Insurance Coverage Blog

The latest filings in the McIntosh case's latest flare-up over discovery issues includes this interesting question posed in State Farm's brief in response to Dickie and Zach Scruggs' objections to Judge Walker's order compelling production of certain documents:

Yet continuing their quest not to produce any documents, despite the substantial reduction in their scope, the Scruggses have filed another objection with this Court, thus causing one to wonder: What information could possibly be contained in those documents that the Scruggses so desperately want to keep from ever seeing the light of day?

The briefing for discovery fights in cases involving Scruggs and the former Scruggs Katrina Group provides some of the best details available as to Scruggs' methods of conducting litigation.  For example, read this passage from the same State Farm brief: 

Laboring under the misimpression that Judge Walker was required to address each and every ground asserted by the Scruggses – and, by extension, the Rigsbys and the Plaintiffs – they complain that Judge Walker did not address their argument that the subpoena implicates their Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination. See Doc. 1201 at 8. Incredibly, the Scruggses go so far as to suggest that “[t]hese objections are even more compelling now in light of the Scruggses’ guilty pleas in the criminal matter pending in the Northern District, for which they still await sentencing.” Id. (emphasis added). Having already confessed guilt, it is difficult to comprehend how the mere production of documents in an unrelated civil matter somehow increases the risk that they will incriminate themselves. That they have already done – in open court.

The Scruggses’ speculation that producing the documents “may” subject them to some undefined outcome in the civil case pending before Judge Acker in Alabama or a more severe sentence in the Northern District for their roles in the bribery of a judge – as if that offense, which strikes at the heart of the judicial system, does not already carry a stiff penalty – does not demonstrate that Judge Walker’s ruling was clearly erroneous or contrary to law.

Yet one need not read too far between the lines to recognize the apparent subtext. Scruggs has already came perilously close to a contempt citation for failing to follow the Order of Chief Judge Mills in the Northern District of Mississippi, which denied Scruggs’ motion to quash State Farm’s subpoena for his deposition in State Farm v. Hood, No. 2:07-cv-188-DCB-MTP (S.D. Miss.). Judge Mills found that despite the fact that “the court’s intent [in its order] … should have been clear to all parties,” Scruggs “appears to have used” certain language in the order “for tactical purposes, to limit” State Farm’s rights – conduct which Judge Mills ruled “is clearly unacceptable, and the court will not tolerate any further attempts to violate its … order,” and that “[a]ny future non-compliance… will be dealt with as contempt.” See State Farm v. Hood, No. 3:08-cv-00012-MPM (N.D.Miss. Feb. 4, 2008) (Doc. 18); McIntosh Docs. 1131, 1131-2.

Sham consultant arrangements with the Rigsbys, discussions with material witness Brian Ford about a consultant agreement, "whistleblowers" illicitly taking records, playing keep away with documents with the assistance of state law enforcement officials, dubious assertions of attorney-client privilege to prevent question at depositions, all of these things happened, and more, during Katrina litigation.  I wonder what the answer is to the question posed above -- what might be in the documents requested? For instance, what would be revealed in the production of documents as to the identity of the supposed source in Bloomington feeding State Farm information to Scruggs? That there wasn't one?  Maybe.  Time will tell the story. 

Incidentally, here's a letter to Judge Walker from counsel for E.A. Renfroe, the Rigsby sisters' ex-employer, about these discovery disputes. 

I wonder if those same people who want to know what is in the rest of the Rigsby sister's depositions are just as curious about what is in those documents Scruggs is trying to keep from being public? Or is it only a matter of not caring about justice for all but instead only wanting to see "evil Snake Farm" go down? What if those documents that Scruggs doesn't want to see the light of day actually exonerate State Farm from any wrongdoing? Now wouldn't that be something.

Makes you wonder, doesn't it?

Maybe they should have thought about this before they got Scruggs et al. and the Rigsbys and the documents all disqualified, uh?

Belle, it seems to me that they are trying to obtain documents through the proper method of discovery, as opposed to stealing.

Belle, weren't you curious as to what was in the depositions of the Rigsby sisters? If so, in the interest of truth and justice, aren't you also interested what is in those documents?

Thought about what, Belle? That Scruggs may know how to lie, cheat, steal and manipulate the system, but he sure doesn't know how to try a case (unless he can bribe the judge--whoops, put that in the lie, cheat, et al category)? The fact Scruggs and the sistas are disqualified just means they're third parties to the suit, not that they don't have to comply with subpoenas. Who knows, maybe there are no documents, just the imaginary brainchild of a gas bag, not unlike Saddam's WMDs. Or maybe the documents are damning evidence of the bumbling representation of his clients and could be used in a few hundred legal malpractice suits against him. I guess we'll find out, but first the stonewalling and manipulating will further delay any relief for the insureds in Mississippi.

It is doubtful the documents would be embarrassing to either Snake Farm or the Scruggs. It is likely they would be embarrassing to the Rigsbys, Lotts, Taylors, Lobranos, Hoods, Moores, etc...Dickie is still trying to protect them.

It is doubtful the documents would be embarrassing to either Snake Farm or the Scruggs. It is likely they would be embarrassing to the Rigsbys, Lotts, Taylors, Lobranos, Hoods, Moores, etc...Dickie is still trying to protect them.

I was hanging in there pretty well as to understanding that the Rigsbys stole documents, that they gave them to Scruggs, that Scruggs was ordered to turn them over, that he turned them over to Jim Hood. I don't understand which documents are now in dispute. Did he not turn everything over to Hood? Someone explain in layman's terms.

Interested, Judge Acker ordered the Rigsbys and all their agents to return the documents to counsel for E.A. Renfroe. Instead, he sent them to Hood, who already had his own copies of the purloined documents becaause he arranged for special curbside pick-up of the documents following the big data dump weekend by the Rigsbys and their friends. The important thing in what I said here is that Hood already had the exact same copies, so he didn't need Scruggs' copies, he sent them to Hood to avoid giving them to Renfroe's counsel as ordered.

Am I right in assuming that Renfroe or their counsel has not received the documents even from Jim Hood's office? Why has Jim Hood not turned the documents over to counsel? How can an attorney general not follow the direction of the court?

Interested - I could be mistaken, but it seems the documents in Hood's possession were considered evidence used in a criminal investigation of the Snake, not the civil dispute with Renfroe.

The order, I believe, only applied to Scruggs and Rigsby, not Hood. Hood was not a party to the proceedings with Renfroe and thus could not be forced to comply. However, Hood, IMHJO, did help Scruggs, et al, skirt the order and somehow he is not going to pay a price for that.

Evidently it was within Scruggs's perogative to give the documents to Hood and it doesn't matter if Hood had copies of the documents already, obviously. And because Scruggs wasn't a party to the suit he wasn't compelled to give them to the court anyway, IIRC.

And speaking of not being a party to the suit, Scruggs is not a party in the McIntosh suit now, either. He has been disqualified and the Rigsbys have been disqualified as witnesses and all of the documents they gave to Scruggs have been excluded from evidence by the order of the court, so I don't see how State Farm expects to conduct discovery on those who are not a party to the dispute or on those who have been disqualified as witnesses and obtain documents that are now excluded from evidence.

Belle,

Do you not read David's comments or do you choose to ignore them? Sure, Scruggs adhered to the letter of the law by giving the documents to Hood; however, it DOES matter that Hood had his own copy. Why would he give the documents to someone who already had them if not to keep State Farm from obtaining them? Did you not read the subsequent post by David, and a ruling by the judge (I believe he was held in contempt). Sometimes, when reading your posts I understand why Oedipus gouged out his own eyes.

Dustin, you are correct, no one says Hood had to give the documents back, merely that it was a dodge for Scruggs to give his copies of the documents to Hood, and that Scruggs had talked over this ploy with Hood prior to doing it. Some can accept this point, some, for example, those who believe Hood performed heroically in testifying at the State Farm v. Hood hearing rather than making a spectacle of himself, cannot accept this point. That's OK, when someone fails to concede a point on which they are dead wrong, it just makes my point, even better than I could.

Even though Scruggs, etc., are no longer a party to the proceedings they were and as such, any evidence they have would still be covered if it pertained to the current proceedings. And if the documents hold no value then there is no reason for Scruggs, etc., to hold on to them.

As for Scruggs giving the documents to Hood, Belle, you disappoint us. He acted in an immoral and unethical manner. If State Farm had done something like that you would have been screaming at the top of your lungs. And don't tell us you wouldn't have been mad because if you search your soul you know you would have been.

David:

Perhaps it would be useful if you would educate the non-lawyers in the audience regarding how civil discovery works. For example, it seems that some of your readers think that document production is only available against parties to the suit. Likewise, it appears that some seem to think that conclusory allegations of irrelevance by the entity against whom production is sought are dispositive.

My understanding is that neither belief is true, but it might be useful if you were to educate us all.

Claimsguy, as a non-lawyer type who tries to read all he can when it comes to the law, what you posted left my head spinning worse than Linda Blair in The Exorcist. Please break down into plain Enlish for us non-lawyer types.

So what if Scruggs gave them to Hood so that State Farm would not know what was in them? You know -- everyone likes to say how the Rigsbys stole documents. But they didn't. State Farm still has the documents -- they just don't know which ones -- out of the many that they have that can incriminate them -- and are going to be used against them. Until discovery is done is qui tam, that ain't going to find out screaming in these other cases.

I think I have already addressed this (conceded that Scruggs gave the documents to Hood in order to hide them from State Farm and it came under the heading of too bad for State Farm because it wasn't illegal and not unethical to build a case)and either it got stuck in the filter or Rossmiller is not posting my good logic.

Belle,

So, since SF still has the documents, the Rigsby sisses didn't steal them? That is probably the dumbest thing I have heard today.

I didn't steal your classified documents. I just made my own copy of them and left you with the original! No harm, no foul. Thanks for the laugh, Belle.

It's just that State Farm has the documents they just don't know which ones. Aww, too bad.

So did the sisters steal the documents or not, Belle? I mean, your way of dancing around the facts here is quite good. Almost politician good.

Do you seriously think the Rigsby sisters did not steal the documents of State Farm? Forget for a moment that State Farm is by your standards the love-child of Lucifer and Hitler.

Belle, you are now crossiing lines that are unbelievable. The fact you can't admit to the immoral and unethical behavior of Scruggs defies belief.

As for stealing, that is what the Rigsby sisters did. Just because State Farm doesn't know which information was stolen and still is in possession of the said information is irrelavent. What is relavent is it was stolen. Here's an analogy:

When technology information is stolen from a business it is theft. It doesn't matter if the business is still in possession of said technology, the information was taken without permission.

As in the case of the documents, State Farm has vevery right to know what information was stolen. It has a right to know if the information taken was not cherry picked and done in such a manner to make it appear as if State Farm did something wrong when the reality may be State Farm did nothing wrong when such stolen information is put into context.

Your, "aw, shucks" attitude reveals that you care nothing about the law. If the same thing happened to you that happened to State Farm you would be screaming from the rooftops how you were wronged. Belle, your statements reek of hypocrisy and a blantant disregard for the rule of law, morality and ethical behavior.

I'm picturing Ed Rust in his office, pacing in circles, wringing his hands; "Oh, if we only knew which documents those wicked girls stole from us we could control the world. Drat, foiled again!"

On second thought, no. State Farm knows exactly which documents were stolen. If they (Rigsbys, Trailer Lawyers, et al.) accessed the State Farm system to download the documents, there IS a trail of data crumbs to follow. State Farm wants the documents back because they have a duty to protect the personal/confidential information of their insureds. They know the information was stolen and want it back. How would you feel if your personal/confidential information was being passed around with no concern for your privacy?

They downloaded documents that prove that they filed false claims upon the taxpayers of the United States, therefore there was a qui tam suit filed against them. They are called whistleblowers under the false claims act. I know you don't want to believe it but s**t happens.

You cannot have something stolen if you are still in possession of it.

Belle, I see you are unfamiliar with copyright, trademark and trade secrets law. There are indeed many circumstances in which you can have something "stolen" but still be in "possession" of it. Identity theft is another example. Property is not so much a thing as it is a bundle of rights wrapped around a thing, tangible or intangible.

Belle, as David pointed out, theft does not necessarily mean something ohysical is stolen but can include information taken. For instance, if I copy documents in your possession that contain your SSN, bank account numbers, etc., I've just stolen from you.

Yeah, but these trade secrets evidently expose them to criminal behavior. Shucks, I hate it when that happens.

For instance, if I copy documents in your possession that contain your SSN, bank account numbers, etc., I've just stolen from you.

xanax, er, I mean xerac, um, no, only if you did something illegal with them is it illegal. No legal contract covers illegal behavior.

Belle, how do you know it exposes them to criminal behavior? We don't. No one knows. In fact, if all the stolen documents are put into proper context then it may show there was no criminal behavior since all the information will be shown, not cherry picked ones that can be taken out of context. I hate that when that happens, don't you?

Belle, again, you take everything literally. My prior comment did not imply I was talking about State Farm copyrights, trademarks or trade secrets, I was using those as generic examples to refute your claim that one who is in possession has not suffered a theft. I didn't say the State Farm claims files were trade secrets.

Belle, and this "criminal behavior" is what? Ask your hero Mr Hood what criminal behavior he had proven when he left the courtroom with his tail between his legs in the SF vs Hood case a few months back. Of course I am still rather confused by the man, he rants and raves on the criminal activities of SF, claims they are evil until such time that a couple of convicted felons (convicted of bribery no less) admit to being paid $400,000 to bribe/influence Mr Hood to steer his criminal investigation away from SF. I have always found it amazing that just after that meeting to bribe/influence Mr Hood, he dropped his investigation of SF. Oh, thats right, his top assistants told him at that time they didn't have any evidence of criminal wrong-doing on the part of SF. I haven't figured it out yet, did the bribe/influence work on Hood, or was there no evidence of criminal activity by SF? Take your pick. I have also always been amazed that there was no mention of the recommendations by Hoods assistants until after the convicted felons said they influenced his criminal probe.

Belle,
I have one final question for you. Are you by any chance a blonde?

Belle, I have a question. If AG Hood has the same documents that Scruggs and the Rigsby sisters have and Hood decided that there was insufficient evidence to proceed with an investigation even though he has these documents you claim prove criminal behavior on the part of State Farm then tell me how these documents prove criminal behavior?

David,

You make too much of this. This game is over. Tell the non-lawyers the truth. Snake Farm has an issue to resolve in Louisiana and a Federal Judge who really wants them indicted, but all the lawyers involved in this game know it is over. They are paying the claims now, protected by their friends on the 5th circuit and Karl's remaining US attorneys. If Obama wins then they will quickly cut deal with US attorneys to resolve any pending criminal investigations. Louisiana will not indict. (I tried my best.)It is done. Until November and the next Hurricane earthquake or killer tornado. With new US attorneys who knows.

You should be kissing Scrugg's ass, if half dozen other Mississippi bad fath attorneys would have gotten that info if would have been a different game, and all over the internet. But it was not be be.

Snake Farm 14, Mississippi Policy holders 0 and it less than two minutes left but the Season is not over yet.

Tell your masters, game well played, I do admire a good game plan, even when it is against me and they played this game very well, after stumbling out of the blocks and will profit greatly. (As an MBA and econ major I am postive on this point as well.)

Until the next diaster when people die and are hurting, we all know we can count on Snake Farm to screw everyone again.

See you next Hurricane!

Injustice4all,

Exactly how many people did Snake Farm pay out properly during Katrina? Of course there were mess-ups. Guess what? It was a catastrophe!! In the words of the ever famous Bellesouth "s@#t happens." This is not to make light of the tragedy, but simply to put it in perspective. Don't you think if there was a systematic and calculated attempt to defraud the phs there would have been many, many more screw ups?

Also Belle, may I have a COPY of your SSN card and Credit Cards. Since it isn't stealing (you will after all have the original), you shouldn't mind. Should you?

Dustin, don't ask for the copies, simply work for Belle on a contract basis, make a copy of the pertinent documents that contain her SSN, Credit Card numbers and Bank account numbers but make sure she has the originals still in her possession. However, don't tell her which ones you've taken. Now you have not stolen a thing from her since she has all the originals.

Where was Ma Labrano in all this? What was SHE doing in the trailer? Why was she there?

== Instead, he sent them to Hood, who already had his own copies of the purloined documents becaause he arranged for special curbside pick-up of the documents following the big data dump weekend by the Rigsbys and their friends. The important thing in what I said here is that Hood already had the exact same copies, so he didn't need Scruggs' copies, he sent them to Hood to avoid giving them to Renfroe's counsel as ordered.==

Rossmiller

On quibble

Hood testified that the documents turned over to him by Scruggs were never looked at, they were put in some sealed box. He testified he did NOT KNOW the contents of the Scruggs turned over ones so he could NOT answer to them. He also said he wasn't sure WHAT Scruggs was turning over since it was maybe a quick cell call he could not remember but he nevertheless agreed he wanted them because he was conducting the criminal investigation.

This never made sense to me in that since Hood was conducting a criminal investigation at the time and he agreed to take these documents, you'd think his investigators would want to have a look at this "Scruggs" set to see if there were duplicates and if not (as in there were even MORE) it would potentially help in the the criminal investigation.

I'm obviously not an expert, but I don't think there is anything precluding the investigators from looking at them since I believe Scrugg's rationale was to get them to law enforcement.

Anyway, this is to say, since Hood says they were never looked at, no one can be sure what Scruggs turned over.

Third South - You are spot on. Mother orchestrated the entire deal. And when I say "orchestrated"...you don't know the half of it.

Belle, you are so clever and funny: xanax, LMTO! Wrong, I do not have to do something illegal with stolen informatin to make it illegal. Simply copying it without permission can make an action illegal. For instance, if I copy a movie, even if I never watch it, without permission I've still committed an illegal act. I've done nothing else illegal but my action is still illegal. The same goes for confidential documents. I hope you understand the ANALOGY and don't take everything too literally.