Janson et al v. LegalZoom.com, Inc.
Filing
141
OBJECTIONS (non motions) by LegalZoom.com, Inc. re 137 DESIGNATION Defendant's Objections and Counter-Designations to Plaintiffs' Designation of Deposition Testimony. Related document: 137 DESIGNATION filed by Gerald T. Ardrey, Chad M Ferrell, Todd Janson, C & J Remodeling LLC.(Wicks, James)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI
CENTRAL DIVISION
TODD JANSON, et al.,
Plaintiffs,
v.
LEGALZOOM.COM, INC.
Defendant.
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
Case No. 10-04018-CV-C-NKL
DEFENDANT LEGALZOOM.COM, INC.’S
OBJECTIONS AND COUNTER-DESIGNATIONS TO
PLAINTIFFS’ DESIGNATION OF DEPOSITION TESTIMONY
Defendant LegalZoom.com, Inc. (“LegalZoom”) hereby asserts its objections and
counter-designations to the Plaintiffs’ designation of deposition testimony.
Counter-Designations
LegalZoom’s counter-designations are offered to preserve to LegalZoom the right to
offer the testimony at trial; however, by counter-designating this testimony, LegalZoom is not at
this time offering the testimony as evidence in this case, nor is it agreeing that the testimony is
admissible at trial. LegalZoom reserves the right to object to the admission of this, or any,
proffered testimony at trial. Plaintiffs have designated portions of the transcript that include
objections and counsel dialogue. Given the lack of clarity in designations, LegalZoom will seek
more specific designations before the transcript is read into evidence.
General Objections
LegalZoom preserves and incorporates herein its objections as set forth in the respective
deposition passages.
designations.
C072748/0306506/1044712.2
LegalZoom submits the following specific objections and counter-
Deposition of Jennifer Loo
Plaintiffs’ Designations
LegalZoom’s Objections
06:1-06:12
LegalZoom’s
Counter-Designations
7:6-7:19
10:11-10:22
11:23-11:25
12:3-12:23
13:10-13:25
15:4-15:8
14:19-15:3
15:14-17:6
17:9-19:25
20:10-21:25
22:1-22:25
23:1-23:25
24:1-24:25
25:1-26:25
27:1-27:25
28:1-28:25
29:1-29:25
30:1-32:25
33:1-33:25
34:1-34:25
35:1-35:25
36:1-37:25
38:1-38:18
39:1-42:25
43:1-45:2
45:8-48:25
49:1-49:25
50:1-50:25
51:1-51:25
2
C072748/0306506/1044712.2
52:1-52:25
53:1-53:25
54:1-54:25
55:1-55:25
56:1-56:25
57:21-58:25
59:1-59:25
60:1-60:25
61:1-62:13
63:19-64:17
Deposition of Adam Thomas
Plaintiffs’ Designations
LegalZoom’s Objections
LegalZoom’s
Counter-Designations
07:1-07:10
13:8-13:20
15:10-17:12
12:24-13:7; 13:21-15:2
Relevance (15:19-17:1)
18:16-22:4
22:15-27:11
27:12-19; 28:10-17
30:12-32:10
32:25-34:7
34:8-34:18
35:8-37:25
Relevance (37:3-25)
(LegalZoom has been
granted summary judgment
on claims against patent
and trademark products)
39:2-40:8
Relevance
41:19-42:2
Relevance; legal
conclusion
42:16-44:13
Relevance (all); legal
conclusion (42:16-20
44:16-45:10
Relevance
45:13-46:25
Relevance
47:1-54:17
Relevance
3
C072748/0306506/1044712.2
54:23-59:17
Relevance
60:9-60:21
Relevance
61:8-62:25
Relevance
63:1-63:25
Relevance
64:1-64:25
Relevance
65:1-65:25
Relevance
66:1-67:9
Relevance
67:19-67:25
Relevance
68:1-68:25
Relevance
69:1-70:25
Relevance
71:16-71:25
Relevance
72:1-72:25
Relevance
73:1-73:25
Relevance
74:1-74:25
Relevance
75:1-80:25
Relevance
81:1-82:25
Relevance
83:1-83:25
Relevance
84:1-84:25
Relevance
85:1-85:25
Relevance
86:1-87:22
Relevance
88:1-88:25
Relevance
89:1-89:25
Relevance
90:1-91:16
Relevance
71:1-71:15
87:23-87:24
Deposition of Brian P. Y. Liu
Plaintiffs’ Designations
LegalZoom’s Objections
07:7-07:20
09:7-11:8
11:18-12:20
14:16-14:17
4
C072748/0306506/1044712.2
LegalZoom’s
Counter-Designations
16:3-17:25
Relevance (LegalZoom has
been granted summary
judgment on claims against
patent and trademark
products
18:1-32:25
Relevance (18:1-23:21;
24:9-31:13; 31:14-32:25);
Legal conclusion (30:731:13)
33:1-34:19
Vague and ambiguous
(34:14-19)
35:1-35:16
Vague and ambiguous
(35:1-7)
36:5-39:15
Relevance
45:20-58:25
Relevance (49:25-56:1;
58:19-25)
59:1-63:11
Relevance
73:7-73:15
73:23-76:4
77:20-80:3
80:14-86:11
86:25-89:1
90:9-100:20
Compound (95:16-96:1),
Argumentative, Prejudice,
improper comment (99:15100:4)
102:5-102:15
103:19-105:8
Relevance, Prejudice,
Confusing and Misleading
(103:19-104:23)
(LegalZoom’s
advertisements are
irrelevant to determining
how the LegalZoom
website actually operates,
are prejudicial, and may
confuse and mislead the
jury)
105:20-106:1
5
C072748/0306506/1044712.2
106:15-106:25
Relevance, Prejudice,
Confusing and Misleading
108:6-109:4
Errata Page (108:13)
109:7-109:15
109:22-109:23
Relevance, Prejudice,
Confusing and Misleading;
Compound; Legal
Conclusion
110:1-110:11
Relevance, Prejudice,
Confusing and Misleading
112:11-112:22
Relevance, Prejudice,
Confusing and Misleading
113:8-120:12
Relevance, Prejudice,
Confusing and Misleading;
Vague and ambiguous
(120:8-18)
120:15-121:16
Outside the scope of
notice, argumentative
(121:11-16)
121:21-121:25
Lack of foundation
122:4-122:5
Lack of foundation
122:8-122:16
Lack of foundation
123:9-123:20
Relevance, Prejudice,
Confusing and Misleading
124:5-124:16
Relevance, Prejudice,
Confusing and Misleading
125:5-126:16
Relevance, Prejudice,
Confusing and Misleading
127:15-128:2
Relevance, Prejudice,
Confusing and Misleading
128:17-130:19
131:1-135:9
135:20-136:5
138:24-140:22
Relevance, Prejudice,
Confusing and Misleading
141:9-141:12
Relevance, improper
designation of attorney
colloquy
6
C072748/0306506/1044712.2
142:11-145:16
146:1-147:18
Relevance, Prejudice,
Confusing and Misleading
148:8-152:20
Relevance, Prejudice,
Confusing and Misleading
(148:25-152:20)
153:4-154:4
154:8-157:9
Relevance, Prejudice,
Confusing and Misleading
(all); Vague and
ambiguous (154:2-15);
mischaracterization, lack
of foundation (155:22156:1);
mischaracterization, lack
of foundation, asked and
answered, argumentative
(156:18:22)
178:25-179:21
158:4-158:6
158:10-158:22
159:1-159:9
159:13-159:14
159:17-160:2
Relevance, Prejudice,
Confusing and Misleading
(all); vague and
ambiguous, lack of
foundation, asked and
answered
178:25-179:21
160:20-160:23
161:4-166:10
166:20-171:8
Relevance, Prejudice,
Confusing and Misleading;
improper designation of
attorney colloquy
(170:18:23)
174:17-178:8
Relevance, Prejudice,
Confusing and Misleading
Deposition of Jake Varghese
7:21-8:4
LegalZoom’s
Counter-Designations
7:10-7:20
9:12-10:14
10:15-12:6
Plaintiffs’ Designations
LegalZoom’s Objections
13:3-14:5
14:12-15:14
17:16-21:15
15:20-17:15; 21:16-22:16
7
C072748/0306506/1044712.2
22:17-23:11
23:18-23:25
26:13-27:4
27:19-29:10
31:5-33:11
Lack of foundation
30:9-31:4
33:17-39:15
39:23-40:4
41:20-43:14
44:13-44:25
45:6-45:22
45:1-45:5
46:7-46:12
46:19-46:25
47:12-47:22
48:9-48:6
48:21-48:23
49:1-49:3
49:7-49:25
50:7-50:12
50:19-50:20
50:24-51:4
52:23-52:25
53:10-57:24
59:12-60:4
60:10-61:20
62:8-66:2
66:16-73:12
73:18-75:23
75:24-76:8
77:8-84:8
85:18-90:3
90:7-92:6
92:10-92:13
92:14-92:18
8
C072748/0306506/1044712.2
93:10-93:17
93:18-94:2
94:3-95:21
96:13-96:22
97:1-100:5
100:14-102:12
102:13-102:23
102:24-103:13
105:18-110:10
110:11-111:25
112:1-112:17
112:20-113:16
113:24-117:11
117:15-129:13
132:15-134:6
135:2-138:13
130:13-132:14; 134:7-135:1
Deposition of Nelly Jacobo
Plaintiffs’ Designations
LegalZoom’s Objections
9:24-10:15
12:15-13:8
LegalZoom’s
Counter-Designations
10:19-13:8
14:1-14:5
15:1-15:5
15:16-16:4
16:23-16:25
17:1-17:10
78:12-79:2
17:14-18:4
18:5-18:18
19:6-20:10
21:5-22:15
26:16-26:15
27:2-30:4
30:11-16
30:19-25
31:1-33:1
33:8-33:23
9
C072748/0306506/1044712.2
34:15-22
35:5-35:17
35:21-36:10
35:18-20; 36:11-14
36:20-40:16
40:19-41:6
41:13-42:8
Legal conclusion
42:20-55:14
55:15-25
56:1-56:15
56:16-25
57:1-58:3
58:8-58:22
59:7-60:8
60:24-61:11
62:11-64:16
64:24-66:16
66:20-67:19
67:21-69:9
69:18-72:5
72:8-72:9
72:12-20
73:2-74:5
74:15-18
75:11-76:11
76:14-78:7
78:12-79:2
Deposition of Edward R. Hartman (8/3/10)
Plaintiffs’ Designations
LegalZoom’s Objections
LegalZoom’s
Counter-Designations
7:6-8:5
10:9-11:20
15:2-16:8
16:18-19:6
Errata Page (17:10)
22:2-22:7
23:1-23:20
25:1-25:12
10
C072748/0306506/1044712.2
26:23-27:1
28:18-28:21
30:5-31:23
35:11-36:19
37:13-38:5
38:14-38:17
39:3-39:4
Attorney-client privilege;
legal conclusion
40:17-40:23
41:6-42:4
52:3-61:22
61:23-65:15
70:25-74:17
75:3-75:8
75:15-76:6
78:17-79:15
Vague and ambiguous;
mischaracterizes
testimony; no answer
designated (79:11-15)
80:8-80:16
81:6-82:5
83:5-84:3
84:9-88:5
Relevance; no question
designated (84:9-10)
88:25-89:3
Relevance
90:16-90:25
Relevance
92:10-93:9
Relevance
93:18-95:15
Relevance (93:18-95:1)
89:8-90:13
93:10-93:17
98:16-99:17
114:13-115:21
Asked and answered
(115:15-116:3)
115:24-116:18
121:5-121:16
Vague and Ambiguous
(121:10-16)
122:9-123:11
124:4-124:8
11
C072748/0306506/1044712.2
121:25-122:2
127:18-128:18
129:20-130:5
130:6-131:11
132:14-132:19
138:19-138:21
140:17-141:23
149:3-150:18
Lack of foundation: vague
and ambiguous;
mischaracterizes
testimony; no answer
designated
155:2-156:9
Deposition of Edward R. Hartman (2/16/11)
Plaintiffs’ Designations
LegalZoom’s Objections
7:8-7:9
7:22-8:10
13:4-14:10
34:18-36:10
50:2-55:2
12
C072748/0306506/1044712.2
LegalZoom’s
Counter-Designations
For the foregoing reasons, Defendant LegalZoom.com, Inc. requests the Plaintiffs’
designations be stricken in part and/or counter-designations of LegalZoom’s be presented.
Respectfully submitted,
BRYAN CAVE LLP
By: s/ James T. Wicks
Robert M. Thompson
MO #38156
James T. Wicks
MO #60409
One Kansas City Place
1200 Main Street, Suite 3500
Kansas City, MO 64105
Tel.: (816) 374-3200
Fax: (816) 374-3300
John Michael Clear
MO #25834
Michael G. Biggers
MO #24694
James R. Wyrsch
MO #53197
One Metropolitan Square – Suite 3600
211 North Broadway
St. Louis, MO 63102
Tel.: (314) 259-2000
Fax: (314) 259-2020
Attorneys for LegalZoom.com, Inc.
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I hereby certify that on July 29, 2011, I electronically filed the above and foregoing with
the clerk of court using the CM/ECF system, which will send notice of electronic filing to all
counsel of record.
s/ James T. Wicks
13
C072748/0306506/1044712.2
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?