Dickie and Zach tell State Farm to find another party!

In the Objection of Non-Parties Richard F. Scruggs and D. Zachary Scruggs (“the Scruggses”) filed today in response to Magistrate Judge Walker’s Order of May 15, along with a Motion to Stay, the Scrugges ask the Court to expedite consideration – and do they ever provide a lot to think about an order they call “clearly erroneous and contrary to law”.

…the documents that the Magistrate Judge ordered the Scruggses to produce all relate either to Cori and Kerri Rigsby or the conduct of Richard Scruggs and the Scruggs Law Firm.

These documents are of no relevance now that the Scruggs Law Firm has withdrawn from this case, the Court has disqualified all the former members of the Scruggs Katrina Group, the Court has excluded the Rigsbys as witnesses, and the Court has excluded the documents they uncovered while working for Defendant E.A. Renfroe & Co. (“Renfroe”)…

…the Magistrate Judge apparently based the Order on a letter brief submitted by Defendant State Farm Fire & Casualty Insurance Co. (“State Farm”) that was never served upon the Scruggses and to which the Scruggses never had an opportunity to respond. For these reasons, the Court should sustain the Scruggses’ objections and reverse the Order.

The 17-page Objection is an interesting read that provides context for the five exhibits – and, to Judge Walker’s credit, he responded immediately:

TEXT ONLY ORDER granting 1200 Motion to Stay production of documents required by order 1194 pending disposition of the motion for review of the order filed by Richard and Zach Scruggs. The documents need not be produced until the Court rules on the motion for review. NO FURTHER WRITTEN ORDER WILL ISSUE. Signed by Magistrate Judge Robert H. Walker on May 28, 2008. (Joffe, Scherry) [Entered: 05/28/2008]

As stated in their Motion to Stay, the Scruggs’ lawyers conclude:

Scruggs’ counsel was not copied on the Court’s request of May 1, 2008 regarding outstanding discovery matters Scruggses’ new counsel, who entered appearances in late March, were inadvertently omitted from a distribution list in the office of State Farm’s counsel (See e-mail exchange between Mullen, Watkins, attached as Exhibit “B”), and the Scruggses did not receive a copy of the letter until May 27, 2008.
Because they were not aware of the communications between counsel for State Farm and the Court, the Scruggses were not aware that the Court would consider any further briefing or argument as to the relevance of the document requests.
Because they did not have an opportunity to present the Court with updated arguments as to the relevance of State Farm’s remaining requests and because the Court did not consider certain of the Scruggses’ arguments, the Scruggses are today filing an Objection to the Order.
Without a stay, the Scruggses may be required to comply with the Order before the Court hears and resolves their Objection. The Scruggses will be prejudiced and unduly burdened by having to complete an exhaustive document search while the Court considers their Objection.
The Scruggses will be severely prejudiced if they are forced to produce any responsive documents while their Objection is being considered because their constitutional privileges may be waived upon such production.

State Farm will suffer no prejudice if the Scruggses are granted an additional fifteen days from the date of the Court’s ruling on their Objection to produce documents, if such production is still required by the Court.

THEN we have Non-parties Scruggs objecting to the Order of Magistrate Judge Walker which may be summed up as:

“The Court has specifically excluded any responsive documents from evidence, and the portion of the Order compelling production of such documents is clearly erroneous.”

Exhibit a
Exhibit b
Exhibit c
Exhibit d
Exhibit e

14 thoughts on “Dickie and Zach tell State Farm to find another party!”

  1. Excellent post Belle! I think the bottom line here is Judge Walker will be tarred and feathered if he continues to allow back door Qui Tam discovery at the expense of the McIntosh family. The Rigsby’s and Scruggs are gone and thus are not salient to this case.

    On the other hand this proccupation with Scruggs will certainly not serve State Farm well in the courtroom when Lecky King will either be taking the fifth or try to explain away why she felt the need to opinion shop engineers. And make no mistake the new SF talking point that the second report was right will vaporize in the courtroom. And yes I think this case is heading for the courtroom and there are more with very similar fact patterns coming right behind it.

  2. Thanks, Sop! Actually this post is a product of a Nowdy/Belle tag team. I can’t take all of the credit. I think the Scruggs’s lawyers decided to see if Judge Walker would like some goodies of his own on that silver platter.

  3. I think this may very well be a case of be careful of what you wish for, don’t you think? State Farm got Scruggs, SKG, KLG and the Rigsbys all disqualified and now they want them to produce documents in a suit that they are no longer a party to? Nice try though.

  4. It very well could be, belle, because there’s no one left in McIntosh to fight except Lady Justice and an abundance of admissible evidence.

    I really hope folks will read every word of the documents the Scruggses filed, including the exhibits.

  5. Those filings contain a bunch of information to digest Nowdy.

    Lady Justice does have some company in the Merlin Law Group. While Chip and company are lining up expert testimony from Oklahoma to show a pattern of bad behavior, State Farm and their lawyers are still trying to live in the past.

    Qui tam must be scaring the hell of of them but they better be worried about cases like McIntosh and Shows. These individual cases will make the bigger case IMHO.

  6. Strategically speaking, Sop, it appears State Farm et al have put themselves in a box trying to deal with Qui Tam through McIntosh,

    IMNLO (that’s in my non-lawyer opinion) it’s going to come back to bite them in McIntosh. Smart money would be to support the Missouri firms if they come back and challenge the DQ and not fight the Scruggses motion. Otherwise, if Merlin wins McIntosh, he puts the lid on the Qui Tam box.

    more on that logic later…

  7. Well I guess Mr. Rossmiller doesn’t like to get scooped on all things Scruggsania. I had been posting over there when someone accused me of not attending to our own site over here. I responded that I had been attending to our site and that there was a scoop on Scruggs in McIntosh on slabbed — never went up. So I asked David again in case it got caught in the spam filter. That’s all! No excessive self-promotion at all (unlike himself). And this is the thanks I get for trying to inform his readers (who are welcome here, btw).

    This is what the prestigious oh mighty ROSSMILLER has to say about that! What an ass!

    Someone from the website Slabbed has been incessantly trying to promote the site in the comments to this blog. As you may or may not know, no comment appears on this blog unless I hit a button saying it will be published. Sometimes when I’m too busy Marjory Morford fulfills this function. Excessive self-promotion is one of the things that makes me hit the delete button on comments submitted. But in this instance I’m going to throw out a hat tip to Slabbed, if for no other reason than to stop the incessant spamming of my comments box, regarding a post on some developments yesterday in the McIntosh case, involving Scruggs saying he didn’t receive notice of State Farm’s discovery motion.

  8. Thanks for the clarification Belle. You know what they say, bad publicity is better than no publicity. 😉

    I’m partial to these Mississippi cases but the biggest scoop was given us today by Richard Trahant. I guess that it is fitting on this record setting day here at slabbed.

    Stay tuned.


  9. Well, it’s a good thing he sent them over because he certainly didn’t portray the filings as important as they.

  10. The case is so mind-boggling, belle, I’m not sure anyone can do more than just tell someone to read it. It takes a while just to absorb the part Sop posted.

    As to the other, do you think he mistook pingbacks for comments perhaps? Not that it matters how anyone gets here, everyone is welcome and welcome to comment.

  11. Being an insider to certain actions of crime within the courts Re: Bobby DeLaughter and a few others involving millions of dollars use for political gain I would say that not all comments are welcome. As well some comments are gladly taken for info but not published. I do not know about [ bellesouth ] but I was mistaken for her once regarding some comments made re: an action before Judge Graves, Green. and Bobby D. I thought I was the only one Ms. courts were worried would reveal corruption due to documented proof I am holding.

  12. It’s why I don’t post over there anymore Jane – he likes to play games with the comments. If it isn’t spam or something that will get us sued we post everything.

    We figure the reader is smart enough to figure these issues out for themselves.

    Welcome back Jane.


  13. Understanding responsibilities caution is advised. It really becomes a problem when something is known and easily proven that those not a party to the issues become involved. Thanks for the welcome. With regards to my comment there were settlements made some time ago to which the very claims used to acquire millions were dismissed after awards were transferred to a previously failed action before a jury. Jury found zero awards to the class as well the appeals court affirmed that decision and additionally the Judge in that matter rejected a declatory judgment. This all left the total of awards on the only valid claims. Plaintiffs totally 3 were denied relief as the Judge and attorneys elevated their political statute. From Circuit Judge to Supreme Court Judge and from attorney to MS Senator. The Plaintiffs were simply left to die apparently there is a strong opposition to reveal the facts. However, I would gladly share a website of documents used in that action on behalf of the Plaintiffs. Along the lines of lawsuit where would such an action set? Would it be improper to publish that website here? And again thank you for the welcome.

Comments are closed.