Which raises in my mind a serious question I have: Time and again, I see pleadings from these people that make me think: Are they trying to persuade anyone of anything? Just what is the point of this pleading they filed? I always thought the ultimate audience of any pleading was the court you were trying to persuade. If your sticking your thumb in the judge’s eye, just what is it you are trying to do? I’m really confused here.
Back to Judge Acker.
So Judge Acker rules: I’ve had it with all this. I’m not going to sit here and say that Renfroe and State Farm are not going to get documents because of an order I entered relating to a breach of duties to Renfroe. He doesn’t say that would be bat-shit crazy, but it kind of seems that way to me. In any event, he does rule that he’s going to declare the orders as to the Rigsbys moot. They can respond to dis[c]overy. State Farm and Renfroe can have the documents.
(Aside: Given Judge Walker’s ruling– that if the Rigsbys still have documents, they are violating Judge Acker’s order– this is actually being kind).
And then he turns to Scruggs (father and son). Here’s what he says:
Scruggs claims that this court has no jurisdiction over him (although it is strange for a party who asserts lack of jurisdiction to request help from the court), but because the same request may be made by Scruggs to the appropriate United States Attorney, or to the Attorney General of Mississippi, both of whom have complete sets of the purloined documents, the court DENIES Scruggs’s request for access. To obtain documents from Scruggs was like pulling eye teeth. To give them back to him now would make little sense.
The Scruggs and Rigsby Order is here. H/T to the folks at Slabbed, who see this violently differently than me, as is their wont.