Credit where due: Undoubtedly, bellesouth’s access to PACER accounts for our access (via Slabbed) to the news that the Renfroes yesterday moved for summary judgment in and dismissal of Cori and Kerri Rigsby’s qui tam action.
In a five-page motion supported by a nineteen-page memorandum of law, Gene and Jana Renfroe argue that
For all of the reasons set forth fully in the Memorandum of Law in Support of Motion for Summary Judgment Under 31 U.S.C. § 3730(e)(4) that E. A. Renfroe & Company, Inc., Gene Renfroe, and Jana Renfroe have filed in support of this Motion, the Relators’ claims fall within the category of claims prohibited under 31 U.S.C. § 3730(e)(4), this Court lacks jurisdiction over Counts I through IV of the First Amended Complaint, and these claims must be dismissed with prejudice.
Their motion to dismiss and its supporting memorandum (which run to four and twelve pages, respectively) argue that
For all of the reasons set forth fully in the Memorandum of Law in Support of Motion to Dismiss for Failure to Comply with Rules 12(B)(6) and 9(B) that Gene Renfroe and Jana Renfroe have filed in support of this Motion, Relators’ First Amended Complaint, filed on May 22, 2007, does not plead fraud with particularity, and does not state claims against Gene or Jana Renfroe upon which relief can be granted, and should be accordingly dismissed. Furthermore, Relators cannot plead any set of facts that would entitle them to relief on those claims.
I leave the fine parsing to NMC and others similarly situated, but them’s the headlines for which we thank bellesouth, whether that pleases her or not. 
UPDATE: Here’s Anita Lee’s short report (news-free for the blogged-up).
Lotus: You have just as much access to the federal judiciary’s PACER system as does bellsouth and everyone else with a PC and an Internet connection. Google for “pacer service center” and follow the guides for establishing a log-in and password. That gives you complete access to all documents–pleadings, motions, appearances,orders, judgments, etc.–filed in every federal case, civil and criminal, in every federal court in the nation. Excellent system. Mississippi state courts could easily replicate the PACER system if only there were some leadership in our state’s judiciary and bars.
“Forget it, Mack. It’s Mississippi.”
Nevermind.
Excuse me if I’m wrong, Ben, but I thought establishing just such a system in Miss. has been a number one priority of Justice Smith, who claims Miss. will be the first state to have such, once it’s up and running about a year from now. Can’t find his quote, but it was recent.
They’re supposed to be doing it, and inching toward it. Lafayette County is one of the first that has a pacer-like product available at the courthouse to look at pleadings, but it’s not online yet. You can see it in either clerk’s office, and it’s useful.
In my opinion, the interface, while a little odd, works vastly better than Pacer. However, the implementation is going to require a lot more than just setting up the software– there will have to be a commitment from clerks in each county to get the documents online. The difference between checking out a chancery case and circuit case here puts that in stark contrast, and I can’t imagine how they are going to deal with this given the volume of paper and disarray I’ve seen in the circuit clerk in Hinds Cty
It took the federal courts several years to get theirs up to speed, with a well-orchestrated top-down national commitment from the AO. Is that really going to happen with the Miss. Sup. Ct.? Don’t the lawyers here find that the state-of-records vary wildly and scarily from one clerks office to the next?
Thanks for the info, Ben. But aren’t there fees involved? That’s my show-stopper.
BTW, the summary judgment is about the concept that you can’t file a qui tam suit based on information generally available to the public. This concept was already present in the prior State Farm sum. j. motion, but this one fleshes out the chronology considerably.
It’s kind of like the mess Eric Clark faced when he initiated a state-wide, central voter roll project. There were counties that didn’t have COMPUTERS for record storage as recently as 4 years ago…
So, to sum up, the Rigsby sisters can’t use secretly copied documents because that violates confidentiality, they can’t use publicly available information because that isn’t whistleblowing, and they can’t have lawyers who have ever talked to them or to any of their former lawyers.
And as if all that weren’t bad enough, their own momma brought Dickie Scruggs into their lives.
NOW it’s summed up. Oooof.