Janson et al v. LegalZoom.com, Inc.

Filing 114

MOTION to strike 90 MOTION for summary judgment , 91 Suggestions in Support of Motion,, 100 MOTION for summary judgment (SEALED) , 101 Suggestions in Support of Motion (Sealed),, Plaintiffs' Motion to Strike LegalZoom's Summary-Judgment Facts 45 Through 79 filed by James J. Simeri on behalf of All Plaintiffs. Suggestions in opposition/response due by 5/31/2011 unless otherwise directed by the court. (Related document(s) 90 , 91 , 100 , 101 ) (Simeri, James)

IN UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI
CENTRAL DIVISION
TODD JANSON, et al., on behalf of
themselves and on behalf of all others
similarly situated,

Plaintiffs,
v.
LEGALZOOM.COM, INC.

Defendant.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Case No. 2:10-cv-04018-NKL

PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION TO STRIKE LEGALZOOM’S SUMMARYJUDGMENT FACTS 45 THROUGH 79
Under Rule 56(c)(2) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, a party may object that the
material cited to support or dispute a fact cannot be presented in a form that would be admissible
in evidence. In support of its summary-judgment motion, LegalZoom submitted 79 facts.
LegalZoom purports to support some of these facts, the facts numbered 45 through 79, by citing
material from the record that cannot be presented in a form that would be admissible in evidence.
More particularly:


Facts 45 through 59 cannot be presented in a form that would be
admissible in evidence because they are not relevant, and because
LegalZoom did not disclose them;



Facts 60 through 68 cannot be presented in a form that would be
admissible in evidence because they are an expert’s legal opinions,
and because they are not relevant;



Facts 69 through 75 cannot be presented in a form that would be
admissible in evidence because they are not relevant, and because
LegalZoom did not disclose them; and



Facts 76 through 79 cannot be presented in a form that would be
admissible in evidence because they are not facts, instead, they are
simply secondary legal authority.

Therefore, as authorized by Rule 56(c)(2), Plaintiffs object that the material cited to
support LegalZoom’s facts numbered 45 through 79 cannot be presented in a form that would be
admissible in evidence. Plaintiffs move for the Court to enter an order striking these facts from
LegalZoom’s summary-judgment motion.
In support of this motion, Plaintiffs’ concurrently file suggestions in support, which is
adopted by reference.

Edward D. Robertson, Jr., # 27183
Mary Doerhoff Winter, # 38328
BARTIMUS, FRICKLETON,
ROBERTSON & GORNY
715 Swifts Highway
Jefferson City, MO 65109
573.659.4454, 573.659.4460 (fax)
[e-mail],
[e-mail]

/s/ David T. Butsch
David T. Butsch, # 37539
James J. Simeri, #52506
BUTSCH SIMERI FIELDS LLC
231 S. Bemiston Ave., Ste. 260
Clayton, MO 63105
314.863.5700, 314.863.5711 (fax)
[e-mail]
[e-mail]

2

Timothy Van Ronzelen, #44382
Matthew A. Clement, #43833
Kari A. Schulte, #57739
COOK, VETTER, DOERHOFF &
LANDWEHR, PC
231 Madison
Jefferson City, Missouri 65101
573.635.7977, 573.635.7414 (fax)
[e-mail]
[e-mail]
[e-mail]

Randall O. Barnes, #39884
RANDALL O. BARNES & ASSOCIATES
219 East Dunklin Street, Suite A
Jefferson City, Missouri 65101
573.634.8884, 573.635.6291 (fax)
[e-mail]

Steven E. Dyer, #45397
LAW OFFICES OF STEVEN DYER
10850 Sunset Office Drive, Ste. 300
St. Louis, MO 63127
314.898.6715
[e-mail]
Certificate of Service
I certify that on May 12, 2011, I filed the foregoing with the Clerk of the Court using the
CM/ECF system. The system sent notification of this filing to the following:
Party

Defendant
LegalZoom.com, Inc.

Counsel
Robert M. Thompson
James T. Wicks
BRYAN CAVE LLP
One Kansas City Place
1200 Main Street, Ste. 3500
Kansas City, MO 64105
816.374.3200, 816.374.3300 (fax)
John Michael Clear
Michael Biggers
James Wyrsch
BRYAN CAVE LLP
One Metropolitan Square – Ste. 3600
211 N. Broadway
St. Louis, MO 63102
314.250.2000, 314.259.2020 (fax)

/s/ David T. Butsch

3