Janson et al v. LegalZoom.com, Inc.

Filing 149

MOTION in limine Regarding History of the Regulation of the Practice of Law filed by Timothy W. Van Ronzelen on behalf of All Plaintiffs. Suggestions in opposition/response due by 8/19/2011 unless otherwise directed by the court. (Van Ronzelen, Timothy)

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 IN LIMINE REGARDING THE HISTORY OF THE
REGULATION OF THE PRACTICE OF LAW
Come now, Plaintiffs, by and through counsel, and for their Motion in Limine to exclude
any evidence regarding the History of the Regulation of the Practice of Law, states as follows:
I. Introduction
Legalzoom has suggested in its various Motions filed with this Court that it plans to
introduce testimony and perhaps documentation relating to the history of the regulation of the
practice of law. See, Report of Dean Powell, attached as Exhibit 11 to Legalzoom’s Motion for
Summary Judgment, Doc. 91. Dean Powell’s report traces the development of the regulation of
the practice of law from the pre-colonial period up to and through the present time. He also
offers a variety of opinions which are based in whole or part on his history of the regulation of
the practice of law that he has put together. See, Id.
The development and history of the regulation of the practice of law has no bearing in
this case on whether Legalzoom is complying with Missouri law. No element or facet of the law
or statute at issue has anything to do with anyone’s interpretation of the development of the
1

regulation of the practice of law. In addition, the introduction of such evidence would only serve
to confuse the jury about what law they should be applying and would waste valuable judicial
resources since the plaintiffs would have to explain through testimony and cross examination
that the history of the regulation of the practice of law is not found in anywhere in Missouri law
on the issues relevant to this case.
II. Argument
“Federal Rule of Evidence 402 provides that irrelevant evidence is inadmissible.” Wright
v. Ark. & Mo. R.R. Co., 2009 U.S. App. LEXIS 16719, *12 (8th Cir. July 29, 2009). “Evidence
is relevant if it has ‘any tendency to make the existence of any fact that is of consequence to the
determination of the action more probable or less probable than it would be without the
evidence.’” Id. at *12-13 (quoting Fed. R. Evid. 401). “A district court is given broad discretion
to determine the relevance of evidentiary matters.” Id. at 13.
Rule 403 of the Federal Rules of Evidence provides “[a]lthough relevant, evidence may
be excluded if its probative value is substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice,
confusion of the issues, or misleading the jury, or by considerations of undue delay, waste of
time, or needless presentation of cumulative evidence.” Fed.R.Evid. 403. “Confusion of the
issues warrants exclusion of relevant evidence if admission of the evidence would lead to
litigation of collateral issues.” Firemen's Fund Ins. Co. v. Thien, 63 F.3d 754 (8th Cir. 1995).
Rule 403 is concerned with unfair prejudice that has a undue tendency to suggest decision on an
improper basis. Probatter Sports, LLC v. Joyner Technologies, Inc., 2007 WL 3285799
(N.D.Iowa, October 18, 2007).
The history of the regulation of the practice of law from pre-colonial times to the present
could hardly be more “collateral” to the issues that are relevant in this case. Neither the jury nor

2

the Court requires a history lesson in the history of the regulation of the practice of law. If this
case involved a products liability claim, an expert in the history and development of products
liability law would clearly be irrelevant and improper. The same is the case here.
The only issues relevant to this case are whether Legalzoom is complying with Missouri
law as it exists today, not at any time prior. There is nothing about the history of the regulation
of the practice of law that makes any fact in issue more or less likely and the admission of such
evidence would only serve to confuse the jury and require the plaintiffs to spend hours trying to
undue the confusion this issue would inject into these proceedings. Therefore, the plaintiffs
respectfully request this Court enter an Order prohibiting Legalzoom or any of its witnesses from
testifying, or making any arguments, or introducing any documents which relate to the history of
the regulation of the practice of law.
Respectfully submitted,

____/s/Timothy VanRonzelen ____
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

3

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

4

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I certify that on August 2, 2011, I served this paper upon the following via this Court’s
ECF system:

Party

Counsel
Robert M. Thompson
James T. Wicks
Christopher C. Grenz
BRYAN CAVE LLP
One Kansas City Place
1200 Main Street, Ste. 3500
Kansas City, MO 64105
816.374.3200, 816.374.3300 (fax)

Defendant
LegalZoom.com, Inc.

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/ Timothy VanRonzelen

5

__