________________________________________________ 

________________________________________________ 

PUBLIC PUBLIC PUBLIC FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION | OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY | FILED 9/14/2022 | Document No. 605598 | PAGE Page 1 of 129 * PUBLIC *; 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 

BEFORE THE FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION 

COMMISSIONERS: Lina M. Khan, Chair 

Noah Joshua Phillips 

Rebecca Kelly Slaughter 

Christine S. Wilson 

Alvaro M. Bedoya 

In the Matter of 

HOMEADVISOR, INC., a corporation, 

d/b/a ANGI LEADS, 

d/b/a HOMEADVISOR POWERED BY ANGI. DOCKET NO. 9407 

COMPLAINT COUNSEL’S EXPEDITED MOTION TO 

CONTINUE EVIDENTIARY HEARING DATE AND PREHEARING DEADLINES 

Complaint Counsel respectfully requests that the Commission continue the evidentiary 

hearing in this case, currently set to begin on November 9, 2022, by three months. Complaint 

Counsel also seeks a corresponding extension of all prehearing deadlines that have not already 

passed as of the date of this filing. 

There is good cause for granting this continuance because Respondent has caused 

numerous delays in the proceedings. First, and most importantly, Respondent has repeatedly 

failed to produce usable sales call recordings in response to discovery requests, even when 

ordered to do so by the Administrative Law Judge (ALJ). As a result, Complaint Counsel has 

been unable to undertake an analysis of Respondent’s sales calls in advance of its expert report 

deadline, currently set for September 20. Moreover, Respondent has requested numerous 

extensions in this case, including three requests that caused substantial delays in the briefing and 

oral argument relating to Complaint Counsel’s summary decision motion and delaying 

1 
 

 

 

 

PUBLIC PUBLIC PUBLIC FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION | OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY | FILED 9/14/2022 | Document No. 605598 | PAGE Page 2 of 129 * PUBLIC *; 

Complaint Counsel’s corporate deposition of Respondent (which has yet to happen) until after 

the fact discovery cutoff. 

EXPEDITION 

Complaint Counsel further respectfully requests that the Commission give expedited 

consideration to this Motion because, under the current scheduling order, Complaint Counsel’s 

expert reports are due on September 20 and its final witness disclosures are due less than a week 

later. In the absence of the requested expedited decision, these imminent deadlines will come due 

before this motion is determined. Complaint Counsel has requested that Respondent join this 

request, but as of the filing of this motion Respondent’s counsel has not yet replied. Declaration 

of Sophia H. Calderón (“Calderón Decl.”)1 at PX09-0003; see also Calderón Decl. ¶ 3. 

Complaint Counsel requests that, pursuant to Rule 3.22(d), the Commission direct Respondent to 

file its response to this motion by September 16, 2022. Complaint Counsel further respectfully 

requests that the Commission rule on the Motion by September 20, 2022. A proposed order 

setting this expedited schedule is attached. 

BACKGROUND 

Current Case Schedule. The Commission initiated this administrative proceeding on 

March 11, 2022. At the outset of the case, Respondent requested, and Complaint Counsel did not 

oppose, a one-week extension of the deadline to answer the complaint and an 18-day extension 

of the initial scheduling conference. PX01-0001; PX02-0001. 

Under the current case schedule, fact discovery in this matter closed on September 6 

(with one exception, noted below). PX03-0001. Complaint Counsel’s expert reports are currently 

due on September 20, with additional expert discovery and prehearing deadlines set soon 

1 Exhibits to the Calderón Declaration will hereinafter be referred to by their “PX” designation. 

2 
PUBLIC PUBLIC PUBLIC FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION | OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY | FILED 9/14/2022 | Document No. 605598 | PAGE Page 3 of 129 * PUBLIC *; 

thereafter. PX03-0001. The evidentiary hearing is currently scheduled to begin on November 9. 

PX03-0004. 

Motion for Summary Decision. On April 7, Complaint Counsel filed a motion for 

summary decision. Complaint Counsel’s Motion for Summary Decision, April 7, 2022. 

Respondent requested, and Complaint Counsel did not oppose, two extensions of time for 

Respondent to respond to the motion for summary decision, together providing Respondent an 

extra six weeks to respond. See Order Extending Time to Oppose Motion for Summary Decision, 

April 20, 2022; Second Order Extending Time to Oppose Motion for Summary Decision, 

May 26, 2022. The Commission initially scheduled oral argument on the motion, as requested by 

Respondent, on July 14 but moved oral argument to July 21 at Respondent’s request. Order 

Rescheduling Oral Argument, July 7, 2022. In its order denying the motion for summary 

decision, the Commission noted, “Because there were substantial delays requested by 

Respondent in the briefing of this summary decision motion as well as the timing of the oral 

argument on it, the Commission invites the parties to consider making a motion to reset 

deadlines in the underlying litigation.” Order Denying Summary Decision, Aug. 2, 2022 

(emphasis added). 

Motion to Compel Sales Calls. On June 8, Complaint Counsel served Respondent with 

Requests for Production that, among other things, sought production of all recordings of 

HomeAdvisor’s sales calls from a specified six-month period. PX10-0023. Respondent resisted 

producing the recordings as requested, although eventually, on August 7, it produced 

approximately 4,700 recordings from the relevant period. PX10-0031. Complaint Counsel 

proposed to accept those recordings as sufficient if HomeAdvisor stipulated to, inter alia, 

treating the calls as representative of all of the requested calls. PX10-0028. HomeAdvisor 

3 
 

 

 

PUBLIC PUBLIC PUBLIC FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION | OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY | FILED 9/14/2022 | Document No. 605598 | PAGE Page 4 of 129 * PUBLIC *; 

refused, and Complaint Counsel successfully moved to compel; the ALJ gave Respondent 14 

days to produce the full set of recordings or accept the stipulation that the approximately 4,700 

sales calls be treated as representative. PX05-0004. Respondent has failed to produce or so 

stipulate; instead, Respondent made a data dump of between 30 and 50 million largely irrelevant 

and nonresponsive records available to Complaint Counsel through a nearly unsearchable 

depository, expecting Complaint Counsel to sift through to find the responsive recordings. PX10-

0034. Simultaneously with filing this Motion, Complaint Counsel has filed a motion for 

sanctions for failure to comply with the ALJ’s order. PX10. The motion for sanctions asks the 

ALJ to enter an order making adverse rulings regarding the representativeness of the sales calls 

already produced, PX10-0008, -0009, but, ultimately, Complaint Counsel and its expert will still 

need to undertake an analysis of those calls. Under Rule 3.22(a), that motion will be fully briefed 

by September 26, and therefore the ALJ will rule no later than October 10, unless the ALJ 

permits determination on an expedited schedule.2 

Corporate Deposition of HomeAdvisor. On July 8, 2022, Complaint Counsel served 

Respondent with a notice for its deposition, pursuant to Rule 3.33(c)(1). PX07-0001. On 

August 5, Respondent served objections to the notice, initially refusing to designate a witness for 

ten of the 14 deposition topics and failing to provide any information regarding designees and/or 

available deposition dates. PX04. The parties met and conferred during the month of August, and 

ultimately, on August 31, Respondent agreed to designate a witness on 12 topics and proposed 

moving the September 6 discovery cutoff to give it time to designate and prepare witnesses. 

2 Complaint Counsel simultaneously filed a motion to shorten time, asking that the ALJ shorten the time to respond 

to two days and issue its ruling within two days (by September 20). 

4 
 

 

 

PUBLIC PUBLIC PUBLIC FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION | OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY | FILED 9/14/2022 | Document No. 605598 | PAGE Page 5 of 129 * PUBLIC *; 

PX06. On September 6, the parties filed a stipulated motion to move the discovery cutoff, for 

purposes of the corporate deposition, to September 20, PX07, which the ALJ granted.3 

ARGUMENT 

Under Rule 3.11(b)(4), evidentiary hearings are normally set eight months from the date 

of the issuance of a Part 3 administrative complaint. 16 C.F.R.§ 3.11(b)(4). However, “[t]he 

Commission, upon a showing of good cause, may order a later date for the evidentiary hearing to 

commence.” 16 C.F.R. § 3.41(b); see also 16 C.F.R. § 3.21(c)(1). Here, good cause exists for a 

continuance of the commencement of the evidentiary hearing—and all pending prehearing 

deadlines—by three months. 

First, a continuance will allow time for Complaint Counsel and its expert to undertake an 

analysis of Respondent’s sales calls, following the ALJ’s ruling on its motion for sanctions. This 

case involves three counts alleging that Respondent misrepresented its products in advertising 

and sales calls to prospective service providers, Complaint ¶¶ 61-68, and therefore sales calls are 

plainly relevant to understanding what claims HomeAdvisor made to service providers. See 

PX05-0003. Complaint Counsel submitted numerous sales calls in support of its motion for 

summary decision, and Respondent strenuously asserted that those sales calls were not 

representative of its calls as a whole. See Respondent’s Statement of Material Facts at 186-187. 

Due to Respondent’s assertions, just two days later, Complaint Counsel sought the 

production of a complete set of sales calls during a six-month timeframe, so that it and its expert 

could conduct further analysis. PX05-0003. But Complaint Counsel and its expert have been 

3 Yet it was not until the late afternoon of September 13 that Respondent’s counsel notified Complaint Counsel of 

Respondent’s proposed timing for the corporate depositions and four overlapping intended designees—giving 

Complaint Counsel less than a week’s notice to prepare. PX09-0001. Such gamesmanship by Respondent creates 

further delays while the parties confer and schedule and underscores the necessity of Complaint Counsel’s proposed 

continuance. 

5 
 

PUBLIC PUBLIC PUBLIC FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION | OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY | FILED 9/14/2022 | Document No. 605598 | PAGE Page 6 of 129 * PUBLIC *; 

unable to perform any analysis of sales calls due to Respondent’s failure to produce a complete 

set. Once the ALJ rules on Complaint Counsel’s motion for sanctions, PX10, Complaint Counsel 

will finally be able to undertake the analysis.4 An extension of three months is warranted because 

production of the calls was initially due on July 7—two and a half months before the 

September 20 expert report deadline. PX10-0021. Thus, the requested extension would put 

Complaint Counsel in roughly the position it was in on July 7, when Respondent’s production of 

sales calls was initially due. 

Second, good cause exists because Respondent has caused numerous significant delays in 

this case. Of course, Respondent itself created the delay in Complaint Counsel’s ability to 

analyze sales calls by refusing to produce a complete set of calls, even in the face of an order to 

do so. See supra. Additionally, Respondent has requested numerous extensions in the case— 

which together total more than 11 weeks: 

• At the outset of litigation, Respondent requested a one-week extension of the 

deadline to answer the complaint and an 18-day extension of the initial scheduling 

conference. PX01-0001; PX02-0001. 

• Respondent requested three extensions, together resulting in delays of over seven 

weeks, relating to Complaint Counsel’s motion for summary decision. Indeed, in 

its order denying the motion, the Commission noted, “there were substantial 

delays requested by Respondent in the briefing of this summary decision motion 

as well as the timing of the oral argument on it” and invited a motion to reset 

4 Complaint Counsel’s motion for sanctions seeks adverse rulings pertaining to one of two sets of sales calls: (a) the 

100 calls submitted to the Commission in connection with Complaint Counsel’s motion for summary decision; or 

(b) the subset of sales calls Respondent produced in early August. PX10-0008, -0009. Regardless of which set of 

sanctions the ALJ grants—or even if the ALJ denies any sanctions—Complaint Counsel and its expert will still need 

to analyze the calls in their possession in advance of the expert report deadline. 

6 
 

PUBLIC PUBLIC PUBLIC FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION | OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY | FILED 9/14/2022 | Document No. 605598 | PAGE Page 7 of 129 * PUBLIC *; 

deadlines in this case. Order Denying Summary Decision, Aug. 2, 2022 (emphasis 

added). 

• Respondent’s initial refusal to designate a witness for a corporate deposition 

resulted in the need to conduct the corporate deposition of Respondent two weeks 

after the fact discovery cutoff. PX04; PX06-0003-0004; PX07-0002. 

Respondent’s delays5 have had a significant impact on Complaint Counsel’s ability to 

prepare for the evidentiary hearing. For example, under the current schedule, the corporate 

deposition will occur during the same week as Complaint Counsel’s expert report deadline, 

depriving Complaint Counsel and its expert time to review and consider corporate testimony 

prior to the report deadline. 

5 In addition to Respondent’s delays, third party Triares, Inc. (“Triares”) belatedly contested a subpoena for a 

deposition scheduled for September 1, 2022 and refused to appear. See PX08 (Complaint Counsel’s filed opposition 

to a petition to quash served on Complaint Counsel on August 31, 2022, the day before deposition). Fact discovery 

has now closed, before Complaint Counsel could obtain testimony from Triares regarding its processes for gathering 

consumer “leads” it sent to Respondent, which Respondent then sold. Because Respondent’s representations 

regarding the characteristics of these Triares-obtained leads are the subject of the Complaint’s claims, see Complaint 

at ¶¶ 61-63, and Triares’ refusal to sit for deposition was untimely raised, Complaint Counsel’s position is that 

Triares should sit for deposition in this proceeding. 

7 
PUBLIC PUBLIC FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION | OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY | FILED 9/14/2022 | Document No. 605598 | PAGE Page 8 of 129 * PUBLIC *; 

CONCLUSION 

For the reasons stated herein, Complaint Counsel respectfully requests that the 

Commission continue the evidentiary hearing in this case by three months and that it grant a 

corresponding extension of all pre-hearing deadlines that have not yet lapsed. 

Respectfully submitted, 

Dated: September 14, 2022 s/ Colin D. A. MacDonald 

Sophia H. Calderón 

Colin D. A. MacDonald 

Breena M. Roos 

M. Elizabeth Howe 

Katharine F. Barach 

Nadine S. Samter 

Ben A. Halpern-Meekin 

Federal Trade Commission 

Northwest Region 

915 Second Ave., Suite 2896 

Seattle, WA 98174 

Tel.: (206) 220-6350 

Fax: (206) 220-6366 

Email: scalderon@ftc.gov 

cmacdonald@ftc.gov 

broos@ftc.gov 

mhowe@ftc.gov 

kbarach@ftc.gov 

nsamter@ftc.gov 

bhalpernmeekin@ftc.gov 

Counsel Supporting the Complaint 

8 

PUBLIC
 

 

 

 

________________________________________________ 

________________________________________________ 

PUBLIC FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION | OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY | FILED 9/14/2022 | Document No. 605598 | PAGE Page 9 of 129 * PUBLIC *; 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 

BEFORE THE FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION 

COMMISSIONERS: Lina M. Khan, Chair 

Noah Joshua Phillips 

Rebecca Kelly Slaughter 

Christine S. Wilson 

Alvaro M. Bedoya 

In the Matter of 

HOMEADVISOR, INC., a corporation, 

d/b/a ANGI LEADS, 

d/b/a HOMEADVISOR POWERED BY ANGI. DOCKET NO. 9407 

[PROPOSED] ORDER 

Having carefully considered Complaint Counsel’s Expedited Motion to Continue 

Evidentiary Hearing Date and Prehearing Deadlines, and Respondent’s response thereto, if any, 

the Commission finds as follows: 

Under Rule 3.11(b)(4), evidentiary hearings are normally set eight months from the date 

of the issuance of a Part 3 administrative complaint. 16 C.F.R.§ 3.11(b)(4). However, “[t]he 

Commission, upon a showing of good cause, may order a later date for the evidentiary hearing to 

commence.” 16 C.F.R. § 3.41(b). Good cause exists for a continuance of the commencement of 

the evidentiary hearing and all pending prehearing deadlines by three months for numerous 

reasons. First, Respondent has repeatedly failed to produce sales calls to Respondent, depriving 

Complaint Counsel and their expert of the ability to conduct an analysis of Respondent’s sales 

calls prior to the expert report deadline. Second, good cause exists because Respondent has 

caused numerous significant delays in this case that total over 11 weeks, including: (a) a oneweek extension of the deadline to answer the complaint and an 18-day extension of the initial 

1 
 

PUBLIC FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION | OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY | FILED 9/14/2022 | Document No. 605598 | PAGE Page 10 of 129 * PUBLIC *; 

scheduling conference; (b) three extensions, together resulting in delays of over seven weeks, 

relating to the briefing of Complaint Counsel’s motion for summary decision and the timing of 

the oral argument; and (c) a two-week extension of the fact discovery deadline for the corporate 

deposition of Respondent. Accordingly, 

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the evidentiary hearing in this case is continued by three 

months, until February 9, 2022. All prehearing deadlines shall be extended by a corresponding 

three months, as determined by the Administrative Law Judge. 

By the Commission. 

[April J. Tabor] 

Secretary 

[SEAL] 

ISSUED: 

2 
 

________________________________________________ 

________________________________________________ 

PUBLIC PUBLIC PUBLIC FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION | OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY | FILED 9/14/2022 | Document No. 605598 | PAGE Page 11 of 129 * PUBLIC *; 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 

BEFORE THE FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION 

COMMISSIONERS: Lina M. Khan, Chair 

Noah Joshua Phillips 

Rebecca Kelly Slaughter 

Christine S. Wilson 

Alvaro M. Bedoya 

In the Matter of 

HOMEADVISOR, INC., a corporation, 

d/b/a ANGI LEADS, 

d/b/a HOMEADVISOR POWERED BY ANGI. DOCKET NO. 9407 

[PROPOSED] ORDER REQUIRING EXPEDITED RESPONSE 

On September 14, 2022, Complaint Counsel filed an Expedited Motion to Continue 

Evidentiary Hearing Date and Prehearing Deadlines. Under the Scheduling Order in this case, as 

amended, expert discovery deadlines are approaching as soon as September 20, 2022, and final 

proposed witness lists are due as early as September 26, 2022, in the advance of the Evidentiary 

Hearing scheduled to begin on November 9, 2022. 

Pursuant to FTC Rule 3.22(d), the Commission may shorten the time within which a 

response is due. It is HEREBY ORDERED that Respondent HomeAdvisor, Inc. shall file any 

response to the Motion no later than 5:00 p.m. on September 16, 2022. 

SO ORDERED. 

By the Commission. 

[April J. Tabor] 

Secretary 

[SEAL] 

ISSUED: 
________________________________________________ 

________________________________________________ 

PUBLIC PUBLIC PUBLIC FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION | OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY | FILED 9/14/2022 | Document No. 605598 | PAGE Page 12 of 129 * PUBLIC *; 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 

BEFORE THE FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION 

COMMISSIONERS: Lina M. Khan, Chair 

Noah Joshua Phillips 

Rebecca Kelly Slaughter 

Christine S. Wilson 

Alvaro M. Bedoya 

In the Matter of 

HOMEADVISOR, INC., a corporation, 

d/b/a ANGI LEADS, 

d/b/a HOMEADVISOR POWERED BY ANGI. DOCKET NO. 9407 

DECLARATION OF SOPHIA H. CALDERÓN 

I, Sophia H. Calderón, declare as follows: 

1. I am an attorney at the Federal Trade Commission (“FTC” or “Commission”) and 

Complaint Counsel in this proceeding. 

2. Attached to this declaration are Exhibits PX01 through PX010, submitted in 

support of Complaint Counsel’s Expedited Motion to Continue Evidentiary Hearing Date and 

Prehearing Deadlines. The below Exhibit Index includes further descriptions of each Exhibit; the 

“Description” column identifies the title and/or Bates number of the first page of each exhibit in 

the corresponding “Exhibit” column. 

EXHIBIT INDEX 

Exhibit Description 

PX01 

Administrative Law Judge’s Order on Respondent’s Unopposed Motion for

Extension of Time, March 24, 2022 

PX02 

Administrative Law Judge’s Order Extending Time and Setting Initial Prehearing 

Conference, April 7, 2022 

PX03 Administrative Law Judge’s Scheduling Order, April 25, 2022 

1 
PUBLIC PUBLIC PUBLIC FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION | OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY | FILED 9/14/2022 | Document No. 605598 | PAGE Page 13 of 129 * PUBLIC *; 

EXHIBIT INDEX 

Exhibit Description 

PX04 

HomeAdvisor’s Responses and Objections to Complaint Counsel’s Notice of 

Deposition to HomeAdvisor, Inc., August 5, 2022 

PX05 

Administrative Law Judge’s Order Granting Complaint Counsel’s Motion to 

Compel Documents Responsive to Request 14, Aug. 16, 2022 

PX06 August 31, 2022 Letter from Respondent’s Counsel to Complaint Counsel 

PX07 Joint Motion To Extend the Time to Complete Fact Discovery, September 6, 2022 

PX08 

Complaint Counsel’s Opposition to Non-Party Triares, Inc.’s Emergency Petition 

to Stay Deposition and to Quash or Limit Subpoena Ad Testificandum, September 

12, 2022 

PX09 September 13, 2022 Email from Complaint Counsel to Respondent’s Counsel

PX10 

Complaint Counsel’s Expedited Motion for Sanctions Against HomeAdvisor, Inc., 

September 14, 2022 

3. Complaint Counsel has requested that Respondent join its motion to continue the 

evidentiary hearing date. Complaint Counsel first made its request during a video conference on 

September 2. Complaint Counsel reiterated its request in an email on September 9 (see PX09). 

As of the filing of this declaration Respondent’s counsel has not yet replied.

I declare under penalty of perjury that to the best of my knowledge and belief the 

foregoing is true and accurate. 

Respectfully submitted, 

Dated: September 14, 2022 s/ Sophia H. Calderón 

Sophia H. Calderón 

Federal Trade Commission 

Northwest Region 

915 Second Ave., Suite 2896 

Seattle, WA 98174 

Tel.: (206) 220-6350 

Fax: (206) 220-6366 

Email: scalderon@ftc.gov 

Counsel Supporting the Complaint 

2 
PUBLIC PUBLIC FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION | OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY | FILED 9/14/2022 | Document No. 605598 | PAGE Page 14 of 129 * PUBLIC *; 

PX01
 

 

 

FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION | OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY | FILED 3/24/2022 | Document No. 604215 | PAGE Page 1 of 2 * PUBLIC *; 

__________________________________________ 

PUBLIC 

PUBLIC PUBLIC FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION | OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY | FILED 9/14/2022 | Document No. 605598 | PAGE Page 15 of 129 * PUBLIC *; 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 

FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION 

OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGES 

) 

In the Matter of ) 

) 

HomeAdvisor, Inc., a corporation, ) 

d/b/a Angi Leads, ) Docket No. 9407 

d/b/a HomeAdvisor Powered By Angi, ) 

) 

Respondent. ) 

__________________________________________) 

ORDER ON RESPONDENT’S UNOPPOSED 

MOTION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME 

On March 23, 2022, Respondent HomeAdvisor, Inc. filed an Unopposed Motion for 

Extension of Time to Answer the Complaint and Other Deadlines (“Motion”). Respondent seeks 

to extend the deadline for HomeAdvisor to answer the Complaint in this matter, issued on March 

11, 2022, from March 28, 2022 to April 4, 2022. Respondent also requests an order establishing 

other dates and deadlines related to the initial scheduling conference and the conduct of initial 

discovery. Respondent represents that Complaint Counsel does not oppose this Motion. 

FTC Rule 3.12(a) provides that a respondent shall file an answer within 14 days after 

being served with the complaint. 16 C.F.R. § 3.12(a). FTC Rule 4.3(b) provides that, except 

under circumstances not here presented, the Administrative Law Judge may, for good cause 

shown, extend any time limit prescribed or allowed by the rules. 16 C.F.R. § 4.3(b). Respondent 

states it is seeking extensions because of pre-existing commitments and unavailability of 

HomeAdvisor’s counsel. 

Good cause exists to extend the deadline for Respondent to file its Answer. Respondent’s 

Motion to extend the deadline to file and answer the Complaint is GRANTED, and it is hereby 

ORDERED, that the deadline for filing Respondent’s Answer shall be April 4, 2022. 

The deadlines for the mandatory initial disclosures, the meeting of the parties before the 

initial schedule conference, and the initial scheduling conference do not arise until after a 

respondent has filed an answer. See 16 C.F.R. §§ 3.21(a), (b), 3.31(a). Thus, Respondent’s 

request to extend these deadlines before an answer has been filed is DENIED as premature. In 

addition, deadlines related to discovery will be established within two days of the Initial 

PX01-0001
ORDERED: 

Mic D. hael Chappell 

Chief Administrative Law Judge 

Date: March 24, 2022 

2 

PX01-0002
PUBLIC PUBLIC FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION | OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY | FILED 9/14/2022 | Document No. 605598 | PAGE Page 17 of 129 * PUBLIC *; 

PX02
FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION | OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY | FILED 4/7/2022 | Document No. 604341 | PAGE Page 1 of 2 * PUBLIC *; 

__________________________________________ 

PUBLIC 

PUBLIC PUBLIC FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION | OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY | FILED 9/14/2022 | Document No. 605598 | PAGE Page 18 of 129 * PUBLIC *; 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 

FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION 

OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGES 

) 

In the Matter of ) 

) 

HomeAdvisor, Inc., a corporation, ) 

d/b/a Angi Leads, ) Docket No. 9407 

d/b/a HomeAdvisor Powered By Angi, ) 

) 

Respondent. ) 

__________________________________________) 

ORDER EXTENDING TIME AND SETTING 

INITIAL PREHEARING CONFERENCE 

I. 

On March 23, 2022, Respondent HomeAdvisor, Inc. filed an Unopposed Motion for 

Extension of Time to Answer the Complaint and Other Deadlines (“Motion to Extend”), which 

included, inter alia, a request to extend the deadline for holding the prehearing scheduling 

conference in this matter. Under Rule 3.21(b) of the Federal Trade Commission (“FTC”) Rules 

of Practice, the conference must be held “[n]ot later than 10 days after the answer is filed . . . .”

16 C.F.R. § 3.21(b). 

By Order issued March 24, 2022, Respondent’s request to extend the deadline for filing 

an answer was granted based on a showing of good cause. The request to extend the deadline for 

holding the scheduling conference was denied as premature, as Respondent had not yet filed an 

answer. Respondent filed its Answer to the Complaint on April 4, 2022. Accordingly, the request 

to extend the deadline for holding the scheduling conference is now ripe. 

II. 

Under Rule 3.21(b) the last day to hold the scheduling conference would be April 14, 

2022. In support of the request to extend the deadline, the Motion to Extend stated that various 

counsel for Respondent and Complaint Counsel would be unavailable during the weeks of April 

11 and April 18, 2022. FTC Rule 4.3(b) provides that, except under circumstances not here 

presented, the Administrative Law Judge may, for good cause shown, extend any time limit 

prescribed or allowed by the rules. 16 C.F.R. § 4.3(b). 

PX02-0001
A 

gpy p, pp

allowed to access the proceedings of the scheduling conference via a public call-in number. 

Interested parties are directed to contact the FTC Office of Public Affairs for call-in information. 

The parties are directed to confer in advance of the scheduling conference and to comply 

with Commission Rule 3.21(a) and (b). The expected scheduling order will be provided to the 

parties in advance of the scheduling conference. 

ORDERED: 

D. Michael Chappell 

Chief Administrative Law Judge 

Date: April 7, 2022 

2 

PX02-0002
PUBLIC PUBLIC FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION | OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY | FILED 9/14/2022 | Document No. 605598 | PAGE Page 20 of 129 * PUBLIC *; 

PX03
 

 

 

FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION | OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY | FILED 4/25/2022 | DOCUMENT NO. 604448 | Page 1 of 10 | PUBLIC

__________________________________________ 

PUBLIC 

PUBLIC PUBLIC FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION | OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY | FILED 9/14/2022 | Document No. 605598 | PAGE Page 21 of 129 * PUBLIC *; 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 

FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION 

OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGES 

) 

In the Matter of ) 

) 

HomeAdvisor, Inc., a corporation, ) 

d/b/a Angi Leads, ) Docket No. 9407 

d/b/a HomeAdvisor Powered By Angi, ) 

) 

Respondent. ) 

__________________________________________) 

SCHEDULING ORDER 

May 10, 2022 - Complaint Counsel provides preliminary witness list (not including 

experts) with a brief summary of the proposed testimony. 

May 24, 2022 - Respondent’s Counsel provides preliminary witness list (not 

including experts) with a brief summary of the proposed testimony. 

June 7, 2022 - Complaint Counsel provides expert witness list. 

June 21, 2022 - Respondent’s Counsel provides expert witness list. 

June 28, 2022 - Deadline for issuing document requests, interrogatories and 

subpoenas, except for discovery for purposes 

of authenticity and admissibility of exhibits. 

August 9, 2022 - Deadline for issuing requests for admissions, except for requests 

for admissions for purposes of authenticity of documents. 

September 6, 2022 - Close of discovery, other than discovery permitted under Rule 

3.24(a)(4), depositions of experts, and discovery for purposes of 

authenticity and admissibility of exhibits. 

September 20, 2022 - Deadline for Complaint Counsel to provide expert witness reports. 

September 26, 2022 - Complaint Counsel provides to Respondent’s Counsel its final 

proposed witness and exhibit lists, including depositions, copies of 

all exhibits (except for demonstrative, illustrative or summary 

exhibits and expert related exhibits), Complaint Counsel’s basis of

PX03-0001
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION | OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY | FILED 4/25/2022 | DOCUMENT NO. 604448 | Page 2 of 10 | PUBLIC PUBLIC PUBLIC FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION | OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY | FILED 9/14/2022 | Document No. 605598 | PAGE Page 22 of 129 * PUBLIC *; 

PUBLIC 

admissibility for each proposed exhibit, and a brief summary of the 

testimony of each witness. 

Complaint Counsel serves courtesy copies on ALJ of its final 

proposed witness and exhibit lists, its basis of admissibility for 

each proposed exhibit, and a brief summary of the testimony of 

each witness, including its expert witnesses. 

October 3, 2022 - Deadline for Respondent’s Counsel to provide expert witness 

reports (to be provided by 4 p.m. ET). Respondent’s expert report 

shall include (without limitation) rebuttal, if any, to Complaint 

Counsel’s expert witness report(s).

October 3, 2022 - Respondent’s Counsel provides to Complaint Counsel its final 

proposed witness and exhibit lists, including depositions, copies of 

all exhibits (except for demonstrative, illustrative or summary 

exhibits and expert related exhibits), Respondent’s basis of 

admissibility for each proposed exhibit, and a brief summary of the 

testimony of each witness. 

Respondent’s Counsel serves courtesy copies on ALJ its final 

proposed witness and exhibit lists, its basis of admissibility for 

each proposed exhibit, and a brief summary of the testimony of 

each witness, including its expert witnesses. 

October 6, 2022 - Parties that intend to offer confidential materials of an opposing 

party or non-party as evidence at the hearing must provide notice 

to the opposing party or non-party, pursuant to 16 C.F.R. 

§ 3.45(b).1 See Additional Provision 12. 

October 13, 2022 - Complaint Counsel to identify rebuttal expert(s) and provide 

rebuttal expert report(s). Any such reports are to be limited to 

rebuttal of matters set forth in Respondent’s expert reports. If 

material outside the scope of fair rebuttal is presented, 

Respondents will have the right to seek appropriate relief (such as 

striking Complaint Counsel’s rebuttal expert reports or seeking 

leave to submit surrebuttal expert reports on behalf of 

Respondents). 

1 Appendix A to Commission Rule 3.31, the Standard Protective Order, states that if a party or third party wishes in 

camera treatment for a document or transcript that a party intends to introduce into evidence, that party or third 

party shall file an appropriate motion with the Administrative Law Judge within 5 days after it receives notice of a 

party’s intent to introduce such material. Commission Rule 3.45(b) states that parties who seek to use material 

obtained from a third party subject to confidentiality restrictions must demonstrate that the third party has been 

given at least 10 days’ notice of the proposed use of such material. To resolve this apparent conflict, the Scheduling

Order requires that the parties provide 10 days’ notice to the opposing party or third parties to allow for the filing of 

motions for in camera treatment. 

2 

PX03-0002
FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION | OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY | FILED 4/25/2022 | DOCUMENT NO. 604448 | Page 3 of 10 | PUBLIC

PUBLIC 

PUBLIC PUBLIC FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION | OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY | FILED 9/14/2022 | Document No. 605598 | PAGE Page 23 of 129 * PUBLIC *; 

October 17, 2022 - Deadline for filing motions for in camera treatment of proposed 

trial exhibits. 

October 21, 2022 - Deadline for filing motions in limine to preclude admission 

of evidence. See Additional Provision 13. 

October 24, 2022 - Deadline for depositions of experts (including rebuttal experts) and 

exchange of expert related exhibits. 

October 26, 2022 - Complaint Counsel files pretrial brief supported by legal authority. 

October 26, 2022 - Deadline for filing responses to motions for in camera treatment of 

proposed trial exhibits. 

October 28, 2022 - Exchange and serve courtesy copy on ALJ objections to final 

proposed witness lists and exhibit lists. The Parties are directed to 

review the Commission’s Rules on admissibility of evidence

before filing objections to exhibits and raise only objections that 

are necessary and valid. 

October 31, 2022 - Deadline for filing responses to motions in limine to preclude 

admission of evidence. 

November 2, 2022 - Exchange proposed stipulations of law, facts, and authenticity. 

November 4, 2022 - Respondent’s Counsel files pretrial brief supported by legal 

authority. 

November 8, 2022 - Final prehearing conference to begin at 1:00 p.m. 

The parties shall meet and confer prior to the prehearing 

conference regarding trial logistics and proposed stipulations of 

law, facts, and authenticity of exhibits. To the extent the parties 

have agreed to stipulate to any issues of law, facts, and/or 

authenticity of exhibits, the parties shall prepare a list of such 

stipulations and submit a copy of the stipulations to the ALJ one 

business day prior to the conference. At the conference, the parties’ 

list of stipulations shall be marked as “JX1” and signed by each 

party, and the list shall be offered into evidence as a joint exhibit. 

No signature by the ALJ is required. Any subsequent stipulations 

may be offered as agreed by the parties. 

Counsel may present any objections to the final proposed witness 

lists and exhibits. All trial exhibits will be admitted or excluded to 

the extent practicable. To the extent the parties agree to the 

3 

PX03-0003
 

FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION | OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY | FILED 4/25/2022 | DOCUMENT NO. 604448 | Page 4 of 10 | PUBLIC PUBLIC PUBLIC FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION | OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY | FILED 9/14/2022 | Document No. 605598 | PAGE Page 24 of 129 * PUBLIC *; 

PUBLIC 

admission of each other’s exhibits, the parties shall prepare a list 

identifying each exhibit to which admissibility is agreed, marked 

as “JX2” and signed by each party, which list shall be offered into 

evidence as a joint exhibit. No signature by the ALJ is required. 

November 9, 2022 - Commencement of Hearing, to begin at 10:00 a.m.. 

ADDITIONAL PROVISIONS 

1. For all papers that are required to be filed with the Office of the Secretary, the 

parties shall serve a courtesy copy on the Administrative Law Judge by electronic mail to the 

following email address: oalj@ftc.gov. The courtesy copy should be transmitted at or shortly 

after the time of any electronic filing with the Office of the Secretary. Courtesy copies must be 

transmitted to Office of the Administrative Law Judge directly, and the FTC E-filing system 

shall not be used for this purpose. The oalj@ftc.gov email account is to be used only for courtesy 

copies of pleadings filed with the Office of the Secretary and for documents specifically 

requested of the parties by the Office of Administrative Law Judges. Certificates of service for 

any pleading shall not include the OALJ email address, or the email address of any OALJ 

personnel, including the Chief ALJ, but rather shall designate only 600 Pennsylvania Ave., NW, 

Rm. H-110 as the place of service. The subject line of all electronic submissions to 

oalj@ftc.gov shall set forth only the docket number and the title of the submission. The 

parties are not required to serve a courtesy copy to the OALJ in hard copy, except upon request. 

In any instance in which a courtesy copy of a pleading for the Administrative Law Judge cannot 

be effectuated by electronic mail, counsel shall hand deliver a hard copy to the Office of 

Administrative Law Judges. Discovery requests and discovery responses shall not be submitted 

to the Office of Administrative Law Judges. 

2. The parties shall serve each other by electronic mail and shall include “Docket 9407” 

in the re: line and all attached documents in .pdf format. In the event that service through 

electronic mail is not possible, the parties may serve each other through any method authorized 

under the Commission’s Rules of Practice. 

3. Each pleading that cites to unpublished opinions or opinions not available on 

LEXIS or WESTLAW shall include such copies as exhibits. 

4. Each motion (other than a motion to dismiss, motion for summary decision, or 

a motion for in camera treatment) shall be accompanied by a separate signed statement 

representing that counsel for the moving party has conferred with opposing counsel in an effort 

in good faith to resolve by agreement the issues raised by the motion and has been unable to 

reach such an agreement. In addition, pursuant to Rule 3.22(g), for each motion to quash filed 

pursuant to § 3.34(c), each motion to compel or determine sufficiency pursuant to § 3.38(a), or 

each motion for sanctions pursuant to § 3.38(b), the required signed statement must also “recite

the date, time, and place of each . . . conference between counsel, and the names of all parties 

participating in each such conference.” Motions that fail to include such separate statement may 

be denied on that ground. 

4 

PX03-0004
 

FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION | OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY | FILED 4/25/2022 | DOCUMENT NO. 604448 | Page 5 of 10 | PUBLIC PUBLIC PUBLIC FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION | OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY | FILED 9/14/2022 | Document No. 605598 | PAGE Page 25 of 129 * PUBLIC *; 

PUBLIC 

5. Rule 3.22(c) states: 

All written motions shall state the particular order, ruling, or action desired and 

the grounds therefor. Memoranda in support of, or in opposition to, any 

dispositive motion shall not exceed 10,000 words. Memoranda in support of, or in 

opposition to, any other motion shall not exceed 2,500 words. Any reply in 

support of a dispositive motion shall not exceed 5,000 words and any reply in 

support of any other motion authorized by the Administrative Law Judge or the 

Commission shall not exceed 1,250 words. 

If a party chooses to submit a motion without a separate memorandum, the word count limits of 

3.22(c) apply to the motion. If a party chooses to submit a motion with a separate memorandum, 

absent prior approval of the ALJ, the motion shall be limited to 750 words, and the word count 

limits of 3.22(c) apply to the memorandum in support of the motion. This provision applies to all 

motions filed with the Administrative Law Judge, including those filed under Rule 3.38. 

6. If papers filed with the Office of the Secretary contain in camera or confidential 

material, the filing party shall mark any such material in the complete version of their submission 

with {bold font and braces}. 16 C.F.R. § 3.45(e). Parties shall be aware of the rules for filings 

containing such information, including 16 C.F.R. § 4.2. 

7. Each party is limited to 50 document requests, including all discrete subparts; 

25 interrogatories, including all discrete subparts; and 50 requests for admissions, including all 

discrete subparts, except that there shall be no limit on the number of requests for admission for 

authentication and admissibility of exhibits. Any single interrogatory inquiring as to a request for 

admissions response may address only a single such response. There is no limit to the number of 

sets of discovery requests the parties may issue, so long as the total number of each type of 

discovery request, including all subparts, does not exceed these limits. Within seven days of 

service of a document request, the parties shall confer about the format for the production of 

electronically stored information. If any federal court proceeding related to this administrative 

proceeding is initiated, any discovery obtained in this proceeding may be used in the related 

federal court litigation, and vice versa. 

8. Compliance with the scheduled end of discovery requires that the parties serve 

subpoenas and discovery requests sufficiently in advance of the discovery cut-off and that all 

responses and objections will be due on or before that date, unless otherwise noted. Any motion 

to compel responses to discovery requests, or to seek certification of a request for court 

enforcement of a nonparty subpoena, shall be filed within 30 days of service of the responses 

and/or objections to the discovery requests or within 20 days after the close of discovery, 

whichever first occurs; except that, where the parties have been engaging in negotiations over a 

discovery dispute, including negotiations with any nonparty with regard to a subpoena, the 

deadline for the motion to compel shall be within 5 days of reaching an impasse. 

9. The deposition of any person may be recorded by videotape, provided that the 

deposing party notifies the deponent and all parties of its intention to record the deposition by 

5 

PX03-0005
 

FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION | OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY | FILED 4/25/2022 | DOCUMENT NO. 604448 | Page 6 of 10 | PUBLIC PUBLIC PUBLIC FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION | OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY | FILED 9/14/2022 | Document No. 605598 | PAGE Page 26 of 129 * PUBLIC *; 

PUBLIC 

videotape at least five days in advance of the deposition. No deposition, whether recorded by 

videotape or otherwise, may exceed a single, seven-hour day, unless otherwise agreed to by the 

parties or ordered by the Administrative Law Judge. 

10. The parties shall serve upon one another, at the time of issuance, copies of all 

subpoenas duces tecum and subpoenas ad testificandum. For subpoenas ad testificandum, the 

party seeking the deposition shall consult with the other parties before the time and place of the 

deposition is scheduled. The parties need not separately notice the deposition of a non-party 

noticed by an opposing party. Unless the parties otherwise agree, at the request of any party, the 

time and allocation for a non-party deposition shall be divided evenly between them, but the 

noticing party may use any additional time not used by the opposing party. If no party makes 

such a request, cross-examination of the witness will be limited to one hour. 

11. Non-parties shall provide copies or make available for inspection and copying of 

documents requested by subpoena to the party issuing the subpoena. The party that has requested 

documents from non-parties shall provide copies of the documents received from non-parties to 

the opposing party within three business days of receiving the documents. No deposition of a 

non-party shall be scheduled between the time a non-party provides documents in response to a 

subpoena duces tecum to a party, and 3 business days after the party provides those documents to 

the other party, unless a shorter time is required by unforeseen logistical issues in scheduling the 

deposition, or a non-party produces those documents at the time of the deposition, as agreed to 

by all parties involved. 

12. If a party intends to offer confidential materials of an opposing party or nonparty as evidence at the hearing, in providing notice to such non-party, the parties are required to 

inform each non-party of the strict standards for motions for in camera treatment for evidence to 

be introduced at trial set forth in 16 C.F.R. § 3.45; in In re Otto Bock Healthcare North 

American, 2018 WL 3491602 at *1 (July 2, 2018); and In re 1-800 Contacts, Inc., 2017 FTC 

LEXIS 55 (April 4, 2017). Motions also must be supported by a declaration or affidavit by a 

person qualified to explain the confidential nature of the documents. In re 1-800 Contacts, Inc., 

2017 FTC LEXIS 55 (April 4, 2017); In re North Texas Specialty Physicians, 2004 FTC LEXIS 

66 (April 23, 2004). Each party or non-party that files a motion for in camera treatment shall 

provide one copy of the documents for which in camera treatment is sought to the 

Administrative Law Judge. 

13. Motions in limine are strongly discouraged. Motion in limine refers “to any 

motion, whether made before or during trial, to exclude anticipated prejudicial evidence before 

the evidence is actually offered.” In re Daniel Chapter One, 2009 FTC LEXIS 85, *18-20 (April 

20, 2009) (citing Luce v. United States, 469 U.S. 38, 40 n.2 (1984)). Evidence should be 

excluded in advance of trial on a motion in limine only when the evidence is clearly inadmissible 

on all potential grounds. Id. (citing Hawthorne Partners v. AT&T Technologies, Inc., 831 F. 

Supp. 1398, 1400 (N.D. Ill. 1993); Sec. Exch. Comm’n v. U.S. Environmental, Inc., 2002 U.S. 

Dist. LEXIS 19701, at *5-6 (S.D.N.Y. Oct. 16, 2002)). Moreover, the risk of prejudice from 

giving undue weight to marginally relevant evidence is minimal in a bench trial such as this 

where the judge is capable of assigning appropriate weight to evidence. 

6 

PX03-0006
 

 

 

FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION | OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY | FILED 4/25/2022 | DOCUMENT NO. 604448 | Page 7 of 10 | PUBLIC PUBLIC PUBLIC FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION | OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY | FILED 9/14/2022 | Document No. 605598 | PAGE Page 27 of 129 * PUBLIC *; 

PUBLIC 

14. The final witness lists shall represent counsels’ good faith designation of all 

potential witnesses who counsel reasonably expect may be called in their case-in-chief. A 

general designation that a party reserves the right to call anyone on the opposing party’s witness 

list is not sufficient. Parties shall notify the opposing party promptly of changes in witness lists 

to facilitate completion of discovery within the dates of the scheduling order. The final proposed 

witness list may not include additional witnesses not listed in the preliminary or supplemental 

witness lists previously exchanged unless by consent of all parties, or, if the parties do not 

consent, by an order of the Administrative Law Judge upon a showing of good cause. 

15. If any party wishes to offer a rebuttal witness other than a rebuttal expert, the party 

shall file a request in writing in the form of a motion to request a rebuttal witness. That motion 

shall be filed as soon as possible after the testimony sought to be rebutted is known and shall 

include: (a) the name of any witness being proposed (b) a detailed description of the rebuttal 

evidence being offered; (c) citations to the record, by page and line number, to the evidence that 

the party intends to rebut; and shall demonstrate that the witness the party seeks to call has 

previously been designated on its witness list or adequately explain why the requested witness 

was not designated on its witness list. 

16. Witnesses shall not testify to a matter unless evidence is introduced sufficient 

to support a finding that the witness has personal knowledge of the matter. F.R.E. 602. 

17. Witnesses not properly designated as expert witnesses shall not provide 

opinions beyond what is allowed in F.R.E. 701. 

18. The parties are required to comply with Rule 3.31A and with the following: 

(a) At the time an expert is first listed as a witness by a party, that party shall 

provide to the other party: 

(i) materials fully describing or identifying the background and qualifications of the 

expert, all publications authored by the expert within the preceding ten years, and all prior cases 

in which the expert has testified or has been deposed within the preceding four years; and 

(ii) transcripts of such testimony in the possession, custody, or control of the producing 

party or the expert, except that transcript sections that are under seal in a separate proceeding 

need not be produced. 

(b) At the time an expert report is produced, the producing party shall provide to the 

other party all documents and other written materials relied upon by the expert in formulating an 

opinion in this case, subject to the provisions of 19(g), except that documents and materials 

already produced in the case need only be listed by Bates number. 

(c) It shall be the responsibility of a party designating an expert witness to ensure that the 

expert witness is reasonably available for deposition in keeping with this Scheduling Order. 

Unless otherwise agreed to by the parties or ordered by the Administrative Law Judge, expert 

7 

PX03-0007
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION | OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY | FILED 4/25/2022 | DOCUMENT NO. 604448 | Page 8 of 10 | PUBLIC PUBLIC PUBLIC FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION | OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY | FILED 9/14/2022 | Document No. 605598 | PAGE Page 28 of 129 * PUBLIC *; 

PUBLIC 

witnesses shall be deposed only once and each expert deposition shall be limited to one day for 

seven hours. 

(d) Each expert report shall include a complete statement of all opinions to be expressed 

and the basis and reasons therefore; the data or other information considered by the expert in 

forming the opinions; any exhibits to be used as a summary of or support for the opinions; the 

qualifications of the expert; and the compensation to be paid for the study and testimony. 

(e) A party may not discover facts known or opinions held by an expert who has been 

retained or specially employed by another party in anticipation of this litigation or preparation 

for hearing and who is not designated by a party as a testifying witness. 

(f) At the time of service of the expert reports, a party shall provide opposing counsel: 

(i) a list of all commercially-available computer programs used by the expert in the 

preparation of the report; 

(ii) a copy of all data sets used by the expert, in native file format and processed data 

file format; and 

(iii) all customized computer programs used by the expert in the preparation of the 

report or necessary to replicate the findings on which the expert report is based. 

(g) Experts’ disclosures and reports shall comply in all respects with Rule 3.31A, except 

that neither side must preserve or disclose: 

(i) any form of communication or work product shared between any of the parties’ 

counsel and their expert(s), or between any of the experts themselves; 

(ii) any form of communication or work product shared between an expert(s) 

and persons assisting the expert(s); 

(iii) expert’s notes, unless they constitute the only record of a fact or an assumption 

relied upon by the expert in formulating an opinion in this case; 

(iv) drafts of expert reports, analyses, or other work product; or 

(v) data formulations, data runs, data analyses, or any database-related operations 

not relied upon by the expert in the opinions contained in his or her final report. 

19. If the expert reports prepared for either party contain confidential information 

that has been granted in camera treatment, the party shall prepare two versions of its expert 

report(s) in accordance with Additional Provision 6 of this Scheduling Order and 16 C.F.R. 

§ 3.45(e). 

20. Due to ongoing public health Concerns related to COVID-19, it is possible that the 

evidentiary hearing in this matter will be conducted remotely by video conference. The parties 

are encouraged, in advance of the hearing, to take expert depositions for the purpose of 

perpetuating trial testimony (i.e., a trial deposition) and to submit such trial testimony as an 

exhibit in lieu of presenting the expert’s testimony via live video at trial. This trial deposition 

may be conducted in addition to any deposition of an expert witness for purposes of discovery 

(discovery deposition). Although the parties are encouraged to submit trial depositions in lieu of 

8 

PX03-0008
FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION | OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY | FILED 4/25/2022 | DOCUMENT NO. 604448 | Page 9 of 10 | PUBLIC PUBLIC PUBLIC FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION | OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY | FILED 9/14/2022 | Document No. 605598 | PAGE Page 29 of 129 * PUBLIC *; 

PUBLIC 

live video testimony at trial for all expert witnesses in the case, you may choose to do trial 

depositions for all or fewer than all experts. 

21. Due to ongoing public health Concerns related to COVID-19, it is possible that the 

evidentiary hearing in this matter will be conducted remotely by video conference. To 

accommodate safety or other concerns of witnesses and attorneys and staff, the parties may, in 

advance of the hearing, take trial depositions of fact witnesses who had been deposed before the 

close of discovery and to submit such trial deposition testimony (as video and/or transcript of 

trial deposition testimony) as an exhibit in lieu of presenting the fact witness’ testimony via live 

video at trial. Although the parties may submit trial depositions in lieu of live video testimony at 

trial for all fact witnesses in the case, you may choose to do trial depositions for fewer than all 

fact witnesses 

22. An expert witness’s testimony is limited to opinions contained in the expert report 

that has been previously and properly provided to the opposing party. In addition, no opinion 

will be considered, even if included in an expert report, if the underlying and supporting 

documents and information have not been properly provided to the opposing party. Unless an 

expert witness is qualified as a fact witness, an expert witness is only allowed to provide opinion 

testimony; expert testimony is not considered for the purpose of establishing the underlying facts 

of the case. 

23. The final exhibit lists shall represent counsels’ good faith designation of all 

trial exhibits other than demonstrative, illustrative, or summary exhibits. Additional exhibits may 

be added after the submission of the final lists only by consent of all parties, or, if the parties do 

not consent, by an order of the Administrative Law Judge upon a showing of good cause. 

24. Properly admitted deposition testimony and properly admitted investigational 

hearing transcripts are part of the record and need not be read in open court. Videotape 

deposition excerpts that have been admitted in evidence may be presented in open court only 

upon prior approval by the Administrative Law Judge. 

25. The parties shall provide to one another, and to the Administrative Law Judge and the 

court reporter, no later than 48 hours in advance, not including weekends and holidays, a list of 

all witnesses to be called on each day of hearing, subject to possible delays or unforeseen 

circumstances. 

26. The parties shall provide one another with copies of any demonstrative, illustrative or 

summary exhibits (other than those prepared for cross-examination) 24 hours before they are 

used with a witness. 

27. Complaint Counsel’s exhibits shall bear the designation PX and Respondent’s 

exhibits shall bear the designation RX or some other appropriate designation. Complaint 

Counsel’s demonstrative exhibits shall bear the designation PXD and Respondent’s 

demonstrative exhibits shall bear the designation RXD or some other appropriate designation. If 

demonstrative exhibits are used with a witness, the exhibit will be marked and referred to for 

identification only. Any demonstrative exhibits referred to by any witness may be included in the 

9 

PX03-0009
pg , y, g 

example, if PX100 and RX200 are different copies of the same document, only one of those 

documents shall be offered into evidence. The parties shall agree in advance as to which exhibit 

number they intend to use. Counsel shall contact the court reporter regarding submission of 

exhibits. 

ORDERED: 

Mic D. hael Chappell 

Chief Administrative Law Judge 

Date: April 25, 2022 

10 

PX03-0010
PUBLIC PUBLIC FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION | OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY | FILED 9/14/2022 | Document No. 605598 | PAGE Page 31 of 129 * PUBLIC *; 

PX04
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

PUBLIC PUBLIC FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION | OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY | FILED 9/14/2022 | Document No. 605598 | PAGE Page 32 of 129 * PUBLIC *; 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

BEFORE THE FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION 

COMMISSIONERS: Lina M. Khan, Chair

Noah Joshua Phillips

Rebecca Kelly Slaughter

Christine S. Wilson

Alvaro M. Bedoya

In the Matter of 

HOMEADVISOR, INC., 

 a corporation, Docket No. 9407

d/b/a ANGI LEADS, 

d/b/a HOMEADVISOR POWERED 

BY ANGI.

HOMEADVISOR, INC.’S OBJECTIONS AND RESPONSES TO COMPLAINT

COUNSEL’S NOTICE OF DEPOSITION TO HOMEADVISOR, INC. 

Respondent HomeAdvisor, Inc. (“HomeAdvisor”) submits the following responses and

objections to Complaint Counsel’s Notice of Deposition to HomeAdvisor. 

INTRODUCTORY STATEMENT

All of the General Objections set forth herein apply to and are incorporated into each of

HomeAdvisor’s specific responses and objections to each of the topics (the “Topics”) contained

in Complaint Counsel’s Notice of Deposition Pursuant to Federal Trade Commission Regulation

3.33(c)(1). Any objection or lack of an objection to any portion of any Topic should not be

deemed an admission that HomeAdvisor has information sought thereby. HomeAdvisor’s

objections and responses to a Topic do not constitute, and shall not be interpreted as, its

agreement with or admission as to the truth or accuracy of any legal or factual characterizations 

1 

PX04-0001
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

PUBLIC PUBLIC FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION | OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY | FILED 9/14/2022 | Document No. 605598 | PAGE Page 33 of 129 * PUBLIC *; 

or other allegations stated or implied in any of the Topics. HomeAdvisor’s failure to object to 

any specific Topic on a particular ground or grounds shall not be construed as a waiver of its 

rights to object on any additional ground(s). 

Each of HomeAdvisor’s responses to the Topics is made subject to, and without waiving,

limiting, or intending to waive: (i) each of HomeAdvisor’s General Objections and the above

stated reservations; (ii) the right to object on the grounds of privilege, relevancy, or materiality, 

or any other proper grounds, to the use of information, for any purpose, in whole or in part, in 

any subsequent step or proceeding in this action or any other action; (iii) the right to object on

any and all grounds, at any time, to other discovery requests involving or relating to the subject

matter of the present dispute; and (iv) the right at any time to revise, correct and add to or clarify 

any of the responses herein. 

GENERAL OBJECTIONS 

1. HomeAdvisor objects to the Topics, and to each definition and instruction they

incorporate, to the extent they purport to impose burdens other than or beyond those imposed by 

the Federal Trade Commission Regulations (the “Regulations”), the applicable practice rules of

Chief Administrative Law Judge Chappell, and/or any order issued by the Chief Administrative

Law Judge in this case. HomeAdvisor will respond to the Topics pursuant to requirements of the

Regulations, and in accordance with any order issued by the Chief Administrative Law Judge in

this case. 

2. HomeAdvisor objects to the Topics, and to each definition and instruction they

incorporate, to the extent they purport to call for the disclosure of documents or information

protected by the attorney-client privilege, work product doctrine, the joint defense privilege, the

2 

PX04-0002
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

PUBLIC PUBLIC FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION | OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY | FILED 9/14/2022 | Document No. 605598 | PAGE Page 34 of 129 * PUBLIC *; 

common interest privilege, or any other applicable privileges or protections on the ground that

such discovery is impermissible under Regulation 3.31(c)(4). 

3. HomeAdvisor objects to the Topics, and to the definitions and instructions they 

incorporate, to the extent that they call for legal conclusions and/or are predicated upon 

unsupported legal conclusions asserted by Complaint Counsel. 

4. HomeAdvisor objects to the Topics, and to the definitions and instructions they 

incorporate, to the extent that they are cumulative and duplicative of other discovery and

testimony provided in this matter and the FTC’s investigation of HomeAdvisor, especially with 

respect to the corporate testimony HomeAdvisor provided in response to Specification II.A.1–13

of the FTC’s Civil Investigative Demand to HomeAdvisor, FTC File No. 1923106, dated

October 5, 2020 (“October 5, 2020 CID Topics”). 

5. HomeAdvisor objects to the Topics, and to the definitions and instructions they 

incorporate, to the extent that they seek information regarding materials in the possession, 

custody or control of any person or entity other than HomeAdvisor, or the knowledge of third

parties.

6. HomeAdvisor objects to the definition of “Advertisement” as overbroad,

ambiguous, and unduly burdensome because it encompasses any “written or verbal statement,

illustration, or depiction that promotes the sale or use of a good or service or is designed to

increase consumer interest in a brand, product, or service.”

7. HomeAdvisor objects to the definition of “Lead” as vague and ambiguous 

because it encompasses “any set of information sold or otherwise provided” by HomeAdvisor to

any service provider, including any information about any “Person” (i) “who has expressed an 

interest in, or has visited a website related to, home services, or (ii) who has been identified as a

3 

PX04-0003
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

PUBLIC PUBLIC FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION | OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY | FILED 9/14/2022 | Document No. 605598 | PAGE Page 35 of 129 * PUBLIC *; 

potential customer for home services.” HomeAdvisor will respond based on its understanding of

the term “lead” as that term is used within HomeAdvisor.

8. HomeAdvisor objects to the term “Person” as overly broad, vague, and not

proportional because it means, without limitation, “any natural person, corporation, partnership,

or other business association and any other legal entity, including all members, officers,

predecessors, assigns, divisions, affiliates, and subsidiaries.”

9. HomeAdvisor objects to the “Relevant Time Period” as overbroad, unduly

burdensome, irrelevant, and not proportional because it goes beyond the 3-year statute of

limitations period prescribed by Section 19 of the FTC Act, 15 U.S. Code § 57b(d).

OBJECTIONS TO TOPICS 

DEPOSITION TOPIC 1: 

Your development and use of Advertisements directed at Service Providers or 

prospective Service Providers, including the following types of Advertisements:

a. Mass email or direct mail communications;

b. Audio or visual media Advertisements, including radio spots and magazine ads;

c. Social media advertising; and 

d. Websites, including but not limited to current and past versions of

https://pro.homeadvisor.com/ and its subpages. 

4 

PX04-0004
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

PUBLIC PUBLIC FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION | OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY | FILED 9/14/2022 | Document No. 605598 | PAGE Page 36 of 129 * PUBLIC *; 

OBJECTION TO DEPOSITION TOPIC 1: 

HomeAdvisor objects to this Topic as failing to describe with reasonable particularity the matters

on which examination is requested in accordance with Rule 3.33(c)(1), especially to the extent

that it seeks testimony about unidentified Advertisements, as that term is expansively and 

unreasonably defined by Complaint Counsel. This Topic is overbroad, vague, and ambiguous 

with respect to the terms “development and use.” HomeAdvisor further objects to this Topic as

beyond the scope of discovery specified in Rule 3.31(c)(1) to the extent it incorporates

Advertisements with representations that are not at issue in this case. HomeAdvisor further 

objects to this Topic because it is unreasonably cumulative or duplicative of other discovery

sought in this case and during Complaint Counsel’s investigation of HomeAdvisor, including but

not limited to testimony HomeAdvisor provided on Topics 6 & 7 of the October 5, 2020 CID.

Complaint Counsel therefore should identify the additional Advertisements, if any, for which 

they seek testimony beyond the testimony already provided by HomeAdvisor’s Investigational

Hearing on Topics 6 & 7 of the October 5, 2020 CID before HomeAdvisor can agree to prepare a

witness on this topic. 

DEPOSITION TOPIC 2: 

Your maintenance and use of data regarding the frequency with which Advertisements 

identified in Topic 1, above, were viewed, dispatched via physical or electronic mail, or 

otherwise engaged with, including any web analytics data, impression data, and/or viewer data. 

OBJECTION TO DEPOSITION TOPIC 2: 

HomeAdvisor objects to this Topic as failing to describe with reasonable particularity the

matters on which examination is requested in accordance with Rule 3.33(c)(1). This Topic is 

also broad, ambiguous, and vague because it seeks testimony about the unidentified

Advertisements from Topic 1. Further, this Topic is overbroad, vague, and ambiguous with 

respect to the terms “maintenance and use.” HomeAdvisor further objects to this Topic as 

5 

PX04-0005
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

PUBLIC PUBLIC FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION | OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY | FILED 9/14/2022 | Document No. 605598 | PAGE Page 37 of 129 * PUBLIC *; 

beyond the scope of discovery specified in Rule 3.31(c)(1) to the extent it incorporates

Advertisements with representations that are not at issue in this case.

Subject to and without waiving the foregoing objections, HomeAdvisor will provide nonprivileged testimony regarding Advertisements cited in the Complaint. 

DEPOSITION TOPIC 3: 

The sources for and use of call lists used by Your sales agents to place sales calls to 

prospective Service Providers. 

OBJECTION TO DEPOSITION TOPIC 3: 

HomeAdvisor objects to this Topic as failing to describe with reasonable particularity the

matters on which examination is requested in accordance with Rule 3.33(c)(1). HomeAdvisor

further objects to this Topic as beyond the scope of discovery specified in Rule 3.31(c)(1) 

because it is beyond the allegations of the complaint, the proposed relief, and Respondent’s 

Defenses. 

DEPOSITION TOPIC 4: 

Your policies, practices, procedures, and guidelines regarding the generation, 

maintenance, and retention of recordings of sales calls to prospective Service Providers. 

OBJECTION TO DEPOSITION TOPIC 4: 

HomeAdvisor objects to this Topic as failing to describe with reasonable particularity the

matters on which examination is requested in accordance with Rule 3.33(c)(1). HomeAdvisor 

further objects to this Topic because the terms “policies, practices, procedures, and guidelines”

are overbroad, vague, and ambiguous. 

Subject to and without waiving the foregoing objections, HomeAdvisor will provide nonprivileged testimony regarding the generation, maintenance, and retention of recordings of sales

calls to prospective Service Providers. 

6 

PX04-0006
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

PUBLIC PUBLIC FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION | OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY | FILED 9/14/2022 | Document No. 605598 | PAGE Page 38 of 129 * PUBLIC *; 

DEPOSITION TOPIC 5: 

Your policies, practices, procedures, and guidelines regarding Your quality assurance

department’s assessment of sales agents’ sales calls with prospective Service Providers, 

including:

a. The frequency of quality assurance reviews of sales calls;

b. Any sales agents or categories of sales agents excluded from the quality assurance

reviews, either permanently or temporarily;

c. The methods and forms used to assess, evaluate, or grade Your sales agents’ sales

calls with prospective Service Providers; and 

d. The results of quality assurance assessments, evaluations, or grading of Your sales 

agents’ sales calls with prospective Service Providers. 

OBJECTION TO DEPOSITION TOPIC 5: 

HomeAdvisor objects to this Topic as failing to describe with reasonable particularity the

matters on which examination is requested in accordance with Rule 3.33(c)(1). This Topic is 

compound as it constitutes at least 4 separate topics. HomeAdvisor further objects to this Topic

because the terms “policies, practices, procedures, and guidelines” are overbroad, vague, and

ambiguous. HomeAdvisor further objects to this Topic because it is unreasonably cumulative or

duplicative of other discovery sought in this case and during Complaint Counsel’s investigation 

of HomeAdvisor, including but not limited to testimony HomeAdvisor provided on Topic 12 of

the October 5, 2020 CID. HomeAdvisor therefore will not produce a witness to testify on this 

topic. 

DEPOSITION TOPIC 6: 

Your use of CallMiner software or other speech analytics software, including:

a. Your policies, practices, procedures, and guidelines regarding the use of CallMiner

software or other speech analytics software for Your sales calls to prospective

Service Providers; and 

b. The data available in the CallMiner software, including any data produced in 

response to Request for Production Nos. 10 and 23. 

7 

PX04-0007
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

PUBLIC PUBLIC FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION | OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY | FILED 9/14/2022 | Document No. 605598 | PAGE Page 39 of 129 * PUBLIC *; 

OBJECTION TO DEPOSITION TOPIC 6: 

HomeAdvisor objects to this Topic as failing to describe with reasonable particularity the

matters on which examination is requested in accordance with Rule 3.33(c)(1). This Topic is 

compound as it constitutes at least 2 separate topics. HomeAdvisor further objects to this Topic

because the terms “policies, practices, procedures, and guidelines” are overbroad, vague, and

ambiguous. HomeAdvisor further objects to this Topic because it is unreasonably cumulative or

duplicative of other discovery sought in this case and during Complaint Counsel’s investigation 

of HomeAdvisor, including but not limited to testimony HomeAdvisor provided on Topic 12 of

the October 5, 2020 CID. 

Subject to and without waiving the foregoing objections, HomeAdvisor will provide nonprivileged testimony regarding HomeAdvisor’s the use of CallMiner for calls to prospective

Service Providers. 

DEPOSITION TOPIC 7: 

Your policies, practices, procedures, and guidelines regarding the generation of Service

Requests, including:

a. All websites (whether operated by You or by an affiliate company) that You are

aware has generated Service Requests that You have sold as Leads to Service

Providers; and

b. Information about the Service Request requested from the customer seeking home

services and the context and format in which the information is requested. 

OBJECTION TO DEPOSITION TOPIC 7: 

HomeAdvisor objects to this Topic as failing to describe with reasonable particularity the

matters on which examination is requested in accordance with Rule 3.33(c)(1). HomeAdvisor

further objects to this Topic as overbroad, vague, and ambiguous because it purports to seek

anything relating in any way to the generation of Service Requests across “All websites.” It is

not reasonable to request that a witness memorize and provide testimony on every single website

8 

PX04-0008
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

PUBLIC PUBLIC FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION | OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY | FILED 9/14/2022 | Document No. 605598 | PAGE Page 40 of 129 * PUBLIC *; 

used to generate service requests throughout the relevant time period at issue in this case, and 

HomeAdvisor will not undertake that impossible task. HomeAdvisor further objects to this

Topic as overbroad, vague, and ambiguous because the phrase “information about the Service

Request” is unclear. HomeAdvisor further objects to this Topic as inapt for a topic of deposition

testimony because a list of “All websites . . . that You are aware has generated Service Requests . 

. .” is more appropriate for another discovery device, such as an interrogatory or document

request. HomeAdvisor further objects to this request because “context and format” is unclear,

vague, and ambiguous. HomeAdvisor further objects to this Topic as beyond the scope of 

discovery specified in Rule 3.31(c)(1). HomeAdvisor further objects to this Topic because it is 

unreasonably cumulative or duplicative of other discovery sought in this case and during

Complaint Counsel’s investigation of HomeAdvisor, including but not limited to testimony 

HomeAdvisor provided on Topic 1 of the October 5, 2020 CID. HomeAdvisor therefore will not

produce a witness to testify on this topic. 

DEPOSITION TOPIC 8: 

The automatic and manual filtering process that You apply to Service Requests and 

Leads prior to matching them with Service Providers, including the portion of Service

Requests and Leads that undergo each step in the filtering process. 

OBJECTION TO DEPOSITION TOPIC 8: 

HomeAdvisor objects to this Topic as failing to describe with reasonable particularity the

matters on which examination is requested in accordance with Rule 3.33(c)(1). HomeAdvisor

further objects to this Topic as overbroad, vague, and ambiguous because it unclear what is

meant by the phrase “the portion of the Service Requests and Leads that undergo each step in the

filtering process.” HomeAdvisor further objects to this Topic to the extent it incorporates the

false premise that both “Service Requests and Leads” are filtered prior to matching to Service

Providers. HomeAdvisor further objects to this Topic because it is unreasonably cumulative or 

9 

PX04-0009
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

PUBLIC PUBLIC FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION | OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY | FILED 9/14/2022 | Document No. 605598 | PAGE Page 41 of 129 * PUBLIC *; 

duplicative of other discovery sought in this case and during Complaint Counsel’s investigation 

of HomeAdvisor. In particular, HomeAdvisor already provided testimony in for Topic 1 of the

October 5, 2020 CID regarding the filtering process, and produced an extremely detailed 

30(b)(6) deposition taken in the In re HomeAdvisor, Inc. Litigation, 16-cv-1849 (D. Colo.) that

contains testimony from HomeAdvisor’s designee Joseph Puccio regarding all aspects of

HomeAdvisor’s filtering processes. Complaint Counsel therefore should identify the additional

testimony, if any, they seek beyond that provided by Mr. Puccio and the remainder of the

discovery already provided to Complaint Counsel on this topic before HomeAdvisor can agree

to—once again—prepare a witness on this topic. 

DEPOSITION TOPIC 9: 

Your policies, practices, procedures, and guidelines regarding the matching of Service

Providers with Service Requests and Leads, including the circumstances in which a single

Service Request can be sold by You as more than one Lead. 

OBJECTION TO DEPOSITION TOPIC 9: 

HomeAdvisor objects to this Topic as failing to describe with reasonable particularity the matters

on which examination is requested in accordance with Rule 3.33(c)(1). HomeAdvisor further

objects to this Topic as beyond the scope of discovery specified in Rule 3.31(c)(1) because

“circumstances in which a single Service Request can be sold by [HomeAdvisor] as more than

one Lead” is not related to the allegations of the complaint, proposed relief, or defenses in this

case. HomeAdvisor further objects to this Topic to the extent it incorporates the false premise

that both “Service Requests and Leads” are matched to Service Providers. HomeAdvisor further

objects to this Topic as beyond the scope of discovery specified in Rule 3.31(c)(1) because it

appears to encompass lead types not at issue in this case, such as opportunity leads. 

HomeAdvisor further objects to this Topic because it is unreasonably cumulative or duplicative

of other discovery sought in this case and during Complaint Counsel’s investigation of

10 

PX04-0010
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

PUBLIC PUBLIC FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION | OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY | FILED 9/14/2022 | Document No. 605598 | PAGE Page 42 of 129 * PUBLIC *; 

HomeAdvisor, including but not limited to testimony HomeAdvisor provided on Topic 2 of the

October 5, 2020 CID. HomeAdvisor therefore will not produce a witness to testify on this topic. 

DEPOSITION TOPIC 10: 

Your policies, practices, procedures, and guidelines for reviewing, denying, and/or

granting requests for Lead Credits, including:

a. The automated credit request process and the circumstances under which lead credits 

are automatically granted and/or denied; and

b. The non-automated credit request process. 

OBJECTION TO DEPOSITION TOPIC 10: 

HomeAdvisor objects to this Topic as failing to describe with reasonable particularity the matters

on which examination is requested in accordance with Rule 3.33(c)(1). HomeAdvisor further

objects to this Topic as beyond the scope of discovery specified in Rule 3.31(c)(1) because

“circumstances in which a single Service Request can be sold by [HomeAdvisor] as more than

one Lead” is not within the scope of the complaint, proposed relief, or defenses in this case.

HomeAdvisor further objects to this Topic to the extent it incorporates the false premise that

both “Service Requests and Leads” are matched to Service Providers. HomeAdvisor further 

objects to this Topic because it is unreasonably cumulative or duplicative of other discovery

sought in this case and during Complaint Counsel’s investigation of HomeAdvisor, including but

not limited to testimony HomeAdvisor provided on Topic 5 of the October 5, 2020 CID. 

HomeAdvisor therefore will not produce a witness to testify on this topic.

DEPOSITION TOPIC 11: 

Surveys and/or responses to surveys of current or departing Service Providers, including:

a. Surveys relating to satisfaction with Your products and services and relating to the

reasons that Service Providers end their memberships; and 

b. Any analyses, reporting, and use of such surveys. 

11 

PX04-0011
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

PUBLIC PUBLIC FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION | OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY | FILED 9/14/2022 | Document No. 605598 | PAGE Page 43 of 129 * PUBLIC *; 

OBJECTION TO DEPOSITION TOPIC 11: 

HomeAdvisor objects to this Topic as failing to describe with reasonable particularity the

matters on which examination is requested in accordance with Rule 3.33(c)(1). HomeAdvisor

further objects to this Topic as overbroad, vague, ambiguous, and not proportionate to the needs 

of the case to the extent it seeks all surveys conducted by HomeAdvisor. HomeAdvisor further 

objects to this Topic because it is unreasonably cumulative or duplicative of other discovery

sought in this case and during Complaint Counsel’s investigation of HomeAdvisor. 

Subject to and without waiving the foregoing objections, HomeAdvisor will provide nonprivileged testimony regarding the surveys relating to SP satisfaction and surveys of SPs ending 

their memberships that were produced in discovery. 

DEPOSITION TOPIC 12: 

The manner(s) in which You calculate the rate at which Your Leads convert into jobs for 

Service Providers, and the results of such calculations. 

OBJECTION TO DEPOSITION TOPIC 12: 

HomeAdvisor objects to this Topic as failing to describe with reasonable particularity the

matters on which examination is requested in accordance with Rule 3.33(c)(1). HomeAdvisor

further objects to this Topic as overbroad, vague, ambiguous, and unclear with respect to the

phrases “manner(s) in which You calculate the win rate” and the “results of such calculations.”

HomeAdvisor further objects to this Topic as overly broad, unduly burdensome, and not

proportional because it seeks testimony regarding every “manner” in which HomeAdvisor

calculates win rates, regardless of how such calculations are used. HomeAdvisor further objects 

to this Topic because it is unreasonably cumulative or duplicative of other discovery sought in

this case and during Complaint Counsel’s investigation of HomeAdvisor, including but not

12 

PX04-0012
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

PUBLIC PUBLIC FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION | OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY | FILED 9/14/2022 | Document No. 605598 | PAGE Page 44 of 129 * PUBLIC *; 

limited to testimony HomeAdvisor provided on Topics 10 & 13 of the October 5, 2020 CID.

HomeAdvisor therefore will not produce a witness to testify on this topic.

DEPOSITION TOPIC 13: 

Data You produce or have produced in response to Interrogatory Nos. 1 and 2. 

OBJECTION TO DEPOSITION TOPIC 13: 

HomeAdvisor objects to this Topic as failing to describe with reasonable particularity the

matters on which examination is requested in accordance with Rule 3.33(c)(1). HomeAdvisor

further objects to this Topic as overbroad, vague, ambiguous, and unclear with respect to what

particular testimony about the data Complaint Counsel is seeking. It is impossible for

HomeAdvisor to meaningfully prepare a witness to provide testimony on the topic “Data You

produce[d],” which is so broad it is meaningless. HomeAdvisor further objects to this Topic

because it is unreasonably cumulative or duplicative of other discovery sought in this case and 

during Complaint Counsel’s investigation of HomeAdvisor. 

Subject to and without waiving the foregoing objections, HomeAdvisor will provide nonprivileged testimony regarding data produced in response to Interrogatory Nos. 1 and 2

generally. 

DEPOSITION TOPIC 14: 

Documents You produce or have produced in response to Complaint Counsel’s Requests 

for Production in this matter.

OBJECTION TO DEPOSITION TOPIC 14: 

HomeAdvisor objects to this Topic because it does not even attempt to describe with

reasonable particularity the matters on which examination is requested in accordance with Rule

3.33(c)(1). It would be overly burdensome and disproportionate to prepare a witness to 

13 

PX04-0013
 

 

 

 

 

PUBLIC PUBLIC FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION | OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY | FILED 9/14/2022 | Document No. 605598 | PAGE Page 45 of 129 * PUBLIC *; 

testimony on every single document that HomeAdvisor has produced in this matter, amounting

to thousands of pages of material. HomeAdvisor further objects to this Topic as overbroad,

vague, ambiguous, and not proportionate to the needs of the case. It is impossible for 

HomeAdvisor to meaningfully prepare a witness to provide testimony on the topic “Documents 

You produce[d],” which is so broad it is meaningless. HomeAdvisor therefore will not produce

a witness to testify on this topic. 

14 

PX04-0014
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

PUBLIC PUBLIC FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION | OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY | FILED 9/14/2022 | Document No. 605598 | PAGE Page 46 of 129 * PUBLIC *; 

Submitted this 5th day of August 2022. 

QUINN EMANUEL URQUHART & SULLIVAN, LLP

/s/ William A. Burck

William A. Burck

Dawn Y. Yamane Hewett

Kyra R. Simon 

1300 I Street NW, 9th Floor 

Washington, DC 20005 

(202) 538-8000

williamburck@quinnemanuel.com

dawnhewett@quinnemanuel.com

kyrasimon@quinnemanuel.com

Stephen R. Neuwirth

Jennifer J. Barrett

Neil T. Phillips

George T. Phillips 

51 Madison Avenue, 22nd Floor

New York, NY 10010

(212) 849-7000

stephenneuwirth@quinnemanuel.com

jenniferbarrett@quinnemanuel.com

neilphillips@quinnemanuel.com

georgephillips@quinnemanuel.com

Attorneys for Respondent HomeAdvisor, Inc.

15 

PX04-0015
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

PUBLIC PUBLIC FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION | OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY | FILED 9/14/2022 | Document No. 605598 | PAGE Page 47 of 129 * PUBLIC *; 

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I certify that on August 5, 2022, I caused the foregoing document to be served via email

to:

Sophia H. Calderón

Colin D. A. MacDonald

Breena M. Roos

M. Elizabeth Howe

Federal Trade Commission, Northwest Region

915 Second Ave., Suite 2896 

Seattle, WA 98174

scalderon@ftc.gov

cmacdonald@ftc.gov

broos@ftc.gov

mhowe@ftc.gov

Counsel Supporting the Complaint

/s/ Kyra R. Simon 

Kyra Simon 

16 

PX04-0016
PUBLIC PUBLIC FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION | OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY | FILED 9/14/2022 | Document No. 605598 | PAGE Page 48 of 129 * PUBLIC *; 

PX05
 

 

 

PX05-0001

__________________________________________ 

PUBLIC 

PUBLIC PUBLIC FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION | OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY | FILED 9/14/2022 | Document No. 605598 | PAGE Page 49 of 129 * PUBLIC *; 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 

FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION 

OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGES 

) 

In the Matter of ) 

) 

HomeAdvisor, Inc., a corporation, ) 

d/b/a Angi Leads, ) Docket No. 9407 

d/b/a HomeAdvisor Powered By Angi, ) 

) 

Respondent. ) 

__________________________________________) 

ORDER GRANTING COMPLAINT COUNSEL’S MOTION TO 

COMPEL DOCUMENTS RESPONSIVE TO REQUEST 14 

I. 

On August 4, 2022, Federal Trade Commission (“FTC”) Complaint Counsel filed a

motion to compel Respondent HomeAdvisor, Inc. (“Respondent” or “HomeAdvisor”) to 

produce documents responsive to Complaint Counsel’s Request for Production of 

Documents (“Motion”). Respondent filed an opposition to the Motion on August 11, 2022 

(“Opposition”). For the reasons set forth below, the Motion is GRANTED. 

II. 

On June 8, 2022, Complaint Counsel served Respondent with Complaint Counsel’s 

Second Set of Requests for Production of Documents (“Requests”), containing three

requests numbered 14-16. Request 14 seeks production of all recordings of 

HomeAdvisor’s sales calls from a specified six-month period, May through October 2019, 

while Request 15 seeks additional documents related to those recordings, and Request 16 

asks for any quality assurance documents relating to call recordings (“Quality Assurance

Recordings”). Complaint Counsel seeks an order requiring Respondent to produce 

documents responsive to Request 14 within five days. 

Complaint Counsel states that during the investigation prior to this litigation, the 

Commission issued a Civil Investigative Demand (“the CID”) in July 2019, that requested, 

among other things “[a] representative sample . . . between You and service providers, 

including telephone recordings . . . ” and that Respondent produced 1,710 call recordings 

in response to the CID. Complaint Counsel asserts that when Complaint Counsel 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

PX05-0002 PUBLIC PUBLIC FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION | OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY | FILED 9/14/2022 | Document No. 605598 | PAGE Page 50 of 129 * PUBLIC *; 

PUBLIC 

introduced the content of a selected sample of those recordings in support of its April 7, 

2022 motion for summary decision, which was denied on August 2, 2022, Respondent 

asserted that the selected recordings were not representative. 

Complaint Counsel states that Respondent informed Complaint Counsel that 

Respondent would produce approximately 5,000-6,000 sales calls from the specified time 

period for which it had quality assurance documents (i.e., documents responsive to 

Complaint Counsel’s Document Request 16, Quality Assurance Recordings). Complaint 

Counsel states that it proposed to accept those recordings as sufficient in response to 

Request 14 if Respondent made certain stipulations and representations regarding them, so 

that the Quality Assurance Recordings could be treated as representative.

1 

Respondent states that: in response to the CID, it produced 1,710 recordings of 

sales calls with prospective service provider customers; it has produced thousands more 

audio recordings subject to its quality assurance review of sales calls from the May 

through October 2019 period2; and has offered to produce sales recordings from a later 

time period that are easier for Respondent to retrieve and produce.

3 

III. 

Pursuant to Commission Rule 3.31(c)(1): “Parties may obtain discovery to the 

extent that it may be reasonably expected to yield information relevant to the allegations of 

the complaint, to the proposed relief, or to the defenses of any respondent.” 16 C.F.R. 

§ 3.31(c)(1). Discovery shall be limited if the Administrative Law Judge determines that it 

is “unreasonably cumulative or duplicative,” or the “burden and expense of the proposed 

discovery . . . outweigh its likely benefit.” 16 C.F.R. § 3.31(c)(2). “Parties resisting 

discovery of relevant information carry a heavy burden of showing why discovery should 

be denied.” In re Daniel Chapter One, No. 9329, 2009 WL 569694, at *2 (Jan. 9, 2009). 

1 Complaint Counsel stated that it will accept the Quality Assurance Recordings as sufficient production in 

response to Request 14 if Respondent: (1) “represents that the Quality Assurance Recordings consist of all 

extant recorded calls from its internal Quality Assurance process from the period of May 1, 2019 through 

October 31, 2019 for which quality assurance forms exist”; (2) “represents that no retention or deletion

policy or procedures have resulted in any particular category of recorded call being omitted from the Quality 

Assurance Recordings”; and (3) “stipulates that the Quality Assurance Recordings are representative of all 

sales calls from the period of May 1, 2019 through October 31, 2019.” MacDonald Declaration, Exh. G at 2. 

2 Respondent states that Quality Assurance Recordings are stored separately from other sales call audio files, 

making them far easier to retrieve. 

3 Respondent states that sales calls from the specified period have been archived and are retrievable only via 

a “legacy” system that HomeAdvisor no longer operates in its ordinary course of business, and that sales 

calls from a more recent period are less burdensome to retrieve and produce. Complaint Counsel argues the 

sales calls from a more recent period would be after Respondent knew it was the subject of an FTC 

investigation. Respondent will not be allowed to substitute sales calls from a more recent period for the sales 

calls from the requested period. 

2 
PX05-0003 PUBLIC PUBLIC FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION | OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY | FILED 9/14/2022 | Document No. 605598 | PAGE Page 51 of 129 * PUBLIC *; 

PUBLIC 

If a party fails to comply with any discovery obligation under the rules, Rule 3.38 

authorizes the opposing party to seek an order compelling such compliance. “Unless the

Administrative Law Judge determines that the objection is justified, the Administrative 

Law Judge shall order that . . . [response] be made.” 16 C.F.R. § 3.38(a). 

This case involves three counts alleging that HomeAdvisor misrepresented its 

products in its advertising and sales calls to service providers. See Complaint at 14-15. The 

first element of a deception claim is that the challenged representation was made to 

consumers. In re POM Wonderful, LLC, 155 F.T.C. 1, 6 (2013). In its statement of material 

facts in opposition to Complaint Counsel’s motion for summary decision, Respondent 

stated that all sales of HomeAdvisor’s memberships require a telephone conversation 

between the prospective member and a HomeAdvisor sales agent. (Respondent’s 

Statement of Material Facts at page 185, attached to Respondent’s Opposition to 

Complaint Counsel’s Motion for Summary Decision, filed June 6, 2022). Thus, the 

contents of sales calls are clearly relevant to understanding what claims HomeAdvisor may 

have made to service providers. Respondent does not dispute that the requested recordings 

are relevant, but instead asserts that the Request is unduly burdensome and seeks material 

that is cumulative of sales calls Respondent has already produced. 

To support its claim of undue burden, Respondent submitted a declaration from a 

Senior Manager of Enterprise Infrastructure at HomeAdvisor’s parent company, Angi, Inc. 

(“Angi”). (“Tracy Declaration”). According to the Tracy Declaration: the audio recording 

database that retains these calls is no longer in use; the calls have been moved into archival 

storage; personnel have already spent approximately 80 hours trying to retrieve responsive 

files; and Tracy anticipates it will take approximately 160 hours for Angi to complete its 

review for responsive material. Tracy Declaration ¶¶ 2, 3, 5, 6. This explanation does not 

satisfy Respondent’s heavy burden of showing why discovery should be denied. 

Respondent’s argument that sales calls from May through October 2019 are 

cumulative of sales calls Respondent has already produced also fails. The parties dispute 

whether the call recordings Respondent has already produced are a representative sample. 

If the 1,710 calls Respondent has already produced are not a representative sample, then 

the calls from May through October 2019 would not be cumulative. If the Quality 

Assurance Recordings are not a representative sample, then the calls from May through 

October 2019 would not be cumulative. Complaint Counsel will be permitted to obtain the 

requested additional selections of sales calls. 

IV. 

For the above stated reasons, the Motion is GRANTED, and it is hereby 

ORDERED Respondent shall produce material responsive to Complaint Counsel’s Request 

for Production Request 14 within 14 days. Nothwithstanding the foregoing, Respondent 

may accept the stipulations and conditions regarding the Quality Assurance Recordings 

offered by Complaint Counsel, as set forth in footnote 1 of this Order, as an alternative to 

3 
PX05-0004

ORDERED: _ 

 Michael Chappell D.

Chief Administrative Law Judge 

Date: August 16, 2022 

4 
PUBLIC PUBLIC FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION | OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY | FILED 9/14/2022 | Document No. 605598 | PAGE Page 53 of 129 * PUBLIC *; 

PX06
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

PX06-0001 PUBLIC PUBLIC FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION | OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY | FILED 9/14/2022 | Document No. 605598 | PAGE Page 54 of 129 * PUBLIC *; 

quinn emanuel trial lawyers | washington, dc

1300 I Street NW, Suite 900, Washington, District of Columbia 20005-3314 | TEL (202) 538-8000 FAX (202) 538-8100 

WRITER'S DIRECT DIAL NO.

(202) 538-8276

WRITER'S EMAIL ADDRESS

kyrasimon@quinnemanuel.com

August 31, 2022 

VIA E-MAIL

Sophia H. Calderón

Colin D. A. MacDonald

Breena M. Roos

M. Elizabeth Howe

Federal Trade Commission, Northwest Region

915 Second Ave., Suite 2896 

Seattle, WA 98174

scalderon@ftc.gov 

cmacdonald@ftc.gov 

broos@ftc.gov 

mhowe@ftc.gov 

Re: In the Matter of HomeAdvisor, Inc. FTC Docket No. 9407 

Counsel:

We write on behalf of HomeAdvisor, Inc. (“HomeAdvisor”) regarding your letter dated 

August 24, 2022 regarding Complaint Counsel’s Notice of Deposition to HomeAdvisor. We

address each of the issues raised in your letter in turn below.

Topics That Overlap With the Investigational Hearing of HomeAdvisor (Topics 1, 5, 7-

10, 12). Topics 1, 5, 7-10, & 12 are nearly identical to the Investigational Hearing Topics and thus 

“unreasonably cumulative or duplicative.” See 16 C.F.R. § 3.31(c)(2)(i). During the August 19

meet and confer, you stated that Complaint Counsel did not intend to duplicate the Investigational

Hearing. We thus requested that you narrow these Topics to specify the testimony you do seek.

Your August 24 letter fails to do so. 

In your August 24 letter, your assertion that the “specific testimony sought in the

Deposition Topics differ from the Specifications in many respects,” is belied by the comparison 

chart that you appended to your letter. Your letter otherwise fails to explain in any meaningful

way how the Topics differ. With respect to Topic 1, your assertion that the “development and use”

of advertisements clearly differs from Specifications A.6. & A.7.’sfocus on the “decision to make”

marketing claims and the “format” and “time periods” in which such claims were made is a

quinn emanuel urquhart & sullivan, llp

ATLANTA | AUSTIN | BOSTON | BRUSSELS | CHICAGO | DOHA | HAMBURG | HONG KONG | HOUSTON | LONDON | LOS ANGELES | MANNHEIM |

MIAMI | MUNICH | NEUILLY-LA DEFENSE | NEW YORK | PARIS | PERTH | RIYADH | SALT LAKE CITY | SAN FRANCISCO | SEATTLE | SHANGHAI |

SILICON VALLEY | STUTTGART | SYDNEY | TOKYO | WASHINGTON, DC | ZURICH
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

PX06-0002 PUBLIC PUBLIC FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION | OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY | FILED 9/14/2022 | Document No. 605598 | PAGE Page 55 of 129 * PUBLIC *; 

distinction without a difference. And the fact that Topic 1 encompasses every single advertisement

directed at Service Providers whereas Specifications A.6. and A.7. concerned specific claims only

underscores the overbreadth of Topic 1. Furthermore, you admit that both Topic 5 and 

Specification 12 concern the policies, practices, and procedures governing the quality assurance

department’s review of sales calls in general. Your assertion that the “specific subtopics 

delineated in each are distinct” is meaningless. First, the “subtopics” are essentially the same. 

Compare subpart (c) of Topic 5 (“The methods and forms used to assess, evaluate, or grade Your

sales agents’ sales calls with prospective Service Providers”) with subpart (a) of Specification 12 

(“The metrics or standards used to evaluate such calls.”). Second, neither Topic 5 nor Specific 12

are limited to the “subtopics,” but concern the quality assurance process generally. This is 

underscored by the fact that although sub-part (a) of Topic 5—“[t]he frequency of quality 

assurance reviews of sales calls”—does not appear in Specification 12, this very question was

asked (and answered) during the Investigational Hearing on this topic. See Chad Schott Inv. Hr’g

Tr. at 23:8–24:6. You make no attempt to distinguish Topics 7-10 & 12 from the corresponding

Investigational Hearing Topics. 

The fact that Topics 1, 5, 7-10 & 12 are duplicative of the Investigational Hearing Topics 

is not cured by your representation that you “do not intend to re-ask questions that were asked and 

answered by corporate designees speaking for HomeAdvisor during” the Investigational Hearing, 

(August 24 letter at 1). As the noticing party, Complaint Counsel must “describe with reasonable

particularity the matters on which examination is requested,” so that HomeAdvisor can prepare a

witness(es) on “matters known or reasonably available to the organization.” 16 C.F.R. §

3.33(c)(1). Instead, Complaint Counsel improperly puts the onus on HomeAdvisor to try to figure

out what Complaint Counsel intends to cover for these Topics that was not covered by the

Investigational Hearing. 

As we have stated multiple times, HomeAdvisor cannot adequately prepare witnesses to

testify on these boundless topics. Nevertheless, we will agree to provide testimony on the general

subject matter areas listed in Topics 1, 5, 7–10 & 12. Given Complaint Counsel’s refusal to narrow 

the scope of these Topics in any way, we again emphasize that HomeAdvisor cannot possibly

prepare a witness to provide a witness to testify to any greater level of detail. 

Topics 1 & 2. Topic 1—which seeks testimony regarding the “development and use of 

Advertisements directed at Service Providers or prospective Service Providers”—and Topic 2—

which seeks testimony regarding Respondent’s maintenance and use of data regarding the

frequency with which those advertisements were viewed—are overly broad because they cover all

advertisements made by HomeAdvisor during an eight-year time period (from July 2014 to the

present), and are not even limited to the alleged claims at issue in the Complaint. During the meet

and confer on August 19, we requested that you identify specific advertisements for Topics 1 & 2.

Your August 24 letter does not dispute that these topics are overly broad. 

Instead, Complaint Counsel makes the false claim that “Respondent has failed to produce

Advertisements in line with its discovery obligations, and thus has itself foreclosed any ability for 

Complaint Counsel to narrow” Topics 1 & 2. That is wrong. As we recently described in our

August 19, 2022 letter, HomeAdvisor has already produced countless advertisements, and has

2 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

PX06-0003 PUBLIC PUBLIC FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION | OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY | FILED 9/14/2022 | Document No. 605598 | PAGE Page 56 of 129 * PUBLIC *; 

offered to produce even more in response to Complaint Counsel’s unceasing demands. See 8/19/22 

N. Phillips Ltr. at 3–4. There is nothing prevent Complaint Counsel from identifying the specific

advertisements—or at a minimum identifying specific claims like it did for Specifications A.6 and 

A.7 covered by the Investigational Hearing. HomeAdvisor cannot possibly prepare a witness to

testify about every single advertisement in an eight-year period, and thus HomeAdvisor will

designate a witness to testify generally about HomeAdvisor’s advertising practices.

Topic 3. We disagree with your unsupported assertion that how HomeAdvisor identified 

the prospective Service Providers that received sales calls is relevant to the sophistication or

understanding of such Service Providers. HomeAdvisor has also not “waived” any objection to

the relevance of such information. Nevertheless, in the spirit of compromise, HomeAdvisor agrees 

to designate a witness for this Topic. In so doing, HomeAdvisor does not concede the relevance

of this information and does not waive its right to argue that such information is irrelevant at trial.

Topic 5. From your August 24 letter, we understand that you are not seeking testimony

regarding the policies, practices, procedures, and guidelines regarding the quality assurance of

sales calls beyond the information identified in subparts (a)—(d) of Topic 5. All of this material

was covered by the Investigational Hearing. As stated above, we agree to designate a witness to 

provide only general testimony on this Topic. 

Topic 7. From your August 24 letter, we understand that you are seeking testimony

regarding “HomeAdvisor’s own policies, practices, procedures, and guidelines regarding the

generation of Service Requests on HomeAdvisor’s own website as well as affiliate websites

generally,” rather than seeking testimony about every single website that has generated a service

request. As stated above, we agree to designate a witness to testify about the generation of service

requests generally.

Topic 8. In your August 24 letter, you agreed to stipulate to treat the June 24, 2021

transcript of the deposition of Joseph Puccio in his capacity as a 30(b)(6) witness as corporate

testimony provided in this case and withdraw Topic 8 if HomeAdvisor produced the deposition

exhibits. The exhibits were produced on Friday August 26, and thus any dispute on this nowwithdrawn topic is moot. 

Topic 12. HomeAdvisor objected this Topic because it seeks testimony about the

calculation of win rates regardless of which the purpose that such calculations were used for. As

you are aware from discovery, many departments relied on win rates for various internal purposes 

that cannot be meaningfully compared to any claims about win rates. Given Complaint Counsel’s

refusal to narrow this Topic, HomeAdvisor will designate a witness to testify about win rates

generally. 

* * * 

Given the delay in receiving your August 19 letter, which refuses to narrow the scope of 

the Topics in any meaningful way, contrary to your representations during the meet and confer

process, we are unable to provide dates before the close of fact discovery set for September 6,

3 
 

 

PX06-0004 PUBLIC PUBLIC FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION | OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY | FILED 9/14/2022 | Document No. 605598 | PAGE Page 57 of 129 * PUBLIC *; 

2022. We thus propose submitting a joint stipulation that permits these depositions to be taken

after the close of fact discovery, set for September 6, 2022. 

Very truly yours,

/s/ Kyra Simon 

Kyra Simon

4 
PUBLIC PUBLIC FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION | OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY | FILED 9/14/2022 | Document No. 605598 | PAGE Page 58 of 129 * PUBLIC *; 

PX07
 

 

 

PX07-0001 PUBLIC PUBLIC FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION | OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY | FILED 9/14/2022 | Document No. 605598 | PAGE Page 59 of 129 * PUBLIC *; 

PUBLIC 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 

BEFORE THE FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION 

OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGES 

In the Matter of 

HOMEADVISOR, INC., 

a corporation, 

Docket No. 9407 

d/b/a ANGI LEADS, 

d/b/a HOMEADVISOR POWERED 

BY ANGI. 

JOINT MOTION TO EXTEND THE TIME TO 

COMPLETE FACT DISCOVERY 

Counsel for Respondent HomeAdvisor, Inc. (“HomeAdvisor” or “Respondent”) and 

Complaint Counsel (collectively, the “Parties”) jointly move this Court under 16 C.F.R. § 4.3(b), 

to extend the time for the completion of fact discovery to allow for the completion of the deposition 

of HomeAdvisor. 

Complaint Counsel served a Notice of Deposition to HomeAdvisor pursuant to 16 C.F.R. 

§ 3.33(c)(1) (the “Notice”) on July 8, 2022. The Notice lists 14 separate topics for which 

HomeAdvisor must designate a witness(es) to testify (the “Topics”). HomeAdvisor served 

responses and objections to the Notice on August 5, 2022. For the remainder of the month of 

August, the Parties engaged in good faith negotiations regarding the scope of the Topics, and 

successfully resolved all disputes concerning the Topics as of August 31, 2022. HomeAdvisor 

anticipates designating multiple witnesses to cover the 12 Topics for which it agreed to provide 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

PX07-0002 PUBLIC PUBLIC FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION | OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY | FILED 9/14/2022 | Document No. 605598 | PAGE Page 60 of 129 * PUBLIC *; 

PUBLIC 

testimony. Under the Scheduling Order, fact discovery closes on September 6, 2022.* Thus, to 

provide the Parties with a reasonable time to schedule the deposition for each of the designees, and 

to prepare for the depositions, the Parties propose a two-week extension to the deadline to complete 

fact discovery to September 20, 2022, solely for purposes of completing the deposition of 

HomeAdvisor. All other fact discovery shall be completed by September 6, 2022. By joining this 

motion, the parties do not preclude or otherwise limit their rights to subsequently file any motion 

to compel. Although the parties reserve their rights to propose further adjustments to the prehearing schedule, HomeAdvisor and Complaint Counsel do not currently propose any further 

adjustments to the pre-hearing schedule. 

The Administrative Law Judge may extend deadlines for “good cause shown.” 16 C.F.R. 

§ 4.3(b). Good cause exists for the brief extension sought in this motion because (1) it will provide 

the Parties reasonable time to schedule the depositions of multiple witnesses designated to testify 

on behalf of HomeAdvisor; (2) it will provide HomeAdvisor reasonable time fulfill its obligation 

under to 16 C.F.R. § 3.33(c)(1) to prepare its designees on “matters known or reasonably available 

to” HomeAdvisor; and (3) none of the proposed extensions will delay the overall schedule or 

require a change to the hearing date. 

No party will suffer any undue prejudice from the brief extensions requested. Moreover, 

the limited extension will not delay other procedural deadlines or the hearing date set for 

November, 9, 2022. 

* The Scheduling Order sets September 6 as the “close of discovery, other than discovery 

permitted under Rule 3.24(a)(4), depositions of experts, and discovery for purposes of authenticity 

and admissibility of exhibits.” For brevity, the Parties herein refer to this as the close of “fact 

discovery.”

2 
 

PX07-0003 PUBLIC PUBLIC FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION | OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY | FILED 9/14/2022 | Document No. 605598 | PAGE Page 61 of 129 * PUBLIC *; 

PUBLIC 

For these reasons, the Parties respectfully request that the Court enter the attached proposed 

Order. 

Dated: September 6, 2022 

Respectfully Submitted, 

/s/ Jennifer J. Barrett 

QUINN EMANUEL URQUHART & SULLIVAN, LLP 

William A. Burck 

Dawn Yamane Hewett 

Kyra R. Simon 

1300 I Street NW, 9th Floor 

Washington, DC 20005 

(202) 538-8000 

williamburck@quinnemanuel.com 

dawnhewett@quinnemanuel.com 

kyrasimon@quinnemanuel.com 

Stephen R. Neuwirth 

Jennifer J. Barrett 

Kathryn Bonacorsi 

Neil T. Phillips 

George T. Phillips 

51 Madison Avenue, 22nd Floor 

New York, NY 10010 

(212) 849-7000 

stephenneuwirth@quinnemanuel.com 

jenniferbarrett@quinnemanuel.com 

kathrynbonacorsi@quinnemanuel.com 

neilphillips@quinnemanuel.com 

georgephillips@quinnemanuel.com 

Attorneys for Respondent HomeAdvisor, Inc. 

3 
PX07-0004 PUBLIC PUBLIC FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION | OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY | FILED 9/14/2022 | Document No. 605598 | PAGE Page 62 of 129 * PUBLIC *; 

PUBLIC 

/s/ Sophia H. Calderón 

Sophia H. Calderón 

Colin D. A. MacDonald 

Breena M. Roos 

M. Elizabeth Howe 

Katharine F. Barach 

Nadine S. Samter 

Federal Trade Commission, Northwest Region 

915 Second Ave., Suite 2896 

Seattle, WA 98174 

Tel.: (206) 220-4486 

scalderon@ftc.gov 

cmacdonald@ftc.gov 

broos@ftc.gov 

mhowe@ftc.gov 

kbarach@ftc.gov 

nsamter@ftc.gov 

Counsel Supporting the Complaint 

4 
PX07-0005 PUBLIC PUBLIC FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION | OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY | FILED 9/14/2022 | Document No. 605598 | PAGE Page 63 of 129 * PUBLIC *; 

PUBLIC 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 

BEFORE THE FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION 

OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGES 

In the Matter of 

HOMEADVISOR, INC., 

a corporation, 

d/b/a ANGI LEADS, 

PUBLIC 

Docket No. 9407 

d/b/a HOMEADVISOR 

BY ANGI. 

POWERED 

[PROPOSED] ORDER 

Having carefully considered Respondent’s and Complaint Counsel’s Joint Motion To 

Extend the Time to Complete Fact Discovery, it is hereby 

ORDERED, that the close of fact discovery is extended to September 20, 2022, solely for 

the purposes of allowing the completion of the deposition of HomeAdvisor. 

ORDERED: 

D. Michael Chappell 

Chief Administrative Law Judge 

Date: 
PX07-0006 PUBLIC PUBLIC FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION | OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY | FILED 9/14/2022 | Document No. 605598 | PAGE Page 64 of 129 * PUBLIC *; 

PUBLIC 

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 

I hereby certify that on September 6, 2022, I filed the foregoing document electronically 

through the Office of the Secretary’s FTC E-filing system, which will send notification of such 

filing to: 

April Tabor 

Secretary Federal Trade Commission 

600 Pennsylvania Ave., NW, Rm. H-113 Washington, DC 20580 

electronicfilings@ftc.gov 

The Honorable D. Michael Chappell 

Chief Administrative Law Judge 

Federal Trade Commission 

600 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW, Room H-110 

Washington, DC 20580 

I also certify that I caused a true and correct copy of the foregoing documents to be 

served via email upon the following: 

Sophia H. Calderón 

Colin D. A. MacDonald 

Breena M. Roos 

M. Elizabeth Howe 

Katharine F. Barach 

Nadine S. Samter 

Federal Trade Commission, Northwest Region 

915 Second Ave., Suite 2896 

Seattle, WA 98174 

Tel.: (206) 220-4486 

scalderon@ftc.gov 

cmacdonald@ftc.gov 

broos@ftc.gov 

mhowe@ftc.gov 

kbarach@ftc.gov 

nsamter@ftc.gov 

Counsel Supporting the Complaint 

Dated: September 6, 2022 By: /s/ George T. Phillips 

George T. Phillips 

Counsel for Respondent HomeAdvisor, Inc. 
PX07-0007 PUBLIC PUBLIC FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION | OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY | FILED 9/14/2022 | Document No. 605598 | PAGE Page 65 of 129 * PUBLIC *; 

CERTIFICATE FOR ELECTRONIC FILING 

I certify that the electronic copy sent to the Secretary of the Commission is a true and 

correct copy of the paper original and that I possess a paper original of the signed document that 

is available for review by the parties and the adjudicator. 

Dated: September 6, 2022 By: /s/ George T. Phillips 

George T. Phillips 

Counsel for Respondent HomeAdvisor, Inc. 
PUBLIC PUBLIC FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION | OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY | FILED 9/14/2022 | Document No. 605598 | PAGE Page 66 of 129 * PUBLIC *; 

PX08
PX08-0001

 

 

 

 

 

 

________________________________________________ 

________________________________________________ 

PUBLIC PUBLIC PUBLIC FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION | OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY | FILED 9/14/2022 | Document No. 605598 | PAGE Page 67 of 129 * PUBLIC *; 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 

BEFORE THE FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION 

OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGES 

In the Matter of 

HOMEADVISOR, INC., a corporation, 

d/b/a ANGI LEADS, 

d/b/a HOMEADVISOR POWERED BY ANGI. DOCKET NO. 9407 

COMPLAINT COUNSEL’S OPPOSITION TO 

NON-PARTY TRIARES, INC.’S EMERGENCY PETITION TO STAY DEPOSITION 

AND TO QUASH OR LIMIT SUBPOENA AD TESTIFICANDUM 

Triares, Inc. (“Triares”), brought its “emergency” motion to quash (“Motion”) twentyfour hours before a deposition it had known about—and had been trying to evade—since early 

July.1 This untimely Motion relies on a nonexistent agreement: that Complaint Counsel agreed it 

would withdraw its deposition subpoena in exchange for a supplemental production. As Triares 

acknowledged in its own correspondence (see Motion Exhibit J), Complaint Counsel never made 

such an agreement and agreed only to consider the possibility of voluntary withdrawal if the 

production rendered the deposition unnecessary. After receiving a production that was not what 

Triares’ Counsel described and that contained documents that do not speak for themselves, 

Complaint Counsel determined in good faith that the deposition would go forward. 

Triares’ unilateral assumption that the deposition would be cancelled should not permit it 

to dodge providing testimony on subjects that are highly relevant to the claims in this action, 

especially where the robust Protective Order governing this matter will shield Triares’ claimed 

1 Complaint Counsel convened the deposition September 1, 2022, without a deponent. Complaint Counsel reserved 

all rights on the record and considers the deposition to be pending. 

1 
PX08-0002

 

 

 

 

PUBLIC PUBLIC PUBLIC FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION | OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY | FILED 9/14/2022 | Document No. 605598 | PAGE Page 68 of 129 * PUBLIC *; 

trade secrets from disclosure. Triares’ baseless and untimely Motion should be denied, and 

Triares should appear for deposition at a mutually agreeable date. 

I. BACKGROUND 

A. Complaint Counsel’s Subpoenas, the First-Agreed Deposition Date, and Triares’ 

Much-Delayed Initial Document Production 

Triares sold consumer information to Respondent HomeAdvisor, Inc. (“HomeAdvisor”), 

which HomeAdvisor sold as “leads.” Motion at 2. The Complaint alleges HomeAdvisor 

misrepresents characteristics of its leads, including those received from Triares. Compl. ¶¶ 61-

63. On June 28, 2022, Complaint Counsel issued a Subpoena Duces Tecum (“Document 

Subpoena”) and a Subpoena Ad Testificandum (“Deposition Subpoena”) to Triares for 

information relating to the characteristics of leads it gathered and sold to HomeAdvisor. See 

PX01, attached to the accompanying Declaration of Mary Elizabeth Howe (“Howe Decl.”).2 

Triares was required to produce documents on or before July 28, 2022, and sit for deposition on 

August 11, 2022. Triares’ Motion concedes it was served with these subpoenas on or about 

July 7, 2022. Motion at 2. 

To accommodate Triares’ counsel’s travel schedule, Complaint Counsel agreed that 

Triares would not be deemed out of compliance with either subpoena if it engaged in a meet-andconfer by August 1, 2022. PX02 p. 12. At an August 1, 2022 meet-and-confer, Triares’ counsel 

stated a production responsive to the Document Subpoena would be forthcoming that day; 

however, Complaint Counsel received nothing. Howe Decl. ¶ 3.a.i. Complaint Counsel 

repeatedly followed up by email, PX02 pp. 5-9, and Triares’ counsel responded with delays. 

PX03 p. 1; PX02 p. 6; PX04 p. 1. 

2 Exhibits to the Howe Decl. are referred to herein by their “PX” designation. 

2 
PX08-0003

 

 

 

 

 

PUBLIC PUBLIC PUBLIC FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION | OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY | FILED 9/14/2022 | Document No. 605598 | PAGE Page 69 of 129 * PUBLIC *; 

While production was pending, Triares’ counsel emailed its availability for deposition on 

August 26, 2022, and later wrote that he “would like to discuss further whether [deposition] is 

even necessary once you have a chance to review what we provide.” PX02 p. 6. On August 18, 

2022—forty-two days after service—Triares produced two documents along with lengthy 

objections, many of which were not previously raised with Complaint Counsel. See PX05. Both 

documents produced appear to have originated from HomeAdvisor rather than Triares, id. 

pp. 16-62, and Triares objected in full to producing in response to four of the five document 

requests. On August 19, 2022, Complaint Counsel wrote to Triares’ counsel that Triares’ 

deposition would go forward as agreed on August 26, 2022. PX02 p.3. 

B. Complaint Counsel’s Agreement to Consider Voluntary Withdrawal of the 

Deposition Subpoena if Triares Made a Supplemental Document Production 

Triares’ counsel asked to confer again on August 22, 2022. PX02 pp. 1-2. On that call, 

Triares’ counsel asked if Complaint Counsel would consider accepting an additional document 

production in lieu of taking Triares’ deposition. Howe Decl. ¶ 3.b.ii. Complaint Counsel agreed 

to consider the possibility that a supplemental production might obviate the need for a 

deposition, but Complaint Counsel explained it could not consider withdrawing the deposition 

without seeing the production and could not guarantee would cancel the deposition even if 

Triares provided additional documents. Id. Complaint Counsel later memorialized this position 

via email. PX06 p. 17 (Aug. 24, 2022 Howe email); see also Motion Exhibit H. Complaint 

Counsel made clear the parameters for its agreement to consider voluntarily cancelling the 

deposition: (i) the deposition would be rescheduled to a date before the end of fact discovery to 

ensure it could go forward if necessary; (ii) Triares would execute two records certifications 

included with the Document Subpoena; and (iii) Triares would provide a concrete proposal for 

3 
PX08-0004

 

 

 

 

 

PUBLIC PUBLIC PUBLIC FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION | OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY | FILED 9/14/2022 | Document No. 605598 | PAGE Page 70 of 129 * PUBLIC *; 

the scope and timing of a supplemental production within 24 hours. Id. ¶ 3.b.iii. By subsequent 

email, Triares’ deposition was rescheduled to September 1, 2022. PX06 p. 14. 

Complaint Counsel never agreed during any of its conferrals with Triares’ counsel or 

subsequent email correspondence that it would cancel Triares’ deposition in exchange for an 

additional document production. See Howe Decl. ¶ 3; PX06; PX08. 

C. Triares’ Supplemental Document Productions and Failure to Appear at Deposition 

Complaint Counsel and Triares’ counsel further conferred on August 24, 2022, regarding 

the scope of Triares’ proposed supplemental production, including that Triares was preparing to 

produce a “spreadsheet” of consumer data shared with HomeAdvisor. Howe Decl. ¶ 3.c.i. On 

August 26, 2022, Triares produced 11 additional documents and a supplemental written 

response. Id. ¶¶ 4.b., 5; PX07. Complaint Counsel confirmed by email with Triares’ counsel that 

it had received the full scope of what Triares intended to produce. PX08 pp. 15-16. 

The eleven documents produced consist of: 

i. One of the two records certifications Complaint Counsel requested, Howe Decl. 

¶ 4.b.ix.; 

ii. Eight .pdf-format documents that appear to be image captures of the “submission 

form” portion of eight websites, none of which contain the date the webpage was 

captured or the websites’ respective URLs, and one of does not indicate what 

website it is, id. ¶ 4.b.i.-viii. (responsive to Req. 1); 

iii. Two .pdf-format documents that each appear to be approximately 25,000 pages of 

raw XML (eXtensible Markup Language) code of Triares’ consumer data, rather 

than the single spreadsheet of organized data that Complaint Counsel was told to 

expect, id. ¶ 4.b.x.-xi (responsive to Req. 4). 

4 
PX08-0005

 

 

 

 

 

---

PUBLIC PUBLIC PUBLIC FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION | OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY | FILED 9/14/2022 | Document No. 605598 | PAGE Page 71 of 129 * PUBLIC *; 

Complaint Counsel reviewed these documents immediately and, on the next business day, 

informed Triares’ Counsel that Triares’ deposition would go forward on September 1, as 

previously agreed. Id. ¶ 5. Triares’ Counsel thereafter filed the Motion and stated by email that 

Triares would not appear at the deposition. PX06 p.1. 

Triares did not serve Complaint Counsel with formal written objections and responses to 

the Deposition Subpoena before filing the Motion, Howe Decl. ¶ 6, and Triares’ Counsel did not 

ask for specific limitations or modifications to any deposition topic until an August 31, 2022 

email sent after service of the Motion. See PX08 pp. 1-3. On September 1, 2022, Complaint 

Counsel appeared at the deposition; Triares did not. Howe Decl. ¶ 7. 

II. ARGUMENT 

Triares’ untimely Motion grossly misstates the parties’ conferrals and course of dealing, 

referencing nonexistent “agreements” to narrow or abandon discovery. In reality, Triares has 

engaged in a campaign to evade providing any meaningful discovery, providing only 13 

documents (most of which do not speak for themselves) and failing to appear for a duly-noticed 

deposition on an agreed-upon date. 

In bringing its Motion, Triares bore the burden of showing why discovery should be 

denied, see In re Polypore Int’l, Inc., 2008 WL 4947490, at *6 (F.T.C. Nov. 18, 2008), and has 

failed to do so. The testimony sought is directly relevant to Complaint Counsel’s claims: 

HomeAdvisor is alleged to have made false or misleading claims about leads received from 

Triares, and Triares is the sole party in possession of the truth regarding how it gathered leads. 

Indeed, Triares explicitly relies on being the only party in possession of that information, stating 

that its means of gathering leads are secrets that HomeAdvisor does not know. Where, as here, a 

strict Protective Order bars disclosure of information Triares designates as “Confidential” from 

5 
PX08-0006

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

PUBLIC PUBLIC PUBLIC FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION | OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY | FILED 9/14/2022 | Document No. 605598 | PAGE Page 72 of 129 * PUBLIC *; 

the public and from HomeAdvisor itself, Protective Order at ¶¶ 7-8, and the information sought 

is centrally relevant, Complaint Counsel’s ability to take testimony from Triares should not be 

limited or forestalled. 

Triares’ complete disregard of this proceeding, the Rules of Procedure, and its own 

representations to Complaint Counsel should not be permitted to stand. Triares’ Motion should 

be denied, and Triares should sit for deposition. 

A. Triares’ Motion is Untimely 

Triares’ motion is plainly untimely and violates the Rules of Practice.

3

 Under 

Commission Rule 3.34(c), Triares was bound to file the Motion “within the earlier of 10 days 

after service thereof or the time for compliance therewith.” 16 C.F.R. § 3.34(c). Triares 

acknowledges it received the Deposition Subpoena on or around July 7, 2022, and the subpoena 

itself originally set the deposition for August 11, 2022. The “earlier” date by which Triares 

should have moved was therefore July 18, 2022, nearly two months ago. Instead, in that time, 

Triares rescheduled the deposition twice on mutually convenient dates, without serving even 

cursory written objections to the Deposition Subpoena or its scope, in apparent hope that the 

deposition would be voluntarily cancelled. See Howe Decl. ¶¶ 5-6; PX02 p. 8; PX06 p. 14. 

Triares’ failure to file until August 31, 2022—55 days after service, 30 days after the initial 

meet-and-confer, and the day before the agreed-upon date for the deposition—is fatal to Triares’ 

Motion.4 

3 Triares’ Motion lacks a statement under 16 C.F.R. §3.22(g); although Triares’ Counsel conferred regarding 

concerns including relevance and trade secrets, it did not raise its request to limit the deposition until after filing the 

Motion. PX08 pp. 1-3. The Scheduling Order makes clear that this failure alone is fatal to Triares’ Motion. 

Scheduling Order Additional Provision ¶ 4. 

4 Even considering Complaint Counsel’s agreement that it would not view Triares as out of compliance before 

August 1, 2022, see PX02, the filing deadline expired at the latest on August 11, 2022. 

6 
PX08-0007

 

 

 

 

PUBLIC PUBLIC PUBLIC FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION | OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY | FILED 9/14/2022 | Document No. 605598 | PAGE Page 73 of 129 * PUBLIC *; 

B. Complaint Counsel Never Agreed to Withdraw the Deposition Subpoena in 

Exchange for a Supplemental Production 

Triares’ “understanding” that its deposition would not go forward flies in the face of 

explicit admonitions—both verbal and written—that Complaint Counsel would not guarantee 

cancellation of the deposition. Even the highly selective exhibits attached by Triares make plain 

that no agreement to cancel the deposition existed: 

i. Exhibit H, August 24, 2022 (Complaint Counsel): “As we discussed, an additional 

production does not guarantee that Complaint Counsel will consent to forego your 

client’s deposition; we will have to review what your client ultimately produces to 

make that determination.” (emphasis added). 

ii. Exhibit J, August 24, 2022 (Triares’ Counsel): “As discussed, you have agreed to 

review the additional documentation/data we expect to send you tomorrow in 

consideration of withdrawing the deposition subpoena. I understand you cannot make 

that determination until you review the documentation/data . . . .” 

Rather than obviating the need for deposition, Triares’ production ensured its necessity. 

The webpages produced do not contain URLs, timestamps, or, in one case, even the name of the 

website, and they do not contain the terms and conditions that the consumer was accepting by 

submitting their information. Howe Decl. ¶ 4.b.i.-viii. Moreover, when Triares touts that it 

produced 50,000 pages of documents, it neglects to mention that thousands of pages consist of 

raw code in place of the single organized spreadsheet of consumer data that Triares claimed it 

would provide. Id. ¶¶ 3.c.i., 4.b.x.-xi. Neither this inscrutable code nor the haphazard website 

captures speak for themselves; it is necessary for Triares to testify about these documents. 

7 
PX08-0008

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

PUBLIC PUBLIC PUBLIC FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION | OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY | FILED 9/14/2022 | Document No. 605598 | PAGE Page 74 of 129 * PUBLIC *; 

Complaint Counsel considered in good faith whether Triares’ deposition was necessary 

and determined that it was. Complaint Counsel cannot be bound by a fictional agreement or an 

unfounded “understanding.” Triares should sit for deposition. 

C. The Testimony Sought is Highly Relevant and Should Not Be Limited 

Triares’ motion woefully misconstrues its relevance to this case. Complaint Counsel 

alleges HomeAdvisor made false or misleading statements about the leads it sells, including inter 

alia, that they concern consumers who are “serious” about hiring a service professional, not “just 

window-shop[ping],” “actively seeking the services you provide in your area,” and/or who 

knowingly sought HomeAdvisor’s assistance in selecting a service provider. See, e.g., Compl. 

¶¶ 27-29, 44, 61-63. Where Triares actually collected consumers’ information, Triares, and not 

HomeAdvisor, possesses the proof of what those consumers actually expressed and what they 

were told when they submitted their information—i.e., proof of falsity, especially where Triares 

avers that it does not share this information with HomeAdvisor. Motion at 2 (“To generate 

Leads, Triares uses proprietary technology and methodologies that it closely guards and protects 

from public disclosure including, especially, the Respondent”). Triares’ position also confirms 

this discovery is neither cumulative or duplicative because Triares alone possesses this 

information, which falls squarely within permissible discovery under Rule 3.31(c)(1). See In re 

Otto Block HeathCare N. Am. Inc., 2018 WL 1836647 (F.T.C Mar. 28, 2018) (denying motion to 

quash where respondent argued third party deponent was “uniquely in possession of” 

information “critical to the claims and defenses in this case”). 

D. The Protective Order More Than Adequately Addresses Triares’ Trade Secret 

Concerns 

The trade secret limitation Triares has requested—and never properly sought prior to the 

Motion—must be rejected. The Motion crystalizes that Triares’ supposed trade secrets are the 

8 
PX08-0009

 

 

 

PUBLIC PUBLIC PUBLIC FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION | OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY | FILED 9/14/2022 | Document No. 605598 | PAGE Page 75 of 129 * PUBLIC *; 

key relevant testimony that Triares must provide and no limitation should be ordered. 

Triares’ argues that testifying regarding its non-public methods will result in its 

“inevitable demise.” Motion at 10. Its hyperbole should not be credited because Triares has not 

explained why this action’s robust Protective Order is insufficient. See In re Lab. Corp., 2011 

FTC LEXIS 5, at *3-5 (Jan. 28, 2011) (denying a third party’s request to restrict discovery 

because an existing protective order would adequately protect trade secrets); see also In re Lab. 

Corp., 2011 WL 668514, at *2 (F.T.C. Feb. 17, 2011) (“‘The fact that discovery might result in 

the disclosure of sensitive competitive information is not a basis for denying such discovery.’”) 

(quoting LeBaron v. Rohm & Hass Co., 441 F.2d 575, 577 (9th Cir. 1971)). Complaint Counsel’s 

subpoenas do not demand that Triares’ “proprietary, highly confidential, and competitively 

sensitive information” be revealed to the public or even to Respondent. Triares is free to 

designate its testimony “Confidential” and ensure that (i) it may not be disclosed beyond 

“outside counsel of record for any respondent, their associated attorneys and other employees of 

their law firm(s) provided they are not employees of a respondent,” under Paragraph 7, and (ii) it 

may not be used other than in this proceeding any appeal therefrom, under Paragraph 8. Because 

Triares’ claimed interest in secrecy is adequately addressed by the Protective Order, its Motion 

should be denied. 

9 
PX08-0010

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

PUBLIC PUBLIC PUBLIC FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION | OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY | FILED 9/14/2022 | Document No. 605598 | PAGE Page 76 of 129 * PUBLIC *; 

CONCLUSION 

For the foregoing reasons, Triares’ Motion should be denied. 

Respectfully submitted, 

Dated: September 12, 2022 s/ M. Elizabeth Howe 

Sophia H. Calderón 

Colin D. A. MacDonald 

Breena M. Roos 

M. Elizabeth Howe 

Katharine F. Barach 

Nadine S. Samter 

Ben A. Halpern-Meeken 

Federal Trade Commission 

Northwest Region 

915 Second Ave., Suite 2896 

Seattle, WA 98174 

Tel.: (206) 220-6350 

Fax: (206) 220-6366 

Email: scalderon@ftc.gov 

cmacdonald@ftc.gov 

broos@ftc.gov 

mhowe@ftc.gov 

kbarach@ftc.gov 

nsamter@ftc.gov 

bhalpernmeeken@ftc.gov 

Counsel Supporting the Complaint 

10 
PX08-0011

 

 

PUBLIC PUBLIC PUBLIC FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION | OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY | FILED 9/14/2022 | Document No. 605598 | PAGE Page 77 of 129 * PUBLIC *; 

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 

I hereby certify that on September 12, 2022, I filed the foregoing document electronically 

using the FTC’s E-Filing system, which will send notification of such filing to: 

April Tabor 

Office of the Secretary 

Federal Trade Commission 

Constitution Center 

400 Seventh Street, SW, Suite 5610 

Washington, D.C. 20024 

ElectronicFilings@ftc.gov 

The Honorable D. Michael Chappell 

Administrative Law Judge 

Federal Trade Commission 

600 Pennsylvania Ave., NW, Rm. H-110 

Washington, DC 20580 

I further certify that on September 12, 2022, I caused the foregoing document to be 

served via email to: 

William A. Burck 

Dawn Y. Yamane Hewett 

Kyra R. Simon 

Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan, LLP 

1300 I Street NW, 9th Floor 

Washington, DC 20005 

(202) 538-8000 

williamburck@quinnemanuel.com 

dawnhewett@quinnemanuel.com 

kyrasimon@quinnemanuel.com 

Counsel for Respondent HomeAdvisor, Inc. 

Travis J. Jacobs 

The Jacobs Law, LLC 

36 Broomfield Street, Suite 502 

Boston, MA 02108 

(800) 642-4783 

tjacobs@thejacobslaw.com 

Counsel for Triares, Inc. 

Dated: September 12, 2022 By: 

Stephen R. Neuwirth 

Jennifer J. Barrett 

Neil T. Phillips 

George T. Phillips 

Jared Ruocco 

Kathryn D. Bonacorsi 

Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan, LLP 

51 Madison Avenue, 22nd Floor 

New York, NY 10010 

(212) 849-7000 

stephenneuwirth@quinnemanuel.com 

jenniferbarrett@quinnemanuel.com 

neilphillips@quinnemanuel.com 

georgephillips@quinnemanuel.com 

jaredruocco@quinnemanuel.com 

kathrynbonacorsi@quinnemanuel.com 

s/ M. Elizabeth Howe 

M. Elizabeth Howe 

Counsel Supporting the Complaint 

11 
PUBLIC PUBLIC FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION | OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY | FILED 9/14/2022 | Document No. 605598 | PAGE Page 78 of 129 * PUBLIC *; 

PX09
                                 

                                  

                               

                                 

                                       

                               

                                    

                                         

                                          

                                       

                                           

                               

        

             

                     

             

     

         

                           

                                             

                                          

                               

                      

                                         

                   

                                            

PX09-0001 PUBLIC PUBLIC FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION | OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY | FILED 9/14/2022 | Document No. 605598 | PAGE Page 79 of 129 * PUBLIC *; 

Howe, Beth 

From: Calderon, Sophie

Sent: Tuesday, September 13, 2022 8:51 PM

To: Kyra Simon; Roos, Breena; Howe, Beth; MacDonald, Colin; Barach, Kate; Samter, Nadine S.; HalpernMeekin, Ben 

Cc: JenniferBarrett-contact; Neil Phillips; George Phillips; Kathryn Bonacorsi 

Subject: RE: HomeAdvisor - Dkt. No. 9407: proposed joint motion for extending deadline for deposition of 

HomeAdvisor 

Counsel,

Notifying us that Respondent intends to designate four separate witnesses, and offering them on overlapping days with

less than a week’s notice, is not sufficient under Rule 3.33(c)(1). In the Matter of LabMD, Order Granting Respondent’s

Motion to Require Complaint Counsel to Designate Witness For Rule 3.33 Deposition (ruling that Rule 3.33(c)(1)

deponent has duty to designate witnesses in advance of deposition and providing noticing party option to push

deposition date to two weeks after such designation was made); see also Fed. R. Civ. P. 30, Advisory Committee Notes,

2000 Amendment (“For purposes of [the] durational limit, the deposition of each person designated under Rule 30(b)(6)

should be considered a separate deposition.”). Further, as addressed in my earlier email below, we still have not

received complete productions in response to RFP Nos. 6, 7, 8, which relate to topics designated to Mr. Zurcher (RFP 8,

which overlaps with Deposition Topic 3) and Ms. Mead (RFPs 6 and 7, which overlap with Deposition Topics 1 and 2).

We therefore ask that you provide additional dates for and stipulate to a second extension of the fact discovery cutoff

for purposes of this deposition. With respect to Mr. Alff, please let us know if he is available on September 20. With

respect to the remaining three witnesses, please provide available dates during the week of September 26.

Best,

Sophie

From: Kyra Simon <kyrasimon@quinnemanuel.com>

Sent: Tuesday, September 13, 2022 3:28 PM

To: Calderon, Sophie <scalderon@ftc.gov>; Roos, Breena <broos@ftc.gov>; Howe, Beth <mhowe@ftc.gov>; MacDonald,

Colin <cmacdonald@ftc.gov>; Barach, Kate <kbarach@ftc.gov>; Samter, Nadine S. <NSAMTER@ftc.gov>

Cc: JenniferBarrett‐contact <jenniferbarrett@quinnemanuel.com>; Neil Phillips <neilphillips@quinnemanuel.com>;

George Phillips <georgephillips@quinnemanuel.com>; Kathryn Bonacorsi <kathrynbonacorsi@quinnemanuel.com>

Subject: RE: HomeAdvisor ‐ Dkt. No. 9407: proposed joint motion for extending deadline for deposition of HomeAdvisor

Counsel,

For the deposition of HomeAdvisor, Matt Zurcher will testify on Topics 3, 7, 9, 10, 11, & 12, Chris Alff will testify on

Topics 4‐6, Julie Mead will testify on Topics 1 & 2, and James Gagliardo will testify on Topic 13. These designations are

subject to our objections and reservations memorialized in our responses and objections to the notice of deposition

dated August 5, 2022, and our letter dated August 31, 2022.

Mr. Zurcher and Mr. Alff are available for a deposition in their capacity as corporate designees on September 19 and Ms.

Mead and Mr. Gagliardo are available on September 20.

Please let confirm that these dates work on your end and let us what time you plan to start for each witness.

Thanks,

1 
        

             

                 

                 

               

     

                           

     

  

                  

  

                             

                                    

  

  

                                     

                                      

                                             

                              

                                           

                                       

                                      

                  

  

                                 

                                       

           

                               

                  

                                 

                                     

                       

      

             

                 

                 

     

         

                           

PX09-0002 PUBLIC PUBLIC FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION | OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY | FILED 9/14/2022 | Document No. 605598 | PAGE Page 80 of 129 * PUBLIC *; 

Kyra

From: Calderon, Sophie <scalderon@ftc.gov>

Sent: Monday, September 12, 2022 6:45 PM

To: Kyra Simon <kyrasimon@quinnemanuel.com>; Roos, Breena <broos@ftc.gov>; Howe, Beth <mhowe@ftc.gov>;

MacDonald, Colin <cmacdonald@ftc.gov>; Barach, Kate <kbarach@ftc.gov>; Samter, Nadine S. <NSAMTER@ftc.gov>

Cc: Jennifer Barrett <jenniferbarrett@quinnemanuel.com>; Neil Phillips <neilphillips@quinnemanuel.com>; George

Phillips <georgephillips@quinnemanuel.com>; Kathryn Bonacorsi <kathrynbonacorsi@quinnemanuel.com>

Subject: RE: HomeAdvisor ‐ Dkt. No. 9407: proposed joint motion for extending deadline for deposition of HomeAdvisor

[EXTERNAL EMAIL from scalderon@ftc.gov]

Counsel,

We’d like to follow up on several outstanding items.

First, we have not heard from you regarding Respondent’s designees for Complaint Counsel’s deposition of

HomeAdvisor. Please identify designees and topics, as well as proposed deposition dates, no later than close of business

tomorrow.

Second, regarding the VPI recording database, during our call with Mr. Tracy last week, Respondent agreed to look into

whether it is possible to produce a text‐searchable spreadsheet of the recordings in VPI. We have not heard back from

you on that question, and we have not been able to identify a way to export a spreadsheet in our own explorations of

the database. Further, we have significant concerns regarding Respondent’s choice to provide this database in response

to the ALJ’s August 16, 2022 Order, given that the database is largely unsearchable, that a vast majority of the records in

the database appear to be non‐responsive to Request 14 and/or irrelevant to this case, and that records can only be

bulk‐exported in batches of up to 100 records. We therefore request a meet and confer conference to discuss these

issues. We are available tomorrow, Sept. 13, 9am‐3pm PT.

Finally, during our call last Wednesday, September 7, Neil promised to report back on several outstanding discovery

issues. Neil addressed one of those issues (Respondent’s response to RFPs 19 and 20) on Friday. We’d appreciate an

update on the remaining outstanding issues:

 Regarding RFP 6, Neil indicated that Respondent is assessing the feasibility of producing the service provider

communication templates identified in our September 1, 2022 letter.

 Regarding RFP 7, Neil stated that Respondent will look into whether it has web analytics data.

 Regarding RFP 8, Neil stated that he is looking into whether there are any additional places to search for

responsive documents in light of Michael Metzger’s testimony regarding the “prospecting team.”

Best,

Sophie

From: Calderon, Sophie

Sent: Friday, September 9, 2022 3:58 PM

To: Kyra Simon <kyrasimon@quinnemanuel.com>; Roos, Breena <broos@ftc.gov>; Howe, Beth <mhowe@ftc.gov>;

MacDonald, Colin <cmacdonald@ftc.gov>; Barach, Kate <kbarach@ftc.gov>; Samter, Nadine S. <NSAMTER@ftc.gov>

Cc: JenniferBarrett‐contact <jenniferbarrett@quinnemanuel.com>; Neil Phillips <neilphillips@quinnemanuel.com>;

George Phillips <georgephillips@quinnemanuel.com>; Kathryn Bonacorsi <kathrynbonacorsi@quinnemanuel.com>

Subject: RE: HomeAdvisor ‐ Dkt. No. 9407: proposed joint motion for extending deadline for deposition of HomeAdvisor

Counsel,

2 
                                     

                                       

                                   

                

        

             

                     

             

     

         

                           

     

        

             

                 

                 

               

     

                           

     

            

        

             

                     

             

     

         

                           

                                             

                     

                                     

   

PX09-0003 PUBLIC PUBLIC FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION | OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY | FILED 9/14/2022 | Document No. 605598 | PAGE Page 81 of 129 * PUBLIC *; 

Last Friday we proposed that the parties ask the Commission to push back the evidentiary hearing and all upcoming

deadlines. We have not heard from you regarding that proposal. We’d appreciate a response by Monday; if we cannot

reach an agreement on a joint motion, Complaint Counsel does intend to file an expedited motion with the

Commission. We are happy to discuss this further.

Best,

Sophie

From: Kyra Simon <kyrasimon@quinnemanuel.com>

Sent: Tuesday, September 6, 2022 1:32 PM

To: Calderon, Sophie <scalderon@ftc.gov>; Roos, Breena <broos@ftc.gov>; Howe, Beth <mhowe@ftc.gov>; MacDonald,

Colin <cmacdonald@ftc.gov>; Barach, Kate <kbarach@ftc.gov>; Samter, Nadine S. <NSAMTER@ftc.gov>

Cc: JenniferBarrett‐contact <jenniferbarrett@quinnemanuel.com>; Neil Phillips <neilphillips@quinnemanuel.com>;

George Phillips <georgephillips@quinnemanuel.com>; Kathryn Bonacorsi <kathrynbonacorsi@quinnemanuel.com>

Subject: RE: HomeAdvisor ‐ Dkt. No. 9407: proposed joint motion for extending deadline for deposition of HomeAdvisor

Thank you Sophie

From: Calderon, Sophie <scalderon@ftc.gov>

Sent: Tuesday, September 6, 2022 4:29 PM

To: Kyra Simon <kyrasimon@quinnemanuel.com>; Roos, Breena <broos@ftc.gov>; Howe, Beth <mhowe@ftc.gov>;

MacDonald, Colin <cmacdonald@ftc.gov>; Barach, Kate <kbarach@ftc.gov>; Samter, Nadine S. <NSAMTER@ftc.gov>

Cc: Jennifer Barrett <jenniferbarrett@quinnemanuel.com>; Neil Phillips <neilphillips@quinnemanuel.com>; George

Phillips <georgephillips@quinnemanuel.com>; Kathryn Bonacorsi <kathrynbonacorsi@quinnemanuel.com>

Subject: RE: HomeAdvisor ‐ Dkt. No. 9407: proposed joint motion for extending deadline for deposition of HomeAdvisor

[EXTERNAL EMAIL from scalderon@ftc.gov]

Thanks, Kyra. Yes, you have our consent.

From: Kyra Simon <kyrasimon@quinnemanuel.com>

Sent: Tuesday, September 6, 2022 1:00 PM

To: Roos, Breena <broos@ftc.gov>; Calderon, Sophie <scalderon@ftc.gov>; Howe, Beth <mhowe@ftc.gov>; MacDonald,

Colin <cmacdonald@ftc.gov>; Barach, Kate <kbarach@ftc.gov>; Samter, Nadine S. <NSAMTER@ftc.gov>

Cc: JenniferBarrett‐contact <jenniferbarrett@quinnemanuel.com>; Neil Phillips <neilphillips@quinnemanuel.com>;

George Phillips <georgephillips@quinnemanuel.com>; Kathryn Bonacorsi <kathrynbonacorsi@quinnemanuel.com>

Subject: RE: HomeAdvisor ‐ Dkt. No. 9407: proposed joint motion for extending deadline for deposition of HomeAdvisor

Breena,

We agree to include your additions to the joint motion. We will get this on file this afternoon. Can you please confirm

that we have your consent to sign for you electronically?

We will get back to you on your proposal to move the hearing date as soon as we can.

Thank you,

Kyra

3 
        

             

                 

                   

               

         

                           

     

                        

                                           

                                   

           

  

                         

                 

               

        

             

                     

             

     

         

   

                       

                                     

   

                                         

                                            

                       

                                         

     

PX09-0004 PUBLIC PUBLIC FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION | OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY | FILED 9/14/2022 | Document No. 605598 | PAGE Page 82 of 129 * PUBLIC *; 

From: Roos, Breena <broos@ftc.gov>

Sent: Tuesday, September 6, 2022 2:55 PM

To: Kyra Simon <kyrasimon@quinnemanuel.com>; Calderon, Sophie <scalderon@ftc.gov>; Howe, Beth

<mhowe@ftc.gov>; MacDonald, Colin <cmacdonald@ftc.gov>; Barach, Kate <kbarach@ftc.gov>; Samter, Nadine S.

<NSAMTER@ftc.gov>

Cc: Jennifer Barrett <jenniferbarrett@quinnemanuel.com>; Neil Phillips <neilphillips@quinnemanuel.com>; George

Phillips <georgephillips@quinnemanuel.com>; Kathryn Bonacorsi <kathrynbonacorsi@quinnemanuel.com>; Tyler

Stapleton <tylerstapleton@quinnemanuel.com>

Subject: RE: HomeAdvisor ‐ Dkt. No. 9407: proposed joint motion for extending deadline for deposition of HomeAdvisor

[EXTERNAL EMAIL from broos@ftc.gov]

Kyra,

Thanks for drafting. We’d like to include the addition in the attached.

As to the expert dates, we have again reviewed the current case schedule, and don’t see any room to push the expert

dates without further modifications to the case schedule. We look forward to hearing back from you regarding our

proposal to move the hearing date.

Regards,

Breena

Breena M. Roos | Attorney | Federal Trade Commission | Northwest Regional Office

915 Second Ave., Ste. 2896 | Seattle, WA 98174

Tel.: (206) 220‐4472 | Email: broos@ftc.gov | she/her

From: Kyra Simon <kyrasimon@quinnemanuel.com>

Sent: Tuesday, September 6, 2022 9:10 AM

To: Calderon, Sophie <scalderon@ftc.gov>; Roos, Breena <broos@ftc.gov>; Howe, Beth <mhowe@ftc.gov>; MacDonald,

Colin <cmacdonald@ftc.gov>; Barach, Kate <kbarach@ftc.gov>; Samter, Nadine S. <NSAMTER@ftc.gov>

Cc: JenniferBarrett‐contact <jenniferbarrett@quinnemanuel.com>; Neil Phillips <neilphillips@quinnemanuel.com>;

George Phillips <georgephillips@quinnemanuel.com>; Kathryn Bonacorsi <kathrynbonacorsi@quinnemanuel.com>;

Tyler Stapleton <tylerstapleton@quinnemanuel.com>

Subject: HomeAdvisor ‐ Dkt. No. 9407: proposed joint motion for extending deadline for deposition of HomeAdvisor

Counsel,

Please see attached for a proposed joint motion to extend fact discovery for purposes of completing the deposition of

HomeAdvisor.

I also wanted to reiterate that we are willing to push the expert dates in the interim while we consider Complaint

Counsel’s broader request to push back all upcoming deadlines by 90 days. Please let us know if you have a proposal for

extending the expert deadlines that can be incorporated into this joint motion.

Please provide comments or approval to file the attached joint motion at your earliest convenience so that we can get it

on file today.

4 
PX09-0005 PUBLIC PUBLIC FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION | OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY | FILED 9/14/2022 | Document No. 605598 | PAGE Page 83 of 129 * PUBLIC *; 

Thanks,

Kyra

Kyra Simon 

Associate,

Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan, LLP 

1300 I Street, NW, Suite 900 

Washington, D.C. 20005 

202-538-8276 Direct 

202.538.8000 Main Office Number 

202.538.8100 FAX 

kyrasimon@quinnemanuel.com 

www.quinnemanuel.com 

NOTICE: The information contained in this e-mail message is intended only for the personal and confidential use of the recipient(s) named above. This message 

may be an attorney-client communication and/or work product and as such is privileged and confidential. If the reader of this message is not the intended 

recipient or agent responsible for delivering it to the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that you have received this document in error and that any 

review, dissemination, distribution, or copying of this message is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please notify us immediately 

by e-mail, and delete the original message. 

5 
PUBLIC PUBLIC FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION | OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY | FILED 9/14/2022 | Document No. 605598 | PAGE Page 84 of 129 * PUBLIC *; 

PX10
 

 

 

 

 

 

________________________________________________ 

________________________________________________ 

PUBLIC PUBLIC PUBLIC FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION | OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY | FILED 9/14/2022 | Document No. 605598 | PAGE Page 85 of 129 * PUBLIC *; 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 

BEFORE THE FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION 

OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGES 

In the Matter of 

HOMEADVISOR, INC., a corporation, 

d/b/a ANGI LEADS, 

d/b/a HOMEADVISOR POWERED BY ANGI. DOCKET NO. 9407 

COMPLAINT COUNSEL’S EXPEDITED MOTION FOR 

DISCOVERY SANCTIONS AGAINST HOMEADVISOR, INC. 

For months, Respondent HomeAdvisor, Inc. (“HomeAdvisor”) has evaded its basic 

discovery obligations by resisting production of relevant sales call recordings. After this Court 

ordered production of those recordings, HomeAdvisor instead dumped 30-50 million data files, 

many of which are nonresponsive, into a practically unsearchable depository. Because 

HomeAdvisor’s conduct undermines the Court’s authority and its ability to evaluate 

Respondent’s business practices, Complaint Counsel moves pursuant to Commission 

Rule 3.38(b) to sanction HomeAdvisor by ordering that previously produced sales call 

recordings will be treated as representative, by prohibiting HomeAdvisor from objecting to the 

introduction and use of those recordings, and by prohibiting HomeAdvisor from introducing 

evidence to the contrary. 

EXPEDITION 

Fact discovery has closed, expert deadlines are imminent, and Complaint Counsel’s 

expert cannot prepare a report without the recordings HomeAdvisor effectively refuses to 

produce. Pursuant to Rule 3.22(d), Complaint Counsel respectfully requests that HomeAdvisor 

be required to respond to this motion by September 16, 2022, and that the Court rule on the 

1 

PX10-0001
 

 

 

 

 

PUBLIC PUBLIC PUBLIC FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION | OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY | FILED 9/14/2022 | Document No. 605598 | PAGE Page 86 of 129 * PUBLIC *; 

motion by September 20, 2022, to expeditiously address HomeAdvisor’s conduct and resolve 

this issue. A proposed order is attached. 

BACKGROUND 

The Complaint alleges that HomeAdvisor’s sales representatives misled service providers 

about the viability of HomeAdvisor’s leads and the cost of an annual membership with an 

mHelpDesk subscription. Sales call recordings are critical evidence of HomeAdvisor’s 

misleading practices. 

On April 7, 2022, Complaint Counsel moved for summary decision and attached, inter 

alia, transcripts of 100 sales call recordings randomly selected from the recordings produced by 

Respondent in response to the Commission’s CID. Complaint Counsel’s Motion for Summary 

Decision (“SD Motion”). In its June 6 opposition, Respondent argued that the sample introduced 

was not representative. Respondent’s Statement of Material Facts for Which There is a Genuine 

Issue for Trial, attached to Respondent’s Opposition to Complaint Counsel’s Motion for 

Summary Decision at 186-87. On June 8, Complaint Counsel served HomeAdvisor with its 

Second Set of Requests for Production of Documents, including Request 14 (the “Request”). 

Declaration of Sophia H. Calderón (“Calderón Decl.”), Exh. A. The Request sought all sales call 

recordings for which Respondent’s voice log process was completed1

 from May 1 through 

October 31, 2019, to be produced “via electronic mail, or at such time and place as may be 

agreed upon by all counsel.” Id. 

HomeAdvisor resisted the requested production, eventually representing that it would 

produce approximately 5,000-6,000 sales call recordings from the specified time period. 

Calderón Decl., Exh. B. Complaint Counsel proposed accepting those recordings as sufficient if 

1 Completion of the voice log process is a proxy for identifying calls that resulted in a sale. 

2 

PX10-0002
 

 

 

 

 

PUBLIC PUBLIC PUBLIC FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION | OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY | FILED 9/14/2022 | Document No. 605598 | PAGE Page 87 of 129 * PUBLIC *; 

HomeAdvisor stipulated to, inter alia, treating them as representative. Id. HomeAdvisor refused, 

and Complaint Counsel moved to compel. On August 7, Respondent produced via FTP 

approximately 4,700 recordings, Calderón Decl., Exh. C, which Complaint Counsel understands 

to be the approximately 5,000-6,000 recordings that Respondent represented it would produce. 

On August 16, this Court granted Complaint Counsel’s motion and ordered 

HomeAdvisor to either produce all material responsive to the Request or stipulate to treating the 

prior production of sales call recordings as representative. Order Granting Complaint Counsel’s 

Mot. to Compel Documents Responsive to Request 14 at 3-4 (“Order”). 

HomeAdvisor did neither. On August 30, the last day possible to comply with the Order, 

HomeAdvisor sent Complaint Counsel a link to a virtual machine that the company claimed 

would allow access to a HomeAdvisor database containing the requested recordings. Calderón 

Decl., Exh. D. Complaint Counsel was initially unable to access the database. Calderón Decl. 

¶ 7. On September 2, Complaint Counsel attended a videoconference that included 

HomeAdvisor’s counsel and William Cole Bryant Tracy, a Senior Manager of Enterprise 

Infrastructure with Respondent’s parent company. Id. ¶ 8. During that videoconference, 

Mr. Tracy shared his screen, demonstrated how to access the database, and explained how to 

search for, listen to, and download files in the database. Id. ¶ 9. He explained that the database 

contained millions of data files that correspond to audio files, that some data files contained 

audio files accessible to Complaint Counsel, that Complaint Counsel could determine whether a 

data file contained an accessible audio file only by checking it individually, and that records 

could be downloaded only in groups of 100 or less. Id. 

On September 13, 2022, Complaint Counsel accessed the database and confirmed that not 

all of the data files contained accessible audio files and that Complaint Counsel could determine 

3 

PX10-0003
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

PUBLIC PUBLIC PUBLIC FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION | OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY | FILED 9/14/2022 | Document No. 605598 | PAGE Page 88 of 129 * PUBLIC *; 

whether a data file contained an accessible audio file only by checking it individually. Id. ¶ 11. 

Complaint Counsel also determined that records could be searched for only by date, that records 

containing accessible audio files did not necessarily concern calls on which the voice log process 

was completed, and that it is seemingly impossible to download a complete list of the records. Id. 

ARGUMENT 

HomeAdvisor has chosen, repeatedly, to withhold and obscure responsive, highly 

relevant recordings. Rather than produce a reasonable amount of usable, electronically stored 

information (ESI), HomeAdvisor dumped millions of files in a virtual repository and told 

Complaint Counsel to check their responsiveness individually. No matter the form HomeAdvisor 

stores recordings, “it is not enough for a party who produces documents as they are kept in the 

ordinary course of business to simply invite the requesting party to sift through its file cabinets in 

an effort to locate those documents that are responsive to its requests.” In the Matter of Traffic 

Jam Events, LLC, 2021 WL 3701656, at *3-4 (F.T.C. Aug. 9, 2021) (quoting Henderson v. 

Holiday CVS, L.L.C., No. 09-80909-CIV, 2010 WL 11505168, at *2 (S.D. Fla. Aug. 11, 2010)). 

Because this is little more than a “document dump with an instruction to the requesting party to 

go fish,” id. (internal quotation marks omitted), HomeAdvisor has violated this Court’s Order 

and Commission Rule 3.37(e). 

1. Legal Standards 

Rule 3.37(c), which governs discovery of ESI, provides that ESI must be produced in the 

form requested, 16 C.F.R. § 3.37(c)(ii); see also Fed. R. Civ. P. 34(b)(2)(E)(ii),

2 or, if no form 

was requested, in a form in which it is ordinarily maintained or in a reasonably usable form. 

Landry v. Swire Oilfield Servs., L.L.C., 323 F.R.D. 360, 390 (D.N.M. 2018) (quoting Federal 

2 Because Rule 3.37(c) is similar to Federal Rule 34(b)(2)(E), this Court may look to cases applying the federal rule 

for guidance. Traffic Jam, 2021 WL 3701656, at *4 n.5. 

4 

PX10-0004
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

PUBLIC PUBLIC PUBLIC FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION | OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY | FILED 9/14/2022 | Document No. 605598 | PAGE Page 89 of 129 * PUBLIC *; 

Rule 34(b)(2)(E)(i)-(ii)). Where ESI is produced as ordinarily maintained, a producing party 

cannot merely facilitate access to voluminous documents without regard for responsiveness. 

Traffic Jam, 2021 WL 3701656, at *3. Furthermore, whether ESI is searchable is a factor in 

determining its reasonable usability. See, e.g., Landry, 323 F.R.D. at 390. ESI usability is critical 

to evaluating responsiveness because Commission Rule 3.37(c) is not satisfied where the 

requesting party cannot reasonably determine which documents are responsive to its requests. 

See Traffic Jam, 2021 WL 3701656, at *3; see also Landry, 323 F.R.D. at 388 (“ESI can be 

jumbled beyond usefulness—by dumping them out of their file directories and onto the 

requesting party—just as easily as hard copy documents can.”); cf. Nat’l Jewish Health v. 

WebMD Health Servs. Grp., Inc., 305 F.R.D. 247, 254 (D. Colo. 2014) (applying Federal Rule 

34(b)(2)(E)(i)) (quoting Armor Screen Corp. v. Storm Catcher, Inc., No. 07-81091-CivRyskamp/Vitunac, 2009 WL 291160, at *2 (S.D. Fla. Feb. 5, 2009)). 

2. The Millions of Data Files Are Not Reasonably Usable 

HomeAdvisor created a functionally unsearchable depository of millions of data files 

rather than actually produce the responsive recordings.3

 There is no functional way to narrow to 

responsive recordings. Indeed, the millions of data files: (a) can be searched only by date; 

(b) cannot be narrowed by whether they have an accessible audio file; (c) cannot be narrowed by 

whether the audio file, if accessible, concerns a call on which the voice log process was 

completed; and (d) can be downloaded only in batches of up to 100. Calderón Decl. ¶¶ 9, 11. 

Further, there is seemingly no way to export a list of the of data files. Id. ¶ 11. 

3 HomeAdvisor acknowledges this investigation began in July 2019, see Memorandum of Law in Opposition to 

Complaint Counsel’s Motion to Compel Respondent to Comply with Complaint Counsel’s Request for Production 

of Documents at 2, yet its own declarant says Respondent moved certain of the files in question to “extreme long 

term retention” in 2020 or 2021. Id., RX8 at 2-3. If, as Respondent asserts, its own actions—after litigation became 

reasonably foreseeable—functionally destroyed or obscured evidence, then HomeAdvisor ignored retention 

obligations for years. 

5 

PX10-0005
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

PUBLIC PUBLIC PUBLIC FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION | OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY | FILED 9/14/2022 | Document No. 605598 | PAGE Page 90 of 129 * PUBLIC *; 

These issues were foreseeable, but HomeAdvisor chose to provide this data dump on the 

last day possible. HomeAdvisor could have attempted a technological workaround months ago. 

Alternatively, HomeAdvisor could have accepted Complaint Counsel’s offered stipulation that 

another set of recordings be treated as responsive. Instead, HomeAdvisor dumped millions of 

files into a pile and told Complaint Counsel, “Go fish.” Rule 3.37(c)(ii) requires more. Cf. 

Henderson, 2010 WL 11505168, at *3 (“A party exercising Rule 34’s option to produce records 

as they are kept in the usual course of business should organize the documents in such a manner 

that [the requesting party] may obtain, with reasonable effort, the documents responsive to their 

requests.”) (quoting Armor Screen Corp., 2009 WL 291160, at *2) (alteration in original). 

HomeAdvisor’s foot-dragging has severely impinged Complaint Counsel’s ability to 

analyze relevant evidence to meet fast-approaching expert discovery deadlines and prepare for 

trial. Indeed, Complaint Counsel cannot create a representative sample of recordings from a 

vastly overinclusive database of files that provides no mechanism to facially identify which files 

are actually responsive. HomeAdvisor should have raised these technological hurdles months 

ago,4

 rather than as a surprise at the close of discovery. 

Because HomeAdvisor produced essentially unsearchable ESI and has not provided the 

ability to make the ESI searchable, its production is unusable. See Landry, 323 F.R.D. at 390. 

And because Complaint Counsel is unable to determine which, if any, of the recordings are 

responsive, Rule 3.37(c) is unsatisfied. Cf. Nat’l Jewish Health, 305 F.R.D. at 254 (applying Fed. 

R. Civ. P. 34(b)(2)(E)(i)). 

4 In its opposition to Complaint Counsel’s motion to compel, HomeAdvisor submitted a declaration from Mr. Tracy 

purporting to outline the burden in complying with the Request. In outlining the efforts it would take to restore 

responsive recordings, Mr. Tracy made no mention to the Court that HomeAdvisor’s production would be in this 

unusable form. 

6 

PX10-0006
 

 

 

 

 

 

PUBLIC PUBLIC PUBLIC FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION | OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY | FILED 9/14/2022 | Document No. 605598 | PAGE Page 91 of 129 * PUBLIC *; 

3. Sanctions Are Warranted 

HomeAdvisor violated this Court’s Order and Rule 3.37(c). Sanctions are warranted 

under Rule 3.38. “Sanctions may be imposed for failing to comply with a discovery obligation 

where the failure to comply was ‘unjustified and the sanction imposed is reasonable in light of 

the material withheld and the purposes of Rule 3.38(b).’” Traffic Jam, 2021 WL 3701656, at *3 

(quoting In re ECM BioFilms, Inc., 2014 FTC LEXIS 44, at *5 (Mar. 11, 2014)). “Rule 3.38 is 

designed both to prohibit a party from resting on its own concealment and to maintain the 

integrity of the administrative process.” In the Matter of LabMD, Inc., 2014 WL 1100693, at *4 

(F.T.C. Mar. 10, 2014) (quoting In re Grand Union Co., 102 F.T.C. 812, 1983 WL 486347, 

at *208 (1983)). Because HomeAdvisor has not complied with discovery obligations imposed by 

both Rule 3.37 and this Court, the Court may impose sanctions, including but not limited to, the 

following: 

[...] 

(2) Order that the matter be admitted or that the admission, testimony, documents, 

or other evidence would have been adverse to the party; 

(3) Rule that for the purposes of the proceeding the matter or matters concerning 

which the order or subpoena was issued be taken as established adversely to the 

party; 

(4) Rule that the party may not introduce into evidence or otherwise rely, in 

support of any claim or defense, upon testimony by such party, officer, agent, 

expert, or fact witness, or the documents or other evidence, or upon any other 

improperly withheld or undisclosed materials, information, witnesses, or other 

discovery[.] 

16 C.F.R. § 3.38(b). 

Here, HomeAdvisor resisted production of these responsive and highly relevant 

recordings practically until the close of discovery. And what it “produced” is unusable. Recently, 

in Traffic Jam, this Court concluded that merely providing access to a large volume of records 

7 

PX10-0007
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

PUBLIC PUBLIC PUBLIC FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION | OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY | FILED 9/14/2022 | Document No. 605598 | PAGE Page 92 of 129 * PUBLIC *; 

without the ability to identify responsive documents was sanctionable and an adverse inference 

was warranted. 2021 WL 3701656, at *6-7. Similarly, HomeAdvisor did no more than tell 

Complaint Counsel where it can access records and took no steps to designate or describe 

responsive recordings. Regardless of how these records were originally maintained, 

HomeAdvisor must do more than provide access to a massive depository of unusable data. 

Henderson, 2010 WL 11505168, at *3 (citing Alford v. Aaron Rents, Inc., 2010 WL 2765260, 

at *22 (S.D. Ill. May 17, 2010)). As in Traffic Jam, sanctions are warranted. 

Further, HomeAdvisor should not benefit from defying this Court’s authority by limiting 

Complaint Counsel’s ability to meet upcoming expert discovery deadlines and prepare for trial 

through a last-minute data dump. HomeAdvisor’s latest ploy has made it functionally impossible 

for Complaint Counsel and/or an expert to analyze the recordings, including by selecting a 

random sample of recordings that resulted in sales. This burden should fall on its creator: 

HomeAdvisor. 

The Court has discretion to fashion appropriate sanctions. 16 C.F.R. § 3.38(b). A 

proportionate sanction under Rule 3.38(b)(2)-(3) would nullify the evidentiary injuries5 caused 

by HomeAdvisor’s discovery abuses by ordering that a set of HomeAdvisor’s previously 

produced sales call recordings be treated as representative of Respondent’s sales calls. 

Accordingly, the Court should order that the sample of 100 recordings submitted in support of 

the SD Motion be treated as representative of all of Respondent’s sales calls. Alternatively, the 

Court should order that the approximately 4,700 sales call recordings produced on August 7 be 

5 Additionally, HomeAdvisor’s discovery abuses have caused temporal injuries to Complaint Counsel, who cannot 

even begin to analyze the responsive recordings. Simultaneous with this filing, Complaint Counsel has therefore 

filed a motion with the Commission to continue the current evidentiary hearing date. 

8 

PX10-0008
 

 

PUBLIC PUBLIC PUBLIC FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION | OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY | FILED 9/14/2022 | Document No. 605598 | PAGE Page 93 of 129 * PUBLIC *; 

treated as representative of all of Respondent’s sales calls for the time period from May 1 

through October 31, 2019. 

To effectuate these sanctions, related and necessary sanctions pursuant to Rule 3.38(b)(4) 

should prohibit HomeAdvisor from: (1) objecting to the introduction of the representative 

sample; (2) relying upon withheld recordings; and (3) introducing and using secondary evidence 

to show what withheld evidence would have shown. These sanctions are appropriate to 

HomeAdvisor’s conduct and proportionate to the significance of the withheld evidence. Traffic 

Jam, 2021 WL 3701656, at *5-6. 

CONCLUSION 

For three months, HomeAdvisor has failed to uphold its discovery obligations by 

resisting compliance with Complaint Counsel’s Request for relevant evidence, by rejecting 

Complaint Counsel’s reasonable compromise offer, and by defying this Court’s Order. Now, it 

has deposited millions of effectively unusable files in an electronic depository under its sole 

control. Sanctions are appropriate and necessary under Rule 3.38(b) to protect the integrity of 

this proceeding and ameliorate the consequences of HomeAdvisor’s discovery abuses. 

9 

PX10-0009
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

PUBLIC PUBLIC PUBLIC FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION | OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY | FILED 9/14/2022 | Document No. 605598 | PAGE Page 94 of 129 * PUBLIC *; 

Respectfully submitted, 

Dated: September 14, 2022 s/ Sophia H. Calderón 

Sophia H. Calderón 

Colin D. A. MacDonald 

Breena M. Roos 

M. Elizabeth Howe 

Katharine F. Barach 

Nadine S. Samter 

Ben A. Halpern-Meekin 

Federal Trade Commission 

Northwest Region 

915 Second Ave., Suite 2896 

Seattle, WA 98174 

Tel.: (206) 220-6350 

Fax: (206) 220-6366 

Email: scalderon@ftc.gov 

cmacdonald@ftc.gov 

broos@ftc.gov 

mhowe@ftc.gov 

kbarach@ftc.gov 

nsamter@ftc.gov 

bhalpernmeekin@ftc.gov 

Counsel Supporting the Complaint 

10 

PX10-0010
 

 

 

 

 

________________________________________________ 

________________________________________________ 

PUBLIC PUBLIC FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION | OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY | FILED 9/14/2022 | Document No. 605598 | PAGE Page 95 of 129 * PUBLIC *; 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 

BEFORE THE FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION 

OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGES 

In the Matter of 

HOMEADVISOR, INC., a corporation, 

d/b/a ANGI LEADS, 

d/b/a HOMEADVISOR POWERED BY ANGI. DOCKET NO. 9407 

STATEMENT REGARDING MEET AND CONFERS 

Pursuant to Paragraph 4 of the Scheduling Order issued in this matter, Complaint Counsel 

submits this Statement regarding its conferences with Respondent’s Counsel regarding the 

Requests for Production which form the basis of its contemporaneously filed motion: 

On September 2, 2022, at 1:00pm Pacific Time, Complaint Counsel Sophia H. 

Calderón, Breena M. Roos, and Ben A. Halpern-Meekin met via Zoom with Neil T. Phillips, 

Respondent’s Counsel, and William Cole Bryant Tracy, a Senior Manager of Enterprise 

Infrastructure with Respondent’s parent company, to discuss the virtual machine (VM) and 

virtual private network (VPN) that HomeAdvisor set up to provide access to the recordings 

produced. Mr. Tracy explained the steps by which Complaint Counsel were supposed to be able 

to access the VM through the VPN. Complaint Counsel asked how to identify recordings 

produced that were responsive to the request for production, and Mr. Tracy explained that each 

recording would need to be accessed individually to do so. 

On September 7, 2022, at 12:15pm Pacific Time, Complaint Counsel Sophia H. 

Calderón, Colin D. A. MacDonald, Breena M. Roos, and Ben A. Halpern-Meekin met via Zoom 

with Respondent’s Counsel Neil T. Phillips. Technology support employees from both 

Respondent and Complaint Counsel participated in the call. During this call, Complaint Counsel 

1 

PX10-0011 PUBLIC
 

 

 

 

 

PUBLIC PUBLIC FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION | OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY | FILED 9/14/2022 | Document No. 605598 | PAGE Page 96 of 129 * PUBLIC *; 

explained that it was having ongoing difficulties accessing the repository, and Respondent made 

technical modifications and provided additional access information which allowed Complaint 

Counsel to access the repository itself for the first time. 

On September 13, 2022, at 12:00pm Pacific Time, Complaint Counsel Sophia H. 

Calderón, Colin D. A. MacDonald, and Ben A. Halpern-Meekin met via Zoom call with 

Respondent’s Counsel Neil T. Phillips and Kyra Simon. During this call, Complaint Counsel 

explained that the technical limitations of the repository system made accessing the responsive 

calls and separating them from nonresponsive calls functionally impossible. Complaint Counsel 

stated that it viewed this as insufficient to meet Respondent’s obligations under the Court’s 

August 16 order. Respondent disagreed. Complaint Counsel invited Respondent to reconsider its 

position regarding stipulating to the representativeness of previously produced sales call 

recordings. Respondent declined. 

2 

PX10-0012 PUBLIC
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

PUBLIC PUBLIC FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION | OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY | FILED 9/14/2022 | Document No. 605598 | PAGE Page 97 of 129 * PUBLIC *; 

Respectfully submitted, 

Dated: September 14, 2022 s/ Sophia H. Calderón 

Sophia H. Calderón 

Colin D. A. MacDonald 

Breena M. Roos 

M. Elizabeth Howe 

Katharine F. Barach 

Nadine S. Samter 

Ben A. Halpern-Meekin 

Federal Trade Commission 

Northwest Region 

915 Second Ave., Suite 2896 

Seattle, WA 98174 

Tel.: (206) 220-6350 

Fax: (206) 220-6366 

Email: scalderon@ftc.gov 

cmacdonald@ftc.gov 

broos@ftc.gov 

mhowe@ftc.gov 

kbarach@ftc.gov 

nsamter@ftc.gov 

bhalpernmeekin@ftc.gov 

Counsel Supporting the Complaint 

3 

PX10-0013 PUBLIC
 

 

 

________________________________________________ 

________________________________________________ 

PUBLIC PUBLIC FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION | OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY | FILED 9/14/2022 | Document No. 605598 | PAGE Page 98 of 129 * PUBLIC *; 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 

BEFORE THE FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION 

OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGES 

In the Matter of 

HOMEADVISOR, INC., a corporation, 

d/b/a ANGI LEADS, 

d/b/a HOMEADVISOR POWERED BY ANGI. DOCKET NO. 9407 

[PROPOSED] ORDER GRANTING COMPLAINT COUNSEL’S MOTION FOR 

DISCOVERY SANCTIONS 

Pursuant to FTC Rule of Practice 3.38, 16 C.F.R. § 3.38, Complaint Counsel’s Motion 

for Discovery Sanctions Against HomeAdvisor, Inc. is GRANTED and it is hereby: 

[Complaint Counsel has offered two proposed sanctions below. For the Court’s 

convenience, proposed order language for both are listed below.] 

[Proposed Sanctions No. 1:] 

ORDERED that the sample of 100 calls transcribed and attached to Complaint Counsel’s 

Motion for Summary Decision as attachments to PX0022 (referred to herein as the 

“Representative Calls”) shall be treated as representative of all sales calls made by Respondent 

during the time period relevant to this litigation, AND 

ORDERED that Respondent is prohibited from challenging the reliability or admissibility 

of the Representative Calls, AND 

ORDERED that Respondent is prohibited from introducing as evidence: (a) any call 

recordings not produced to Complaint Counsel before September 6, 2022, the close of discovery 

in this matter; and (b) any secondary evidence that purport to show the contents of any call 

recordings not produced to Complaint Counsel before September 6, 2022, the close of discovery 

in this matter. Respondent is prohibited from introducing as evidence any call recording, or any 

PX10-0014 PUBLIC
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

PUBLIC PUBLIC FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION | OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY | FILED 9/14/2022 | Document No. 605598 | PAGE Page 99 of 129 * PUBLIC *; 

secondary evidence that purports to show the contents of any call recording, that was only 

accessible to Complaint Counsel via the virtual machine referenced in Respondent’s August 

30,2022 email to Complaint Counsel. 

[Proposed Sanctions No. 2] 

ORDERED that the approximately 4,700 sales calls Respondent produced on August 7, 

2022 (referred to herein as the “Representative Calls”) shall be treated as representative of all 

sales calls made by Respondent during the time period from May 1, 2019 through October 31, 

2019, AND 

ORDERED that Respondent is prohibited from challenging the reliability or admissibility 

of the Representative Calls, AND 

ORDERED that Respondent is prohibited from introducing as evidence: (a) any call 

recordings not produced to Complaint Counsel before September 6, 2022, the close of discovery 

in this matter; and (b) any secondary evidence that purport to show the contents of any call 

recordings not produced to Complaint Counsel before September 6, 2022, the close of discovery 

in this matter. Respondent is prohibited from introducing as evidence any call recording, or any 

secondary evidence that purports to show the contents of any call recording, that was only 

accessible to Complaint Counsel via the virtual machine referenced in Respondent’s August 30, 

2022 email to Complaint Counsel. 

SO ORDERED. 

Dated: 

D. Michael Chappell 

Chief Administrative Law Judge 

PX10-0015 PUBLIC
 

 

 

 

 

 

________________________________________________ 

________________________________________________ 

PUBLIC PUBLIC FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION | OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY | FILED 9/14/2022 | Document No. 605598 | PAGE Page 100 of 129 * PUBLIC *; 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 

BEFORE THE FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION 

OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGES 

In the Matter of 

HOMEADVISOR, INC., a corporation, 

d/b/a ANGI LEADS, 

d/b/a HOMEADVISOR POWERED BY ANGI. DOCKET NO. 9407 

[PROPOSED] ORDER REQUIRING EXPEDITED RESPONSE 

On September 14, 2022, Complaint Counsel filed an Expedited Motion for Discovery 

Sanctions Against HomeAdvisor, Inc. with respect to compliance with this Court’s August 16 

Order Granting Complaint Counsel’s Motion to Compel Documents Responsive to Request 14. 

Under the Scheduling Order in this case, as amended, fact discovery closed on September 6, 

2022, Respondent is due to sit for a corporate deposition, and expert discovery deadlines are 

approaching as soon as September 20, 2022. 

Pursuant to FTC Rule 3.22(d), the Administrative Law Judge may shorten the time within 

which a response is due. It is HEREBY ORDERED that Respondent HomeAdvisor, Inc. shall 

file any response to the Motion no later than 5:00 p.m. on September 16, 2022. 

SO ORDERED. 

Dated: 

D. Michael Chappell 

Chief Administrative Law Judge 

PX10-0016 PUBLIC
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

________________________________________________ 

________________________________________________ 

PUBLIC PUBLIC FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION | OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY | FILED 9/14/2022 | Document No. 605598 | PAGE Page 101 of 129 * PUBLIC *; 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 

BEFORE THE FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION 

OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGES 

In the Matter of 

HOMEADVISOR, INC., a corporation, 

d/b/a ANGI LEADS, 

d/b/a HOMEADVISOR POWERED BY ANGI. DOCKET NO. 9407 

DECLARATION OF SOPHIA H. CALDERÓN 

I, Sophia H. Calderón, declare as follows: 

1. I am an attorney at the Federal Trade Commission (“FTC”) and Complaint 

Counsel in this proceeding. Unless otherwise stated, I have personal knowledge of the 

information contained herein. 

2. Complaint Counsel’s Second Set of Requests for Production of Documents (the 

“Requests”) were served by Complaint Counsel on Respondent’s Counsel on June 8, 2022, and 

are attached as Exhibit A. As reflected in Exhibit A, Request 14 sought production of: 

For the time period from May 1, 2019, through October 31, 2019, recordings of all 

telephone calls between Your sales agents and prospective Service Providers during 

which the prospective Service Provider completed Your Voice Log Process and 

responded affirmatively to all of the questions asked in Your Voice Log Process. This 

request seeks, to the extent available, recordings of the entirety of such telephone calls, 

and is not limited to the recordings of the Voice Log Process. 

The Requests defined “Voice Log Process” as “the process that is described in paragraphs 4 

and 5 of the Declaration of Michael Metzger, RX0095 to Respondent HomeAdvisor, Inc.’s 

Memorandum of Law in Opposition to Complaint Counsel’s Motion for Summary Decision.” 

Completion of the voice log process is a proxy for identifying calls that resulted in a sale. 

3. Complaint Counsel sent a letter to Respondent’s Counsel on July 29, 2022, 

proposing particular circumstances in which it would accept Respondent’s production of 5,000-

6,000 sales call recordings as sufficient in response to Request 14. Complaint Counsel’s July 29 

letter is attached as Exhibit B. 

1 

PX10-0017 PUBLIC
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

PUBLIC PUBLIC FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION | OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY | FILED 9/14/2022 | Document No. 605598 | PAGE Page 102 of 129 * PUBLIC *; 

4. On August 7, 2022, I received an email from Mr. Neil Phillips, counsel for 

Respondent, stating that the email contained a file transfer protocol (FTP) link by which 

Complaint Counsel could download a production that included approximately 4,700 “QA audio 

recordings.” Mr. Phillips’ August 7 email is attached as Exhibit C. 

5. Prior to August 30, 2022, Respondent’s document productions in the abovecaptioned matter (including the August 7 production referenced above in Paragraph 4) were sent 

via emails to Complaint Counsel containing an FTP link by which Complaint Counsel could 

download the production. 

6. On August 30, 2022, I received an email from Mr. Phillips containing instructions 

on how to access a virtual machine that would purportedly provide Complaint Counsel with 

access to a database containing “the requested archived sales audio recordings from May 1, 2019 

through October 31, 2019.” In his August 30 email, Mr. Phillips noted that the database 

contained icons for both responsive and non-responsive audio recordings and that only the icons 

for responsive audio recording would contain actual audio files accessible to Complaint Counsel. 

Mr. Phillips’ August 30 email is attached as Exhibit D. 

7. Despite following the instructions provided by Mr. Phillips, I was initially unable 

to access the database because accessing the database required me to download a software to my 

computer that security features on my computer put in place by the FTC would not allow me to 

download. I informed Mr. Phillips of this by email on September 1, 2022. My September 1 email 

is attached as Exhibit E. 

8. On September 2, 2022, I attended a meeting, via Zoom, with Mr. Phillips and 

Mr. William Cole Bryant Tracy, who I understand is a Senior Manager of Enterprise 

Infrastructure with Respondent’s parent company, Angi. Also present were Breena Roos and Ben 

Halpern-Meekin, who are Complaint Counsel. 

9. During this meeting, Mr. Tracy shared his screen, demonstrated how to access the 

database containing the audio recordings, and explained how to search for, listen to, and 

download files in the database. Mr. Tracy explained the database contained between 30 and 50 

million data files that correspond to audio files, that not all of the data files contained audio files 

2 

PX10-0018 PUBLIC
 

 

 

 

 

 

PUBLIC PUBLIC FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION | OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY | FILED 9/14/2022 | Document No. 605598 | PAGE Page 103 of 129 * PUBLIC *; 

accessible to Complaint Counsel, that Complaint Counsel could determine whether a data file 

contained an accessible audio file only by checking it individually, and that records could only 

be viewed and downloaded in groups of 100 or fewer. 

10. Complaint Counsel was not able to access the database until September 7, 2022. 

11. On September 13, 2022, I accessed the database and confirmed that not all of the 

data files contained accessible audio files, and that I could determine whether a data file 

contained an accessible audio file only by checking it individually. I listened to four audio files 

accessible in the database: the voice log process did not occur during any of them and one of 

them was not a sales call. I also determined that the only way to search the records in the 

database was by date, and that there were approximately 13.4 million data files between May 1, 

2019, and October 31, 2019. Exporting a complete list of the records in the database did not 

appear to be possible. 

I declare under penalty of perjury that to the best of my knowledge and belief the 

foregoing is true and accurate. 

Dated: September 14, 2022 s/ Sophia H. Calderón 

Sophia H. Calderón 

Federal Trade Commission 

Northwest Region 

915 Second Ave., Suite 2896 

Seattle, WA 98174 

Tel.: (206) 220-6350 

Fax: (206) 220-6366 

Email: scalderon@ftc.gov 

Counsel Supporting the Complaint 

3 

PX10-0019 PUBLIC
PUBLIC PUBLIC FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION | OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY | FILED 9/14/2022 | Document No. 605598 | PAGE Page 104 of 129 * PUBLIC *; 

EXHIBIT A 

PX10-0020 PUBLIC
 

 

________________________________________________ 

________________________________________________ 

PUBLIC PUBLIC FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION | OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY | FILED 9/14/2022 | Document No. 605598 | PAGE Page 105 of 129 * PUBLIC *; 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 

BEFORE THE FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION 

In the Matter of 

HOMEADVISOR, INC., a corporation, 

d/b/a ANGI LEADS, 

d/b/a HOMEADVISOR POWERED BY ANGI. DOCKET NO. 9407 

COMPLAINT COUNSEL’S SECOND SET OF 

REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS 

Pursuant to the Federal Trade Commission’s Rules of Practice, 16 C.F.R. § 3.37(a), 

Complaint Counsel hereby requests that Respondent HomeAdvisor, Inc. produce all documents, 

electronically stored information, and other things in its possession, custody, or control 

responsive to the following requests within 30 days via electronic mail, or at such time and place 

as may be agreed upon by all counsel. 

I. DEFINITIONS 

Notwithstanding any definition below, each word, term, or phrase used in this Schedule is 

intended to have the broadest meaning permitted under the Federal Trade Commission’s Rules of 

Practice. 

1. “And” and “or” shall be construed either disjunctively or conjunctively as necessary to 

bring within the scope of the request any information that might otherwise be construed 

to be outside its scope. 

2. “Any” shall be construed to include “all,” and “all” shall be construed to include the word 

“any.” 

3. “Each” shall be construed to include “every,” and “every” shall be construed to include 

“each.” 

4. “Includes” or “including” means “including, but not limited to,” so as to avoid excluding 

any information that might otherwise be construed to be within the scope of any request 

for information. 

5. “Relating to” or “related to” means discussing, describing, reflecting, referring, 

containing, analyzing, studying, reporting, commenting, evidencing, constituting, setting 

forth, considering, recommending, concerning, or pertaining to, in whole or in part. 

1 of 5 

PX10-0021 PUBLIC
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

PUBLIC PUBLIC FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION | OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY | FILED 9/14/2022 | Document No. 605598 | PAGE Page 106 of 129 * PUBLIC *; 

6. “Lead” means any set of information sold or otherwise provided by You to a Service 

Provider about a Person (i) who has expressed an interest in, or has visited a website 

related to, home services, or (ii) who has been identified as a potential customer for home 

services. 

7. “Person” means any natural person, corporation, partnership, or other business 

association and any other legal entity, including all members, officers, predecessors, 

assigns, divisions, affiliates, and subsidiaries. 

8. “Service Provider” means a Person who sells home services and has purchased a 

membership and/or Leads from You. 

9. “You,” “Your,” or “Yourself” means HomeAdvisor, Inc., also doing business as Angi 

Leads, also doing business as HomeAdvisor Powered by Angi, or any agent, employee, 

officer, or representative thereof. 

10. “Voice Log Process” means the process that is described in paragraphs 4 and 5 of the 

Declaration of Michael Metzger, RX0095 to Respondent HomeAdvisor, Inc.’s 

Memorandum of Law in Opposition to Complaint Counsel’s Motion for Summary 

Decision. 

11. The use of the singular includes the plural, and the plural includes the singular. 

12. The use of a verb in any tense shall be construed as the use of the verb in all other tenses. 

13. The spelling of a name shall be construed to include all similar variants thereof. 

II. INSTRUCTIONS 

1. All documents produced in response to these requests shall be clearly and precisely 

identified as to the Request(s) to which they are responsive. Documents that may be 

responsive to more than one Request need not be submitted more than once; however, 

Your response shall indicate, for each document submitted, all Requests to which the 

documents are responsive. 

2. A complete copy of each document should be submitted even if only a portion of the 

document is within the terms of the document Request. The document shall not be edited, 

cut, or expunged and shall include all covering letters and memoranda, transmittal slips, 

appendices, tables, or other attachments. 

3. Each page submitted should be marked with a unique “Bates” document tracking 

number. 

4. Documents covered by these specifications are those that are in Your possession or under 

Your actual or constructive custody or control, whether or not such documents were 

2 of 5 

PX10-0022 PUBLIC
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

PUBLIC PUBLIC FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION | OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY | FILED 9/14/2022 | Document No. 605598 | PAGE Page 107 of 129 * PUBLIC *; 

received from or disseminated to any other Person or entity including attorneys, 

accountants, directors, officers, employees, independent contractors, and volunteers. 

5. If any requested material is withheld based on a claim of privilege, submit, together with 

such claim, a schedule of items withheld that states individually for each item withheld: 

(a) the type, title, specific subject matter, and date of the item; (b) the names, addresses, 

positions, and organizations of all authors and recipients of the item; and (c) the specific 

grounds for claiming that item as privileged. If only part of a responsive document is 

privileged, all non-privileged portions of the document must be submitted. 

6. The document Requests are continuing in character so as to require You to produce 

additional information promptly upon obtaining or discovering different, new, or further 

information before the close of discovery as set forth in the Scheduling Order in this 

matter. 

7. You are hereby advised that Complaint Counsel will move, if any party files any 

dispositive motion, or at the commencement of trial, to preclude You from presenting 

evidence regarding responsive matters You have failed to set forth in Your answers to 

these document Requests. 

III. REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION 

Demand is hereby made of Respondent HomeAdvisor, Inc. for the following 

documentary and tangible things: 

14. For the time period from May 1, 2019, through October 31, 2019, recordings of all 

telephone calls between Your sales agents and prospective Service Providers during 

which the prospective Service Provider completed Your Voice Log Process and 

responded affirmatively to all of the questions asked in Your Voice Log Process. This 

request seeks, to the extent available, recordings of the entirety of such telephone calls, 

and is not limited to the recordings of the Voice Log Process. 

15. For each recording responsive to Request for Production No. 14, above, all records and/or 

data pertaining to the telephone call, including but not limited to the date on which the 

telephone call occurred, the duration of the telephone call, the name of Your sales agent 

on the call, Your unique identifier for the prospective Service Provider (i.e., the 

“Service Provider identification number”) on the telephone call, if one was eventually 

assigned, and the membership price the prospective Service Provider was quoted during 

the Voice Log Process. 

16. For each recording responsive to Request for Production No. 14, above, any quality 

assurance assessments, evaluations, or grading of Your sales agent’s performance during 

the specific telephone call. 

3 of 5 

PX10-0023 PUBLIC
 

 

 

 

 

 

PUBLIC PUBLIC FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION | OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY | FILED 9/14/2022 | Document No. 605598 | PAGE Page 108 of 129 * PUBLIC *; 

Respectfully, 

Dated: June 8, 2022 By: s/ Sophia H. Calderón 

Sophia H. Calderón 

Colin D. A. MacDonald 

Breena M. Roos 

M. Elizabeth Howe 

Federal Trade Commission 

Northwest Region 

915 Second Ave., Suite 2896 

Seattle, WA 98174 

Tel.: (206) 220-6350 

Fax: (206) 220-6366 

Email: scalderon@ftc.gov 

cmacdonald@ftc.gov 

broos@ftc.gov 

mhowe@ftc.gov 

Counsel Supporting the Complaint 

4 of 5 

PX10-0024 PUBLIC
 

 

PUBLIC PUBLIC FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION | OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY | FILED 9/14/2022 | Document No. 605598 | PAGE Page 109 of 129 * PUBLIC *; 

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 

I hereby certify that on June 8, 2022, I caused a true and correct copy of the foregoing to 

be served via electronic mail to: 

William A. Burck 

Dawn Y. Yamane Hewett 

Kyra R. Simon 

Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan, LLP 

1300 I Street NW, 9th Floor 

Washington, DC 20005 

(202) 538-8000 

williamburck@quinnemanuel.com 

dawnhewett@quinnemanuel.com 

kyrasimon@quinnemanuel.com 

Stephen R. Neuwirth 

Jennifer J. Barrett 

Neil T. Phillips 

George T. Phillips 

Jared Ruocco 

Kathryn D. Bonacorsi 

Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan, LLP 

51 Madison Avenue, 22nd Floor 

New York, NY 10010 

(212) 849-7000 

stephenneuwirth@quinnemanuel.com 

jenniferbarrett@quinnemanuel.com 

neilphillips@quinnemanuel.com 

georgephillips@quinnemanuel.com 

jaredruocco@quinnemanuel.com 

kathrynbonacorsi@quinnemanuel.com 

Counsel for Respondent HomeAdvisor, Inc. 

Dated: June 8, 2022 By: s/ Sophia H. Calderón 

Sophia H. Calderón 

Federal Trade Commission 

Northwest Region 

915 Second Ave., Suite 2896 

Seattle, WA 98174 

Counsel Supporting the Complaint 

5 of 5 

PX10-0025 PUBLIC
PUBLIC PUBLIC FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION | OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY | FILED 9/14/2022 | Document No. 605598 | PAGE Page 110 of 129 * PUBLIC *; 

EXHIBIT B 

PX10-0026 PUBLIC
PUBLIC PUBLIC FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION | OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY | FILED 9/14/2022 | Document No. 605598 | PAGE Page 111 of 129 * PUBLIC *; 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 

FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION 

Northwest Regional Office 

Colin D. A. MacDonald 

Attorney 

(206) 220-4474 

cmacdonald@ftc.gov 

July 29, 2022 

BY EMAIL 

HomeAdvisor, Inc. 

c/o Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan, LLP 

Attn: Neil T. Phillips, Esq. (neilphillips@quinnemanuel.com) 

George T. Phillips, Esq. (georgephillips@quinnemanuel.com) 

Re: In the Matter of HomeAdvisor, Inc., Docket No. 9407 

HomeAdvisor, Inc.’s Responses and Objections to Complaint Counsel’s 

Second Set of Requests for Production and First Set of Interrogatories 

Dear Counsel: 

Thank you for meeting with Complaint Counsel today to discuss HomeAdvisor, Inc.’s 

Responses and Objections to Complaint Counsel’s Second Set of Requests for Production and 

HomeAdvisor, Inc.’s Responses and Objections to Complaint Counsel’s First Set of 

Interrogatories. Based on today’s conversation and your letter, dated July 28, 2022, we expect to 

see significant productions in response to both the Requests for Production and the 

Interrogatories next week (by August 5, 2022). Details on the anticipated productions follow. 

Second Set of Requests for Production. Based on our conversation, we understand that 

HomeAdvisor, Inc. has identified approximately 5,000-6,000 call recordings from the time 

period specified in Request for Production 14 and for which quality assurance reviews 

responsive to Request for Production 16 have been similarly identified (collectively referred to 

hereafter as the “Quality Assurance Recordings”). It is also our understanding based on your 

representations regarding your client’s collection efforts that these Quality Assurance Recordings 

do not include any recordings for which no quality assurance form exists. We understand that 

this is because the recordings for which such forms exist are stored in a different location than 

other recordings. You stated that you would produce the Quality Assurance Recordings by 

August 5, 2022, and asked whether we would consider production of the Quality Assurance 

Recordings sufficient for purposes of Request for Production 14. 

The plain reading of Request for Production 14 requires production of recordings from 

the relevant period regardless of whether associated quality assurance forms exist (or ever 

existed). These recordings are plainly relevant to the claims and defenses at issue in this case. 

Indeed, HomeAdvisor, Inc. has repeatedly argued that the calls transcribed and attached to 

PX10-0027 PUBLIC
 

 

 

PUBLIC PUBLIC FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION | OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY | FILED 9/14/2022 | Document No. 605598 | PAGE Page 112 of 129 * PUBLIC *; 

Complaint Counsel’s Motion for Summary Decision are insufficiently representative of all sales 

calls. Thus, it is HomeAdvisor, Inc.’s own litigation position which makes this production vital 

to the litigation. Our proposal below seeks to address that objection and your client’s 

simultaneous claims of burden in retrieving additional recordings. However, as discussed on 

today’s call, your client’s suggestion that it be permitted to select a smaller population of more 

recent calls is not viable, as such a proposal would permit your client to unilaterally limit the 

scope of discovery to a recent period for claims that extend back several years. 

That said, in order to expedite resolution of this matter without need for motions practice, 

Complaint Counsel will accept the Quality Assurance Recordings as a sufficient production in 

response to Request for Production 14 if: 

1. HomeAdvisor, Inc. represents that the Quality Assurance Recordings consist of all extant 

recorded calls from its internal Quality Assurance process from the period of May 1, 

2019 through October 31, 2019 for which quality assurance forms exist (i.e., the search 

parameters would identify all such calls and no calls from this population have been 

withheld); 

2. HomeAdvisor, Inc. represents that no retention or deletion policy or procedures have 

resulted in any particular category of recorded call being omitted from the Quality 

Assurance Recordings (e.g., calls resulting in termination); and 

3. HomeAdvisor, Inc. stipulates that the Quality Assurance Recordings are representative of 

all sales calls from the period of May 1, 2019 through October 31, 2019. 

We ask that you either 1) agree to the above three conditions and commit to producing 

the Quality Assurance Recordings as well as associated documents responsive to Requests for 

Production 15 and 16 by August 5, 2022, or 2) you commit to producing by August 5, 2022, all 

recordings from the relevant period regardless of whether associated quality assurance forms 

exist. Please provide us with your final position by August 2, 2022, so that we can determine 

whether a motion to compel is necessary. 

First Set of Interrogatories. As we discussed on the call, we understand that 

HomeAdvisor, Inc. intends to produce additional data responsive to Interrogatory No. 1 by 

August 5, 2022. At the time of that production, we understand HomeAdvisor, Inc. intends to 

identify with a chart the tables which are explicitly responsive to each interrogatory and subpart. 

Pursuant to Rule of Practice 3.35(c), we request that you ensure that this chart indicates with 

specificity where within (such as which column(s) and/or row(s)) each identified table the 

responsive information can be found, as our position is that, because the data has been produced 

according to HomeAdvisor, Inc.’s internal taxonomy rather than rendered for general 

consumption, failure to provide sufficient information to decipher the data you have produced 

will impose substantially greater burden on Complaint Counsel in deriving or ascertaining the 

answers to Interrogatories. 

PX10-0028 PUBLIC
 

 

PUBLIC PUBLIC FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION | OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY | FILED 9/14/2022 | Document No. 605598 | PAGE Page 113 of 129 * PUBLIC *; 

If you have additional questions regarding the substance or manner of these productions, 

please let us know. We are available if needed for a further meet and confer next week. 

Otherwise, we look forward to receiving your response by August 2, 2022, and the productions 

outlined above by August 5, 2022. 

Sincerely, 

s/ Colin D. A. MacDonald 

Colin D. A. MacDonald 

Cc: All Counsel of Record (by email) 

PX10-0029 PUBLIC
PUBLIC PUBLIC FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION | OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY | FILED 9/14/2022 | Document No. 605598 | PAGE Page 114 of 129 * PUBLIC *; 

EXHIBIT C 

PX10-0030 PUBLIC
PUBLIC PUBLIC FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION | OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY | FILED 9/14/2022 | Document No. 605598 | PAGE Page 115 of 129 * PUBLIC *; 

From: Neil Phillips 

To: Calderon, Sophie; MacDonald, Colin; Roos, Breena; Howe, Beth 

Cc: JenniferBarrett-contact; Kyra Simon; George Phillips; Kathryn Bonacorsi; Tyler Stapleton; Todd Riegler 

Subject: HomeAdvisor Production Volumes 56-59 / Docket No. 9407 

Date: Sunday, August 7, 2022 8:11:41 PM 

Attachments: 8.7.22- FTC Privilege Log (Withheld & Redaction).XLSX 

8.7.22 - HomeAdvisor"s Amended Responses to First Set of RFPs.pdf 

Counsel, 

The FTP below contains four production volumes—including approximately 4,700 QA audio 

recordings and accompanying materials—the details of which are below. Also attached is 

HomeAdvisor’s most recent privilege log, as well as our amended responses and objections to 

Complaint Counsel’s first set of document requests. 

Volume: HOMEADVISOR_FTC059 

Bates Range: HOMEADVISOR_FTC0138544 - HOMEADVISOR_FTC0144209 

Total Documents: 5,448 

Total Images: 5,666 

Volume: HOMEADVISOR_FTC058 

Bates Range: HOMEADVISOR_FTC0137313 - HOMEADVISOR_FTC0138543 

Total Documents: 334 

Total Images: 1,231 

Volume: HOMEADVISOR_FTC057 

Bates Range: HOMEADVISOR_FTC0129554 - HOMEADVISOR_FTC0137312 

Total Documents: 7,322 

Total Images: 7,759 

Volume: HOMEADVISOR_FTC056 

Bates Range: HOMEADVISOR_FTC0127728 - HOMEADVISOR_FTC0129553 

Total Documents: 713 

Total Images: 1,826 

Click here to download the file(s) listed below 

HOMEADVISOR_FTC056.zip 2.70 GB 

HOMEADVISOR_FTC057.zip 7.91 GB 

HOMEADVISOR_FTC058.zip 457.99 MB 

HOMEADVISOR_FTC059.zip 6.70 GB 

If the link above does not open, please copy and paste the following URL into your browser: 

https://sendfile.quinnemanuel.com?p=aa13ceee-ae12-47ce-8bf3-bbe1ca7b4228 

Regards, 

Neil 

Neil Phillips 

Associate

Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan, LLP 

PX10-0031 PUBLIC
PUBLIC PUBLIC FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION | OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY | FILED 9/14/2022 | Document No. 605598 | PAGE Page 116 of 129 * PUBLIC *; 

51 Madison Avenue, 22nd Floor 

New York, NY 10010 

212-849-7651 Direct 

212-849-7000 Main Office Number 

212-849-7100 FAX 

neilphillips@quinnemanuel.com 

www.quinnemanuel.com 

NOTICE: The information contained in this e-mail message is intended only for the personal and confidential use of the recipient(s) 

named above. This message may be an attorney-client communication and/or work product and as such is privileged and confidential. If 

the reader of this message is not the intended recipient or agent responsible for delivering it to the intended recipient, you are hereby 

notified that you have received this document in error and that any review, dissemination, distribution, or copying of this message is 

strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please notify us immediately by e-mail, and delete the original 

message. 

PX10-0032 PUBLIC
PUBLIC PUBLIC FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION | OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY | FILED 9/14/2022 | Document No. 605598 | PAGE Page 117 of 129 * PUBLIC *; 

EXHIBIT D 

PX10-0033 PUBLIC
 

 

• 

• 

• 

• 

• -

PUBLIC PUBLIC FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION | OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY | FILED 9/14/2022 | Document No. 605598 | PAGE Page 118 of 129 * PUBLIC *; 

From: Neil Phillips 

To: Calderon, Sophie; Roos, Breena; MacDonald, Colin; Howe, Beth 

Cc: JenniferBarrett-contact; Kathryn Bonacorsi; George Phillips; Kyra Simon; Tyler Stapleton 

Subject: HomeAdvisor - Docket No. 9407 / Sales Audio Files 

Date: Tuesday, August 30, 2022 5:05:02 PM 

Counsel, 

In accordance with Chief Judge Chappell’s August 16, 2022 order, HomeAdvisor has retrieved the 

requested archived sales audio recordings from May 1, 2019 through October 31, 2019. As 

previously explained, these files were retained in HomeAdvisor’s now-legacy audio recording 

database, VPI, and in approximately October 2021 were moved into archival storage on full virtual 

machine backups within the Amazon Web Services Glacier database. In order to successfully restore 

the audio, the files first needed to be extracted from Glacier and imported back into the VPI 

database where they originally were stored in their proprietary VP2 file format and through which 

they are capable of being accessed. 

In light of the above, we have created a virtual VPI machine for the FTC within which it can view, 

listen to, and download files as needed in .WAV or VP2 format. This virtual machine contains an 

instance of VPI that currently houses the requested sales call recordings, along with other data 

associated with those recordings, including the representative’s name, date, and the length of the 

call. 

To access the virtual machine: 

Navigate to vpn.angi.com. 

Login with the following credentials: 

User: 

Password: 

Set up multi-factor authentication as prompted following login. 

Once connected, click on the VPI icon on the desktop and again login with the credentials above. 

Please note that because you will be logging into the legacy VPI database, the VPI interface will show 

icons for all of the audio recordings previously housed in VPI that took place during the requested 

time period, including both customer care and sales calls. However, only responsive sales call audio 

files have been re-populated into VPI. Thus, while the records for non-responsive calls will still 

populate in the database, they will have no associated audio. As stated above, you will be able to 

sort by date and listen to the sales call audio files directly within VPI. However, should you wish to 

export files from the database, you may access the export function from the “actions” menu. 

Regards, 

Neil 

Neil Phillips 

PX10-0034 PUBLIC
PUBLIC PUBLIC FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION | OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY | FILED 9/14/2022 | Document No. 605598 | PAGE Page 119 of 129 * PUBLIC *; 

Associate

Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan, LLP 

51 Madison Avenue, 22nd Floor 

New York, NY 10010 

212-849-7651 Direct 

212-849-7000 Main Office Number 

212-849-7100 FAX 

neilphillips@quinnemanuel.com 

www.quinnemanuel.com 

NOTICE: The information contained in this e-mail message is intended only for the personal and confidential use of the recipient(s) 

named above. This message may be an attorney-client communication and/or work product and as such is privileged and confidential. If 

the reader of this message is not the intended recipient or agent responsible for delivering it to the intended recipient, you are hereby 

notified that you have received this document in error and that any review, dissemination, distribution, or copying of this message is 

strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please notify us immediately by e-mail, and delete the original 

message. 

PX10-0035 PUBLIC
PUBLIC PUBLIC FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION | OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY | FILED 9/14/2022 | Document No. 605598 | PAGE Page 120 of 129 * PUBLIC *; 

EXHIBIT E 

PX10-0036 PUBLIC
PUBLIC PX10-0037 PUBLIC PUBLIC FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION | OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY | FILED 9/14/2022 | Document No. 605598 | PAGE Page 121 of 129 * PUBLIC *; 

9/14/22, 9:53 AM 

From: 

Sent: 

To: 

Cc: 

Subject: 

Neil, 

RE HomeAdvisor - Docket No. 9407 Sales Audio Files.htm 

Calderon, Sophie 

Thursday, September 1, 2022 12:23 PM 

Neil Phillips; Roos, Breena; MacDonald, Colin; Howe, Beth 

JenniferBarrett-contact; Kathryn Bonacorsi; George Phillips; Kyra 

Simon; Tyler Stapleton 

RE: HomeAdvisor - Docket No. 9407 / Sales Audio Files 

We were able to get past the two-factor login authentication but cannot access the VPN without 

downloading additional software (screenshot below). The required software has not been previously 

vetted and approved by our agency, which means that Complaint Counsel is barred from downloading 

that software absent special approval by the appropriate technology office. Furthermore, we have 

been informed that, due to federal government data security measures, the internal process of 

receiving approval to download this software to our devices, to the extent we receive it at all, can be 

quite delayed. While we are working to begin that approval process, please let us know when you are 

available today or tomorrow to discuss alternatives to how your client can make the ordered 

production so that Complaint Counsel can access the recordings immediately. 

In the meantime, we view Respondent as currently in violation of the ALJ's August 16, 2022 order to 

produce documents responsive to RFP 14 within 14 days, given that Respondent did not produce the 

documents in the manner requested in the original Requests for Production (and indeed, the manner 

in which previous sales calls have been produced), nor did it seek Complaint Counsel's agreement 

regarding a new method of production in advance of the production deadline. 

Best, 

Sophie 

file:/1/C:/Users/bhalpernmeekin/Desktop/RE HomeAdvisor - Docket No. 9407 Sales Audio Files.htm 1/7 
FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION | OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY | FILED 9/14/2022 | Document No. 605598 | PAGE Page 122 of 129 * PUBLIC *; 

9/14/22, 9:53 AM RE HomeAdvisor - Docket No. 9407 Sales Audio Files.him 

PUBLIC PUBLIC

VPN Portal 

Download \Vindows 32 bit GlobalProtect agent 

Download \\"indows 64 bit GlobalProtect agent 

Download :\lac 32/64 bit GlobalProtect agent 

\\"indows 32 bit OS needs to download and 

install \\"indows 32 bit GlobalProtect agent. 

\\"indows 64 bit OS needs to download and 

install \Yindows 64 bit GlobalProtect agent. 

Mac OS needs to download and install :\lac 

32/64 bit GlobalProtect agent. 

From: Neil Phillips <nei lphillips@quinnemanuel.com> 

Sent: Thursday, September 1, 2022 8:44 AM 

To: Calderon, Sophie <scalderon@ftc.gov>; Roos, Breena <broos@ftc.gov>; MacDonald, Colin 

<cmacdonald@ftc.gov>; Howe, Beth <mhowe@ftc.gov> 

Cc: JenniferBarrett-contact <jenniferbarrett@quinnemanuel.com>; Kathryn Bonacorsi 

<kathrynbonacorsi@quinnemanuel.com>; George Phillips <georgephillips@quinnemanuel.com>; Kyra 

Simon <kyrasimon@quinnemanuel.com>; Tyler Stapleton <tylerstapleton@quinnemanuel.com> 

Subject: RE: HomeAdvisor - Docket No. 9407 / Sales Audio Files 

Sophie, 

HomeAdvisor's technical team is concerned that removing the two-factor login authentication would 

expose the recordings and any PII or other sensitive service provider information they contain to an 

unnecessary security risk. Multi-factor authentication is a standard method of accessing secure data, 

and one HomeAdvisor insists that its employees utilize (just as we do at Quinn Emanuel to log into our 

servers). What technology does the FTC typically use to handle two-factor authentication? If helpful, 

we can convene a Zoom with HomeAdvisor's technical team to walk you through the login process 

and any potential workaround that may exist. 

Regards, 

Neil 

From: Neil Phillips 

Sent: Wednesday, August 31, 2022 4:41 PM 

PX10-0038 PUBLIC

file:/1/C:/Users/bhalpemmeekin/Desktop/RE HomeAdvisor - Docket No. 9407 Sales Audio Files.him 2/7 
PUBLIC PX10-0039 PUBLIC PUBLIC FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION | OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY | FILED 9/14/2022 | Document No. 605598 | PAGE Page 123 of 129 * PUBLIC *; 

9/14/22, 9:53 AM RE HomeAdvisor - Docket No. 9407 Sales Audio Files.htm 

To: Calderon, Sophie <scalderon@ftc.gov>; Roos, Breena <broos@ftc.gov>; MacDonald, Colin 

<cmacdonald@ftc.gov>; Howe, Beth <mhowe@ftc.gov> 

Cc: Jennifer Barrett <jenniferbarrett@quinnemanuel.com>; Kathryn Bonacorsi 

<kathrynbonacorsi@quinnemanuel.com>; George Phillips <georgephillips@quinnemanuel.com>; Kyra 

Simon <kyrasimon@quinnemanuel.com>; Tyler Stapleton <tylerstapleton@quinnemanuel.com> 

Subject: RE: HomeAdvisor - Docket No. 9407 / Sales Audio Files 

Sophie, 

We are reviewing this issue now with HomeAdvisor's technical personnel to provide Complaint 

Counsel with access to the VPI database as soon as possible given that you cannot download the twofactor authentication security software. To be clear, however, we have complied with Judge Chappell's 

order and produced the requested audio files yesterday as stored in their ordinary course within the 

VPI database that created and housed the files in their proprietary VPI VP2 file format prior to 

archiving. We will provide you with an update on the access process promptly. 

Regards, 

Neil 

From: Calderon, Sophie <scalderon@ftc.gov> 

Sent: Wednesday, August 31, 2022 3:28 PM 

To: Neil Phillips <neilRhilli~_guinnemanuel.com>; Roos, Breena <broos@ftc.gov>; MacDonald, Colin 

<cmacdonald@ftc.gov>; Howe, Beth <mhowe@ftc.gov> 

Cc: Jennifer Barrett <jenniferbarrett@guinnemanuel.com>; Kathryn Bonacorsi 

<kathrv.nbonacorsi@quinnemanuel.com>; George Phillips <georggRhilli~_guinnemanuel.com>; Kyra 

Simon <.!s.v.rasimon@guinnemanuel.com>; Tyler Stapleton <!v.lerstaRleton@guinnemanuel.com> 

Subject: RE: HomeAdvisor - Docket No. 9407 / Sales Audio Files 

[EXTERNAL EMAIL from scalderon@ftc.gov] 

Neil, 

We cannot access the virtual VPI machine (I've provided screenshots below of what we see -we 

cannot download the app to our mobile devices). Please immediately produce the responsive calls, as 

ordered by Judge Chappell. 

Best, 

Sophie 

file:/1/C:/Users/bhalpernmeekin/Desktop/RE HomeAdvisor - Docket No. 9407 Sales Audio Files.htm 3/7 
9/14/22, 9:53 AM RE HomeAdvisor - Docket No. 9407 Sales Audio Files.htm 

file:/1/C:/Users/bhalpernmeekin/Desktop/RE HomeAdvisor - Docket No. 9407 Sales Audio Files.htm 4/7 

PUBLIC PUBLIC PUBLIC FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION | OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY | FILED 9/14/2022 | Document No. 605598 | PAGE Page 124 of 129 * PUBLIC *; PX10-0040
PUBLIC PUBLIC PUBLIC FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION | OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY | FILED 9/14/2022 | Document No. 605598 | PAGE Page 125 of 129 * PUBLIC *; 

9/14/22, 9:53 AM RE HomeAdvisor - Docket No. 9407 Sales Audio Files.him 

ng1• 

Set up multifactor authentication 

Your company requires multifactor 

authentication to add an additional layer of 

security when signing in to your Okta account 

Setup required 

G Okta Verify 

Use a push notification sent to the 

mobileapp. 

SMS Authentication 

Configure factor 

Jlngi 

PX10-0041

file:/1/C:/Users/bhalpemmeekin/Desktop/RE HomeAdvisor - Docket No. 9407 Sales Audio Files.him 5/7 
PUBLIC PUBLIC PUBLIC FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION | OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY | FILED 9/14/2022 | Document No. 605598 | PAGE Page 126 of 129 * PUBLIC *; 

9/14/22, 9:53 AM RE HomeAdvisor - Docket No. 9407 Sales Audio Files.him 

Setup Okta Verify 

Select your device type 

@ iPhone 

0 Android 

G Download Okta Verify from the App 

Store onto your mobile dev ce 

Back to factor fist 

From: Neil Phillips <neilP.hilli~_guinnemanuel.com> 

Sent: Tuesday, August 30, 2022 5:05 PM 

To: Calderon, Sophie <scalderon@ftc.gru!_>; Roos, Breena <broos@ftc.gru!_>; MacDonald, Colin 

<cmacdonald@ftc.gov>; Howe, Beth <mhowe@ftc.gov> 

Cc: JenniferBarrett-contact <jenniferbarrett@_guinnemanuel.com>; Kathryn Bonacorsi 

<kathrv.nbonacorsi@!,luinnemanuel.com>; George Phillips <georggP.hilli~_guinnemanuel.com>; Kyra 

Simon <kv.rasimon@._guinnemanuel.com>; Tyler Stapleton <!YJersliP.leton@guinnemanuel.com> 

Subject: HomeAdvisor - Docket No. 9407 / Sales Audio Files 

Counsel, 

In accordance with Chief Judge Chappell's August 16, 2022 order, HomeAdvisor has retrieved the 

requested archived sales audio recordings from May 1, 2019 through October 31, 2019. As previously 

explained, these files were retained in HomeAdvisor's now-legacy audio recording database, VPI, and 

in approximately October 2021 were moved into archival storage on full virtual machine backups 

within the Amazon Web Services Glacier database. In order to successfully restore the audio, the files 

first needed to be extracted from Glacier and imported back into the VPI database where t hey 

PX10-0042

file:/1/C:/Users/bhalpemmeekin/Desktop/RE HomeAdvisor - Docket No. 9407 Sales Audio Files.him 6/7 
PUBLIC PX10-0043 PUBLIC PUBLIC FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION | OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY | FILED 9/14/2022 | Document No. 605598 | PAGE Page 127 of 129 * PUBLIC *; 

9/14/22, 9:53 AM RE HomeAdvisor - Docket No. 9407 Sales Audio Files.htm 

originally were stored in their proprietary VP2 file format and through which they are capable of being 

accessed. 

In light of the above, we have created a virtual VPI machine for the FTC within which it can view, listen 

to, and download files as needed in .WAV or VP2 format. This virtual machine contains an instance of 

VPI that currently houses the requested sales call recordings, along with other data associated with 

those recordings, including the representative's name, date, and the length of the call. 

To access the virtual machine: 

• Navigate to vpn.angi.com. 

• Login with the following credentials: 

• User: 

• Set up multi-factor authentication as prompted following login. 

Once connected, click on the VPI icon on the desktop and again login with the credentials above. 

Please note that because you will be logging into the legacy VPI database, the VPI interface will show 

icons for all of the audio recordings previously housed in VPI that took place during the requested 

time period, including both customer care and sales calls. However, onlv. responsive sales call audio 

files have been re-populated into VPI. Thus, while the records for non-responsive calls will still 

populate in the database, they will have no associated audio. As stated above, you will be able to sort 

by date and listen to the sales call audio files directly within VPI. However, should you wish to export 

files from the database, you may access the export function from the "actions" menu. 

Regards, 

Neil 

Neil Phillips 

Associate 

Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan, LLP 

51 Madison Avenue, 22nd Floor 

New York, NY 10010 

212-849-7651 Direct 

212-849-7000 Main Office Number 

212-849-7100 FAX 

neilRhilliRs@.guinnemanuel.com 

www.guinnemanuel.com 

NOTICE: The information contained in this e-mail message is intended only for the personal and confidential use of the recipient(s) 

named above. This message may be an attorney-client communication and/or work product and as such is privileged and confidential. If 

the reader of this message is not the intended recipient or agent responsible for delivering it to the intended recipient, you are hereby 

notified that you have received this document in error and that any review, dissemination, distribution, or copying of this message is 

strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please notify us immediately by e-mail, and delete the original 

message. 

file:/1/C:/Users/bhalpernmeekin/Desktop/RE HomeAdvisor - Docket No. 9407 Sales Audio Files.htm 717 
 

 

PUBLIC PUBLIC FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION | OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY | FILED 9/14/2022 | Document No. 605598 | PAGE Page 128 of 129 * PUBLIC *; 

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 

I hereby certify that on September 14, 2022, I filed the foregoing document electronically 

using the FTC’s E-Filing system, which will send notification of such filing to: 

April Tabor 

Office of the Secretary 

Federal Trade Commission 

Constitution Center 

400 Seventh Street, SW, Suite 5610 

Washington, D.C. 20024 

ElectronicFilings@ftc.gov 

The Honorable D. Michael Chappell 

Administrative Law Judge 

Federal Trade Commission 

600 Pennsylvania Ave., NW, Rm. H-110 

Washington, DC 20580 

I further certify that on September 14, 2022, I caused the foregoing document to be 

served via email to: 

William A. Burck 

Dawn Y. Yamane Hewett 

Kyra R. Simon 

Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan, LLP 

1300 I Street NW, 9th Floor 

Washington, DC 20005 

(202) 538-8000 

williamburck@quinnemanuel.com 

dawnhewett@quinnemanuel.com 

kyrasimon@quinnemanuel.com 

Counsel for Respondent HomeAdvisor, Inc. 

Dated: September 14, 2022 

Stephen R. Neuwirth 

Jennifer J. Barrett 

Neil T. Phillips 

George T. Phillips 

Jared Ruocco 

Kathryn D. Bonacorsi 

Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan, LLP 

51 Madison Avenue, 22nd Floor 

New York, NY 10010 

(212) 849-7000 

stephenneuwirth@quinnemanuel.com 

jenniferbarrett@quinnemanuel.com 

neilphillips@quinnemanuel.com 

georgephillips@quinnemanuel.com 

jaredruocco@quinnemanuel.com 

kathrynbonacorsi@quinnemanuel.com 

By: s/ Sophia H. Calderón 

Sophia H. Calderón 

Counsel Supporting the Complaint 

PX10-0044 PUBLIC
 

PUBLIC PUBLIC PUBLIC FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION | OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY | FILED 9/14/2022 | Document No. 605598 | PAGE Page 129 of 129 * PUBLIC *; 

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 

I hereby certify that on September 14, 2022, I filed the foregoing document electronically 

using the FTC’s E-Filing system, which will send notification of such filing to: 

April Tabor The Honorable D. Michael Chappell 

Office of the Secretary Administrative Law Judge 

Federal Trade Commission Federal Trade Commission 

Constitution Center 600 Pennsylvania Ave., NW, Rm. H-110 

400 Seventh Street, SW, Suite 5610 Washington, DC 20580 

Washington, D.C. 20024 

ElectronicFilings@ftc.gov 

I further certify that on September 14, 2022, I caused the foregoing document to be 

served via email to: 

William A. Burck 

Dawn Y. Yamane Hewett 

Kyra R. Simon 

Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan, LLP 

1300 I Street NW, 9th Floor 

Washington, DC 20005 

(202) 538-8000 

williamburck@quinnemanuel.com 

dawnhewett@quinnemanuel.com 

kyrasimon@quinnemanuel.com 

Counsel for Respondent HomeAdvisor, Inc. 

Dated: September 14, 2022 

Stephen R. Neuwirth 

Jennifer J. Barrett 

Neil T. Phillips 

George T. Phillips 

Jared Ruocco 

Kathryn D. Bonacorsi 

Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan, LLP 

51 Madison Avenue, 22nd Floor 

New York, NY 10010 

(212) 849-7000 

stephenneuwirth@quinnemanuel.com 

jenniferbarrett@quinnemanuel.com 

neilphillips@quinnemanuel.com 

georgephillips@quinnemanuel.com 

jaredruocco@quinnemanuel.com 

kathrynbonacorsi@quinnemanuel.com 

By: s/ Colin D. A. MacDonald 

Colin D. A. MacDonald 

Counsel Supporting the Complaint