The fastest way to succeed is to look as if you’re playing by somebody else’s rules, while quietly playing by your own – an update on Montet v State Farm and Politz v Nationwide

It certain seems to be the way to succeed with protective orders – looking as if you’re playing by somebody else’s rules, while quietly playing by your own. Perhaps someone at the Court will soon catch on with so many different plaintiffs’ counsel voicing opposition to the Gomer strategy.

Montet’s counsel, DeborahTrotter, certainly could not have made her opposition plainer in the Sur Reply she filed today refuting  defendant State Farm’s Rebuttal in Montet v State Farm:

Plaintiffs’ hereby incorporate their Reply in its entirety and maintain their position that the Defendant has not met its burden to demonstrate the documents and information at issue in its privilege log… should be deemed confidential and protected. Therefore any protective order at this time would be premature, including Defendant’s newly proposed “blanket” protective order, which was attached as Exhibit C to its Rebuttal…

Again Plaintiffs point out that Defendant has listed only 46 documents in “II. Privilege Log” that allegedly qualify for protection as Trade Secrets. However, instead of complying with the Rules of Civil Procedure 26 and the Uniform Local Rule 26.1 by providing the Court and Plaintiffs with a proper privilege log that contains information required to determine whether a qualifying privilege exists, the Defendant opted to again ignore the requirements of seeking and obtaining a protective order by good cause shown and submitted yet another proposed “blanket” protective order for the Court to enter. (emphasis added)

Rule 26 FRCP provides little bend; and, yet, the sheer number of pages makes a page-by-page determination of good cause a formidable task.

However, the Fifth Circuit provides some guidance in a 2002 Order issued in Continue reading “The fastest way to succeed is to look as if you’re playing by somebody else’s rules, while quietly playing by your own – an update on Montet v State Farm and Politz v Nationwide”

What’s not expert about Bossier’s appraisal?

expertsAn issue at trial will be the value of Plaintiff’s home at the time of the loss. In this regard, certified and/or licensed appraisers Schroeder and Shaw performed an appraisal report of the subject property as of August 28, 2005, and concluded that the market value of the dwelling and land totaled 831,00.00…

Subtracting the value of the property indicates a replacement cost for the dwelling of $599,835.00. The depreciated replacement cost, or actual cash value, would be $551,848.00. Both amounts exceed the policy limits in this case…

At the time of Hurricane Katrina, Mr. Bossier’s home was insured under a [State Farm] policy with dwelling limits of $409,452.00. Mr. Bossier did not have flood insurance or any other insurance covering the property at the time of the loss.

Although I’m genuinely perplexed by Bossier’s lack of flood insurance, the issue here is State Farm’s motion to exclude the testimony of  Bossier’s two expert witnesses, J. Daniel Schroeder and Tim Shaw.  However, in the Plaintiff’s Response, we learn Bossier hired Schroeder and Shaw to appraise his property for tax purposes, not litigation. Continue reading “What’s not expert about Bossier’s appraisal?”

The pain is just not mine – an echo of CresentCityRay

But when you’ve worked hard all your life, and you have a spouse that’s done the same, and you’ve got goals that you’re working for and you think you’re covered, then you find out that it’s not happening, you’re not covered, or so to say. The help that you were planning on that you were paying for all those times, it’s not there. It’s very depressing.

The pain is just not mine, wrote CrescentCityRay –  and it is not.  Listen to the echo as another story of post-Katrina mental health continues.

I became stressed the minute I found out my home was gone. I saw it on the — on TV in Alabama. And they had an up-in-the-air shot, and they went over Long Beach Oaks. And I seen that every house there was gone in that little area. So, I knew mine was gone too. And that was upsetting.

But, you know, we still thought Nationwide was going to take care of us. So, I really didn’t get that depressed over it. It was stuff. It wasn’t our life. I was happy that John and I and my little dog had gotten out okay. But once Nationwide started messing around, I got a suspicion that they were trying to get out of it because of the way I was being treated by them. I asked them when they went out to review it to — when they sent people out, I asked them to let me know in advance, and they never did. They would call me after it was done. It looked like they were avoiding me. And that was upsetting.

But when I got the letter of denial, I went into depression. And my husband, he was worse, and he — I felt terrible, and then I would see him and how he was reacting to it, and it was just very depressing for me for myself.

I didn’t know what we was going to do. I didn’t have the answers. I cried. I had a lot of headaches. I went around crying all the time. I didn’t know what I was going to do. We was living for the moment. We had no future, no plans, no anything. Continue reading “The pain is just not mine – an echo of CresentCityRay”

$peaking of $hoveling $hit…..

There is one great thing that you men will all be able to say after this war is over and you are home once again. You may be thankful that twenty years from now when you are sitting by the fireplace with your grandson on your knee and he asks you what you did in the great World War II, you won’t have to cough, shift him to the other knee and say, “Well, your Granddaddy shoveled shit in Louisiana.” No, Sir, you can look him straight in the eye and say, “Son, your Granddaddy rode with the Great Third Army and a Son-of-a-Goddamned-Bitch named Georgie Patton!

Fastforward to the year 2009. Clowns like Jimbo truly are timeless: (H/T Editilla)

All insured real estate owners could be on the hook for a $95 million judgment against Louisiana’s state-backed insurance company, state Insurance Commissioner Jim Donelon said today.

Donelon said he’s considering several options to raise the money to post the bond. One option is to impose a new fee that would be borne by insured homeowners and commercial property owners.

The payment, due Monday, is required because the Louisiana Citizens Property Insurance Corp. lost the first round of a class-action lawsuit in March. The suit, filed in Jefferson Parish on behalf of 18,573 policyholders, argued that the insurer took too long to pay claims after Hurricane Katrina. Citizens is appealing and the case is likely to end up with the state Supreme Court. Continue reading “$peaking of $hoveling $hit…..”

Jim Brown on the cost of regulatory capture: More shit for Louisiana taxpayers to shovel courtesy of the Office of Financial Institutions

Thursday, August 19, 2009
Baton Rouge, Louisiana



Hundreds of irate Sanford investors converged on Baton Rouge this week to protest their financial losses from what they charge was a giant Ponzi scheme by this international investment firm. Their wrath is directed both at the Stanford group for undertaking the massive financial fraud, and federal regulators, including the Securities and Exchange Commission, for not providing proper regulatory oversight. But a strong case can be made that there is major culpability on the part of a state agency, the Office of Financial Institutions. And we are talking about Louisiana taxpayers being potentially hit with a bill that could approach $850 million.

Here is the question that several lawyers representing Sanford victims will soon allege: Did Louisiana regulators allow the Stanford Group to set up a dubious, one-of-a-kind trust to handle vast investments, but then never bothered to properly monitor just what was being done with the money and whether Stanford were playing by the rules?

Everyone has heard of a “Bank and Trust”. Well there are also provisions under Louisiana law to form just a “Trust,” with no bank involved. And the law is quite specific as to what a Trust can and cannot do. Here is the exact wording: “A trust company does not have the power to solicit, receive, or accept money or its equivalent on deposit, or lend money, except in transactions reasonably related to and derived from its service as fiduciary.” Not one word there about selling CDs from Latin American banks. Continue reading “Jim Brown on the cost of regulatory capture: More shit for Louisiana taxpayers to shovel courtesy of the Office of Financial Institutions”