Day: July 27, 2009

If you don’t stand for something you’ll fall for anything – Plaintiffs’ growing opposition to State Farm Protective Orders

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.

Respectfully submitted…

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”

Your circle of acquaintances gets larger but your circle of friends becomes smaller – with Judge Benge and Judge Delaughter on my mind

“While I admit that I tried to influence her decision in the Demma matter, I did not believe at the time that I had succeeded, and I still do not believe that Judge Benge was influenced,” Bodenheimer said in an affidavit filed with the state Supreme Court.

As I was reading the Times Picayune update of the story reported in the 20th SLABBED Daily, it struck me how similar the case against Judge Benge is to the charges Judge Delaughter faces.  Sop saw it, too, and sent me an email.  The “other parties” in Delaughter’s case appear to be in rehearsal for his upcoming trial!

In Benge’s case, however, the “other party” has come forward on her behalf.  Bodenheimer says his attempt to sway Judge Benge in injury case failed: Continue reading “Your circle of acquaintances gets larger but your circle of friends becomes smaller – with Judge Benge and Judge Delaughter on my mind”