Yesterday in the Scruggs criminal case in Mississippi, the government filed its response to a December 28 defense motion to compel the government to provide certain evidence in discovery. That defense motion can be seen by clicking here, and we will get back to talking about it shortly.Here is a copy of the government's response. Now, taking these documents together, a couple things emerge.On November 27, the day the FBI raided the Scruggs Law Firm, Steve Patterson was placed into custody. The defense motion requests "[A]ny recording of the November 27, 2007 telephone conversation between Balducci and Patterson that occurred while Patterson was in custody, or any written record containing the substance of this conversation." So Balducci, presumably cooperating wi
Related Headlines
- Nationwide v. Leonard: Fifth Circuit upholds anti-concurrent cause provision as unambiguousposted 66 weeks ago on Insurance Coverage Blog
- Potpourri Thursdayposted 69 weeks ago on Insurance Coverage Blog
-
Scruggs Nation, Day 20: the wire
posted 50 weeks ago on Insurance Coverage Blog
-
Another Balducci bribe attempt?
posted 39 weeks ago on Insurance Coverage Blog
- California U.S. District Court says Katrina storm surge is not excluded by excess policy's flood exclusionposted 67 weeks ago on Insurance Coverage Blog
-
Rigsby sisters' D.C. attorneys withdraw from Renfroe case, cite lack of ability to pay
posted 37 weeks ago on Insurance Coverage Blog
- Final version of Appleman's anti-concurrent cause/Katrina litigation articleposted 63 weeks ago on Insurance Coverage Blog
-
A great new blog
posted 37 weeks ago on Insurance Coverage Blog
-
Second Update on State Farm v. Hood hearing: Hood speaks
posted 43 weeks ago on Insurance Coverage Blog