State Farm’s mere assertion that certain information constitutes “trade secrets” does NOT mean that such information should “necessarily” be protected. There is no absolute privilege or protection with respect to such matters, however…State Farm has not right to an automatic protection from the public being granted access to evidence of its misconduct in the arena of responding to Hurricane Katrina claims in Mississippi.
SLABBED stepped up coverage of State Farm’s protective orders with Condoms in the courtroom – State Farm wears protection, wants to %#!# you! EDITED after Coast attorney Chris Van Cleve captured our interest with the force of his argument.
Others have come to our attention. A personal favorite is this blast from the past Response filed November 2007 in Ayers v State Farm — a certain-to-be legal classic from former Supreme Court Justice Chuck McRae (emphasis added by SLABBED):
Plaintiffs have no objection to the entering of a Protective Order to obtain the documents.
Plaintiffs would request that State Farm also include any file in which they have denied any claim base on any exclusion for any direct physical loss involving hurricane Katrina.
McRae’s Response is the earliest I’ve seen to mention the quid pro quo involved so directly; but, I suspect there were others even earlier. The latest, however, is the strong argument of plaintiffs’ attorney Deborah Trotter responding in Opposition in Monet v State Farm
Defendant is withholding discoverable documents responsive to Plaintiffs’ request and proposes to release these responsive documents only pursuant to a “blanket” protective order, Continue reading “If you don’t stand for something you’ll fall for anything – Plaintiffs’ growing opposition to State Farm Protective Orders”