Janson et al v. LegalZoom.com, Inc.

Filing 155

MOTION in limine Regarding Any Evidence That LegalZoom Makes Legal Documents Available for Low and Middle Income Americans 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 ANY EVIDENCE THAT
LEGALZOOM.COM MAKES LEGAL DOCUMENTS AVAILABLE FOR LOW AND
MIDDLE INCOME AMERICANS
Come now, Plaintiffs, by and through counsel, and for their Motion in Limine to exclude
any evidence that Legalzoom.com (hereinafter “Legalzoom”) Makes Legal Documents Available
for Low and Middle Income Americans, state as follows:
I. Introduction
Legalzoom has suggested through some of its witnesses that it’s document preparation
service is beneficial since it provides legal documents to low and middle income Americans.
Since this case involves allegations of Legalzoom’s noncompliance with Missouri law through
its preparation of legal documents; who it prepares those legal documents for is not relevant. In
addition, the introduction of such evidence would clearly be done in an effort to suggest to the
jury that since low and middle income Americans are allegedly benefitted from their service that
its business should be deemed in compliance with Missouri law. Pursuant to Federal Rule of
Evidence 403, the introduction of such evidence should be prohibited since it would suggest to

1

the jury a reason to decide the case based on something other than the evidence and the law.
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 which is evidence that has an 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).
Who buys the legal documents prepared by Legalzoom has no bearing on whether it is
engaged in the unauthorized practice of law or Missouri law. Accordingly, who purchases the
legal documents prepared by Legalzoom is simply not relevant. In addition, to the extent the
economic status of the purchasers of the legal documents from Legalzoom was relevant, such
evidence should be excluded under Federal Rule of Evidence 403. A jury may decide that this
portion of the population is underserved by the legal community and, therefore, since, according

2

to Legalzoom, it provides legal documents to this group of citizens, the jury should allow it to
continue. This would suggest that the jury render a decision in this case based on improper basis
that is unrelated to the legal issues in this case. Accordingly, Plaintiffs respectfully request the
Court enter an Order prohibiting Legalzoom from discussing or arguing in any way that its
business serves or caters to a certain economic clientele or portion of society.

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

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]

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]
3

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
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

4

__