Here's a copy of the State Farm brief - Insurance Coverage Blog

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA ex rel. 

CORI RIGSBY and KERRI RIGSBY 

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF MISSISSIPPI 

SOUTHERN DIVISION 

RELATORS/COUNTER-DEFENDANTS 

v. CASE NO. 1:06cv433-LTS-RHW 

STATE FARM MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY DEFENDANT/COUNTER-PLAINTIFF 

and 

FORENSIC ANALYSIS ENGINEERING CORPORATION; 

EXPONENT, INC.; HAAG ENGINEERING CO.; 

JADE ENGINEERING; RIMKUS CONSULTING GROUP INC.; 

STRUCTURES GROUP; E. A. RENFROE, INC.; 

JANA RENFROE; GENE RENFROE; and 

ALEXIS KING 

DEFENDANTS 

DEFENDANT/COUNTER-PLAINTIFF STATE FARM FIRE AND CASUALTY 

COMPANY’S REBUTTAL MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT OF ITS MOTION 

TO DISQUALIFY BARTIMUS, FRICKLETON, ROBERTSON & GORNY, PC 

AND GRAVES BARTLE & MARCUS, LLC 

OF COUNSEL: 

Robert C. Galloway (MSB # 4388) 

Jeffrey A. Walker (MSB # 6879) 

E. Barney Robinson III (MSB # 09432) 

Benjamin M. Watson (MSB # 100078) 

ITS ATTORNEYS 

Michael B. Beers (ASB-4992-S80M) 

BUTLER, SNOW, O’MARA, STEVENS 

BEERS, ANDERSON, JACKSON, 

& CANNADA, PLLC 

PATTY & FAWAL, P.C. 

17th Floor, Regions Plaza 

Post Office Box 1988 Post Office Box 22567 

Suite 100 Jackson, Mississippi 39225-2567 

250 Commerce Street (36104) (P)(601) 948-5711 

Montgomery, Alabama 36102 (F)(601) 985-4500 

(P)(334) 834-5311 

(E) bob.galloway@butlersnow.com 

(F)(334) 834-5362 

(E) jeff.walker@butlersnow.com 

(E) mbeers@beersanderson.com 

(E) barney.robinson@butlersnow.com 

(E) ben.watson@butlersnow.com 

PRO HAC VICE

TABLE OF CONTENTS 

Page 

TABLE OF CONTENTS................................................................................................................. I 

REBUTTAL ARGUMENT.............................................................................................................1 

I. DISQUALIFICATION IS MANDATED UNDER MCINTOSH 

BECAUSE COUNSEL KNEW THAT SCRUGGS WAS MAKING 

SHAM PAYMENTS TO THE RIGSBYS AND DID NOTHING .........................1 

II. 

THE FCA DOES NOT LICENSE COUNSEL’S MULTIPLE ETHICAL 

VIOLATIONS .........................................................................................................5 

A. The Rigsbys’ Counsel Do Not Represent the Government .........................5 

B. There Is No Public Policy Exception That Permits the Rigsbys and 

Their Counsel to Break the Law or Violate Contracts.................................6 

III. THE RIGSBYS AND THEIR COUNSEL VIOLATED THE 

COMPUTER FRAUD AND ABUSE ACT AND MRPC 8.4.................................8 

IV. 

COUNSEL’S BRIEFS RAISE FURTHER DISQUALIFYING ISSUES 

UNDER MRPC 3.7 AND MRPC 1.7......................................................................9 

CONCLUSION................................................................................................................................9 

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE ......................................................................................................11

REBUTTAL ARGUMENT 

I. DISQUALIFICATION IS MANDATED UNDER MCINTOSH BECAUSE COUNSEL KNEW THAT 

SCRUGGS WAS MAKING SHAM PAYMENTS TO THE RIGSBYS AND DID NOTHING 

The Rigsbys’ response and opposition briefs 1 confirm even more clearly why all of their 

counsel must be disqualified. Counsel admit that they knew of the payments to the Rigsbys soon 

after they began, “either in late Summer or early Fall of 2006” ([141-4] 15), 2 and knew that any 

payment to the Rigsbys was improper on multiple levels and violated the ethical rules. ([141] at 

2, [141-4] 16.) Yet, for the next year and a half Counsel made no effort to stop these payments 

or to disassociate themselves from Richard F. Scruggs (“Scruggs”), his law firm, or the Rigsbys. 

As in McIntosh v. State Farm, No. 1:06cv01080-LTS-RHW (S.D. Miss.), Counsel’s “failure to 

take timely and reasonable remedial steps or to object to this arrangement amounts to a 

ratification of Scruggs’s actions” and warrants disqualification. (McIntosh [1172] at 2.) 

Counsel contend that they bear no responsibility for the sham payments to the Rigsbys 

because they did not personally make the payments. ([141-3] 25.) Counsel are wrong. Until 

Scruggs’s withdrawal, the Rigsbys were jointly represented by BFRG, GBM, and The Scruggs 

Law Firm. Under MRPC 5.1(c), co-counsel have the affirmative duty “to take reasonable 

remedial action” in the face of an ethical violation by any one member of the team. MRPC 5.1(c) 

(emphasis added). Even Scruggs’s own ethics expert, Geoffrey Hazard, agrees that Rule 5.1(c) 

“imposes a duty” to “rectify the harm.” 2 Geoffrey C. Hazard, Jr., & W. William Hodes, THE 

LAW OF LAWYERING § 42.6 (3d ed. 2007) (“Hazard & Hodes”). Once an attorney learns of such 

misconduct, the attorney must “either report or stop the conduct.” Krehling v. Baron, 900 F. 

Supp. 1574, 1577 (M.D. Fla. 1995). Rule 5.1 actually imposes a “heightened form of liability 

for attorneys,” In re Anonymous Member of S.C. Bar, 552 S.E.2d 10, 12 (S.C. 2001), not reduced 

liability as Counsel suggest. ([140] at 17.) 

1 Although State Farm filed a single motion to disqualify counsel, the Rigsbys have submitted two briefs: 

one from Bartimus, Frickleton, Robertson & Gorny (“BFRG”), and another from Graves Bartle & Marcus (“GBM”). 

2 GBM claims it did not know that Scruggs was paying the Rigsbys until it became “public record.” ([140] 

at 15-16.) But such payments were widely reported in the media by the late summer of 2006. See, e.g., (Exs. 1 & 2.)

Thus, in McIntosh, this Court held that the SKG lawyers were jointly responsible for 

Scruggs’s ethical breaches under MRPC 5.1(c) because they took no action to stop the 

“consulting” payments to the Rigsbys. (McIntosh [1172] at 3.) Similarly, in In re Conwell, the 

court held that an attorney violated his affirmative duty and suspended him from practice 

because after he became aware of a partner’s ethical violation, he merely “discussed the matter” 

with his partner (“who assured him” that the violation would be corrected), but the attorney 

“failed to take any action” to remedy the violation. In re Conwell, 69 P.3d 589, 591 (Kan. 2003). 

In this case, Counsel admit that, when they learned of Scruggs’s sham payments to the 

Rigsbys, they made no effort to stop the conduct or to end their relationship with Scruggs or the 

Rigsbys. Rather, they merely informed Scruggs that they would not pay the Rigsbys directly and 

the payments made by Scruggs should not be charged back to any of the qui tam lawyers. ([141- 

4] 16.) This halfhearted attempt to object to this arrangement is tantamount to a ratification of 

Scruggs’s actions and is woefully inadequate to discharge their professional responsibilities. 

Tellingly, the Rigsbys’ briefs do not address this Court’s discussion of MRPC 5.1(c) at 

all. In fact, the BFRG brief completely ignores MRPC 5.1(c), quoting a separate provision of the 

rule – MRPC 5.1(a) – which is not relied upon by State Farm and has nothing to do with the 

issues in this case. ([141] at 15.) The GBM brief is similarly devoid of substantive analysis. 

Instead, it accuses State Farm of “tr[ying] to muddy the waters by citing inappropriate cases such 

as American Can Co. v. Citrus Feed Co., 436 F.2d 1125 (5th Cir. 1971),” which it claims is 

“about as relevant to the present dispute as the Uniform Commercial Code.” ([140] at 17-18.) 

Yet in McIntosh, this Court specifically cited American Can for precisely the same proposition 

that State Farm relied upon in its brief. (McIntosh [1172] at 3.) Clearly, the Court found 

American Can both appropriate and relevant. 

Unable to offer any tenable legal argument justifying their failure to comply with MRPC 

5.1(c), Counsel attempt to explain it away. First, they argue that this case is distinguishable from 

McIntosh because “in this case the Rigsby’s [sic] are not fact witnesses but are clients of the law 

firms [and] parties.” ([141] at 6.) But Counsel concede that payments to clients and to qui tam 

2

elators are every bit as improper as payments to fact witnesses. ([141] at 2 & 4.) Moreover, any 

suggestion that the Rigsbys are not fact witnesses (albeit disqualified ones) in their own case 

cannot be taken seriously. 

Second, Counsel contend that they should not be held responsible for Scruggs’s sham 

payments to the Rigsbys because they believed that the payments were for legitimate consulting 

work. ([140] at 16.) But “[e]ven if [the payments to the Rigsbys were not a sham], the 

performance of legitimate work that is closely related to a matter in litigation cannot justify an 

attorney’s payment of a substantial sum of money to a non-expert material witness.” (McIntosh 

[1172] at 2.) Here, Counsel admit that any payment to the Rigsbys would have been improper 

because they are parties in this case. ([141] at 1-2.) 

Nor is it material that Counsel claim not to have known that the Rigsbys were 

“consulting” (i.e., illicitly providing confidential information) on State Farm matters. ([140] at 7.) 

Under MRPC 5.1(c), willful blindness is not a defense. See Hazard & Hodes § 1.23 (an attorney 

is charged with the knowledge that a sophisticated professional should have had under the 

circumstances and “the ‘knows’ standard thus begins to merge with the ‘should have known’ 

standard, for often it will be impossible to believe that a lawyer lacked knowledge unless he 

deliberately tried to evade it”). With a simple phone call to their clients or to Scruggs, Counsel 

could have dispelled any doubt that the Rigsbys were “consulting” on State Farm matters. 

Third, Counsel suggest that they should not be responsible for Scruggs’s ethical 

violations because he “was local counsel only.” ([141-3] 50; see also [140] at 16). MRPC 

5.1(c) does not contain a “local counsel only” exception. Indeed, for “lead counsel,” supervisory 

responsibility is heightened, not diminished. 

See MRPC 5.1(b) (“A lawyer having direct 

supervisory authority over another lawyer shall make reasonable efforts to ensure that the other 

lawyer conforms to the rules of professional conduct”). 

“Lead counsel” would have an 

affirmative duty to instruct Scruggs to cease making all payments to the Rigsbys. If Scruggs had 

refused, “lead counsel” would have had an ethical obligation to fire Scruggs and replace his firm 

with different local counsel. Counsel did nothing of the sort. 

3

Finally, Counsel attempt to distance themselves from Scruggs by claiming that “no 

member of GBM was ever associated with or performed any work for SKG or its successor 

entity, KLG” ([140] at 12), and “BFRG has not entered an appearance in any case filed by any 

person having a claim against any insurance company for failure to pay claims following 

Hurricane Katrina in the Southern District of Mississippi.” ([141] at 4.) Again, this putative 

distinction is both irrelevant and untrue. 

In McIntosh, this Court disqualified the remaining SKG lawyers because they were in a 

joint venture with Scruggs and knew or should have known about his unethical conduct, but did 

nothing to stop it. (McIntosh [1172] at 3.) In this case, all Counsel were similarly in a joint 

venture with Scruggs, admittedly knew of his unethical conduct, and did nothing to stop it. 

Further, Counsel’s ties to the SKG are much more significant than they disclose. Chip 

Robertson has in fact not only entered an appearance and served as co-counsel with Scruggs and 

the SKG in the appeal of Tuepker v. State Farm Fire & Casualty Co., No. 1:05cv559-LTS-RHW, 

2006 WL 2794773 (S.D. Miss. Sept. 27, 2006), he actually argued the appeal before the Fifth 

Circuit. 3 

Similarly, BFRG served as co-counsel with Scruggs and the SKG on behalf of the 

McIntoshes in In re State Farm Fire & Casualty Co., No. 07-60771 (5th Cir. filed Oct. 2, 2007). 

This representation is especially significant, as it pertained to State Farm’s Petition for a Writ of 

Mandamus from this Court’s denial of State Farm’s first disqualification motion. BFRG also 

served as co-counsel in Cori Rigsby & Kerri Rigsby v. Gene Renfroe & Jana Renfroe, 1:07cv75- 

LTS-RHW (S.D. Miss. filed Jan. 26, 2007). 

Although the Rigsbys’ lawyers have disingenuously claimed that they have “not . . . 

attempt[ed] to parse words or carefully say things in such a way as to leave one impression while 

the truth lies elsewhere” ([141] at 4), by using the modifiers “in any case filed by any person 

having a claim against any insurance company” and “in the Southern District of Mississippi,” 

(id.) (emphasis added), to somehow exclude a Southern District case by the Rigsbys against 

3 Tuepker v. State Farm Fire & Cas. Co., 507 F.3d 346, 347 (5 th Cir. 2007). 

4

Renfroe and Southern District cases on appeal to the Fifth Circuit, it is clear that “parsing” is 

exactly what they have done, time and again. 

II. 

THE FCA DOES NOT LICENSE COUNSEL’S MULTIPLE ETHICAL VIOLATIONS 

A. The Rigsbys’ Counsel Do Not Represent the Government 

According to Counsel, they are supposedly “representatives” of the government and 

therefore are not subject to the same rules as “private plaintiffs.” ([140] at 5); see also (id. at 8.) 

Yet qui tam relators and their attorneys are manifestly not agents of the government, Riley v. St. 

Luke’s Episcopal Hosp., 252 F.3d 749, 755 & n.9 (5th Cir. 2001), as courts have repeatedly 

rejected claims of governmental authority by qui tam relators and their attorneys. 4 

Further, even attorneys who – unlike the Rigsbys - are bona fide representatives of the 

federal government must comply with national and local ethics rules. 5 

See 28 U.S.C. § 530B(a). 

Additionally, the Fourth Amendment’s prohibition on warrantless searches and seizures would 

further proscribe a true government agent from engaging in conduct even remotely like the 

Rigsbys’ illicit document collection effort. 6 

Finally, Counsel attempt to up the ante by claiming that “[i]n seeking to disqualify both 

Relators and their counsel, State Farm seeks no less than to disqualify the Government from 

pursuing claims of fraud committed against it.” ([141] at 3.) But neither disqualification nor 

4 See U.S. ex rel. Lamers v. City of Green Bay, Wisconsin, 924 F. Supp. 96 (E.D. Wis. 1996), aff’d, 168 

F.3d 1013 (7th Cir. 1999) (“Although a relator may sue in the government’s name, the relator is not vested with 

governmental power”); see also Bank of Am., N.A. v. McCann, 444 F. Supp. 2d 1227, 1233 (N.D. Fla. 2006); U.S. 

ex rel. Chandler v. Hektoen Inst. for Med. Research, No. 97 C 514, 1999 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 589, at *6 n.2 (N.D. Ill. 

Jan. 7, 1999). 

5 Notably, the unfettered investigatory powers that Counsel claim to have as “qui tam lawyers” vastly 

exceed the pre-suit investigatory powers that the FCA confers on bona fide federal investigators Under the FCA, 

pre-suit investigations are governed by the statute’s Civil Investigative Demand or “CID” procedures. See 31 U.S.C. 

§ 3733. The FCA makes clear that only government attorneys – and not qui tam relators – can use the CID 

procedures. See 31 U.S.C. § 3733(a)(1). Nor can the government conduct a furtive “data dump” to obtain a 

company’s records, as the Rigsbys did in this case. Rather, the government is authorized only to issue an 

administrative subpoena requesting that the company produce such documentary materials for inspection and 

copying. 31 U.S.C. § 3733(a)(1)(A). 

6 See United States v. James Daniel Good Real Prop., 510 U.S. 43, 51 (1993) (“[T]he Fourth Amendment 

applies to searches and seizures in the civil context . . .”); O’Connor v. Ortega, 480 U.S. 709, 715 (1987) (applying 

the Fourth Amendment to search by hospital officials of employee’s office when that employee was on 

administrative leave following sexual harassment accusations). 

5

dismissal would compromise the government’s ability to pursue a claim against State Farm, 

should it so desire. See 31 U.S.C. § 3730(a). 

B. There Is No Public Policy Exception That Permits the Rigsbys and Their 

Counsel to Break the Law or Violate Contracts 

Attempting to defend the Rigsbys’ admitted theft of thousands of State Farm documents, 7 

Counsel contend that the FCA creates a public policy exception allowing them to ignore the rules 

of ethics and discovery. 

Yet the FCA’s plain language makes clear that it only permits 

employees to uncover fraud through “lawful acts.” 31 U.S.C. § 3730(h) (emphasis added). 8 

Stealing and copying documents, and illegally accessing State Farm computers, in order to 

supply information to attorneys is a violation of federal and state law as well as the Rigsbys’ 

employment contracts with Renfroe and access agreements with State Farm. 9 

Counsel also argue that the computer access and employment agreements that the 

Rigsbys signed with State Farm and Renfroe, respectively, are void as against public policy 

because they “restrain [the Rigsbys] from cooperating with criminal investigations or disclosing 

matters of public consequence.” ([141] at 18.) Yet State Farm has never contended that 

contracts restrained the Rigsbys from reporting alleged fraud or bringing this qui tam action. 

Rather, State Farm contends only that public policy does not license any and all activities, 

including the Rigsbys’ massive data-mining operation and repeated illegal access to State Farm’s 

databases. 

The case law confirms that confidentiality agreements are not voided by public policy – 

even in the context of the FCA. In Zahodnick v. IBM Corp., 135 F.3d 911, 915 (4th Cir. 1997), 

7 (K. Rigsby Dep. II in McIntosh at 511:14-16, 453:8-18, 487:12-17, 546:9-10.) 

8 See also U.S. v. Cancer Treatment Ctrs. of Am., 350 F. Supp. 2d 765, 770-71 (N.D. Ill. 2004) (finding 

relator who “under shroud of secrecy” removed documents for FCA action liable under breach of contract in spite of 

FCA); Velazquez v. Landcoast Insulation, Inc., No. 06-0174, 2007 WL 902297, at *5 (W.D. La. Mar. 22, 2007) 

(“[i]n other words, plaintiff has failed to show that he took lawful acts in furtherance of a potentially false claim for 

payment made by [his employer] to an agent of the United States”). 

9 Counsel also contend that the Rigsbys had to download and steal thousands of pages of State Farm 

documents because they became alarmed that State Farm was “shredding documents in order to conceal its 

wrongdoing.” ([141] at 9-10.) Yet Kerri Rigsby has testified that she could not identify a single document that was 

destroyed. E.g., (K. Rigsby Marion Dep. of June 20, 2007 at 199:3-200:13 (Ex. 9).) 

6

an employee and qui tam relator who signed two nondisclosure agreements retained confidential 

information belonging to his employer, IBM. After he was fired, he forwarded the documents to 

his counsel without IBM’s consent. Id. The court determined that there was a breach of 

confidentiality and enjoined the employee from disclosing the confidential materials to third 

parties. Id. 10 

The Rigsbys rely heavily on United States ex rel. Green v. Northrop Corp., 59 F.3d 953 

(9th Cir. 1995), to support their argument that their access agreements with State Farm are void. 

But in a subsequent opinion, the Ninth Circuit substantially narrowed the scope of Green, 

explaining that where, as here, “the federal government [is] aware of [relator’s] allegations . . . 

the public interest . . . is not implicated.” United States ex rel. Hall v. Teledyne Wah Chang 

Albany, 104 F.3d 230, 233 (9th Cir. 1997) (emphasis added). Here, the government was on 

notice of the allegation that insurance companies were mischaracterizing wind damage as flood 

damage before the Rigsbys even filed this Action. See ([92] at 7.) Thus, the federal government 

was inarguably aware of the Rigsbys’ allegations and “the public interest [was] not implicated.” 

United States ex rel. Hall, 104 F.3d at 233; see also United States v. Swords to Plowshares, No. 

99-15725, 242 F.3d 385, text available at 2000 WL 1529235, at *1 (9th Cir. Oct. 16, 2000) 

(unpublished decision). 

The other cases relied upon by the Rigsbys are equally inapposite, as they all involve 

restraints on reporting possible crimes to the authorities or cooperating with a validly conducted 

investigation by the appropriate authorities. 11 

Obviously, in this case, nothing in the Rigsbys’ 

10 Counsel also erroneously contend that E.A. Renfroe shares their misguided belief that the Rigsbys were 

“privileged” to conduct their illegal searches and seizures of State Farm documents and turn them over “to both their 

attorneys (for advice) and to law enforcement (for action).” ([141] at 15) (footnote omitted). In support of this 

assertion, Counsel cite paragraph 30 of the Renfroe Complaint, which states the exact opposite of what Counsel 

claim: “These acts by [the Rigsbys] are without privilege, justification or excuse, and are taken for their own 

improper motives to profit and harm Renfroe and its clients.” See (Cmpl. in E.A. Renfroe & Co, Inc. v. Cori Rigsby 

Moran, 2:05cv06-WMA-1752-S (N.D. Ala.)) (Ex. 7). 

11 See, e.g., Connecticut Light & Power Co. v. Secretary of the U.S. Dep’t of Labor, 85 F.3d 89 (2d Cir. 

1996) (settlement agreement which specifically required employee to remain silent with regard to investigations of 

corporate wrongdoing was void as against public policy); Fomby-Denson v. Department of the Army, 247 F.3d 1366, 

1376 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (settlement agreement did not bar United States Army from reporting possible criminal 

activity to German authorities); Lachman v. Sperry-Sun Well Surveying Co., 457 F.2d 850, 854 (10th Cir. 1972) 

(cont'd) 

7

employment agreements with Renfroe or access agreements with State Farm foreclosed the 

Rigsbys from filing this lawsuit or lawfully cooperating with a federal investigation, and State 

Farm has never claimed otherwise. 

III. 

THE RIGSBYS AND THEIR COUNSEL VIOLATED THE COMPUTER FRAUD AND ABUSE 

ACT AND MRPC 8.4 

Though Counsel assert that there is not a “wisp” of evidence associating them with any of 

the Rigsbys’ many wrongful acts, that conclusion can only be reached by annulling their own 

clients’ sworn testimony and the inferences reasonably drawn therefrom. In reality, the evidence 

of Counsel’s involvement is robust. Counsel submit three declarations stating that the Rigsbys’ 

State Farm laptop computers were not connected to State Farm databases during the trailer 

meetings. Putting aside for the moment that these declarations are inconsistent with the Rigsbys’ 

own sworn testimony, see (C. Rigsby McIntosh II Dep. at 393:10-396:15), even if Cori Rigsby’s 

State Farm laptop was supposedly not connected via the Internet, such does not preclude liability 

under the CFAA, which has no such requirement. All that the statute requires in this regard is 

the infiltration of a “protected computer,” which is defined to include those “used in interstate or 

foreign commerce or communication.” 18 U.S.C. § 1030(e)(2)(B). There is no temporal 

element. Likewise, under Miss. Code Ann. § 97-45-3 (1972) (computer fraud), whether or not 

the Rigsbys’ computers were connected to the Internet or State Farm’s network at the time of the 

wrongful access does not matter. 

Further, taking Counsel’s declarations at face value, they underscore the fact that Counsel 

have now admitted participating in the Rigsbys’ use of State Farm computers 12 

– use which was 

clearly unlawful, whether they admit that fact or not. 

This alone is sufficient to justify 

disqualification. 

________________________ 

(cont'd from previous page) 

(employment agreement that prevented employee from reporting possible crime to authorities was void); Palmateer 

v. International Harvester Co., 421 N.E. 2d 876, 879 (Ill. 1981) (similar). 

12 See, e.g., Joe N. Pratt Ins. v. Doane, No. V-07-07, 2008 WL 819011, at *9-10 (S.D. Tex. Mar. 20, 2008); 

see also Charles Schwab & Co. v. Carter, No. 04C7071, 2005 WL 2369815, at *5-7 (N.D. Ill. Sept. 27, 2005); cf 18 

U.S.C. § 2 (aiding and abetting). 

8

IV. 

COUNSEL’S BRIEFS RAISE FURTHER DISQUALIFYING ISSUES UNDER MRPC 3.7 AND 

MRPC 1.7 

31 U.S.C. § 3730(h) only protects an “employee who is discharged . . . by his or her 

employer because of lawful acts done by the employee” in furtherance of his or her FCA 

investigation. Here, Counsel’s declarations establish beyond legitimate dispute that they are 

material witnesses with respect to the lawfulness of the Rigsbys’ document and data 

misappropriation. As the “lawfulness” of the misappropriation is a central issue on both the 

Rigsbys’ retaliation claim and State Farm’s counterclaim, MRPC 3.7, which mandates that “[a] 

lawyer shall not act as advocate at a trial in which the lawyer is likely to be a necessary 

witness[,]”as well as MRPC 1.7(b), which prohibits representation in the case of conflict 

between counsel’s personal and client interests, 13 disqualify the Rigsbys’ Counsel in this Action. 

CONCLUSION 

In summary, the Rigsbys’ lawyers’ position is essentially one of “hear no evil – see no 

evil,” or “I knew what was happening, but did not participate in it directly.” The Rules of 

Professional Conduct demand more than that. State Farm respectfully prays that the Court grant 

its motion. 

This the 9 th day of May, 2008. 

Respectfully submitted, 

STATE FARM FIRE AND CASUALTY COMPANY 

By: 

/s/Jeffrey A. Walker 

Robert C. Galloway (MSB # 4388) 


E. Barney Robinson III (MSB # 09432) 

Benjamin M. Watson (MSB # 100078) 

ITS ATTORNEYS 

13 The comments to Rule 1.7 explain that “[i]f the probity of a lawyer’s own conduct in a transaction is in 

serious question, it may be difficult or impossible for the lawyer to give a client detached advice.” MRPC 1.7(b) 

cmt. (1987). Here, “the probity of” the Rigsbys’ Counsel’s personal involvement in accessing State Farm 

documents and data is at issue – resulting in an additional basis for their disqualification. (Id.) 

9

OF COUNSEL: 

BUTLER, SNOW, O’MARA, STEVENS & CANNADA, PLLC 

17th Floor, AmSouth Plaza 

Post Office Box 22567 

Jackson, Mississippi 39225-2567 

(P) (601) 948-5711 

(F) (601) 985-4500 

(E) bob.galloway@butlersnow.com 

(E) jeff.walker@butlersnow.com 

(E) barney.robinson@butlersnow.com 

(E) ben.watson@butlersnow.com 

Michael B. Beers (ASB-4992-S80M) 

BEERS, ANDERSON, JACKSON, PATTY & FAWAL, P.C. 


Suite 100 

250 Commerce Street (36104) 

Montgomery, Alabama 36102 

(P) (334) 834-5311 

(F) (334) 834-5362 

(E) mbeers@beersanderson.com 

PRO HAC VICE 

10

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 

I, Jeffrey A. Walker, one of the attorneys for State Farm Fire and Casualty Company, do 

hereby certify that I have this day caused a true and correct copy of the foregoing instrument to 

be delivered to the following, via the means directed by the Court’s Electronic Filing System: 

Michael C. Rader 

Anthony L. DeWitt 

Edward D. Robertson, Jr. 

Edward D. Robertson III 

James P. Frickleton 

Mary Doerhoff Winter 

BARTIMUS, FRICKLETON, ROBERTSON & GORNY, PC 

715 Swifts Highway 

Jefferson City, MO 65109 

(P) 573-659-4454 

(F) 573-659-4460 

Todd P. Graves 

David L. Marcus 

Matthew V. Bartle 

GRAVES, BARTLE & MARCUS, LLC 

1100 Main Street #2600 

Kansas City, MO 64105 

(P) 816-305-6288 

ATTORNEYS FOR RELATORS 

Jeffrey S. Bucholtz 

Joyce R. Branda 

Patricia R. Davis 

Jay D. Majors 

UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE 

Civil Division 

P.O. Box 261 

Ben Franklin Station 

Washington, DC 20044 

(P) 202-307-0264 

(F) 202-514-0280 

11

Dunnica O. Lampton 

Alfred B. Jernigan, Jr. 

Felicia C. Adams 

UNITED STATES ATTORNEY’S OFFICE 

Southern District of Mississippi 

Suite 500 

188 East Capitol Street 

Jackson, MS 39201 

(P) 601-965-4480 

(F) 601-965-4409 

ATTORNEYS FOR THE UNITED STATES 

H. Hunter Twiford III 

Stephen F. Schelver 

Candy Burnette 

MCGLINCHEY STAFFORD, PLLC 

Suite 1100, City Centre South 

200 South Lamar Street (39201) 

P.O. Box 22949 

Jackson, MS 39225-2949 

(P) 601-960-8400 

(F) 601-960-8432 

John T. Boese 

Beth C. McClain 

FRIED, FRANK, HARRIS, SHRIVER & JACOBSON, LLP 

1001 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW 

Suite 800 

Washington, DC 20004-2505 

(P) 202-639-7220 

ATTORNEYS FOR DEFENDANTS E.A. RENFROE & COMPANY, INC. 

GENE RENFROE AND JANA RENFROE 

Larry G. Canada 

Kathryn Breard Platt 

GALLOWAY, JOHNSON, TOMPKINS, BURR & SMITH 

701 Poydras Street 

Suite 4040 

New Orleans, LA 70139 

(P) 504-525-6802 

(F) 504-525-2456 

ATTORNEYS FOR HAAG ENGINEERING CO. 

12

William C. Bell 

WILLIAM C. BELL, ATTORNEY 


Ridgeland, MS 39157 

(P) 601-956-0360 

ATTORNEY FOR JADE ENGINEERING 

James C. Simpson, Jr. 

MONTGOMERY, BARNETT, BROWN, READ, HAMMOND & MINTZ, LLP 

2310 19th Street 

Gulfport, MS 39501 

(P) 228-863-6534 

(F) 228-367-1084 

ATTORNEY FOR RIMKUS CONSULTING GROUP, INC. 

Frank W. Trapp 

Kelly R. Blackwood 

PHELPS DUNBAR, LLP 

P.O. Box 23066 

Jackson, MS 39225-3066 

(P) 601-352-2300 

(F) 601-360-9777 

ATTORNEYS FOR STRUCTURES GROUP 

Philip Williams Thomas 

PHILIP W. THOMAS, P.A. 


Jackson, MS 39225-4464 

(P) 601-714-5660 

(F) 601-714-5659 

ATTORNEY FOR EXPONENT, INC. 

Robert K. Kochan, President 

3401 Atlantic Avenue, Suite 101 

Raleigh, NC 27604 

FORENSIC ANALYSIS ENGINEERING CORPORATION, PRO SE 

THIS the 9 th day of May, 2008. 

/s/Jeffrey A. Walker 


13

FILED 

2006 Oct-02 PM 05:14 

U.S. DISTRICT COURT 

N.D. OF ALABAMA

1 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 


2 SOUTHERN DIVISION 

3 

4 

THOMAS C. AND PAMELA McINTOSH, 

5 Plaintiffs, 

6 

VERSUS 

CIVIL ACTION NO: 1:06-cv-1080-LTS-RHW 

7 

8 

STATE FARM FIRE AND CASUALTY 

9 COMPANY; AND FORENSIC ANALYSIS 

& ENGINEERING CORP., 

10 Defendants. 

11 

12 

13 

VOLUME II 

14 VIDEOTAPED DEPOSITION OF KERRI A. RIGSBY 

15 

16 Taken at the Scruggs Law Firm, 4836 Main 

Street, Moss Point, Mississippi, on 

17 Tuesday, November 20, 2007, beginning 

at 9:08 a.m. 

18 

19 

20 REPORTED BY: 

21 Lori R. Migues, CSR No. 1245 

Simpson Burdine & Migues 

22 Post Office Box 4134 

Biloxi, Mississippi 39535 

23 lmigues@sbmreporting.com 

(228) 388-3130 

24 

25 

Page 434 

SIMPSON BURDINE & MIGUES (228) 388-3130 

E-mail: lmigues@sbmreporting.com

1 Q. Was that -- does that mean he was going 

2 to file a lawsuit for you? 

3 A. It did not mean he was going to file a 

4 lawsuit for me. 

5 Q. He was going to defend you? 

6 A. I looked at it more he was going to 

7 guide us through this process. 

8 Q. He was going to give you advice on what 

9 to do with the documents you had stolen? 

10 A. Yes. 

11 Q. And by then you had stolen what kind of 

12 documents from State Farm? 

13 A. In February of '06, I had obtained the 

14 McIntosh report and some other documents. I can't 

15 recall the specifics. I believe it was some 

16 protocol that had been issued through State Farm, 

17 possibly some e-mails that I had received, 

18 directives. 

19 Q. Did you start negotiating with 

20 Mr. Scruggs at the end of February on what he 

21 would pay you as a consultant? 

22 A. No. 

23 Q. When did that start? 

24 A. That discussion happened in July of 

25 2006. 

Page 453 



1 name. 

2 Q. Is he a lawyer? 

3 A. He's a lawyer. I believe he's the head 

4 of that firm that Tony works with. 

5 Q. Is that the Merlin firm? 

6 A. I don't think so, no. 

7 Q. Anybody else there? 

8 A. Dick Scruggs was there. 

9 Q. Anyone else? 

10 A. Zach Scruggs may have been there, but I 

11 don't -- I don't recall. 

12 Q. And where was this trailer set up? 

13 A. In Pascagoula, right off the beach. 

14 Q. In Senator Lott's property? 

15 A. I don't know. I've never been to 

16 Senator Lott's property. 

17 Q. Do you know whether that trailer was 

18 sitting at Senator Lott's property? 

19 A. I don't know if that was at Senator 

20 Lott's property. 

21 Q. Have you spoken to Senator Lott? 

22 A. I have. 

23 Q. How many times? 

24 A. Once. 

25 Q. When was that? 

Page 456 



1 A. Several months ago he called -- 

2 Q. Was that in '0 -- 

3 A. -- and we had a brief conver -- in '07. 

4 Q. In '07. 

5 A. He called, and we had a brief 

6 conversation. 

7 Q. What did you talk about? 

8 A. He called and just stated that -- how 

9 much he appreciated everything that had been done, 

10 and it was a brief conversation. 

11 Q. Did he talk about his claim? 

12 A. No. 

13 Q. You knew about his claim? 

14 A. I did. 

15 Q. You had accessed his claim file, hadn't 

16 you? 

17 A. It's possible that I had. 

18 Q. You weren't assigned to that file, were 

19 you? 

20 A. No, no. 

21 Q. In fact, that file was supposed to be on 

22 a restricted access basis, wasn't it? 

23 A. It was on a restricted access basis. 

24 Q. Why were you accessing his file? 

25 MR. BACKSTROM: 

Page 457 



1 Object to the form. 

2 A. Probably curiosity. 

3 MR. ROBIE: 

4 Q. Is that why you also accessed 

5 Congressman Taylor's file? 

6 A. I don't recall that, but it's possible 

7 that I did. 

8 Q. Out of curiosity? 

9 A. It could have been, yes. 

10 Q. That was also in a restricted access 

11 department that you weren't working in, wasn't it? 

12 A. I'm sure it was. 

13 Q. Did you -- 

14 A. They restricted a lot of the high 

15 profile files. 

16 Q. Right. And Mark Drain was heading that 

17 unit, wasn't he? 

18 A. Yes. 

19 Q. And you were having an affair with Mark 

20 Drain, weren't you? 

21 A. Yes. 

22 Q. And when did that begin and end? 

23 A. December of 2005, and I believe he went 

24 back to Texas in May of 2005 (sic) or maybe April 

25 of 2005. I'm not sure. 

Page 458 



1 know if I looked at it in March 2006. 

2 Q. Well, if I ask you to assume that you 

3 accessed that file on March 11th, 2006, starting 

4 at 2:20 in the afternoon, you wouldn't deny that, 

5 would you? 

6 A. I wouldn't. I would not. 

7 Q. Did you access that file from the 

8 Scruggs trailer? 


10 Object and -- 

11 A. Oh, I wouldn't -- I don't know. I 

12 didn't bring my computer to the Scruggs trailer. 

13 I wouldn't think so. 

14 MR. ROBIE: 

15 Q. Your sister brought her computer to that 

16 meeting, according to her testimony yesterday. 

17 A. Okay. But I wouldn't have accessed it. 

18 It would have been her if it had been accessed. 

19 Q. All right. Let me ask you to assume 

20 that our records reflect that she accessed the 

21 file that same day -- 

22 A. Okay. 

23 Q. -- on March 11th. 

24 A. Okay. 

25 Q. Were you together on March 11th in the 

Page 460 



1 same place where you could both access the 

2 McIntosh file? 

3 A. Sure. Yes. 

4 Q. And where was that? 


6 Let me object and instruct not to answer 

7 to the extent that -- about anything that occurred 

8 in the meeting in the Scruggs trailer with counsel 

9 present. 

10 MR. ROBIE: 

11 Q. Do you have the question in mind? 

12 A. Yes. 

13 Q. Okay. 

14 MR. TAYLOR: 

15 Let me see if I understand. You've 

16 asked her whether they were together -- 

17 MR. ROBIE: 

18 Right. 


20 -- on March 11th? That's -- you've 

21 actually asked a compound question, were they 

22 together, did they access the McIntosh file, and 

23 were they in the trailer. 

24 MR. ROBIE: 

25 I'm delighted to break it down. 

Page 461 



1 MR. TAYLOR: 

2 Can we break it -- would you mind 

3 breaking that down? 

4 MR. ROBIE: 

5 Happy to. 

6 MR. TAYLOR: 

7 Good. 

8 MR. ROBIE: 

9 Q. Were you together with your sister at 

10 2:00 in the afternoon on March 11, 2006? 

11 A. I've already stated that I don't recall 

12 what day I was in the trailer. 


14 No. That's not his question. His 

15 question is were -- 

16 THE WITNESS: 

17 But if it was March 11th, then -- if 

18 you verified that, then that's -- it's 

19 March 11th. 

20 MR. ROBIE: 

21 Q. Well, my question is: Was there a 

22 situation that occurred on March 11, 2006, when 

23 you and your sister both accessed the McIntosh 

24 file through a State Farm computer? 

25 A. It's possible, yes. 

Page 462 



1 Q. I don't want possibility. Is that 

2 likely to have occurred? 

3 A. Likely, yes. 

4 Q. And what were you looking for? 


6 Let me just object, attorney-client 

7 privilege. To the extent that we're talking about 

8 what happened in the trailer that day, I would 

9 instruct you not to answer. 


11 So if -- 


13 If you recall. 


15 -- your answer would require you to 

16 discuss what you did in the meeting that you've 

17 just talked about, you're instructed not to answer 

18 that question. If you and your sister were 

19 together somewhere else -- 


21 Okay. 


23 -- on that day and accessed, then you 

24 can answer the question. But what Mr. Backstrom 

25 is objecting to is any discussion of what you did 

Page 463 



1 in the trailer at the meeting that you've just 

2 described. 


4 Okay. All right. 

5 MR. TAYLOR: 

6 So now having clarified that for you, 

7 would your answer require you to discuss what went 

8 on in the trailer? 


10 Yes. 


12 Okay. Then you're instructed not to 

13 answer the question. 


15 Okay. 


17 Is that clear, Mr. Robie? 

18 MR. ROBIE: 

19 I think so. 

20 Q. Was your mother present that whole time? 

21 A. Yes. 


23 You mean that whole time, meaning at the 

24 meeting? 

25 MR. ROBIE: 

Page 464 



1 At the trailer, yes. 

2 A. Yes. 

3 MR. ROBIE: 

4 Q. Was there any other person other than 

5 the people you've identified that was present that 

6 time? 

7 A. No. 

8 Q. Did you download documents from the 

9 McIntosh file at that meeting? 


11 Let me object and instruct not to answer 

12 as to anything that occurred in that meeting. 

13 MR. ROBIE: 

14 Is it your position that because the 

15 attorney was instructing them to download 

16 documents, it's confidential, privileged? 


18 I'm not testifying as to what occurred 

19 in that meeting. I'm just saying that whatever 

20 occurred in that meeting would be privileged. 

21 MR. ROBIE: 

22 Q. Did your attorneys instruct you to 

23 download documents from the State Farm computers 

24 at that meeting? 


Page 465 



1 Same objection, same instruction not to 

2 answer. 

3 MR. TAYLOR: 

4 You're instructed not to answer. 

5 MR. ROBIE: 

6 Q. Did they instruct you to do any searches 

7 of the State Farm system other than the McIntosh 

8 file at that meeting? 


10 Same instruction, same objection. 

11 MR. ROBIE: 

12 Q. Did you demonstrate for them the scope 

13 of the searches you could do on existing claim 

14 files through your State Farm laptop while you 

15 were at that meeting? 


17 Same instruction and same objection. 

18 MR. ROBIE: 

19 Q. The State Farm records reflect that the 

20 access to those files occurred for more than two 

21 hours. Does that square with your recollection? 


23 Same instruction and same objection. 

24 MR. ROBIE: 

25 Q. You also accessed a file called Studin. 

Page 466 



1 Do you know a policyholder named Studin, 

2 S-t-u-d-i-n? 


4 Same instruction. 

5 MR. ROBIE: 

6 Q. Did you work on a file involving a 

7 policyholder named Studin? 

8 A. I don't recall a policyholder named 

9 Studin. 

10 Q. Did your sister work on a policy -- a 

11 claim for a policyholder named Studin? 

12 A. I don't know. 

13 Q. Had you ever heard of a policyholder 

14 named Studin before you met with your attorneys on 

15 March 11th, 2006? 


17 Let me object to the extent that you 

18 would have to reveal communications between your 

19 counsel and you to not answer that question. 


21 If you can answer the question without 

22 disclosing communications with your lawyer; in 

23 other words, it's a yes or no question, I think. 

24 If you can answer that without disclosing 

25 communication with your lawyers, you should answer 

Page 467 



1 it. 


3 Could you repeat the question? 

4 MR. ROBIE: 

5 Could you read it back for us, please? 

6 (Whereupon, the question was read.) 


8 Same instruction if it would reveal 

9 communications between your counsel and you. 


11 Yes. The question is: Had you heard of 

12 them before the meeting in March, but if you heard 

13 of them through the lawyer, then you should 

14 decline to answer the question. Do you follow me? 


16 Uh-huh. 


18 Okay. So -- 


20 I don't -- 


22 The first question is -- 


24 No. 


Page 468 



1 -- had you ever heard of a Studin before 

2 the meeting? 


4 No. 

5 MR. TAYLOR: 

6 Okay. 


8 No. 

9 MR. ROBIE: 

10 Q. Did you hear of Lorraine Studin at that 

11 meeting? 


13 I object and instruct not to answer of 

14 anything that occurred at that meeting. 


16 She's instructed not to answer. 

17 MR. ROBIE: 

18 Q. Are you following that instruction? 

19 A. Yes, I'm following that instruction. 

20 Q. Okay. Your sister also accessed that 

21 same day, at 2:49, a file belonging to a man named 

22 Edward Lanier. Did you ever work on a claim 

23 involving Edward Lanier? 

24 A. Not that I recall, no. 

25 Q. Did you discuss with your sister a file 

Page 469 



1 Q. Did you give Mr. Wallace copies of the 

2 documents you stole from State Farm between your 

3 first two meetings with Mr. Scruggs? 

4 A. I don't recall giving Mr. Wallace any 

5 documents. 

6 Q. Did you give them to Courtney Schloemer? 


8 Object, asked and answered. 

9 A. I don't recall if I gave them any 

10 documents. 

11 MR. ROBIE: 

12 Q. Was it your understanding that you 

13 authorized Mr. Scruggs to take the documents you 

14 stole between your first meeting with him and your 

15 second meeting and give them to the attorney 

16 general? 

17 A. He was authorized to do that, yes. 

18 Q. How long did your weekly conversations 

19 with Burt Wallace go on once they started in the 

20 spring of '06? 

21 A. They didn't continue on a weekly basis 

22 for a long period of time. We may only would talk 

23 once a month after awhile, but we -- we continue 

24 to talk. It's been probably two or three months 

25 since I last spoke with him, but before that, it 

Page 487 



1 A. No. 

2 Q. Are you aware of any person at State 

3 Farm shredding any of your mediation packages? 

4 A. No. 

5 Q. Are you aware of anyone at State Farm 

6 shredding any documents that were called for in 

7 the grand jury subpoena out of Harrison County in 

8 March of 2006? 

9 A. I don't know. I know they shredded 

10 documents. I don't know what they shredded. 

11 Q. They shredded documents from the first 

12 day you showed up in the catastrophe office, 

13 didn't they? 

14 A. Yes. 

15 Q. And that's customary in claims 

16 operations to shred documents that are not 

17 necessary, isn't it? 

18 A. Yes. 

19 Q. You do not have any information to 

20 testify under oath that State Farm shredded any 

21 documents responsive to any grand jury subpoena, 

22 do you? 

23 A. No. 

24 Q. You wouldn't have any information about 

25 that, would you? 

Page 509 



1 A. No. 

2 Q. You are not aware of any document that 

3 Lecky King shredded, are you? 

4 A. No. 

5 Q. You never saw her at a shredder, did 

6 you? 

7 A. No. 

8 Q. In fact, you never -- you can't sit here 

9 today and identify one document that Lecky ever 

10 shredded, can you? 

11 A. No. 

12 Q. Or Dave Randel, you can't identify any 

13 document that Dave Randel ever shredded, can you? 

14 A. No. 

15 Q. Or Cody Perry? 

16 A. No. 

17 Q. Or Mark Drain? 

18 A. No. 

19 Q. How about you, did you shred documents? 

20 A. No. 

21 Q. What was the procedure at the State Farm 

22 catastrophe office when you wanted to put 

23 documents into a place where they would be 

24 shredded? 

25 A. They had a bin. 

Page 510 



1 Q. That's standard in all catastrophe 

2 operations, isn't it? 

3 A. Yes. 

4 Q. And a company comes in, commercial 

5 company comes in and empties the bins, right? 

6 A. Correct. 

7 Q. Have you ever seen the records from the 

8 shredding company that State Farm produced in this 

9 case? 

10 A. I have not. 

11 Q. No one has shared with you any of the 

12 results of that subpoena duces tecum? 

13 A. No. 

14 Q. The first document that you stole from 

15 State Farm in the fall of 2005, what was that? 

16 A. That was the McIntosh report. 

17 Q. And when did you first see it? 

18 A. In late October is -- late October, 

19 early November. 

20 Q. And tell me how it is you came to see 

21 it. 

22 A. It was given to me by Cody Perry. 

23 Q. And where were you? 

24 A. I was at the State Farm catastrophe 

25 office in Gulfport. 

Page 511 



1 come by her home. 

2 Q. And what time were y'all supposed to 

3 meet? 

4 A. I don't know what time they were 

5 supposed to be over there. At some point on 

6 Friday evening they came, but I don't know what 

7 the set time was. 

8 Q. Were you already there? 

9 A. I was already there, yes. 

10 Q. Were you already working on mining State 

11 Farm's computer data? 

12 A. Yes. 

13 Q. And you knew when you did that that you 

14 did not have permission from State Farm to upload 

15 this data, didn't you? 

16 A. I did. 

17 Q. You did have permission? 

18 A. No, I knew I did not have permission. I 

19 did know. 

20 Q. Right. And you knew that they would not 

21 authorize you to download and print this data? 

22 A. I knew that, yes. 

23 Q. And you knew that you were going to give 

24 it to third parties who were not allowed to have 

25 access to State Farm's computers, didn't you? 

Page 541 



1 A. Yes, sir. 

2 Q. And, in fact, you knew you were going to 

3 do a computer search of their system to capture 

4 documents which the company considered 

5 confidential? 

6 A. Yes. 

7 Q. And you were going to hand them over to 

8 third parties without State Farm's permission? 

9 A. Yes. 

10 Q. And you and Cori were both engaged in 

11 this program with a plan starting sometime on 

12 Friday evening? 

13 A. Yes. 

14 Q. How far in advance of the data dump did 

15 the two of you set about planning this event? 

16 A. I would say no more than one week. 

17 Q. And what precipitated that discussion? 

18 A. Cori came to me and discussed that she 

19 felt like it was time to gather any evidence, you 

20 know, that we were going to gather because she 

21 felt like State Farm knew or was finding out that 

22 we were the moles. They called us the moles, 

23 so -- so she felt like our days were numbered at 

24 State Farm. 

25 Q. And did she tell you what incidents had 

Page 542 



1 A. I consider her behavior inappropriate. 

2 MR. ROBIE: 

3 Q. Did you do anything wrong? 

4 A. Yes. 

5 Q. What did you do wrong? 

6 A. Well, I didn't -- I lied to -- or lied, 

7 as you say, or deceived policyholders for several 

8 months. 

9 Q. And you stole documents? 

10 A. I don't believe that to be wrong. 

11 Q. Okay. You'd do it again? 

12 A. I would. 

13 Q. Now, in planning for the data dump, did 

14 you have to stockpile paper? 

15 A. We had to have a lot of paper, yes. 

16 Q. And how many printers did Cori have at 

17 her house? 

18 A. We had two. 

19 Q. Both of them State Farm printers? 

20 A. Yes. 

21 Q. Both of them already had the drivers 

22 installed on your laptops? 

23 A. Yes. 

24 MR. ROBIE: 

25 We need to change tapes? 

Page 546 



1 but we would take breaks, and that's when the 

2 rotation would come in. 

3 Q. Why were you working on such a nonstop 

4 basis? 

5 A. We were trying to get done by Monday. 

6 Q. Why? 

7 A. We believed -- well, we knew that the 

8 State -- that the computer would leave a footprint 

9 of where we had been. So we weren't sure if 

10 someone was monitoring that and would -- it would 

11 be a red flag that we had been pulling up all 

12 these claims, but we knew there was a footprint. 

13 And we knew, you know, someone could be looking, 

14 so we just wanted to get it done, get it over with 

15 by Monday. 

16 Q. Well, was it your view that you -- that 

17 the monitoring at State Farm probably was not 

18 taking place over the weekend and you could get 

19 away with this? 

20 A. We -- correct. Correct. 

21 Q. So there was some urgency in trying to 

22 get all of this done? 

23 A. Yes. 

24 Q. And was there a finite number of files 

25 that you intended to download? 

Page 573 



1 A. We had hoped to do the entire roster. 

2 Q. Did you do that? 

3 A. We -- I don't believe we did. I 

4 don't -- it seems to me that we ran out of time is 

5 what I remember. 

6 Q. Did you accomplish the download and 

7 printing of all of the cases on the litigation 

8 list? 

9 A. I don't recall. 

10 Q. Did you include that litigation list 

11 with the boxes of documents that you distributed 

12 to the attorney general and the United States 

13 attorney? 


15 Q. Do you have that roster? 

16 A. No. 

17 Q. Did you give it to Mr. Scruggs? 

18 A. No. I didn't give it to anyone, and I 

19 haven't seen it since that weekend. 

20 Q. Did you highlight it as you accomplished 

21 the printing of the information from each of those 

22 litigation files? 

23 A. I don't know if I did. I'm not even 

24 sure I'm the one that printed them. I don't have 

25 much of a recollection of that. 

Page 574 



1 Q. Well, as long as we're talking about 

2 meetings and third parties, well, let's not leave 

3 the second trailer meeting because it's too 

4 scintillating. I must ask more questions. 

5 A. Okay. 

6 Q. You did indicate that documents were 

7 reviewed? 

8 A. Yes. 

9 Q. And the meeting lasted several hours? 

10 A. Yes. 

11 Q. There was some discussion about the 

12 February -- I'm sorry, the earlier meeting, 

13 perhaps in March of 2006 that occurred in the 

14 trailer, where there was -- well, it was 

15 represented to you that there was some computer 

16 access that occurred. And I believe there's been 

17 testimony that Cori did have her laptop at that 

18 meeting. 

19 A. Yes. I don't know if there's testimony 

20 to that, but she did have her laptop at one of 

21 those meetings. I don't recall if it was the 

22 first or second. 

23 Q. Okay. Do you recall that she had her 

24 laptop at one meeting but not at another? 

25 A. That's my recollection, but because I 

Page 621 



1 didn't bring the computer, I only remember it at 

2 one meeting. It could have been at two. I 

3 just -- but I know it was for sure at one of the 

4 two meetings, could have been at both. 

5 Q. Okay. And I take it, from your answer, 

6 that you never brought a laptop? 

7 A. Not to those meetings, no. 

8 Q. Okay. All right. My committee here has 

9 several questions. The meeting that occurred, the 

10 second trailer meeting that you believe occurred 

11 in April of 2006, do you know whether that meeting 

12 occurred before or after the Qui Tam action was 

13 filed? 

14 A. It was around the same time, but I don't 

15 know if it was before or after. I'm thinking 

16 about it, and I think it would have to have 

17 been -- the second meeting would have had to have 

18 been prior to the Qui Tam being filed. 

19 Q. Okay. 

20 A. Okay. 

21 Q. And how do you date it? 

22 A. Because I -- 


24 I would instruct you not to reveal -- 


Page 622 






3 

4 

THOMAS C. AND PAMELA McINTOSH, 

5 Plaintiffs, 

6 

VERSUS 

CIVIL ACTION NO: 1:06-cv-1080-LTS-RHW 

7 

8 

STATE FARM FIRE AND CASUALTY 

9 COMPANY; AND FORENSIC ANALYSIS 

& ENGINEERING CORP., 

10 Defendants. 

11 

12 

13 

VOLUME II 

14 VIDEOTAPED DEPOSITION OF CORI RIGSBY 

15 

16 Taken at the Scruggs Law Firm, 4836 Main 

Street, Moss Point, Mississippi, on 

17 Monday, November 19, 2007, beginning 

at 9:11 a.m. 

18 

19 


21 F. Dusty Burdine, CSR No. 1171 


22 Post Office Box 4134 

Biloxi, Mississippi 39535 

23 dusty@sbmreporting.com 

(228) 388-3130 

24 

25 

Page 235 


228-863-4455

1 MR. ROBIE: 

2 Q. And what crime did they commit? 

3 A. Having the engineer reports altered. 

4 Q. All right. Did you commit any crimes? 

5 A. No. 

6 Q. You didn't believe you had committed any 

7 crimes? 

8 A. No. 

9 Q. Did you tell Ms. Schloemer or anybody 

10 from the attorney general's office about the 

11 confidentiality agreements you had signed both 

12 with Renfroe and State Farm? 

13 A. At some point those agreements came up, 

14 but I don't remember discussing that when we were 

15 originally meeting with them. 

16 Q. At any point in time, did you furnish 

17 your State Farm laptop to any lawyer? 

18 A. Yes. 

19 Q. Who? 

20 A. Tony DeWitt. 

21 Q. Who's Tony DeWitt? 

22 A. He's my attorney. 

23 Q. What firm? 

24 A. I don't know the name of the firm. 

25 Q. You don't know the name? 

Page 392 


228-863-4455

1 MR. TAYLOR: 

2 If you look at the Qui Tam complaint, 

3 you'll see it. 

4 MR. ROBIE: 

5 Okay. 

6 A. He's my Qui Tam lawyer. 

7 MR. ROBIE: 

8 Q. He's still your lawyer? 

9 A. Yes. 

10 Q. And when did you give Tony DeWitt your 

11 laptop? 

12 A. In April. 

13 Q. Did you also give him your password? 

14 A. I don't remember. 

15 Q. Well, it wouldn't do much good to have 

16 the laptop without the password, would it? 

17 A. Well, I was sitting right next to him. 

18 Q. All right. Did you boot it up for him? 

19 A. I don't remember. 

20 Q. What were you searching for? 

21 A. I'm not -- I'm not sure of the exact -- 

22 that we had a list. There were some documents 

23 that we were talking about. We were talking -- 

24 I'm not sure which documents he retrieved. I let 

25 him in the computer, and I can't speak after that. 

Page 393 


228-863-4455

1 Q. Where did this take place? 

2 A. It took place in Pascagoula. 

3 Q. Did you print documents as a result of 

4 that search? 

5 A. No, sir. 

6 Q. Did he read documents off your computer? 

7 A. I'm assuming he did. 

8 Q. Can you give me the date of this 

9 incident? 

10 A. I believe that this occurred in March. 

11 Q. March of '06? 

12 A. Yes, sir. 

13 Q. Can you be more specific by day? 

14 A. I can't. 

15 Q. Would your calendar refresh your 

16 recollection? 

17 A. If I wrote it on there, it would have. 

18 Q. Do you know whether you did? 


20 Q. Didn't you normally write appointments 

21 with your lawyers on your calendars? 

22 A. I normally did. 

23 Q. Did you -- is that a yes? 

24 A. Yes. 

25 Q. Did you go to his office? 

Page 394 


228-863-4455

1 A. No. 

2 Q. He came to you? 

3 A. Yes. 

4 Q. He came to your house? 

5 A. No. We met in a trailer. 

6 Q. Pardon me? 

7 A. We met at a trailer. 

8 Q. Okay. Who else was there? 

9 A. Tony DeWitt. There were two meetings in 

10 this trailer, and I'm going to get confused as to 

11 who was at which meeting. 

12 Q. Well, do your best. 

13 A. Okay. Tony DeWitt, Dick Scruggs, Zach 

14 Scruggs, Mary Winters, Chip -- 

15 Q. Chip who? 

16 A. I don't remember Chip's last name. 

17 Kerri, myself and my mother. 

18 Q. Now, whose trailer was this? 

19 A. I believe it was Dick's trailer. 

20 Q. And where was it at? 

21 A. It seems like it was in the -- in a 

22 parking lot by the Longfellow house. I could be 

23 wrong on that. 

24 Q. How did you know to go there? 

25 A. Dick set up the meeting. 

Page 395 


228-863-4455

1 Q. He called you? 

2 A. I don't know if he called me or if he 

3 called my mother, but he set up the meeting. 

4 Q. All right. You brought your laptop? 

5 A. Yes, I did. 

6 Q. Did he ask you to do that? 

7 A. I don't think so. 

8 Q. Did Kerri bring her laptop as well? 

9 A. No. 

10 Q. Did you have a Wi-Fi card? 

11 A. A Wi-Fi card? 

12 Q. Yeah, to get into the State Farm system. 

13 A. Oh, the dial-up card? 

14 Q. Right. 

15 A. Yes. 

16 Q. Okay. And did you furnish any documents 

17 at that meeting? 

18 A. I don't believe I furnished any 

19 documents at that meeting, no. 

20 Q. Why did you log into your computer at 

21 that meeting? 

22 A. Tony wanted -- 


24 Let me object to the extent that calls 

25 for a mental impression of counsel and instruct 

Page 396 


228-863-4455

1 you not to answer. 

2 MR. ROBIE: 

3 Q. Did he tell you why you should log into 

4 the computer? 


6 Same objection, same instruction. 

7 MR. ROBIE: 

8 Q. Did you have an understanding what it is 

9 you were trying to accomplish by logging into that 

10 computer with this crowd? 



13 MR. ROBIE: 

14 Q. Once you logged in -- I assume you're 

15 following your counsel's instruction? 

16 A. Yes. 

17 Q. Once you logged into the computer, what 

18 records did you access? 



21 MR. ROBIE: 

22 Q. You'll decline to answer? 

23 A. Yes. 

24 Q. Did you give them sort of a tour of what 

25 was available on the State Farm system? 

Page 397 


228-863-4455



3 MR. ROBIE: 

4 What is the basis for the objection? I 

5 just want to make sure the record's clear. 


7 Mental impression of counsel, work 

8 product. 

9 MR. ROBIE: 

10 It's a work product privilege? 


12 Work product, attorney-client privilege. 

13 MR. ROBIE: 

14 And that's true for all of this line of 

15 questioning about the computer in Dick's trailer? 


17 For all those I made it for. 


19 It sounds like lawyers meeting with 

20 clients preparing for litigation. 

21 MR. ROBIE: 

22 I just want a record so that we can have 

23 an intelligent conversation with Judge Walker. 

24 That's all. 

25 Q. How long did you operate this computer 

Page 398 


228-863-4455

1 for this crowd? 


3 Same objection, same instruction not to 

4 answer. 

5 MR. ROBIE: 

6 Q. Did any of them actually take the laptop 

7 and manipulate the keyboard? 



10 MR. ROBIE: 

11 Q. Did you leave your laptop there? 



14 MR. HIBEY: 

15 How is any of that work product 

16 privilege? What does that particular question 

17 disclose? 


19 You mean did she leave it there? 

20 MR. HIBEY: 

21 Yeah. 


23 She must have left it there because 

24 counsel had a conversation with her about it. 

25 MR. HIBEY: 

Page 399 


228-863-4455

1 No. You're testifying now. 


3 You just asked for an explanation. 

4 MR. TAYLOR: 

5 Let me see if I can straighten this out. 


7 Okay. You can answer that last 

8 question. 

9 MR. TAYLOR: 

10 She can answer that last question. 

11 MR. ROBIE: 

12 Q. Did you leave your laptop there when you 

13 left? 

14 A. No. 

15 Q. How long did the meeting last? 

16 A. It seems like the meeting was several 

17 hours. 

18 Q. And was the laptop in operation during 

19 the entire time? 

20 A. No. 

21 Q. No. How much of the several hours were 

22 you using the laptop? 


24 Same objection, attorney work product, 

25 instruct you not to answer. 

Page 400 


228-863-4455

1 MR. ROBIE: 

2 Q. Did you access the CSR system? 



5 MR. ROBIE: 

6 Q. Did you access Reflections? 



9 MR. ROBIE: 

10 Q. Did you access any accounting system 

11 that would identify tax payer ID numbers for 

12 vendors? 



15 MR. ROBIE: 

16 Q. Did you access the engineering roster? 



19 MR. ROBIE: 

20 Q. Did you access any particular files for 

21 SKG clients? 



24 MR. ROBIE: 

25 Q. Did you access the McIntosh file? 

Page 401 


228-863-4455



3 MR. ROBIE: 

4 Q. Why did you access the McIntosh file in 

5 March of '06? 



8 MR. ROBIE: 

9 Q. Well, outside of this meeting, did you 

10 access the McIntosh file in March of '06? 

11 A. I don't recall accessing the McIntosh 

12 file outside of this meeting in March of '06. 

13 Q. So to the extent that you might have 

14 done that, it would have only been at that 

15 meeting? 


17 She didn't -- object to the 

18 characterization. 


20 I think his objection and the 

21 instruction would cover that question. 

22 MR. ROBIE: 

23 Q. Do you deny that you accessed the 

24 McIntosh file in March of '06? 


Page 402 


228-863-4455

1 Objection, asked and answered. 

2 MR. TAYLOR: 

3 To the extent that the answer to that 

4 question, Ms. Rigsby, would require you to 

5 disclose anything which occurred at that meeting, 

6 you should decline to answer the question. 

7 A. Okay. 

8 MR. ROBIE: 

9 Q. Was any information obtained at that 

10 meeting which was turned over to the attorney 

11 general? 

12 A. Not by me. 

13 Q. Did this meeting that occurred in Dick's 

14 trailer take place before or after the grand jury 

15 subpoena was issued in Harrison County? 

16 A. After. 

17 Q. You would already have seen that 

18 subpoena? 

19 A. Rick Moore told me about the subpoena. 

20 Q. How long after Rick Moore told you about 

21 it was it that you went to this meeting in the 

22 trailer? 

23 A. It was within -- it was a short period 

24 of time. I don't remember exactly. 

25 Q. Within a week or two? 

Page 403 


228-863-4455

FILED 

2006 Sep-06 PM 03:12 

U.S. DISTRICT COURT 

N.D. OF ALABAMA




3 

4 

5 

MELISSA AND ANDREW MARION 

6 Plaintiffs, 

7 VERSUS CIVIL ACTION NO: 1:06-CV-969(LTS)(RHW) 

8 STATE FARM FIRE AND CASUALTY 

COMPANY; STATE FARM MUTUAL 

9 AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE COMPANY; 

AND JOHN AND JANE DOES A; B; 

10 C; D; E; F; G; AND H 

Defendants. 

11 

__________________________________________________ 

12 

CONTINUATION OF THE VIDEOTAPED DEPOSITION OF 

13 KERRI RIGSBY 

14 

15 Taken at the Merchants and Marine Bank 

Training Room, 3118 Pascagoula Street, 

16 Pascagoula, Mississippi, on Wednesday, 

June 20, 2007, beginning at 9:26 a.m. 

17 

18 

19 


21 Elizabeth Bost Simpson, RDR, CRR, CSR 1293 

Registered Realtime, Merit, and Diplomate Reporter 

22 2100 18th Street 

Gulfport, Mississippi 39501 

23 ESimpson@SBMreporting.com 

24 

25 

Page 1

1 MR. VAN CLEAVE: Object to the form. 

Page 199 

2 BY MR. BANAHAN 

3 Q. I know you were asked in the McIntosh 

4 deposition if there was a single document that you 

5 were aware of, of Mr. Scruggs or the Scruggs 

6 Katrina group's files that had been shredded or 

7 destroyed, and you said you were not aware of 

8 that. I want to ask you a broader question. Are 

9 you aware of any document that you know was 

10 shredded -- improperly shredded or destroyed? 

11 MR HAWLEY: Object to the form. 


13 Q. Any Katrina policyholder document from a 

14 policyholder file that was improperly shredded or 

15 destroyed. 

16 A. If there was a document missing in a 

17 file, the answer would usually be it should be in 

18 the computer and if it's not, it was a mistake. 

19 No one ever said, "I'm going to shred this 

20 document" or "I'm going to get rid of this 

21 document," no. 

22 Q. And listen to my question because I 

23 wasn't even asking you what somebody else may have 

24 told you. I was asking you do you have any 

25 knowledge -- and I don't care what the source of

1 it is, but do you have any knowledge, because if 

Page 200 

2 you do I want to explore it -- 

3 A. Right. 

4 Q. -- about a single document in a State 

5 Farm policyholder file that should be in their 

6 file that was shredded -- intentionally shredded 

7 or destroyed by State Farm? 

8 MR. BARRETT: I'm going to object and 

9 instruct her not to answer at any time from 

10 which the attorney-client privilege attached. 

11 So anything you found out after the 

12 attorney-client privilege. 

13 A. I was working with State Farm, no. No. 

14 MR. BANAHAN: Talk to you about that, 

15 the attorney-client privilege. Are we 

16 talking about the attorney-client privilege 

17 in the context of the claim that has yet to 

18 be discussed or described? 

19 MR. BARRETT: Yes. 


21 Q. Okay. Do you know what a Qui Tam action 

22 is? Do you know what a Qui Tam action is? 

23 A. Yes. 

24 Q. What's your understanding of that? 

25 MR. BARRETT: I'm going to instruct her

Here's a copy of the State Farm brief - Insurance Coverage Blog

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?