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.: [phone]
Fax: [phone]
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.: [phone]
Fax: [phone]
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