Janson et al v. LegalZoom.com, Inc.

Filing 140

OBJECTIONS (non motions) by Gerald T. Ardrey, C & J Remodeling LLC, Chad M Ferrell, Todd Janson re 138 DESIGNATION PLAINTIFFS OBJECTIONS TO DEFENDANTS PROPOSED DEPOSITION DESIGNATIONS AND PLAINTIFFS COUNTER DESIGNATIONS. Related document: 138 DESIGNATION filed by LegalZoom.com, Inc..(Clement, Matthew)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI
CENTRAL DIVISION
TODD JANSON, et al.,

Plaintiffs,
v.
LEGALZOOM.COM, INC.

Defendant.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

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

PLAINTIFFS’ OBJECTIONS TO DEFENDANT’S PROPOSED
DEPOSITION DESIGNATIONS AND PLAINTIFFS’ COUNTER
DESIGNATIONS
Pursuant to the Court’s scheduling and jury-trial order dated March 11, 2010, ¶ O.2,
(Doc. 22), Plaintiffs submit their objections to Defendant’s deposition designations and their
counter designations.

I. Objections to Defendant’s Deposition Designations
Todd Janson
Defendant’s
Designated
Testimony
12:5–13:7
17:3–18:14
27:20–25
36:8–38:16
43:9–20
47:15–20
49:6–24
55:11–57:7
60:4–61:11

Plaintiffs’ Objections
Relevance and Rule 403.
Relevance and Rule 403.
Relevance, Rule 403, and motion in limine regarding disclaimer
Relevance, Rule 403, and motion in limine regarding legal forms
Relevance, Rule 403, and motion in limine regarding legal forms
Relevance, Rule 403, and motion in limine regarding disclaimer
Relevance, Rule 403, and motion in limine regarding attorney-client
relationship with Plaintiffs’ counsel
Relevance, Rule 403, and motion in limine regarding disclaimer
Relevance, Rule 403, and motion in limine regarding disclaimer

Gerald T. Ardrey
Defendant’s
Designated
Testimony
6:18–7:24
10:13–11:24
12:12–15
23:8–24:18
25:5–25
26:6–27:6
29:11–31:15
34:13–18
35:5–36:13
38:5–22
39:4–6
39:13-43:4
44:23–45:2

45:10–11, 14–17,
19–20
46:17–20
51:21–52:10
52:13–16
52:22–23
53:1–3, 6–8, 11-14
61:22–62:18
65:14–67:23

Plaintiffs’ Objections
Relevance.
Relevance.
Relevance.
Relevance.
Relevance.
Relevance.
Relevance.
Relevance.
Relevance.
Relevance.
Relevance.
Relevance.
Rule 106. If the cited testimony is offered, in addition, the testimony
from 43:21–45:9 should be offered. But Plaintiffs further object to
reading any of this evidence based on relevance.
Relevance.
Relevance.
Legal conclusion, which objection is reflected in the transcript.
Legal conclusion, which objection is reflected in the transcript.
Legal conclusion, which objection is reflected in the transcript.
Legal conclusion, which objection is reflected in the transcript.
Relevance.
Objection. Ardrey’s testimony regarding his conviction for passing a
bad check in 2002 is not admissible. First, there is no testimony that
Ardrey was actually convicted. Even if there were testimony that
Ardrey was convicted, the testimony is not relevant under Rule 609
because the probative value of admitting this evidence outweighs its
prejudicial effect. The same is true for Ardrey’s conviction for failure to
pay child support in 2006 or 2007. Furthermore, while Ardrey is a
witness, this is not a case where his testimony is in doubt. LegalZoom is
not offering evidence that contradicts any of Ardrey’s testimony. There
are not fact questions that surround Ardrey’s experience with
LegalZoom. Therefore, this is not a case where Ardrey’s credibility is at
issue.

2

Chad M. Ferrell
Defendant’s
Designated
Testimony
12:20–15:6
17:11–18:5
20:10–21:5
24:8–13
25:18–20
23:1–19
24:14–23

Plaintiffs’ Objections
Relevance.
Relevance.
Relevance.
Relevance.
Relevance.
Relevance.
Relevance.

Richard F. Waigand
Plaintiffs object to the use of any of Mr. Waigand’s deposition pursuant to Federal Rule of
Civil Procedure 32(a), as he is not an a party to the case and is not an “unavailable” witness
under Rule 32(a)(4)(A) – (E). While he resides in St. Louis, County, which is outside the
judicial district, he will appear live at trial and testify. Subject to this general objection,
Plaintiffs make the following specific objections.
Defendant’s
Designated
Plaintiffs’ Objections
Testimony
21:21–22:18
Relevance.
58:21–59:5
Relevance.
59:8–9
Relevance.
94:14–96:8
Relevance.
96:23–97:2
Relevance.
97:4–7
Relevance.
98:22–99:1
Relevance.
99:9–11
Relevance.
103:22–104:11
Relevance.
104:14–22
Relevance.
104:24–105:1
Relevance.
105:3–5, 7–8
Relevance.
105:17–107:17
Relevance.
110:17–21
Relevance.
113:21–114:16
Relevance.
118:4–119:6
Relevance.
120:1–20
Relevance.

3

John Smallwood
Plaintiffs object to the use of any of Mr. Smallwood’s deposition at trial pursuant to
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 32(a). Mr. Smallwood is not a party to this case and is not an
“unavailable” witness under Rule 32(a)(4). He resides in Jefferson City, Missouri, where the
trial will take place, and does not otherwise qualify as being “unavailable” under Rule
32(a)(4)(A) – (E). Mr. Smallwood is available to testify at the trial. See, Smallwood Depo.
7:16-22 and 104:25-105:2. Subject to this general objection, Plaintiffs also make the
following specific objections to the designations of Mr. Smallwood’s deposition.
Defendant’s
Designated
Plaintiffs’ Objections
Testimony
27:7-8
Relevance and argumentative question.
27:9-28:22
Hearsay as to the testimony regarding Mr. Smallwood’s Declaration
executed and filed in Plaintiffs’ opposition to Defendant’s Motion for
Summary Judgment.
29:16-18
Vague and ambiguous; counsel’s question was not responded to by the
witness.
35:3-12
Hearsay as to the testimony regarding Mr. Smallwood’s Declaration
executed and filed in Plaintiffs’ opposition to Defendant’s Motion for
Summary Judgment.
36:14-38:18
Hearsay as to the testimony regarding Mr. Smallwood’s Declaration
executed and filed in Plaintiffs’ opposition to Defendant’s Motion for
Summary Judgment.
38:19-39:2
Calls for speculation.
40:3-41:3
Lacks foundation; subject of Motion in Limine regarding failure to
timely disclose documents.
49:9-50:21
Relevance and Rule 403; also subject of Motion in Limine regarding
disclaimers.
50:25-54:18
Foundation, relevance and Rule 403; also subject of Motion in Limine
regarding disclaimers and/or terms of service.
54:19-56:6
Foundation.
56:7-69:7
Foundation; Subject of Motion in Limine regarding failure to timely
disclose documents.
70:5-78:14
Foundation; Subject of Motion in Limine regarding failure to timely
disclose documents.
79:10 – 80:3
Foundation.
80:4 – 85:17
Foundation; Subject of Motion in Limine regarding failure to timely
disclose documents.
86:18 – 90:5
Foundation; Subject of Motion in Limine regarding failure to timely
disclose documents.
90:6-11
Foundation – question not answered by witness.
90:17-23
Foundation; Subject of Motion in Limine regarding failure to timely
disclose documents.
91:19-92:6
Foundation.
92:7-16
Foundation; Subject of Motion in Limine regarding failure to timely

4

92:24-93:7
93:24-94:10
95:7-100:4
100:9-13
103:8-104:7
104:21-105:2
108:13-108:23

disclose documents.
Foundation; Subject of Motion in Limine regarding failure to timely
disclose documents.
Foundation; Subject of Motion in Limine regarding failure to timely
disclose documents.
Foundation; improper hypothetical; calls for expert opinion for which
this witness was not disclosed as an expert by either party.
Hearsay as to the references to Declaration
Relevance; Rule 403
Relevance; Rule 403
Foundation; calls for speculation; calls for expert opinion for which this
witness was not disclosed as an expert by either party.

II. Plaintiffs’ Counter Designations
Gerald T. Adrey
5:8–10
7:25–8:12
9:3–20
13:7–18
13:24–14:4
29:11–29:23
32:21–34:12
36:14–37:4
39:13–40:5
41:14–41:15
44:3–44:16
47:7–49:21
56:3–56:17
57:14–58:11
63:12–65:4
Chad M. Ferrell
5:15–18
6:1–7:11
8:12–8:20
9:18–22
16:7–16:18
20:10–20:23
26:25–27:11
28:2–28:10
28:11–13

5

29:1–30:12
34:8–34:10
36:25–37:10
39:7–39:22
41:10–22
42:1–43:22
John Smallwood – the following counter designations are made only if Defendant’s are allowed
to use Mr. Smallwood’s deposition at trial. They are made without waiver of Plaintiffs’
objection that use of Mr. Smallwood’s deposition at trial is improper pursuant to Federal Rule of
Civil Procedure 32(a).
15:17 – 16:22
18:21 – 19:8
107:18 – 108:6

Respectfully submitted,

____/s/Matthew A. Clement_____________ ____
Timothy Van Ronzelen, #44382
Matthew A. Clement, #43833
Kari A. Schulte, #57739
COOK, VETTER, DOERHOFF & LANDWEHR
231 Madison
Jefferson City, Missouri 65101
Telephone: [phone]
Facsimile: 573-635-7414
[e-mail]
[e-mail]
[e-mail]
and

6

Edward D. Robertson, Jr., # 27183
Mary Doerhoff Winter, # 38328
BARTIMUS, FRICKLETON, ROBERTSON
& GORNY
715 Swifts Highway
Jefferson City, MO 65109
Telephone: [phone]
Facsimile: 573 659-4460
[e-mail]
[e-mail]

David T. Butsch, # 37539
James J. Simeri, #52506
BUTSCH SIMERI FIELDS LLC
231 S. Bemiston Ave., Ste. 260
Clayton, MO 63105
Telephone: [phone]
Facsimile: 314-863-5711
[e-mail]
[e-mail]

Randall O. Barnes, #39884
RANDALL O. BARNES & ASSOCIATES
219 East Dunklin Street, Suite A
Jefferson City, Missouri 65101
Telephone: [phone]
Facsimile: 573-635-6291
[e-mail]

Steven E. Dyer, #45397
LAW OFFICES OF STEVEN DYER
10850 Sunset Office Drive, Ste. 300
St. Louis, MO 63127
Telephone: [phone]
[e-mail]

ATTORNEYS FOR PLAINTIFFS

7

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I certify that on July 29, 2011, I served this document upon the following via this Court’s
ECF system:

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/Matthew A. Clement

8

_