Two voices singing the same old song – second verse same as the first, a little louder and a little worse.
Given that their Motion for Leave only seeks leave to request the production of documents directly from State Farm, Renfroe does not intend to respond to the Motion for Leave.
That said, Renfroe opposes any suggestion that the Relators should be given leave of court to conduct expedited discovery from any party at this stage of the litigation.
With respect to the Motion for Extension, Renfroe opposes the extension to the extent that Renfroe’s agreement would in any way suggest that Renfroe consents to the Relators’ proposed discovery requests.
Renfroe, as a courtesy to counsel opposite, does not otherwise oppose the Relators’ new counsel being given an extension of time to respond to pending dispositive motions beyond the deadlines previously set by this Court’s August 6th Order.
Renfroe’s agreement to a short extension should neither be read nor interpreted as constituting Renfroe’s approval of or assent to the Relators being granted leave of this Court to conduct their proposed discovery which is clearly improper as shown in State Farm’s response filed on August 27, 2008.
The response speaks for itself – deny claims, deny discovery, deny justice is a consistent pattern in this toss them a moon pie crowd with its let them eat cake attitude and 40 acres and a mule sense of justice.