Updated and corrected as noted below
Todd Graves and the other Kansas City lawyers in the Rigsby’s qui tam suit can forget it, I think. State Farm has moved to disqualify them, and (as noted in a prior post by Lotus), they’re essentially going to say that the motion to disqualify is a tissue of lies. Lies, you hear!
The odd part of that as a response is that State Farm has apparently manufactured this tissue of lies from the Rigsby’s own testimony as to who was present in the trailer during part of the document, uh, borrowing.
Graves and crew will be relieved to learn that the judge will probably not have to decide who’s lying, them or their clients, to resolve the disqualification motion. They may even be relieved to learn they won’t be having to come back to Mississippi (well, except for a sentencing hearing for their client in U.S. v. Scruggs). But I think it’s now close to a sure thing they will get disqualified.
A lawfirm in Mobile moved for Judge Senter to clarify his order that lawyers associated with SKG were disqualified, asking “do you mean us?” In a new disqualification order, Judge Senter commended them for asking, and then noted that lawyers from the firm had done work on an Alabama discovery issue in Shows v. State Farm, and gone to North Carolina to interview a witness relating to an engineering firm that worked for State Farm. This meant they had necessarily been associated with SKG lawyers. So out they go. Since Judge Senter also has the qui tam case this pretty much follows as night follows day.
I think this case is showing a lot of potential to be an unwanted orphan.
I think Judge Senter’s logic will be followed in all of the other cases by the Southern District judges (another judge has already followed Judge Senter).
Update and correction
Another judge– Judge Barbour– has just followed the McIntosh disqualification ruling. Judge Barbour disqualified everyone in the vicinity of SKG in Glenda Shows v. State Farm, which is the RICO case based on the Rigsby documents. How are they going to litigate that case without the Rigsbys? Here’s Judge Barbour’s disqualification order.
The original post said Judge Barbour had the qui tam case, which was wrong (I looked at the Shows docket and made the mistake). That’s corrected above.
h/t to YallPolitics for the original post and to Alan Lange of YallPolitics for a heads up telephone mention that there had been a ruling in Shows.
Oh well, fun (and good Southern eatin’!) while it lasted, huh, Todd and Chip and Mary and Tony? Toodles.
Out of curiosity, NMC, did you detect any irritation with Dickie in the testimony of David Nutt and Sparky Lovelace? From your liveblogging I got the sense that Nutt was pretty fed up with Dickie. Sparky just seemed a little bewildered as to how he had come to be in such a situation.
Scruggs was gone from the courtroom. Nutt seems in protect-his-rear mode more than irritated. He may be fed up too, but I got more about protectoin.
You’re right about Lovelace seeming bewildered. He basically testified he was not in the loop and I pretty much believed him.
I thought Nutt’s testimony about calling the FBI was really fascinating. In fact, it has made me re-think some things about him and his involvement. I’m sure he’d really love to distance himself from Scruggs and Langston right now.
Everybody’s waiting to see if a MS GOB judge will DQ for ethical reasons the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of Missouri. Can’t wait for the opinion. Methinks the Chief Justice is going to ask for a hearing.
Bye Todd! Y’all come back, ya hear?
Isn’t the qui tam suit the last case pending disqualification?
They get to file a response brief. I think the term for that is that it is an existential act.
NMC 3, I’ve been trying to recall what Sparky’s assignment in SKG was (could root around for it in the Search box, but do you happen to remember off-the-top?). I think we heard a while back that he’s one of the principals’ cousin or something — Don Barrett’s maybe? Does that ring a bell?
Anyhow, I’m just trying to recall how he ended up along for this ride at all.
I think this case is showing a lot of potential to be an unwanted orphan.
Great. How many people represented in this suit? State Farm gets away with what they did by default, then?
What a mess.
The excerpts of the Rigsby deposition in the State Farm motion to disqualify do not say what everyone is saying that they say about Todd Graves. According to the excerpts, there were two meetings with lawyers in a trailer.
First event – somebody poked around in State Farm’s data. Rigsbys, Scruggses, a Tony, a Mary, but no Todd at that meeting.
Second meeting later with lawyers, including a Todd. Date uncertain. No testimony about searching into State Farm’s computers at this meeting. Attorneys invoked attorney-client privilege to block questions about details of this meeting.
The guys at the first meeting have a problem, but is there evidence that Todd whomever did anything more than with his clients?