Scruggs/Rigsby Qui Tam - DeLoach SLF Deposition

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURTFOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF MISSISSIPPI

SOUTHERN DIVISIONUNITED STATES OF AMERICA EX REL.CORI RIGSBY AND KERRI RIGSBY RELATORS/COUNTER-DEFENDANTS

VERSUS CASE NO.1: 06CV433-LTS-RHW

STATE FARM FIRE ANDCASUALTY COMPANY DEFENDANT / COUNTER- PLAINTIFFAND

FORENSIC ANALYSIS ENGINEERING CORPORATION i

HAAG ENGINEERING CO. i AND ALEXIS KING DEFENDANTS

30 (b) (6) VIDEOTAPED DEPOSITION OF SLF, INC.REX DELOACH

APPEARCES:

DEREK SUGIMURA, ESQUIREBENJAMIN R . DAVIDSON, ESQUIREGilbert LLP11 New York Avenue NW, Suite 700Washington, DC 20005

REPRESENTING CORI RIGSBY & KERRI RIGSBY

KATHRYN BREARD PLATT, ESQUIRESTEPHANIE DOVALINDOLINA, ESQUIREGalloway Johnson Tompkins Burr & Smith2510 14th Street, Suite 910Gulfport, Mississippi 39501

REPRESENTING HAAG ENGINEERING COMPANY

JEFFREY A. WALKER, ESQUIREE. BARNEY ROBINSON, ESQUIREButler Snow 0' Mara Stevens & Cannada1020 Highland Colony Parkway, Suite 1400Ridgeland, Mississippi 39157

REPRESENTING STATE FARM INSURACE

Case 1:06-cv-00433-LTS-RHW Document 671-10 Filed 07/01/10 Page 1 of 41

Page 2

1 J. CAL MAYO, JR., ESQUIRE

Mayo Mallette

2094 Old Taylor Road, 5 University Office Park

Oxford, Mississippi 38655

2

3

SLF, INC.

4

5 ALSO PRESENT: Aaron Dunbar, Videographer

6

Taken at the instance of State Farm

7 In the Law Offices of Mayo Mallette

2094 Old Taylor Road, 5 Univeristy Office Park

8 Oxford, Mississippi 38655

On June 2 8, 2 010, at 9: 0 6 a. m .9

REPORTED BY: SHAUNA W. STANFORD / CSR

10 CSR NO. 138011

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25


1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

Page 3

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Examination by Mr. Walker 6Exhibit 1 (Deposition Notice) 8Exhibi t 2 (Deposition Subpoena) 8Exhibit 3 (E-mails) 9Exhibit 4 (6/7/10 E-mail) 9Exhibit 5 (6/27/10 E-mail) 9Exhibit 6 (8/14 - 8/19 Dickie Scruggs Schedule) 51Exhibit 7 (Payments to Kerri Rigsby) 52Exhibi t 8 (Payments to Cori Rigsby) 52Exhibit 9 ("Under Protective Order") 54Exhibit 10 (E-mail to Sue Bennett from Cori Rigsby) 58

Exhibit 11 (Letter to Cori Rigsby from Tim Cantrell) 61

Exhibit 12 (Letter to Kerri Rigsby from Tim Cantrell) 61

Exhibit 13 (7/20/06 Fax) 63Exhibi t 14 (Laptop set up note) 64Exhibit 15 (12/6/07 Letter to Dickie Scruggs from

Edward Robertson) 66Exhibit 16 (7/12/07 E-mail from Zach Scruggs to

Brian Martin) 72

Exhibit 17 (E-mail to Bruce Rogers from Harlan Winn) 77

Exhibit 18 (4/5/06 Bloomberg Report) 86Exhibit 19 (Flight Records) 90Exhibit 20 (E-mail to Charlene Bosarge

from Joe Rhee) 102


1 Exhibit 21 (Complaint - Wyatt vs. Scruggs)

Exhibit 22 (8/1/07 Order Unsealing Case)

Page 4

103

2 116

3 Exhibit 23 (6/6/07 E-mail from Beth Jones

4 to CBS News) 117

5 Exhibit 24 (8/14/06 E-mail from Dickie Scruggs

6 to Michael Kunzelman) 120

7 Exhibit 25 (6/6/07 E-mail from Beth Jones

8 to CBS with attachments) 127

9 Exhibit 26 (E-mail from Brian Ford

10 to Charlene Bosarge) 129

11 Deposition Concluded 170

12 Certificate of Court Reporter 171

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

"


Page 5

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

THE VIDEOGRAPHER: We are on the record at

9:06 a.m. Today is Monday, June, 28th, 2010.

This is this video-recorded 30 (b) (6) deposition

of Rex Deloach as designee for the Scruggs Law

Firm, P.A./SLF, Inc., taken on behalf of the

defendant in the matter of United States of

America, ex rel., Cori Rigsby and Kerri Rigsby v.

State Farm Casualty Company, and Forensic

Analysis Engineering Corporation, Haag

Engineering Corporation, and Alexis King filed in

the United States District Court for the Southern

District of Mississippi, Southern Division, Cause

No.1: 06CV 433 -LTS-RHW.

This deposition is being taken at the office

of Mayo Mallette, PLLC, located at 5 University

Office Park, 2094 Old Taylor Road, Suite 200,

Oxford, Mississippi 38655. Office phone number

is (662) 236-0055.

The court reporter is Shauna Stanford.

Office telephone number: (601) 825-6339. I am

Arron Dunbar, your videographer, from the firm of

One Stop Depositions. Off ice telephone number:

(888) 227-5498.

Counsel will now state their appearances for

the record.


1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

Page 6

MR. WALKER:

MR. ROBINSON:

Jeff Walker for State Farm.

Barney Robinson for State

Farm.

MR. MAYO: Cal Mayo for the witness.

MR. SUGIMURA: Derek Sugimura for the

relators.MR. DAVIDSON: Ben Davidson for the

relators.MS. PLATT: Kathryn Breard Platt for Haag

Engineering.

THE VIDEOGRAPHER: The court reporter will

now swear in the witness.

* * * * * *

REX DELOACH,

having first been duly sworn, was examined and

testified as follows:

EXAMINATION

BY MR. WALKER:

Q. Good morning, Mr. Deloach.

A. Good morning.

Q. Just so we have the record correct, would you

give us the spelling of your name, please, sir.

A. Okay. First name is Rex, R-E-X. Last name

Deloach, D-E-L-O-A-C-H.

Q. And the "L" is not capitalized. Is that


1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

Page 7

correct?A. That's correct.Q. All right.

MR. MAYO: Jeff, do you mind if I take

care of just a couple of preliminary matters?

Just to - - you had wanted a copy of our privilege

log.

MR. WALKER: Yes, sir.

MR. MAYO: And I thought what I would do,

if it's all right with you, is just to get it on

the record. I am going to mark as an exhibit my

e-mail to you of yesterday with our obj ectionsand then make the privilege log as an exhibit as

well. Do you mind me doing that?

MR. WALKER: Not at all, but I was

going - - let me if you insist on doing that,

that's going to be fine, but I had some

preliminary matters too.MR. MAYO: Sure.

MR. WALKER: And I thought I would take

care of my preliminary matters; and if you or any

other party had any preliminary matters that they

wanted to attend to, we would go ahead and do

that.MR. MAYO: That works fine.

.....


1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

Page 76

Representative Taylor

MR. MAYO: I'm sorry. Tell me where it

mentions the qui tam action.

BY MR. WALKER:

Q. Well, let me ask - - I'll limit it morespecifically.

Are you aware or is SLF aware of any

communications between members of the Scruggs Law Firm

and Representative Taylor concerning this qui tam

action?

A. The answer is no. I was hesitating. I wastrying to remember whether I had seen any documents

yesterday that suggested that it was; and so subj ect to

that. If I saw them on documents yesterday, then the

documents would stand. Beyond that, I don't know of

anything.

Q. Okay. Well, did you attempt to determinefrom Zach Scruggs whether he had had any communications

wi th Representative Taylor concerning the Rigsby

sisters' qui tam action?

A. No. I have not asked that.Q. Okay. Is there some reason you didn't?

A. No. I just didn't know I was supposed to.

And by the way, as you know, I was just designated on

Friday, so - - and Zach was not here on Friday.


1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

Page 93

document.

A. No, I don't know.

BY MR. WALKER:

Q. And, again, the same question: Do you think

Mr. Dick Scruggs might know the answer to that

question?

A. I don't know whether he does or not.

Q. Same question to Zach Scruggs. Do you

know

A . I don't know.

Q. Okay. Are any of the documents contained inExhibit 19 presently in the possession of SLF or any

attorney formerly associated with Scruggs Law Firm?

A. I don't know.

Q. Would Mr. Dick Scruggs know the answer to

that question?

A. I don't know.

Q. Would Mr. Zach Scruggs know the answer to

that question?

A. I don't know.

Q. Let me ask you a more general question about

documents, not Exhibit 19. We're through with that.

A. Okay.

Q. It has been represented to us that a number

of documents related to Katrina litigation were - - that


1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

Page 94

were being - - wi thin the custody of SLF and Scruggs Law

Firm were at some point sent to the Katrina Litigation

Group and, part icularly, to Don Barrett. Are you - - do

you know anything about that process or what I'm

talking about?

A. I do. I instructed Charlene to pack them all

up and send them to Don Barrett.

Q. All right. Now, when -- when was that done?

A. I don't remember the precise date or even

maybe the month, but it was probably sometime in the

fall of 2009.

Q. And why did you give Charlene Bosarge that

instruction?A. There were several reasons. The primary

reason was - - was that we had an ungodly number of

storage units full of files that we had been retaining

in connection with the Wilson litigation. When the

Wilson litigation settled, we had no reason to preserve

any of those files, since it was final settlement.

Q. Let me interrupt you, if I might. What did

the Wilson litigation have to do with anything

A. I'm getting to that, if you'll --Q. Excuse me.

A. -- let me.There was also a lot of records related to

......


Page 96

1 again, sir? I didn't hear the last part.2 MR. SUGIMURA: Yes. We instruct the

3 witness not to - - not to be we caution the

4 witness not to disclose any specific contents of

5 documents that might be protected by

6 attorney-client privilege or work product

7 protection; although we do not obj ect to his

8 disclosing whether, in fact, there are documents

9 generally that relate to this case.10 A. I don't know whether there were or not. What

11 I - - my instructions to Charlene was - - is to --

12 anything that relates to Katrina, to ship that to Don13 Barrett. And that's what the attorneys told me to do.

14 Now, I did not make a distinction between the15 Rigsbys. In fact, I probably didn't know at that time

16 that Scruggs was even involved in the qui tam case. I

17 thought that was some other lawyer.

18 BY MR. WALKER:

19 Q. Who did you think was involved?

20 A. I thought it was some lawyer in Washington,

21 and that's - - that's about the extent of my knowledge

22 about that.23 Q. Well, let me ask you this question: Does SLF24 today have a complete record of all documents,

25 communications, data - - whatever you want to call it --

....


1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

Page 97

related to the representation of Cori and Kerri Rigsby

in this matter?

A. I don't know, but I would say that I don't

believe we do.

Q. All right. And what causes you to believe

that?A. Because I haven't seen them, and after --

when we moved our of f ices, I saw I was act i vely

involved with the files that we put in storage in our

existing office, and I just don't recall seeing any.

Q. Okay. Now, in preparation for your testimonytoday, did you contact Don Barrett or KLG or whomever

it is you sent these files to to determine whether

there was any information responsive to the notice and

the subpoenas issued here?

A. I did not personally.

Q. Do you know whether anybody else?

A. Unless Cal did, I don't believe anybody did.

Q. And how would I find that out?

A. How would you find out whether I contacted

them or whether --

Q. Whether anybody acting for SLF did.

MR. MAYO: I'm sorry. Why would that have

been necessary to prepare him? If we don't have

the documents, we don't have the documents. I


Page 98

1 mean, they might have the documents, but I'm a

2 little confused, Mr. Walker, about your

3 suggestion that we should have contacted them to

4 find out what documents they have.

5 MR. WALKER: Well, I think you had an

6 obligation to obtain documents that were within

7 your possession, custody, or control. I think

8 the - - it is fair to expect that you would have

9 still exercised some amount of control over these

10 documents since indeed you sent them to Don

11 Barrett.12 And unless there was some indication that

13 Don Barrett or KLG or whomever has custody of

14 these documents now would decline to give them to I

I

15 you for the deposition, I'm a little puzzled as

16 to why you wouldn't have done that, given your

17 testimony that you are not confident that the

18 documents that SLF does have are complete.

19 A. Well, when did I say I wasn't competent, and

20 what was I not competent about?

21 BY MR. WALKER:

22 Q. Confident.

23 A. Confident.

24 Q. I believe you testified - - and correct me if

25 I'm wrong, sir. I think you testified a few moments


1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

Page 127

on the line?

MR. SUGIMURA: Yeah, that will work.

THE VIDEOGRAPHER: We are off the record

at 3:46 p.m.

(OFF THE RECORD)

THE VIDEOGRAPHER: We are back on the

record at 3:55 p.m.

(EXHIBIT 25 MARKED)

A. (Reviews document)

MR. MAYO: Is that the same thing?

THE WITNESS: That's what I was looking to

see.

MR. MAYO: What was the exhibit number on

the other one?

Looks like the same --

Twenty- five.

THE WITNESS:

MR. WALKER:

BY MR. WALKER:

Q. Mr. Deloach

THE WITNESS: It's two different e-mails,

but looks like the same attachment.

BY MR. WALKER:

Q. Well, let's make sure we've got the question

on the table.A. Okay.

Q. Mr. Deloach, I've handed you a document


1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

Page 128

that's been marked as Exhibit 25, and the Bates stamp

is SMPD1-000567 through 612. It purports to be a copy

of an e-mail and attachment from Beth Jones at Scruggs

Law Firm dated June 6, 2007, to R-E-Y~cbsnews. com, and

attached is first false claims act, first amended

complaint doc.; Renfroe code of conduct PDF.

Do you see that document, sir?

A. Yes.

Q. All right. And is this a copy of an e-mail

and attachment from the Scruggs Law Firm e-mail system?

A. It appears that it is.MR. MAYO: Can I ask just out of curiosity

SMPH do we know what - - any idea what these

letters mean? Because it looks like to me these

are the same e-mails just date stamped two hours

apart. Is that what it is? I'm just asking.

MR. ROBINSON: Cal, there was a - - let's

go off the record for a second.

THE VIDEOGRAPHER: Off the record at 3: 58

p.m.

(OFF THE RECORD)


4 p.m.

BY MR. WALKER:

Q. All right. Again, Mr. Deloach, this is

.


Page 129

1 Exhibit 25 is an e-mail attachment from the Scruggs Law

2 Firm e-mail system. Is that correct, sir?

3 A.

4 Q.

5 A.

6 Q.

It appears that it is.

Sent by Beth Jones. Correct?

Yes.

And Beth Jones, again, was an employee of

7 Scruggs Law Firm?

8 A.

9 Q.

10 A.

11 Q.

12

13 A.

Yes.

And her position was?

Administrative assistant to Richard Scruggs.

All right.(EXHIBIT 26 MARKED)

(Reviews document)

14 BY MR. WALKER:

15 Q. Now, Mr. Deloach, we have before you a

16 document that's been marked as Exhibit 26 bearing the

17 Bates No. SMPD1-000003, and I'll ask you if you can

18 tell us what it appears to be.

19 A. This is an e-mail from a man named Brian Ford

20 to Charlene Bosarge.

Q. At the Scruggs Law Firm?

A. Yes.

Q. And dated - - what's the date on it, sir?A. The e - ma i 1 is dated May 22 nd , 2006.

Q. All right. Does this appear to be a copy of

21

22

23

24

25


1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

Page 130

an e-mail recruited from the Scruggs e-mail system?

A. It does.

Q. Sir?A. It does.

Q. It does. Thank you.

Who's Brian Ford?

A. I don't know a - - I heard a - - had a phone

conversation with Cal and somebody. And I'm forgetting

who it was, but he may can help me remember.

But I believe Brian Ford was an engineer or

something to do with engineering, either with Renfroe

or State Farm or somebody. That's my recollection of

the phone call.

Q. All right.A. May not be correct.

Q. All right. And are you aware, either

personally or as representative of SLF and Scruggs Law

Firm, of any payments made to Mr. Ford by SLF or an

attorney associated with Scruggs Law Firm?

A. I'm not aware of any. I believe the sameperson said that they did not retain - - that this guy

was soliciting a job, but they didn't retain him.

Q. Do you know of any other conversations other

than that reflected in Exhibit 26 between lawyers with

Scruggs Law Firm and Mr. Ford?

.


1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

Page 131

Well, now, this one in Exhibit 26 is

is an e-mail between Brian Ford and Charlene

A.

between

Bosarge.

Q. Or anyone else associated with Scruggs Law.

Thank you.

A . No, I don't.

Q. Would anyone else know the answer to that

question as SLF? Any current or former employee or

lawyer.

A . I don't know.

Q. Have you attempted to find out?

A. Nothing other than the phone conversation I

just referred to.

Q. All right. Tell me, what was the phone

conversation again?

A. Can I confer with counsel?

Q . Sure.

MR. WALKER: You can go of f the record.

THE VIDEOGRAPHER: We're off the record at

4: 04 p. m.

(OFF THE RECORD)


4:09 p.m.

BY MR. WALKER:

Q. Mr. Deloach, I want to go back to a topic


Page 132

1 that we discussed earlier today, and that is the

2 transfer of Scruggs Law Firm files to Katrina

3 Litigation Group and Don Barrett, as I appreciate it..

4 How did you decide or were there any criteria

5 used to determine what would be retained by SLF and

6 what would be sent to Mr. Barrett?

7 A. It was no criteria. Charlene who, as you

8 know, had worked on the Katrina litigation -- was the

9 one that personally did it, and her instructions were

10 to transfer it all to Don Barrett.

11 Q. Well - - and that gets back to a question that12 I had posed earlier, and that is - - and correct me if13 I'm wrong - - you appear today to have access to at14 least some documents pertaining to the Rigsby qui tam.

15 Is that correct?16 MR. MAYO: Such as what?17 MR. WALKER: The documents you produced

18 Saturday.19 MR. MAYO: I'm not sure. I mean, we

20 produced payment records out of the accounting

21 system. We produced phone records that had been

22 from the telephones. But what did we produce23 that relates to the qui tam action? What2 4 document?25 MR. WALKER: Well, for example, the


Page 133

1 document that we talked about earlier.

2 Apparently, the handwritten notes of Mr. Scruggs

3 you're saying are work product. I'm asking the

4 question --5 MR. MAYO: But those don't - - I'm not sure

6 those relate specifically to the qui tam; they7 might relate generally to the Katrina litigation.8 But you're saying matters particularly related to

9 the qui tam action?

10 MR. WALKER: Yeah.11 MR. MAYO: Maybe I'm misunderstanding

12 your13 MR. WALKER: That's exactly right.

14 BY MR. WALKER:

15 Q. We're not clear based on what you've told us16 today, Mr. Deloach, whether SLF, Inc., today has any

17 materials, documents, data, anything related to the18 Rigsby qui tam.19 A. Well, I can answer very clearly. I don't20 know of any except for what we produced. I have not

21 searched the files to see if we had any.

22 My instructions to Charlene were to transfer23 them all to Don Barrett. She obviously would not

24 transfer accounting records to Don Barrett. That

25 wasn't part of the stuff that was in storage.


1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

Page 134

So that's the best answer I can give you.

MR. MAYO: Just be clear, was your

instructions related to the qui tam action or to

the Katrina documents?

A. To the Katrina documents that were in storage

out on Highway 30. That was my instructions.

BY MR. WALKER:

Q. As you sit here today, do you know whether

the Scruggs Law Firm file, whatever it consisted of,

related to this case - - as you sit here today, do you

know whether that went to Don Barrett or it's still

over in your offices someplace?

A. I don't know. I have not seen it in my

office - - in our offices.Q. Well, have you - - did you make any effort

prior to our deposition here today to look for it?

A. Not prior to the deposition today, but some

time back - - several weeks or maybe even a couple of

mon ths ago - - we went through an extensive search at

the direction of the Mayo Mallette firm.

And I believe we had a subpoena for

documen t s , and we searched for everything on there,

and - - and I believe, if we had it, we would have found

it.Q. All right. So you're comfortable as you sit


1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

Page 135

here today that you don't have it within the SLF

offices.A. I am.

Q. All right. And the only place that you could

put it would be with Don Barrett. Is that correct?

A. Yes. That's the only place we sent anything.Q. All right. Now, prior to the transfer of

these files to Don Barrett, Katrina Litigation Group,

where and how were the documents maintained by Scruggs

Law Firm?

A. There were documents at 120-A Courthouse

Square, which was in the office, and then there was

some in storage on a storage unit on Highway 30, a

climate-controlled storage unit.I did not personally get involved in terms of

the physical movement of any of them. We brought

Charlene up from the Coast and paid her to sort those

files out. And it was not just those files. All files

in the office - - all case files. Some we transferred

to David Shelton, who was an attorney that took over

the active cases from Scruggs, and some that were old

Wilson files, as I mentioned earlier, and some of the

stuff just accumulated, and then some related to

Katrina. It was her job to take out all of the stuff

that wasn' t active.


1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

Page 136

Q . Why --

MR. SUGIMURA: I have a bit of trouble

hearing over the telephone. Would it be possible

to move the microphone closer to the speakers?

BY MR. WALKER:

Q. Why - - and forgive me if I asked you thisquestion earlier. Why did the Scruggs Law Firm, SLF,

transfer Katrina files to Don Barrett and the Katrina

Li tigation Group?

A. Well, I think I answered that this morning.

SLF was out of the case. We had the files. We talked

to our attorneys or some attorneys with them.

I can't remember whether it was Nutt' s office

or Barrett or a combination of the two, but the

deci- and Charlene did some of the discussion with

them. I know she talked to Don Barrett several times,

and the decision was made, and we were instructed to

send them to Don Barrett.

Q. All right. I guess what - - let me make it a

little bit more specific. The reason that Scruggs Law

Firm sent these policyholder cases to Don Barrett was

that Don Barrett and his firm, which formed the Katrina

Litigation Group after the Scruggs Law Firm

dissol ved

A. Yeah.


1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

Page 137

Q. -- had been jointly representing with the

Scruggs Law Firm a number of policyholders in

Katrina-related litigation. Correct?

A. Yes.

Q. All right. They were, in effect, the

successor law firms to the Scruggs Katrina Group.

Correct?

A. That's correct.Q. SO it made some amount of logical sense to

send those files along to Don Barrett since he was, at

least initially, going to be the lead firm handling

those or continuing with those files. Correct?

A. Yes.

Q. All right. What role did Don Barrett or any

of the Katrina litigation firms have in the Rigsby qui

tam?

MR. SUGIMURA: Obj ect to the extent that

it requires the witness to provide

attorney-client privileged information or

material protected that is protected by work

product doctrine.

MR. MAYO: You can answer that in general

terms, if you know.

A. Well, I don't know that they had any role. Idon't believe they did, but I think what you're getting


Page 138

1 at is something, I believe, I answered this morning.

2 I don't know that we sent the qui tam files

3 to him. My instructions were just to send whatever was

4 Katrina related. I don't know that there were any qui

5 tam files up there.

6 And at that time I didn't even know that

7 Scruggs was representing the Rigsby sisters. Well, I

8 knew that he was not representing the Rigsby sisters at

9 that time, because this attorney in Washington was

10 representing them. So as I said earlier this morning,11 I don't know that any qui tam files went to Don

12 Barrett.13 BY MR. WALKER:

14 Q. Well, you've already established that you15 don't have them today.

16

17

18

19

20

21 have been down on the Coast, or we may not - - or

22 Scruggs may not have had any. I'm not sure he was the

23 attorney. This B.F. "Chip" Robinson's firm based on

24 that document this morning appears to have been the

25 attorney that would have had the files.

A. Right.

Q. Or you don't believe you do.

A. Right.

Q. Well, they had to go somewhere, di dn ' t they?

A. Well, not if they weren't there. They could


1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

Page 139

Q. So is it your testimony and SLF' s testimony

today that the Scruggs Law Firm never had any files

concerning the Rigsby qui tam?

A. No. I've told you I just don't know. I'venot seen any qui tam files that the Scruggs firm had.

Doesn't mean they didn't have them. Charlene was the

one designated to do that. She was a very

knowledgeable, competent person in dealing with legal

files, so probably should ask her.

Q. Well, I'm asking SLF, and I think it's afairly simple question that y' all would know where the

file was that Mr. Scruggs had when he filed this

lawsui t

A. Well

Q. for the Rigsby sisters.A. I gave you a fairly simple answer: I

don't know.

Q. Were they sent - - does SLF know whether the

Rigsby file - - Rigsby qui tam files were sent to the

Gilbert firm?

A. I don't know who the Gilbert firm is, but I

didn't send any to them, and - - let me finish - - andI've told you that I don't know that we had any qui tam

files.Q. Okay. Who would know whether you did or not?

.


1 A.Page 140

Charlene would be the only person, I believe,

2 that would know whether we had any or not.

3 Q. Well, Dick Scruggs would know, wouldn't he?

4 A. I doubt it.5 Q. Zach Scruggs would know, wouldn't he?

6 A. I doubt it. He might.

7 Q. So it's your testimony that you don't think

8 Richard Scruggs, who is lead counsel in this qui tam

9 action against State Farm, would know whether he had a

10 file or not?11 A. Well, at the time we sent those, he was in

12 prison, so I don't know how he would know.

13 MR. MAYO: My only obj ection to your

14 question is that he was the lead counsel. I

15 don't believe that the witness knows that he was

16 the lead counsel.

17 I'm not sure I know that he was the lead

18 counsel, your characterization of him as such. I

19 don't know that he was lead counsel on the qui

20 tam action. That document earlier today, as

21 Mr. Deloach said, suggests it was another law22 firm, so23 BY MR. WALKER:

24 Q. So as we sit here today, SLF cannot tell us

25 whether there were any files related to the Rigsby qui

.


1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

Page 14 1

tam, and if there were, where they are today. Is that

correct?A. That's correct.Q. Were any - - was it the custom and practice of

the Scruggs Law Firm to maintain files in electronic

form?

A. I don't think so. At least, you know, they

didn't have any of the type of equipment that I was

aware of where you would put them on disk and that kind

of stuff.Q. SO most things were maintained as paper file?

A. Yeah. Massive paper files there, whichpartly leads me to the conclusion they didn i t have

electronic storage.

MR. WALKER: Would you hand the witness

Exhibi t 1, please.

BY MR. WALKER:

Q. Is that Exhibit 1?A. Yes, sir.Q. If you would turn to page 4 of Exhibit 1,

please, sir.A. (Wi tness complies)

Q. What I'm going to do is go over each one of

the topics that we designated for examination today and

at least start off with two questions. The first of

.. .-


Page 142

1 which is: Do you have any personal knowledge

2 responsive to this topic? And the second is: Does

3 anyone either currently or formerly affiliated with the

4 Scruggs Law Firm, PA, or SLF, Inc., potentially have

5 knowledge responsive to this topic?

6 Let's take the first one first.7 MR. MAYO: Are you asking this question

8 subj ect to my obj ections, Mr. Walker?

9 MR. WALKER: Sure.10 MR. MAYO: Okay. Well, we've obj ected to

11 NO.1. Do you want to try to cure any of the12 obj ections before the witness tries to answer?13 MR. WALKER: No. I'm just simply asking

14 about knowledge.

15 MR. MAYO: I think you can only answer

16 this as your personal knowledge. I'm not sure1 7 you can answer this on behalf in fact, I know

18 you can't answer on behalf of the corporation.19 A. Yeah. With respect to Item 1, I have no20 knowledge of it.21 BY MR. WALKER:

22 Q. All right. Do you know of anyone either

23 currently or formerly affiliated with the Scruggs Law

24 Firm, PA, or SLF, Inc., potentially who might have

25 knowledge responsive to this topic?

. . .


Page 143

A.

Q.

A.

Q.

A.

this.Q.


1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

Page 144

BY MR. WALKER:

Q. Okay. All right. Number 2. Same questions.

Questions being: Do you have personal knowledge

responsive to the topic i and, secondly, does anyone

either currently or formerly affiliated with Scruggs

Law Firm or SLF potentially have knowledge responsive

to this topic?

A. I don't know of anyone. I mean, I don't know

about Item 2, and I don't know of anyone with the

Scruggs Law Firm that would have knowledge of such a

thing.

Q. All right. Did you make inquiry of anyone of

this topic prior to your deposition today?

A. Let me there's another topic in here about

the sale of a house to Robert Oswalt. Are we - - isthat the same thing we are talking about here?

Q. No.

A. Okay. Then I didn't make any inquiry of

anyone about this specific thing.

Q. Okay. Do you know if anyone else did onbehalf of SLF?

A. I don't know if counsel did or not.

MR. MAYO: Yeah. Mr. Walker, there is

as I represented in our obj ection, which I

provided you, we have no information responsive


1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

Page 145

to No.2, 3, and 24.

MR. WALKER: I'm just asking what he did.

MR. MAYO: I understand, but I -- I mean,

if there is no information to be responsive,

there is no information to be responsive.

There's no information.

MR. WALKER: I'm just asking whatever he

made to come to that conclusion. I think that's

a fair question.

MR. MAYO: Okay.

BY MR. WALKER:

Q. Number 3. Do you have any personal knowledge

respons i ve to this topic, and does anyone eithercurrently or formerly affiliated with Scruggs Law Firm

or SLF potentially have knowledge responsive to this

topic?

A. I don't personally have any knowledge of it,

and I - - and I don't know whether anyone else has any

knowledge of it, and I don't know that any such thing

existed, so I can't answer your potential question.

Q. Did you make any inquiry?

A. About Item 3 specifically?

Q. Yes.

A. No. And, again, I remind you that I justbecame appointed on Friday; so Zach Scruggs was gone,

I


~~1%1 and Charlene was, I believe, giving a deposition. So

2 there was really no opportunity to make such inquiries.

3 Q. All right. Same questions as to NO.4. I'm

4 happy to repeat them, but I think you understand them.

5 Tell me if you don't.6 THE WITNESS: Help me, Counsel. What was

7 our response to NO.4?

8 A. (Reviews document)

9 MR. MAYO: I think 4,19,21,22, and 36

10 are basically all the same thing.11 THE WITNESS: Yeah. All right. Let me

12 read this.13 MR. MAYO: We're only speaking to Scruggs

14 Law Firm.15 THE WITNESS: Yeah.16 A. I'm trying to understand - - make sure I17 understand 4 before answering. But this says testimony18 concerning anything of value, compensation, or other

19 payment, gifts which Cori received or are receiving. I20 believe I've testified about that earlier, did I not,21 that they identified the payments that they received in

22 the 1099s?

23 BY MR. WALKER:

24 Q. All right. So it's my understanding that you

25 do have personal knowledge of this topic. Correct?


1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

Page 147

A. Yeah. Based on the investigation, I did,ye s, sir.

Q. Yes, sir. And you did make inquiry of

others.A. Yes, sir.Q. All right . Five. Same questions.

A. Okay. So this is - - distinguishes from 4 bybeing - - I'm asking for clarification.

Q. Yes, sir.A. The difference between this and 4 is did it

go to any relatives?

Q. Yes, sir.A. That's the only distinction?Q. Yes, sir.A. I have no knowledge of that.

Q. All right. And did you make inquiry of

anyone?

A. Other than looking over the payments and

those kinds of things, I did not make any inquiry.

Q. All right. Six.A. (Reviews document)

MR. MAYO: You can look and match those

up.

A. I don't understand the question, and I don't

know.

..


1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

Page 148

BY MR. WALKER:

Q. Well, do you have any personal knowledge

concerning any materials received from a third party

which were created by State Farm or Renfroe related in

any manner to the flood insurance claims submitted by

Thomas and Pamela McIntosh?

MR. MAYO: Received by whom? What third

party? I mean, it's - - the question is adifficult question to understand, Mr. Walker.

Tha t 's --

BY MR. WALKER:

Q. Do you have any personal knowledge of

documents or anything related to the McIntosh flood

claim?

A. Related to the McIntosh flood claim?

Q. Yes, sir.A. No.

Q. You don't have any personal knowledge.

A. No.

Q. Do you know of any person currently or

formerly affiliated with the Scruggs Law Firm or SLF,

Inc., who potentially might have knowledge responsive

to this topic on the McIntosh flood claim?

A. Well, let me get some clarif ication. Itsays, "Materials from a third party." What does that

.


1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

L

Page 149

mean? Does it mean from - - I know the SLF or Scruggs

Katrina Group represented the McIntosh in a claim. I

know that.

Q. Right.A. But I don i t know anything about any of the

materials or anything might have been used in that.

Q. All right. But did you have any knowledge or

do you know of anybody who was presently or formerly

affiliated with Scruggs Law Firm or SLF who might have

knowledge of these issues, things that they got from

third parties?

A. Well, I don't know specifically which lawyers

worked on that case, but - - that case, but I would

assume that they did.

Q. Well, did you make any inquiry of them prior

to your deposition today?

A. No.

Q. Same questions as to 7.A. (Reviews document) I have no knowledge of

that.Q. All right. Are you aware of any person

currently or formerly affiliated with Scruggs Law Firm

or SLF, Inc., who might potentially have knowledge

responsive to this topic?

A. You know, I'm having trouble with the word

.


Page 150

1 "potential. " Potential would include the whole world.

2 If you asked me if I specifically have knowledge as

3 somebody that had knowledge of that, I have no specific

4 knowledge of anybody that has knowledge.

5 Q. Did you make any inquiry of anyone?

6 A. No.7 Q. Same questions as to 8.

8 A. (Reviews document) I have nothing to add to

9 what I said earlier about that.10 Q. All right. Did you make any inquiry of

11 anyone? Other than I believe you testified you had12 inquired of Zach Scruggs on this point.13 A. That's right. No, nothing beyond that.14 Q. All right. Same questions as to 9.15 A. (Reviews document) I testified about Brian16 Ford; and these other two people, I have never heard of17 them.

18 Q. All right. Are you aware of any person

19 currently or formerly affiliated with Scruggs Law Firm

20 or SLF who might have knowledge responsive to this

21 topic?22 A. Well, I think Zach Scruggs might have some

23 knowledge about Brian Ford, and I don't know about any

24 of the others.25 Q. Did you make any inquiry of any other person

.


1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

Page 151

in preparation for the testimony today?

A. None other than Zach.

Q. Why did you limit yourself to Zach?

A. I didn't limit myself to him. He just

happened to be the only one that I was aware of that

and Cal thought he might have some knowledge.

Q. All right. Same questions as to 10.

MR. MAYO: We're not going to answer any

questions about No. 10, Mr. Walker. I'minstructing the witness not to answer No. 10.

MR. WALKER: Okay.

MR. MAYO: Unless you can show me why

there's some connection to this deposition and

the matter y' all are trying on the Coast.

BY MR. WALKER:

Q. All right. Same questions as to No. 11.

A. (Reviews document) I have no knowledge of

that.Q. All right. Question as to other people

presently or formerly affiliated with Scruggs Law Firm?

A. I don't know.

Q. Did you make any inquiry concerning No. 11?

A. No. No.

Q. Twelve.

A. (Reviews document)


Page 168

1 (OFF THE RECORD)2 THE VIDEOGRAPHER: We are back on the

3 record at 4: 58 p. m.

4 MR. WALKER: All right. Given the

5 limitations that have been placed on the

6 deposi tion both by the instruction of counsel and

7 the limited preparation of the witness, we're

8 going to recess the deposition pending, you know,

9 our efforts to compel further meaningful

10 responses.11 But given that, we'll tender the witness to12 any other - - and the document production, yeah,13 and the receipt of documents from Rendon. But

14 given that, we will tender the witness to the15 other counsel here and on the call.16 MR. MAYO: Any of y'all got questions?

17 MS. PLATT: No questions from Haag.

18 MR. SUGIMURA: None from the relators.

19 MR. MAYO: Okay. Mr. Walker, all I would

20 suggest is if y'all want to look at your21 designation, some of them are quite confusing.22 It's hard to determine what it is y' all want. We23 are glad to cooperate and provide any information24 we can under the limitations we have about25 wi tnesses, who we can't compel to give


1 CERTIFICATE OF COURT REPORTER2 I, SHAUNA W. STANFORD, Certified

3 Shorthand Reporter and Notary Public in and for

4 the State of Mississippi at large, hereby certify5 that the foregoing pages contain a full, true, and

6 correct transcript of the proceedings as taken by

7 me at the time and place heretofore stated in the

8 aforementioned matter and later reduced to

9 typewritten form by me to the best of my skill and

10 ability.11 I further certify that I placed the12 wi tness under oath to truthfully answer all13 questions in this matter under the authority14 vested in me by the State of Mississippi.15 I further certify that I am not in the16 employ of or related to any counselor party in17 this matter and have no interest, monetary or

18 otherwise, as to the final outcome of this19 proceeding.

20 WITNESS MY SIGNATURE AND SEAL, this the

21 30th day of June, 2010.22

SHAUNA W. STANFORD, CSR

23 CSR NO. 138024 My Commission Expires:

25 April 12, 2012


1 CERTIFICATE OF DEPONENT2 I, REX DELOACH, deponent in the

3 deposition taken in the herein styled and numbered

4 cause, certify that I have examined the foregoing

5 pages, being the total number of pages relating to

6 my testimony, as to the correctness thereof, and

7 that after reading said pages, and subj ect to any

8 corrections I may have attached hereto as a

9 Deponent's Corrections Sheet, I find them to

10 contain a full, true, and correct transcript of11 the testimony as given by me.

12 This the day of13 2010.

14

REX DELOACH

15

16 STATE OF MISSISSIPPI

17 COUNTY OF

18 SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN TO BEFORE ME, the

19 undersigned authority, on this the day of20 ,2010.21

NOTARY PUBLIC

22

23 My Commission Expires:

24

25


Documents

Scruggs/Rigsby Qui Tam - DeLoach SLF Deposition