Judge Walker picks up the drum and issues new marching order in Gagne v State Farm

Yesterday, Judge Walker issued an Order passing on Judge Senter’s marching order to Gagne as Judge Senter intended.  Walker indicated he would consider the need for a similar pass along to State Farm once he reviewed Gagne’s response.

…In the Order, the Court directed the undersigned to reconsider Plaintiff’s request for certain documents and information. The Court further suggested that an in camera review of documents might serve to resolve the issues surrounding the underlying…Motion to Compel and…Motion for Review.

To this end, the Court directs Plaintiff to identify which documents he would like for the undersigned to consider for in camera inspection. In so doing, Plaintiff should identify with as much specificity as possible those documents to which he feels he is entitled but which are being withheld by Defendant.

The Court will then consider which, if any, of these requested documents should be produced byDefendant for in camera inspection.

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Plaintiff shall submit to the Court and counsel opposite a list of documents for which he seeks in camera review. This list shall be submitted on or before January 20, 2009, at noon.

Merlin Law, co-counsel for Gagne versus State Farm, strikes me as a firm that prepared for such an outcome before filing Gagne’s request for the Court’s review of Walker’s earlier order.

No doubt State Farm did likewise.  In fact, a careful reading of their response to Gagne’s motion to compel suggests such preparation.

“Distortion of the record, by deletion of critical language in quoting from the record, reflects a lack of the candor required by the Model Rules of Professional Conduct, Rule 3.3 (1983), wastes the time of the court and of opposing counsel, and imposes unnecessary costs on the parties and on fellow citizens whose taxes support this court and its staff.”…Playing fast-and-loose with the facts is wholly inappropriate and an insufficient basis to support Plaintiff’s untimely motion.

Anyone else wish there was a camera on PACER or some other way to see the face of the person entering this in the system – surely it wasn’t done with a straight face!

On a related note, defendant Exponent filed a Motion to Strike 12 of the exhibits that Gagne included in response to the engineering firm’s Motion for Summary Judgment.  Once we have Gagne’s response, we’ll dig into the specifics; but, needless to say, this is just the kind of case gutting motion that has been the subject of recent comments.

4 thoughts on “Judge Walker picks up the drum and issues new marching order in Gagne v State Farm”

  1. I wonder if this means David Rossmiller has stopped getting docs straight from the federal courthouse in Gulfport? And yeah I have reason to believe and do believe it happened at least once, probably more.

    I guess I never mentioned auditing for 20 years, especially local govs, naturally makes one a document expert. Stray lines on what should be a clean PDF tell one heck of a story, especially when we were getting the same docs immediately once they hit PACER. There should have been no difference and since they were plaintiffs motions, I doubt they got to Rossie from the “Trailer lawyers”.

    Us unwashed masses are still watching Judge Walker.


  2. Sop, I still cringe at the site of the words “trailer lawyers” – the conduct of SF et al and the resulting court orders are as shameful as anything I’ve ever seen.

    Even with your space center full of rocket scientists, it doesn’t take one to connect the dots and come up with the threat posed by an attorney who successful defended Judge Senter’s opinion before the 5th circuit…

    Rossmiller led the charge but maybe one reason he’s not posting is anyone as smart as he obviously is would eventually figure out he’d helped State Farm at the expense of his integrity.

    If you’re correct that he had co-conspirator in the federal court, I can only say the court is overstaffed – and that’s a solvable problem.

    unwashed masses may be watching; but, so are those drowning in disgust over the treatment of Dewitt et al.

  3. I’ll add to your response that a bunch of personal vendettas we’re settled last year at the expense of ordinary people like Glenda Shows whose only “sin” was having a Hurricane destroy her house.

    I don’t think having a level playing field and these cases decided under well established case law is too much for a commoner to ask.

    Rick has been adamant that the overwhelming majority of lawyers turned judges rule according to the law regardless of their political bent. My limited non legal persepctive is that is not the case.

    I agree 100% about the treatment of DeWitt et al. One of that group still regularily reads us. Perhaps one day they’ll be moved to comment publicly on their high tech lynching.


  4. Just came across your blog and found it so informative that I could not resist myself from commenting on it! You are really doing a great job, thanks and keep posting.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *