Well, here’s another nice mess you’ve gotten me into – Kuehn files Motion in limine to exclude Spragins and Tucker

laurel and hardy

Plaintiffs would show that any testimony that may be offered by Defendant’s counsel, H. Scot Spragins or Lawrence J. Tucker, should be prohibited and/or excluded. State Farm previously stated…that “State Farm’s counsel is not the only source of the information Plaintiffs seek. Moreover, any information they possesses [sic] is not relevant or crucial to the central issues in this case, i.e., the actual conduct of the appraisal and the propriety of the award.”

Of course, if Tucker and Spragins did have pertinent information, they and their law firm would be properly disqualified as counsel. However, based on State Farm’s representations, this Court denied (without prejudice) Plaintiffs’ Motion to Disqualify Counsel. Because Plaintiffs were thus disallowed from taking the testimony of Spragins and Tucker, they cannot now be allowed to come forward and testify in the evidentiary hearing scheduled before this Court on July 22, 2009…

SLABBED first reported the “fine mess” created by Spragins and Tucker near the end of April in Sop’s post  Kuehn v State Farm: From a simple ass to an ass-clown. Team State Farm sets new lows courtesy of the insurance defense bar.

Several weeks ago Sop added Henry and June plus Lewis and Scot: An Appraisal Story and Kuehn Update Prequel.

Although what you’re reading is the sequel to the prequel, Sop has added links to a number of documents, including the Kuhn’s motion in limine:

Plaintiffs request that any testimony that may be offered by Defendant’s counsel, H. Scot Spragins or Lawrence J. Tucker, should be prohibited and/or excluded during the evidentiary hearing currently scheduled in this case. It would be a miscarriage of justice to allow State Farm Fire and Casualty Company to introduce testimony by its counsel, Spragins and Tucker, when it has gone through such great lengths to prevent Plaintiffs from conducting discovery concerning those attorneys. Indeed, State Farm even went so far as to move to quash Spragins’ and Tucker’s scheduled depositions, requesting a protective order regarding same.

Accordingly, Plaintiffs’ due process rights, as well as their right to confront these witnesses, would be violated if these attorneys are allowed to testify at said hearing.

WHEREFORE, PREMISES CONSIDERED, the Plaintiffs respectfully request that this Honorable Court will enter an order prohibiting and/or excluding Defendant’s counsel, H. Scot Spragins and Lawrence J. Tucker, from offering any testimony at the evidentiary hearing currently scheduled in this cause.

[scribd id=17443652 key=key-1bqj2kgf7xadkzr5e5c1] [scribd id=17443604 key=key-2a00mt46908tkoqk01u2] [scribd id=17443611 key=key-28ka9wipu0pg30jrfi20] [scribd id=17443601 key=key-px84rdchrdfngzf2shu] [scribd id=17443602 key=key-2np1fc7ssl8gnuw9c8i1]

2 thoughts on “Well, here’s another nice mess you’ve gotten me into – Kuehn files Motion in limine to exclude Spragins and Tucker”

  1. OK I’ll go first. Spragins is Laurel and Tucker is Hardy,

    Add in the wiretapper and you get the three stooges.

    [youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dcELyKkOAak]

    sop

  2. I think Spragins is Hardy:

    His offscreen nickname was “Babe.”

    And, Spragins is definitely State Farm’s “Babe”! He got a pot full of cases pulled from State Court after the SOL! In early June he had 62 active cases compared to the handful listed for their regular “go-to” firms.

    A reward for “earwigging” the appraisal process or just looking for someone willing to do that? You never know but he’s banging out protective orders and settlements at record speed and has whittled the 62 down to 39.

    Here’s the kicker – again quoting from the Wiki:

    Much of their comedy involves milking a joke, where a simple idea provides a basis from which to build several gags. Many of their films have extended sequences constructed around a single problem the pair is facing, without following a defined narrative.

    Wonder what the extended consequences will be?

Leave a Reply

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