12/12/06 email Asst A.G. Courtney Schloemer to Scruggs (Ex2) “”I am not comfortable that the protective measures put in place by the Court will be effective in keeping these documents out of the grasp of State Farm. I would appreciate if you would provide us with your copy of the documents from Cori and Kerri, and we can return them to you at a time when our investigation is not in jeopardy by the possibility of disclosure of those documents to the wrong party.”
12/13/06 Schloemer emails Scruggs saying “Upon reviewing my letter, I see that I was not clear that I propose taking custody of your documents with the permission of Judge Acker. I don’t want to thwart him and wind up in an Alabama jail. I don’t see how Renfroe could object to that arrangement, but see what they say and let me know if you need me to contact any of them to verify my end of it.” Scruggs did not contact Renfroe about this or do anything about getting the court’s permission to give the documents to Hood.
12/15/06 Rigsbys file a motion to stay enforcement of the injunction, nowhere suggesting they do not have the documents.
12/15/06 Doug Jones (separate counsel retained by Renfroe on the subpoenas) writes Asst A.G. SHcloemer raising that the a.g. “may have requested that the Scruggs firm give the documents, not copies of the documents, to your office. I hope that is not the case because I am afraid that Judge Acker would hit the roof since you intervened and received the order. I do not want to see the intensity level of that case raised beyond what it already is.”
12/17/06 email Asst A.G. Courntey Schloemer to Doug Jones (Ex4) “I did make a request for the documents, but it was conditioned on Judge Acker’s agreement to such an arrangement.” “These documents will be kept out of Scruggs’ hands until my criminal investigation is over, an arrangement which benefits us both. Judge Acker already trashed this office in his order so we are turning our attention to the 11th Circuit’s opinion. If, after considering these points you agree this arrangement is a good one after all, I would be amenable to drafting an agreement between this office and Renfroe to confirm that our custody of the documents is not a sham and that we will not return them to Scruggs until our efforts in our criminal case are exhausted.”
12/18/06 motion to stay denied.
1/5/07 Renfroe files motion to show cause why the Rigbys should not be found in contempt.
1/11/07 Rigbys for the first time say they do not have the documents.
1/17/07 State Farm grand jury hearings throughout the week; the Rigsbys testifying.
1/18/07 Barrett of SKG writes Birnbaum of State Farm saying “Your proposal to Hood is fair….If Hood lacks the wisdom to go through with this deal, it would be in State Farm’s best interest to proceed just with us, and we offer to do that.” He notes a settlement without Hood “vastly reduces the change Hood will go forward with an indictment.” “It may well be that Hood has become wary of ethics issues and has decided he has to put some distance between the civil litigation and the criminal investigation. Going forward with us now solves that problem.” “That Hood may fail his state is not our fault or ours.”
1/19/07 Renfroe files with a motion to show cause a pleading that says in footnote 14: “Scruggs fought surrender of the documents until the day the settlements were announced.” In the contempt hearing, the Rigby’s lawyer stated that “the only inference I can draw from this explanation of Scruggs arguably not complying with this order in order to increase his settlement value of the State Farm settlement is that somehow State Farm would see them.”
1/23/07The global settlement is announced in Woullard.
2/1/9/07 Scruggs writes State Farm demanding that the Renfroe case be dismissed as a part of the Woullard settelment.
3/19/07 Contempt Hearing: Scruggs testifies.