Janson et al v. LegalZoom.com, Inc.
Filing
159
MOTION in limine to exclude any evidence or argument of the availability of legal forms or computer software in Missouri filed by David T. Butsch on behalf of All Plaintiffs. Suggestions in opposition/response due by 8/19/2011 unless otherwise directed by the court. (Butsch, David)
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 TO EXCLUDE EVIDENCE OR ARGUMENT OF
AVAILABILITY OF LEGAL FORMS OR COMPUTER SOFTWARE IN MISSOURI
Come now Plaintiffs, by and through counsel, and for their Motion in Limine to exclude
any evidence or argument of the availability of legal forms or computer software in Missouri,
state as follows:
Plaintiffs anticipate, based on arguments asserted by LegalZoom in their summary
judgment papers, that LegalZoom will attempt to introduce evidence or argument before the jury
as to the availability of legal forms in Missouri, such as those available through the Missouri
Supreme Court or the Missouri Bar. Plaintiffs also expect that LegalZoom will suggest to the
jury that there is computer software available for purchase by the public for the preparation of
legal forms. LegalZoom’s argument is that because such forms and software are lawful,
LegalZoom’s actions are lawful as well. Such evidence or argument should be excluded because
“[e]vidence which is not relevant is not admissible.” Fed. R. Evid. 402. Furthermore, such
evidence would mislead and confuse the jury.
Whether legal forms or computer software for the preparation of forms is available to
Missouri residents has no bearing on the factual issues to be presented to the jury. The statutory
underpinning of plaintiffs’ cause of action is Section 484.020.1 RSMo, which prohibits “the
drawing” or “assisting in the drawing for a valuable consideration” of “any paper, document or
instrument affecting or relating to secular rights.” Thus, the factual question for the jury to
decide is whether LegalZoom participated in or assisted in the drawing of legal documents.
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 and LegalZoom’s products. However, LegalZoom has not identified any witnesses to
testify about software or form books. Because no witness competent to testify regarding the
foundational requirements of these software programs or form providers has been disclosed, they
will not be admissible in evidence.
“’Relevant evidence’ means evidence having 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.” Fed. R. Evid. 401. “Evidence which is not relevant is not
admissible.” Fed. R. Evid. 402. “A defendant has no right to offer and a jury has no right to
hear inadmissible evidence.” U.S. v. Ceballos, 593 F. Supp. 2d 1054, 1059 (S.D. Iowa 2009).
The availability of legal forms or software in Missouri has no bearing whatsoever on the factual
determination to be made by the jury concerning whether LegalZoom violated Section 484.020.1
RSMo.
This court has broad discretion in determining the admissibility of evidence, Fortune
Funding, LLC v. Ceridian Corp., 368 F.3d 985, 990 (8th Cir. 2004), and should exercise its
discretion to exclude evidence or argument concerning the availability of legal forms or
2
computer software for legal documents in Missouri.
Edward D. Robertson, Jr., # 27183
Mary Doerhoff Winter, # 38328
BARTIMUS, FRICKLETON,
ROBERTSON & GORNY
715 Swifts Highway
Jefferson City, MO 65109
573.659.4454, 573.659.4460 (fax)
chiprob@earthlink.net,
marywinter@earthlink.net
/s/ David T. Butsch
David T. Butsch, # 37539
James J. Simeri, #52506
BUTSCH SIMERI FIELDS LLC
231 S. Bemiston Ave., Ste. 260
Clayton, MO 63105
314.863.5700, 314.863.5711 (fax)
butsch@bsflawfirm.com
simeri@bsflawfirm.com
Timothy Van Ronzelen, #44382
Matthew A. Clement, #43833
Kari A. Schulte, #57739
COOK, VETTER, DOERHOFF &
LANDWEHR, PC
231 Madison
Jefferson City, Missouri 65101
573.635.7977, 573.635.7414 (fax)
tvanronzelen@cvdl.net
mclement@cvdl.net
kschulte@cvdl.net
Randall O. Barnes, #39884
RANDALL O. BARNES & ASSOCIATES
219 East Dunklin Street, Suite A
Jefferson City, Missouri 65101
573.634.8884, 573.635.6291 (fax)
rbarnesjclaw@aol.com
Steven E. Dyer, #45397
LAW OFFICES OF STEVEN DYER
10850 Sunset Office Drive, Ste. 300
St. Louis, MO 63127
314.898.6715
jdcpamba@gmail.com
Attorneys for Plaintiffs
3
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I certify that on August 2, 2011, I filed the foregoing with the Clerk of the Court using
the CM/ECF system. The system sent notification of this filing to the following:
Party
Counsel
Robert M. Thompson
James T. Wicks
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/ David T. Butsch
4
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?