From the dangers of drinking too much of the koolaid files (Part 2): Heckuva of job Brownie! Jarvis DeBerry sets the record straight for Sid Salter

The real story in Nashville is not the federal government, it’s the people stepping up to help their neighbors, which is fitting for the “Volunteer State”.

This is where the Big Easy fell short after Katrina! Instead of help thy neighbor, it was every tv for themselves.

Folks this is the end result of an out of area talking head that listens too much to Glenn Beck pretending to be an expert on Hurricane Katrina and the botched federal response. Trust me when I say that educating that bunch of knot heads from upstate Mississippi is no easy task since they prefer to keep their own company (some folks call that inbreeding), remain ideologically pure and thus ignorant. Times Picayune columnist Jarvis DeBerry, like our own Editilla, is an upstate escapee that also wells knows the score since they happened to be around on August 29, 2005. DeBerry sets the record right in case ol’ Sid is interested in learning a few things:

If you’re tired of the gushing fount of oil under the Gulf being referred to as “Obama’s Katrina,” you should know that you’re in very good company. Continue reading “From the dangers of drinking too much of the koolaid files (Part 2): Heckuva of job Brownie! Jarvis DeBerry sets the record straight for Sid Salter”

USA Today caught off-balance by MRGO decision

Not only is Rick Jervis hoping that the readers will swallow his own seed of the Corps Costs Estimates of 100’s of Billions for their side of the work, he is offering the erroneous proposition that the Corps is the Lead in the solution to the Wetlands Restoration activity –this prophylactic misnomer stretches so very far from the Truth as to resemble a condom over the head of an oil derrick.

Editilla offers a whole new meaning to “hung” on the Ladder with his scatching review of USA Today’s take on the MR-GO decision.  True enough, only a Richard-head would think either/or:

The ruling could lead to billions of dollars in other legal action from storm victims, but it also leaves regional leaders with a dilemma: Continue reading “USA Today caught off-balance by MRGO decision”

Slabbed welcomes Wayne Weiser: “Why Katrina was the fault of man’s malfeasence”

Mr Weiser is retired after thirty nine years with US Army Corp of Engineers in the New Orleans district. He has compiled a boatload of research and given his experience with USACE his perspective is interesting in light of the ongoing NOLA area flood control rebuilding and MRGO litigation.

I’ll also add that while we have been highly critical of FEMA at times we also greatly valued the input we received from rank and file FEMA employees as we welcome all viewpoints here at Slabbed. While we are primarily insurance and legally oriented we have a big enough tent to include NOLA flood control as a topic.  If you are with the USACE and are moved to comment we’d love to hear from you. – sop

[scribd id=16777499 key=key-166x8sd89ef7k3cbymxv]

SLABBED Daily – May 4 (MRGO)

Before this week is over, I will have  worked and blogged my way from one end of the State to the other and seen my youngest child graduate from college.  However, this very late edition of Slabbed Daily is the result of my need to pull my thoughts together, not my clothes for the week – thoughts about the Katrina Canal Breaches Consolidated Litigation and the case currently in trial known as MRGO, Robinson v Corps of Engineers.

It was subsequently determined by the en banc court of the Eastern District of Louisiana that in order to avoid conflicting decisions among the various sections of the Court, the proper approach would be to consolidate all such filings for purposes of pretrial discovery and motion practice. As such, what is now captioned “In re: Katrina Canal Breaches Consolidated Litigation,” C.A. No. 05-4182, has become the umbrella for all cases which concern damages caused by flooding as a result of breaches or overtopping in the areas of the 17th Street Canal, the London Avenue Canal, the Industrial Canal, and the Mississippi Gulf River Outlet (“MRGO”).

case-fileAll totaled, 4909 cases were consolidated as a result of the September 19, 2005, well reasoned decision to avoid conflicting decisions.  With an attorney for the plantiff and another representing the defendant, these 4909 cases required a minimum of 9,818 attorneys; yet, even six months later, February 16, 2006, Martindale.com reportedly listed only 5,352 licensed attorneys practicing in New Orleans. Continue reading “SLABBED Daily – May 4 (MRGO)”

SLABBED Daily – April 24 (a MRGO update)

Did you ever think you’d read a motion where the judge was asked to make one of the parties stick to their story?

I’d never heard of such until I read Plaintiffs’ Memorandum to Prevent Defendant Pinocchio’s Nose from Growing – shown on the MRGO Docket as Plaintiffs’ Memorandum to Prevent Defendant from Seeking to Prove the LPV Structures Were Not Properly Designed and Constructed and Did Not Perform as Expected.

Plaintiffs request that the Court not permit the Defendant to alter its consistent position throughout this litigation that the LPV structures were not negligently designed, constructed, or  maintained and that they performed as expected.

Recently, the Government has claimed that only “bigger, stronger levees” would have prevented this calamity.

This appears to be a poorly disguised, 180-degree reversal prohibited by settled judicial estoppel principles. If the Government is doing an about-face, this Court should bar such gamesmanship and preclude any argument or evidence—whether by affirmative proof by defense witnesses or cross-examination of Plaintiffs’ experts—that the LPV structures were defective or did not perform as expected.

In a footnote to this text, the Plaintiffs provides documentation for their claim by quoting from page eight (8) of Defendant USA’s Trial Brief. Continue reading “SLABBED Daily – April 24 (a MRGO update)”

MRGO April 21: the issue and the Order (part 2) – Resio v Van Heerden

Igor van Heerden’s involvement  in the MRGO litigation was never in doubt.  However, what role he played wasn’t evident until yesterday when Judge Duval issued an Order and Reasons ruling on on the Plaintiffs’ Motion to Strike Supplemental Report of Defendant United States’ Expert Donald Resio and Preclude Derivative Testimony and the related Opposition filed by the USA.

Judge Duval summarized the issues in his Order and Reasons:

Before the Court is a Motion to Strike Supplemental Report of Defendant United States’ Expert Donald Resio and Preclude Derivative Testimony filed by Plaintiffs in the Robinson matter.

In essence, Plaintiffs contend that this “Supplemental Report on Waves and Overtopping Characteristics Along the MRGO” issued by Donald Resio was received by Plaintiffs on March 24, 2009, “long after” his February 9, 2009 deposition was taken. They maintain that they will be unduly prejudiced in the event he is allowed to testify to these findings:

(1) because the materials relied upon should have been produced more than a monthprior to his deposition under Fed. R. Civ. P. 26, and the United States unduly delayed in its production of these materials, Plaintiffs arguing that the “the defendant fought production of these materials consistently. . . until Dr. Resio was educated at his deposition of the flaws in his analysis and a new approach was created” (Doc. 18514 at 8); and

Plaintiffs filed a detailed affidavit of Dr. Ivor Van Heerden in which he opines that it Continue reading “MRGO April 21: the issue and the Order (part 2) – Resio v Van Heerden”

MR-Go gets ready to go to trial – Part 1: the Government’s seven motions in limine

Motion in limine (Latin: “at the threshold“) as in a motion filed by the opposing party when a policyholder is “at the threshold” of victory – or so it seems in Katrina insurance litigation. Simply, and accurately stated, however, a motion in limine is a pre-trial motion filed to exclude certain evidence at trial.order-and-reasons-summary-judgment-denied_page_12-3

Seven such motions have been filed by government attorneys representing the Corps of Engineers in the lawsuit that began as Robinson v Corps of Engineers and evolved into the Consolidated Katrina Litigation where it’s known as the MRGO case.

“What in limine motions are not designed to do is to replace the dispositive motions prescribed by the Code of Civil Procedure.  It has become increasingly common, however, for litigants to utilize in limine motions for this purpose.”
( Amtower v. Photo Dynamics, Inc. (2008) 158 Cal.App.4th 1582)…

Plaintiffs’ attorney Piece O’Donnell expands on this point in the “blanket opposition” filed as Continue reading “MR-Go gets ready to go to trial – Part 1: the Government’s seven motions in limine”