Janson et al v. LegalZoom.com, Inc.

Filing 152

MOTION in limine Regarding Computer Software or Publications of Legal Forms 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 COMPUTER SOFTWARE OR
PUBLICATIONS OF LEGAL FORMS
Come now, Plaintiffs, by and through counsel, and for their Motion in Limine to exclude
any evidence of other Computer Software or Publications of Legal Forms, state as follows:
I. Introduction
Plaintiffs have reason to believe that Legalzoom.com (hereinafter “Legalzoom”) will
attempt to introduce evidence of various computer software programs and other legal form books
or websites and compare those to what Legalzoom does. These computer programs or form
books do not do anything similar to what Legalzoom does. Further, even if they did provide
similar services to what Legalzoom offers, such evidence does make what Legalzoom does legal.
The defense Legalzoom wishes to assert either implicitly or explicitly is that everyone else is
doing it, so it must be fine. These other software programs or form providers do not provide any
competent evidence in this case about what Legalzoom does. In addition, pursuant to Rule 403
the introduction of such evidence will only serve to confuse and mislead the jury and inject
collateral issues which will take up significant amounts of trial time. Accordingly, Plaintiffs
1

respectfully request that the Court enter an Order prohibiting Legalzoom from attempting to
introduce or make any arguments comparing their service to other computer programs or
publications.
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).
There is no question that Legalzoom wishes to compare what it does through its website
to other computer programs or publications. For example, in Legalzoom’s Motion for Summary
Judgment it attached various computer software programs that individuals could buy to make
their own will and a variety of other form documents and websites. See, Legalzoom’s Motion

2

for Summary Judgment, paragraphs 67, 68, 69, 70, 71, 72, 73, 74, and 75. Other legal software
or websites or forms are simply not relevant in this case. Those services are different than what
Legalzoom does and would not assist the jury in deciding the issues in this case. Furthermore,
what other websites or publications do may well violate Missouri law regarding the unauthorized
practice of law. However, those programs or publications are not at issue here and they have no
place being discussed in this case.
In addition, introduction of other computer programs or publications into evidence will
only lead the jury and the parties down a path that will call for the exploration of the various
differences between the computer programs and/or form books that Legalzoom might wish to
introduce. None of these various software programs, web sites or forms are it issue in this case
and comparing what Legalzoom does to what they do is improper, since there is no way for the
Plaintiffs to cross examine a computer program or a form book to explain the various
differences. For example, Legalzoom has a human being examine every legal document that it
prepares and sends out. No other website or form book does this. However, unless there was a
witness to testify about that website or form book there will be no way for Plaintiffs to explain
this significant difference to the jury; among others. Because no witness is competent to testify
regarding the foundational requirements of these other programs or form providers has been
disclosed, they will not be admissible in evidence.
Further, Federal Rule of Evidence 403 allows relevant evidence to be excluded if the
probative value of the evidence is greatly outweighed by the prejudicial impact of the evidence.
To the extent there is some evidentiary value with what other websites or publications do, it is
greatly outweighed by its prejudicial impact in this case. For every comparison that Legalzoom
wishes to make to other computer programs or form books, the Plaintiffs will have to find a way

3

to explain to the jury the various differences between Legalzoom and whatever they are
comparing themselves too. In addition, it will be virtually impossible for Plaintiffs to explain the
various differences between Legalzoom and whatever other program or book it compares itself
too since there may not be a witness available to testify about whatever product they might
discuss.
The bottom line is that the only issue in this case is whether what Legalzoom does
violates Missouri law. Whether other websites or publications violate Missouri law is not
relevant to this dispute. The comparison to other websites or publications will only confuse the
jury and prejudice the Plaintiffs without providing any relevant evidence to the jury. Therefore,
Plaintiffs respectfully request this Court issue an Order prohibiting Legalzoom from introducing
any evidence or making any arguments related to other websites or publications that provide
various levels of legal documents to consumers.
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

4

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

5

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

6

__