Attorneys for the Rigsby sisters filed a Motion for a hearing and oral arguments today on the State Farm motion seeking their disqualification claiming State Farm has filed a reply to the Relator’s response that raises new issues, continues to misread the relators’ answers to deposition questions, and generally suggests Relators’ counsel are guilty of criminal misconduct.
The Motion not only reminds the Court no discovery has taken place, it claims what some, myself included, have suspected given State Farm’s reliance on excerpts from depositions in other cases to support their position.
All of the “facts” asserted by State Farm come from discovery improperly conducted in other cases where counsel for the Relators were not present and had no opportunity to clear the record with proper questions.
The Motion also directly addresses State Farm’s contention the Rigsby’s counsel is subject to disqualification based on the Courts earlier order and subsequent clarification.
Unlike the lawyers that this Court disqualified, counsel here represent only the relators, and only in this case. This case has always been the only focus of their efforts. The Missouri firms represent no policyholders and have no other competing interests.
Support for the Motion included references to due process and the right to be heard. I’m can’t be the only one tired of seals and confidential settlements who would like the opportunity to hear what both sides have to say.
If the past is any indication, Judge Senter should rule shortly.
It will be interesting to see if Judge Senter gives the Missouri duo a hearing. I bet he does. He has already called Butler Snow on the excessive snow job they laid on in their filings taking deposition snippets out of context. At some point he is will tire of the jing jang. Strike 1 last week was a sign of that IMHO.
I marvel at how the Scruggs haters cheer on many of the same things they claimed to hate just months ago in Dickie Scruggs. The hypocrisy is mildly amusing.
If he holds a hearing I may have to go watch.
sop
If these motions by State Farm are what is meant by throwing enough cr*p on the wall hoping something will stick, I don’t know what is! 168 pages! I wonder how long the original rebuttal was. The judge indicated it was more than twice allowed which is 35 pages. Oooh Wee!
I doubt it’s mildly amusing to Scruggs, Sop, but the hypocrisy is clearly evident and not just here either.
I’ve got a post coming up later on that very point btw.
As to what’s being thrown on the wall, belle, I finally got all 12 exhibits downloaded (thanks!) but am not certain when I’ll get them all up.
I don’t know that a hearing is really necessary – when you stop and look at the big picture, State Farm is telling Judge Senter what he meant in his order – a real contrast to the response from the Qui Tam lawyers who addressed his concerns head and put their reputations on the line with their Declarations.
State Farm’s rebuttal was “much ado about nothing” IMO – Judge Senter may very well want to grant a hearing, however, just to but an end to assumptions presented as fact. In that case, Sop, I hope you snag a seat on the front row.
Do either of you find this request for a hearing and oral arguments unusual? I picked that notion up on my brief read-around just now and it made me rethink my comment.
It may be that the only way to resolve the matter is a shoot-out as proposed in the Motion for hearing/oral arguments.
State Farm seems willing to keep throwing whatever they can come up with as long as it takes to wear the other side and/or Judge Senter down and they get their way.