and infgrmation -Thus, you have.had notice of ~yond the services expressly alleged for some time. Indeed, it was with reference to the First Amended Complaint and your summaryjudgment motion that Rocket Lawyer designed,and you agreed to, the search terms itis employing in discovery. The pleadings frame the issues and we do mot believe-that you have a basis for claiming that you are entitled to more. Second, you contend that Rocket Lawyer only recently sought to distinguish"ntrawebsite" advertisements from advertisements on Google or Bing. This is:inaccurate. The two types of ;advertisements.is aknown fact. Indeed,LegalZoom's Eirst Amended Complaint provided examples.of "intrawebsite" ad and search.engine ads.. Rocket Lawyer also raised this issue in its opposition to LegalZoom's motion for summaryjudgment and of is referenced in the. Court's order denying your motion. See Qrder re; Plaintiffs' IVlotion for Summary Judgment
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.