As a hungry non-lawyer, I take exception to Rule 3F – file at five Friday.
It’s now past 6:30 and I’ve just finished pulling, reading and posting Moultrie’s response and the two exhibits. (see all on USA v Moultrie under Legal on the left sidebar).
Needless to say, this is going to be short – no talking cows – just the text submitted in response to Carothers’ claim the subpoena was issued ex-parte reported here on SLABBED.
The application for the subpoena was not made ex parte, i.e., “in the absence of the other party,” but in the presence of the other party in this case – the Government.
In all of the cases cited by CCC, the Government is one of the parties who moved to quash the subpoena because the application for the subpoena was made by non-indigent defendants to the court ex parte, without service or notice of the motion for the subpoena being served upon the Government. These facts are clearly different from the instant case. Here all parties were given notice of the motion, the polar opposite of an ex parte proceeding. Rule 17 does not require that the recipient of the subpoena be given notice – that is what Rule 17(c)(2)’s procedures are for, and those are the very grounds for CCC’s motion to challenge the sufficiency of the items requested in the subpoena.
Thus, failure to provide notice to CCC, who is not a party to this case, is not cause to quash the subpoena.
Grab your good reading glasses and whatever you need to get comfortable before you dig into this 29-page response. I’m sure Sop will add comments later and know I will – after dinner.
Bellesouth’s Wednesday morning post reported Scruggs’ motion to release security and settle the fine for civil contempt – an effort Renfroe calls illusory in a response in opposition that shows about as much class as a Christi Brinkley divorce.
In his Motion Scruggs seeks to satisfy the joint and several judgment against him and Defendants Cori Rigsby (Moran) and Kerri Rigsby (“Defendants”) for civil contempt sanctions by the conditional and non-final release of $65,000 plus interest held by this Court as security against Scruggs’ pending appeal of those civil contempt sanctions.
Defendants did not appeal the contempt sanctions, and the judgment against them for $65,000 plus interest became final against them on July 5, 2008.
On July 10, 2008, this Court ordered Defendants to pay the contempt sanctions that were final against them by July 24, 2008 or face additional sanctions.
On July 24, 2008, Scruggs filed this Motion purportedly seeking to satisfy the joint and several judgment on the conditionthat he gets his money back ifhe wins his appeal.
Scruggs’ carefully timed attempt to satisfy the judgment by releasing the deposited funds to Renfroe is illusory because it is conditional. The illusory, temporary payment by Scruggs would not satisfy the Defendants’ judgment because it is conditional and not a permanent payment to which Renfroe is entitled. Should, arguendo, Scruggs win his appeal, Renfroe would have no satisfaction from the Defendants, against whom the judgment is final and owing. Renfroe would be unfairly deprived of its justly won award against the Defendants. (emphasis added) Continue reading “Renfroe wants satisfaction, opposes Scruggs attempt to pay”
Well, bless Bess, if that doesn’t beat all – hopefully some of you grew up hearing someone use that expression; but, if not, see if you can think of anything else to say about the Order Judge Walker issued today.
Before the Court are…State Farm’s emergency motions for leave to file under seal motions to compel non-parties Zach and Richard Scruggs, respectively, regarding their July 21, 2008 depositions. As a courtesy to counsel for the Scruggses, who have “stated that they intend to move this Court to seal” the Scruggses’ deposition transcripts, State Farm requests that it be allowed to file its motions to compel under seal.
By July 22, 2008 email to chambers, counsel for the Scruggses advised they do not oppose the motions and do not intend to file an opposition to them, though they disagree that the motions are of an “emergent nature.” Continue reading “Walker denies State Farm motion to seal”
Admittedly, there’s a lot more interest in the legal climate around insurance than the climate itself; but, that’s what some think the legal issues of the future will be about; so here’s a quick look at the current discussions.
After Hurricanes Dennis, Katrina, Rita, and Wilma, insurance companies are withdrawing from coastal markets in the United States. They fear the financially disastrous combination of severe weather trends with population growth in urban areas. One recent news report stated, “Some believe the two are creating a risk of losses so large that insurers could be pushed to the breaking point…”.
The industry has three primary methods of responding to “excessive” risk: by raising prices for what it sells; by withdrawing from product lines and markets; and by changing the financial, legal, organizational, and political practices of the industry. All three serve to protect the bottom line of insurers but may or may not serve a wider public interest.
Insurers often withdraw from a particular geographic or product market, either temporarily or permanently, when losses are too high. This leaves people and property without any recourse in a disaster except to draw on the public treasury. In coastal areas of the United States, state-backed insurance plans are being overwhelmed by new applications.
When one person loses their house and has no insurance, they must dig into their own personal resources to rebuild. But when thousands of people lose their houses in a disaster, then government must step in to provide the resources to rebuild entire communities. Insurers may raise their prices to recover from severe losses and rebuild their own reserves, but this will drive people away from purchasing insurance. Again, the gap in coverage may need to be filled by public spending. Continue reading “Insurance talks heat up on global warming”