Acker ordered Scruggs prosecuted for criminal contempt of court, but a different federal judge found him not guilty. Acker clearly disagrees with that judgment. Scruggs used a “loophole” in the injunction to ignore its intent, Acker said.
Acker also wrote: “…
in context, General Hood was not a bona fide ‘law enforcement official,’ but rather was a co-conspirator with, and an aider and abettor of, Scruggs.”
Acker then asks: “Did General Hood need his extra copy in order to fulfill his ‘law enforcement’ duties? The question answers itself.”
Acker also rejected the argument that Scruggs could not be held in criminal contempt for what he did because he was not “legally identified” with the Rigsbys’ in Renfroe’s lawsuit.
“Scruggs was the alter ego of the Rigsbys and the Rigsbys were the alter egos of Scruggs,” Acker said. “They could not have been more closely ‘identified’ without obtaining a marriage license. They were in bed together.”
Acker then turned his attention to the matter at hand: Renfroe’s request for a civil contempt finding that would reimburse the company’s legal fees for pursuing the stolen records. The company estimated that amount to be $94,219.75.
Acker conceded the legal fees would be hard to segregate from others in the case, but thought $65,000 sounded fair.
Acker said, “Without the dogged determination of Renfroe’s lawyers, no materials stolen by the Rigsbys would have ever been uncovered.”