Janson et al v. LegalZoom.com, Inc.

Filing 185

SUGGESTIONS in opposition re 155 MOTION in limine Regarding Any Evidence That LegalZoom Makes Legal Documents Available for Low and Middle Income Americans filed by James T. Wicks on behalf of Defendant LegalZoom.com, Inc.. Reply suggestions due by 8/26/2011 unless otherwise directed by the court (Related document(s) 155 ) (Wicks, James)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI
CENTRAL DIVISION
TODD JANSON, GERALD T. ARDREY, CHAD M.
FERRELL, and C & J REMODELING LLC, on behalf of
themselves and on behalf of all others similarly situated,
Plaintiffs,
Case No. 2:10-cv-04018-NKL
v.
LEGALZOOM.COM, INC.,
Defendant.

SUGGESTIONS IN OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFFS’
MOTION IN LIMINE (DOC. NO. 155) REGARDING ANY EVIDENCE
THAT LEGALZOOM.COM MAKES LEGAL DOCUMENTS AVAILABLE
FOR LOW AND MIDDLE INCOME AMERICANS
Defendant LegalZoom.com, Inc. (“LegalZoom”), for its Suggestions in Opposition to
Plaintiffs’ Motion in Limine Regarding Any Evidence That Legalzoom.com Makes Legal
Documents Available for Low and Middle Income Americans (“Motion 155,” Doc. 155), states
as follows:
LegalZoom is entitled to present a complete picture of its business model to the jury.
Part of this model is LegalZoom’s commitment to providing low-cost legal document services,
including to underserved segments of the population. The jury is entitled to understand the full
context of LegalZoom’s business. Forcing LegalZoom to provide an incomplete picture of its
business will be prejudicial because, in order to determine whether LegalZoom is engaged in the
unauthorized practice of law, the jury must understand LegalZoom, its business model, and the
products that it sells. Additionally, without all of the evidence, the jury may make unfair
assumptions about LegalZoom’s business and the quality of its products.

KC01DOCS\1046201.2

As Plaintiffs acknowledge, the Court has broad discretion in determining the
admissibility of evidence. See United States v. Levine, 477 F.3d 596, 603 (8th Cir. 2007).
However, the Federal Rules of Evidence favor admissibility. See Levine, 477 F.3d at 603. The
general rule under Rule 403 is that balance should be struck in favor of admission. Id.; Block v.
R.H. Macy & Co., 712 F.2d 1241, 1244 (8th Cir. 1983).
As noted by the Court in Luce v. United States, 469 U.S. 38, 41 (1984), “[a] reviewing
court is handicapped in any effort to rule on subtle evidentiary questions outside a factual
context.” For this reason, while motions in limine are widely used, many courts have expressed
skepticism when faced with broadly drawn motions in limine. See Sperberg v. Goodyear Tire &
Rubber Co., 519 F.2d 708, 712 (6th Cir.) (“Orders in limine which exclude broad categories of
evidence should rarely be employed.

A better practice is to deal with questions of

admissibility . . . as they arise.”), cert. denied, 423 U.S. 987 (1975); Insignia Sys. Inc. v. News
Am. Mktg. In-Store, Inc., No. 04-4213, 2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 10740, at *12 (D. Minn. Feb. 3,
2011) (same); Landers v. Nat’l R.R. Passenger Corp., No. 00-2233, 2002 U.S. Dist. LEXIS
7851, at *7-8 (D. Minn. April 26, 2002) (same); EEOC v. Fargo Assembly Co., 142 F. Supp. 2d
1160, 1161 (D.N.D. 2000) (same).
While it is true that the court may exclude evidence that confuses the issues and leads to
litigation of collateral issues, Firemen’s Fund Insurance Co. v. Thien, 63 F.3d 754, 758 (8th Cir.
1995), Plaintiffs provide no explanation why evidence of LegalZoom’s customer base would be
litigation of collateral issues. In Thien, the court did not allow a party to submit evidence related
to liability in the accident when the sole issue in the case was whether there was insurance
coverage. Id. at 759. In this case, the primary issue in the case is whether LegalZoom engaged
in the unauthorized practice of law. Evidence of the customer base is directly relevant to the

2
KC01DOCS\1046201.2

issues in this case because, in order for the jury to decide this issue, LegalZoom must be able to
provide a full and complete picture of its business.
Further, Plaintiffs fail to establish that any prejudice would result or that presentation of
the evidence of LegalZoom’s customer base would waste the jury’s or the Court’s time.
Plaintiffs must describe with sufficient particularity why the court should exclude evidence of
the customer base. Probatter Sports, LLC v. Joyner Techs., Inc., No. 05-CV-2045-LRR, 2007
WL 3285799, at *5, *9 (N.D. Iowa Oct. 18, 2007). In this case, Plaintiffs fail to describe with
sufficient particularity why admitting evidence regarding LegalZoom’s customer base would be
unfairly prejudicial. The jury should be permitted to consider this evidence.
CONCLUSION
For the reasons set forth above, LegalZoom respectfully requests that the Court deny
Plaintiffs’ Motion in Limine Regarding Any Evidence That Legalzoom.com Makes Legal
Documents Available for Low and Middle Income Americans.

3
KC01DOCS\1046201.2

Respectfully submitted,
BRYAN CAVE LLP
By: s/ James T. Wicks
Robert M. Thompson
MO #38156
James T. Wicks
MO #60409
Christopher C. Grenz
MO #62914
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
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 August 9, 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

4
KC01DOCS\1046201.2