Insurance Coverage Blog

I've got a lot of catching up to do, but thanks to all those who e-mailed ideas for posts.  I'll work my way through those as time allows, but for now, let's look at Magistrate Judge Robert Walker's rulings on Friday in the Verdun-like battle of McIntosh v. State Farm. 

As you may recall, State Farm issued a number of discovery requests in this case last year when it noticed the depositions of Dickie and Zach Scruggs, and these depositions have been held up while various other things happened:

• Scruggs got indicted and pleaded guilty;
• Scruggs withdrew from the case and all other cases;
• the Katrina(less) Litigation Group, the rump successor to the Scruggs(less) Katrina Group, was disqualified from the case for ethics reasons:
• the Rigsby sisters were disqualified as witnesses for ethics reasons;
• the illicitly obtained State Farm documents were barred as evidence for ethics reasons, except where they had been obtained through lawful discovery; and
• the February trial date was postponed as totally impractical.   

Scruggs and the Rigsbys objected to this discovery, and in a series of rulings dating to December, including this one Friday, Walker has largely said these objections based on attorney-client privilege are bogus.    

Let's look at a paragraph from Judge Walker's ruling:

The Rigsbys appear to claim some protected interest in the State Farm documents they provided the Scruggses and law enforcement agencies. The Court has previously ruled that the Scruggses undertaking representation of the Rigsbys does not transform “everything [the Rigsbys] ... physically took from [Renfroe/State Farm] into privileged information...” Those documents are discoverable, and are not protected by attorney-client privilege or attorney work product. The Rigsbys attempt to be more specific in their objections to the subpoenas, but their opposition, like that of the McIntoshes, is essentially a broad claim that the subpoenas call for documents protected by privilege. As with the McIntoshes’ motion, the Court has simply not been presented sufficient information to hold that any particular document request infringes on any legitimate privilege. The Court is not omniscient and cannot bar discovery based on speculation that a request might lead to disclosure of privileged information. 

That is a remarkable position, isn't it? That the documents you illicitly take from someone are protected from discovery by that person?  Wow.  It's embarrassingly foolish, to put a word on it.  Lots of things are not covered by attorney-client privilege, including actions like taking documents and the documents themselves.  As said in the immortal Coen brothers movie The Big Lebowski, "This isn't Vietnam, there are rules." 

Let's look at something else, from Judge Walker's rulings on specific State Farm discovery requests. 

Request No. 23 seeks documents “picked up or otherwise retrieved by Richard Scruggs from a highly placed source at State Farm on a trip to Bloomington, Illinois, which Richard Scruggs referenced in a March 30, 2006 interview.” The Scruggses’ objection to this request is that it is “not reasonably calculated to lead to discoverable evidence” in the McIntosh case and that the documents are privileged “to the extent that they were provided by individuals who are clients or former clients of Messrs. Scruggs.” The Court has been provided nothing upon which to base a finding of privilege, and orders Richard Scruggs to produce the requested documents.

I don't recall this interview that is mentioned here.  What is this, a case of Scruggsian bombast and psychological warfare?  Who at Bloomington, the headquarters of State Farm, would have so lost any remaining impulses of self-preservation as to give documents to Scruggs?  No one, I suspect, but I guess we will find out, because the Court ordered Scruggs to turn over these documents.

As I said, I'll work my way through the stories that have piled up as I have time over the coming week, which will be another very busy one.  Catch you in the next post.

I think I'd have more respect for the lawyers asserting the "privileged" nature of the requested documents if, instead, they'd just said, "We really, really, really don't wanna give up the documents." After all, that's the true the basis for their objection, and the effect would have been pretty much the same. I can just imagine the plaintiffs' lawyers meeting on the courthouse steps before the hearing, flipping a coin to see who'd have to try and keep a straight face while arguing the merits of the privilege claims to the judge. Or maybe they just have some sort of rotation going, whereby when your name comes up, it's your turn to go to court and lose the motion of the day.

I suspect Dickie is going to have to admit that his "highly placed source at State Farm" was a lot like those bullets Hillary Clinton was dodging in Bosnia -- something he wished for, but never had.

Is anyone trying a wind/flood case? Haven't seen any results recently.

This is becoming a little like the Wizard of Oz where we have all been fooled by the smoke, mirrors, sounds, and yes, results for so long.....now it appears the curtain is being drawn back slowly and the light it shining in. Behind the screen we see a pitiful dwarf of a person with a mouth that would make an alligator proud. Over the noise, I can faintly hear the mumble, " you don't want to be on the wrong end of my lawsuit, you don't want to be...". Can you put lipstick on an alligator?

I bet Dickie and Co's response in the 15 days time frame will be that they don't have any of the documents that were ordered to be turned over. Some people may argue that he hasn't been all that truthful in the past, so what does he have to lose by claiming he has none of the documents in his possession? He probably can't use them for anything anyhow, and if he gets caught not being truthful, what does he lose? A few more months in the pokey? A civil fine? Anyone here thinks he is concerned about either of those considering what he currently faces from the Lackey bribery issues, not to mention other things lurking around the corner such as Wilson/Delaughter/Rico, etc?

Welcome back, David! You were MISSED!!!!

Trailer Lawyers DQ'd.

http://yallpolitics.com/index.php/yp/post/8278/

So "look me in the eyes" isn't going to happen for the KC lawyers. Isn't there a song about Don't You Make my Brown Eyes Blue?

And then there's "Lyin' Eyes" by the Eagles.

Beau, I agree with you to a point.... keep in mind all of the ordered, written discovery is to be produced before Dickie's deposition. He certainly has made some statements previously that will be questioned, particularly if he does a Sgt. Schultz routine by stating "I know nothink". My bet is Duckie might realize he's "got some explainin' to do" in the words of Desi Arnez. The little general can't swoop in and claim "confidential informant".... Duck doesn't have a saber left to rattle-he lost it several battles back. All that is there is a grotesque, malformed, little body with that huge alligator mouth sporting just the right amount of bright red lipstick. And we thought the pig was funny!

From an article in the Chigago Tribune re: Judge Senter's disqualification order:

"Anthony DeWitt, of the Jefferson City firm, said he and his colleagues are likely to appeal Senter's ruling.

"The judge is wrong," he said. "We're going to exercise every option available to get this judge to recognize the error he's made."

My guess is State Farm might file an appellate brief too since Judge Senter did not address all of the issues they raised (i.e. trailer lawyer's sworn admission that they assisted in the removal of Snake Farm's info onto their "thumb drive" which was transferred to their computer system. We should have an interesting and hot summer!!!!

TV, cable, network, whatever, wishes they could write a story as good as this.

The only story better than this begins 44 days from today: Sisters v. State Farm, Pro Se! Cori and Kerri cross-examining witnesses! Mama Lobrano on the front row, organizing the files!

I am the only one who has noticed that Belle is right? If you look carefully at all the recent bylines on wire stories, they say Assssssssociated Presssssssss. Sibilant "s", Ssssssnake Farm, coincidence? I think not.

I did notice in the Anita Lee story now State Farm is claiming they have settled "some" cases. A far cry from a dozen, 13, or 14. Never did find those. Did anybody else?

Now this is from Snake Farm media outlet, the Asssssssociated Pressssss, but the source are court filings, not Snake Farm, according to the story. So, Belle, why don't you do the research your so "famous" for.

http://www.djournal.com/pages/story.asp?ID=273119&pub=1&div=News

"At least 13 homeowners were representing themselves, without an attorney, when they agreed to settle their suits for undisclosed terms, Thursday's court filings show."

Hey Xerac, there ain't no court filings. If you can me one other than the Arnolds then bring it here.

So, Belle, you're saying the AP is lieing? You keep saying there are no court filings but you have yet to offer any proof of this. I've offered proof that there have been filings. I would like to see your proof. If you have none then you are making an unsubstantiated statement.

BS, think about it a little bit. If the plaintiffs didn't hire new attorneys yet, and settled direct with SF, what court filings would there possibly be on those cases??? As per Senter's order the plaintiffs have 45 days to hire new counsel to represent them, and if they do so there would have to be a substitution of counsel filed. If they settle direct with SF, not a thing needs to be filed and the case will be dismissed automatically. I would venture to guess that once all payments are made on these cases and releases are completed, SF will file an order for dismissal with prejudice just to finally wrap it up as I was thinking that after the 45 day time frame they were going to be dismissed without prejudice.

Xerac, ask Rossmiller -- he has Pacer. I have Pacer and there are no motions to dismiss in Shows or McIntosh other than the Arnolds. I can't post links here. Just ask Rossmiller to find them for you, then maybe you'd believe me.

Belle, perhaps you can copy the address into your post, just like jdberry and myself have done in previous posts in this thread. I can then copy and paste the address into my address bar. And, yes, I will be much more likely to believe you.