Tag: Lizana v State Farm

Scrooges and Stooges – State Farm attorneys pack the sleigh!

More rapid than eagles these coursers they came

Scrooges and Stooges that went straight to work

Filling stockings with motions and giving justice a jerk!

Katrina insurance litigation is beginning to not look at lot like Christmas – even when State Farm slips in a check.  Take Kuehn v State Farm, for example.  Anita Lee reported State Farm pays up, but argues award was in error in Monday’s Sun Herald:

State Farm Fire & Casualty Co. recently paid a couple $179,100.31 for Katrina damage, but their attorney said the check came too late to save Henry and June Kuehn’s Cove Place home.

Attorney Earl Denham said the two-story house further deteriorated as the Kuehns awaited settlement of their insurance claim. The city of Ocean Springs wants the property cleaned up.

U.S. District Judge L.T. Senter Jr. ordered the Katrina payment in August, but State Farm has asked him to reconsider the ruling.

“This amount is tendered without recourse, but with the understanding that this is not an admission of an amount owed,” said a letter sent with the check by State Farm attorney Scot Spragins of Oxford. “Given the circumstances, State Farm has decided to make this tender to eliminate the threatened destruction of the Kuehns’ home.

“State Farm intends to continue to litigate the issue. In the event that we are successful and it is determined that these sums are not owed, then State Farm will not seek reimbursement.”

Denham replied the next day: Continue reading “Scrooges and Stooges – State Farm attorneys pack the sleigh!”

Magistrate Judge Walker – the Company man shows his hand in rush to trump Magistrate Judge Parker

As reported in Now, about that document State Farm produced for Judge Senter in Rigsby qui tam, Coast attorney Deborah Trotter of the Merlin Law Group is counsel for plaintiff’s in three similar cases currently before the Court, Judge Senter presiding.  Magistrate Judge Parker was assigned Lizana v State Farm and Magistrate Judge Walker the other two, Lebon v State Farm, and New Light Baptist Church v State Farm:

Defendant simultaneously filed three motions for protective order in response to Plaintiff’s Notices of 30(b)(6) Depositions, one of which was an expedited motion to quash and for protective order, for which the Lebon Court ordered Plaintiff on November 9, 2009, to Respond by 9:00am on November 10, 2009, during Hurricane Ida Warnings. As all three motions filed simultaneously by Defendant were similar in substance, context and argument, with the exception of the additional motion to quash in the Lebon case, Plaintiff’s counsel determined that in the interest of judicial economy and consistency that all should be responded to simultaneously and in combination. (Plaintiff’s Amended Response, Lizana)

Plaintiffs’ notices were filed simultaneously but State Farm’s motions were cleverly staggered:

  • October 30: Lizana, Lebon and New Light Baptist Church plaintiffs each file Notice of 30(b)(6) IT Video Deposition and Issuance of Deposition Subpoena Duces Tecum
  • November 6: Lebon v State Farm: Motion to Expedite, Motion to Quash Plaintiff’s Notice of 30(b)(6) IT Video Deposition and Issuance of Deposition Subpoena Duces Tecum think and Motion for Protective Order by State Farm
  • November 9:  New Light Baptist Church v State Farm: MOTION for Protective Order Regarding Plaintiff’s Notice of 30(b)(6) IT Video Deposition and Issuance of Deposition Subpoena Duces Tecum by State Farm
  • November 11: Lizana v State Farm: MOTION for Protective Order Regarding Plaintiff’s Notice of 30(b)(6) IT Video Deposition and Issuance of Deposition Subpoena Duces Tecum by State Farm

Cleverly staggered – and cleverly planned to produce the following result: Continue reading “Magistrate Judge Walker – the Company man shows his hand in rush to trump Magistrate Judge Parker”

Now, about that document State Farm produced for Judge Senter in Rigsby qui tam

so I may know the outer limits of the potential claims involved in this
action, I will require State Farm to submit, in camera, a list containing the name of the insured, the address of the property, and the amount of flood insurance paid, for all SFIP claims that meet the following criteria…

Let’s just cut to the chase here and consider whether the  list of State Farm policyholder claims the Company was Ordered to provide Judge Senter was worth the paper it was written on.

Lizana’s response to State Farm (Lizana v State Farm) gives cause for concern about the integrity of the claims file produced in discovery for any given case  and even more about the integrity of the list of claims meeting Judge Senter’s criteria.

On or about February 6, 2009, Plaintiffs served discovery requests to Defendant, which contained numerous requests for information regarding Defendant’s first party property claims handling procedures, the investigation and handling of Plaintiffs’ claims, and Defendant’s data storage systems, retention policies and procedures, and communication transmittals, among other requests seeking relevant information and data.

Fast forward to November 2009. Continue reading “Now, about that document State Farm produced for Judge Senter in Rigsby qui tam”

What’s the score? No, not the Saints game, I know they won – I’m talkin’ Katrina litigation and then some

So, what’s up besides the Saints? Well, for starters there’s the trial of Bossier v State Farm that got underway yesterday after the jury was seated mid-afternoon.  The grapevine reported there was time for opening statements (with no personal commentary re: Bossier’s motion in limine) and one witness before Court ended for the day.   The second day began at 10am and hopefully I’ll get another grapevine report or there will be something in the Sun Herald.

State Farm filed an an 11th hour trial brief, but  an interesting one nonetheless, that sets forth the Company’s position on the meaning of the Corban decision:

State Farm anticipates that Plaintiff at trial may attempt to satisfy his burden of proof merely by pointing to the totality of damage to his house at the conclusion of Hurricane Katrina. Continue reading “What’s the score? No, not the Saints game, I know they won – I’m talkin’ Katrina litigation and then some”

SLABBED Daily – October 2

A short post – appropriately enough, it’s Friday and most everyone would like a short day to start the weekend early.

Then again, some of us need to start the weekend early.  I’m thinking my eyes could use the rest as it appears I prematurely announced the settlement of Lizana v State Farm.  You just can’t imagine my shock at seeing the case listed yesterday.  Ordinarily, I wouldn’t post anything other than a mention of the motion filed yesterday.  However, if my eyes did not fail me, this may be the only opportunity I have to post a resurrection:

The parties respectfully requests that the Court extend the Plaintiff’s deadline for designation of experts until October 15, 2009, and extend Defendant’s deadline for designation of experts until November 16, 2009…In support of said Motion the parties would state that the parties are in agreement that said extension will not affect any other currently pending deadlines, and is necessary for the parties to prepare their respective cases.

Counsel for Bossier in Bossier v State Farm is probably going to need to give her eyes a rest after what appears to be a busy weekend in the making:

TEXT ONLY ORDER denying Plaintiff’s Motion for Extension of Time to file motions in limine. Plaintiff shall file his motions in limine no later than October 5, 2009. NO FURTHER WRITTEN ORDER SHALL ISSUE. Signed by District Judge L. T. Senter, Jr., on October 1, 2009.

Geeze, one day into the month and the tricking and treating has already started.  Spooky!

SLABBED Monthly – September (catching up on Rigsby, Bossier, Robohm, Anthony, Harris, Montet, Lizana, and New Light Baptist v State Farm)

Thirty days hath September; but, this September it would take 60 to get everything done – and I’m not the only one wondering if the season is called “fall” because those who don’t fall behind are about to fall over.  Sop sends me text messages as he and little Sop make their way from football practice to a soccer game; and, I text back as soon as I find a place to pull over.  Since we can’t begin October without September done, I’ve grabbed a handful of incomplete posts and tossed the basic information into this update.

Rigsby v State Farm:

NOTICE of Hearing: Telephonic Status Conference set for 10/13/2009 01:30 PM before Magistrate Judge Robert H. Walker to establish a scheduling order for the discovery and trial of the Relators claim. One week prior to the conference, counsel are to submit, via email, a confidential memo in PDF format, detailing anticipated discovery by each party (including the number and names of deponents) and a requested time frame for discovery.

Bossier v State Farm

Several interesting developments here including this surprising one – Judge Walker issued an Order denying (yes, denying) a State Farm motion!

The evidence presented to the Court is uncontested that Fountain prepared the affidavit; that the affidavit included only part of what Ziz told Fountain; and that it omitted information about the rapid rise of flood waters from the Bay of  Biloxi. This Court finds such evidence insufficient to warrant disqualification of counsel. It is therefore, ORDERED that the motion to disqualify Attorney Stanton J. Fountain , Jr. as counsel for Plaintiff is denied.

Bossier’s counsel, coast attorney Judy Guice aka Seabiscuit (Judybisquit) withdrew the motion to expedit a  hearing on sanctions against State Farm for violation of the court’s September 3 order pending review of the documents belatedly provided by State Farm. (emphasis added)

On September 24, 2009, at approximately noon, counsel for Plaintiff received four discs represented to contain claims files ordered by this Honorable Court on September 3, 2009. Said discs appear to contain documents relating to approximately 150 claims files. (emphasis on 150 added!)

Meanwhile, State Farm has filed Continue reading “SLABBED Monthly – September (catching up on Rigsby, Bossier, Robohm, Anthony, Harris, Montet, Lizana, and New Light Baptist v State Farm)”

What’s the score? 0 – 2 on tail-wagging-dog Protective Orders

Right of the bat, we’re going to find out if I cut my 7th inning stretch short.   Frankly, what I found when I later turned my attention to the docket of the day to check for any additions in cases SLABBED made me wonder if one day of reflection was going to be sufficient.

Magistrate Judge Parker pitched a Protective Order to State Farm in Lizana and Magistrate Judge Walker tossed the Company another in Montet .  Since it took Parker 2 (pages) to do what Walker did in 7, Parker is up first for examination:

State Farm has cited numerous cases within this jurisdiction, with facts and issues very similar to those involved in this matter, wherein protective orders have been entered with respect to the same types of information at issue here. As in those cases, State Farm has demonstrated good cause for the entry of a protective order and, accordingly, the motion will be GRANTED.

Walker said much the same, however:

The court, being duly advised in the premises, finds that good cause exists for the issuance of a Protective Order; therefore, it is ORDERED and ADJUDGED…

Now, a good portion of my 7th inning stretch was devoted to reflecting on “good cause” for a protective order in discovery.  I’ve observed that counsel for both parties in a case and the District Court “hang their hat” with the Fifth Circuit and, since I’m neither a lawyer nor an officer of the Court, I decided that I’d follow and hang mine on the 5th’s order quoted in the most recent SLABBED update on Montet which clearly states: Continue reading “What’s the score? 0 – 2 on tail-wagging-dog Protective Orders”

State Farm has secrets – but not for long!

Coast attorney Deborah Trotter is at it again – and this time she’s challenging “secrets” by number in her Response to the whisper-in-your-ear Motion for Protective Order the great nuzzler Scot Spragins filed  Lizana v State Farm!

Defendant identifies 46 documents in its privilege log that it claims qualifies for protection as trade secrets. However, the description of those 46 documents is vague and general. Defendant cannot meet its burden to make a “specific showing” that the document or information withheld qualifies for protection by beginning each description with the word “Specific.”

The Privilege Log from State Farms motion and excerpts from Lizana’s Opposition citing igascullen1specific items by number with reference to related Rules and/or Code Sections cited in the Response (also by number!) follows — all supporting Trotter’s contentions:

The Uniform Local Rule 26.1(A)(1)(c) requires that “a party withholding information claimed privileged or otherwise protected shall submit a privilege log that contains at least the following information: name of the document; description of the document; date; author(s); recipient(s); and nature of the privilege. To withhold materials without such notice subjects the withholding party to sanctions under FED. R. CIV. P. 37 and may be viewed as a waiver of the privilege or protection.”

Defendant lists only three of those categories in its privilege log: 1) Document, 2) Description, and 3) Privilege. Defendant identifies 46 documents in its privilege log that it claims qualifies for protection as trade secrets. However, the description of those 46 documents is vague and general. Defendant cannot meet its burden to make a “specific showing” that the document or information withheld qualifies for protection by beginning each description with the word “Specific.” Continue reading “State Farm has secrets – but not for long!”