Ex Rel Rigsby V State Farm: Relators' Memorandum in Support of Their Motion For An Order To Compel Complete and Prompt Production of Late-Disclosed Documents

Case 1:06-cv-00433-LTS -RHW Document 881 Filed 02/18/11 Page 1 of 10
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF MISSISSIPPI
SOUTHERN DIVISION
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA ex rel.;

CORI RIGSBY; AND KERRI RIGSBY RELATORS/COUNTER-DEFENDANTS
v. CASE No. 1:06-cv-433-LTS-RHW
STATE FARM FIRE & CASUALTY

COMPANY, et al. DEFENDANTS/COUNTER-PLAINTIFFS
RELATORS’ MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT OF THEIR

MOTION FOR AN ORDER TO COMPEL COMPLETE AND PROMPT PRODUCTION
OF LATE-DISCLOSED DOCUMENTS
Cori and Kerri Rigsby (“Relators”) respectfully submit this memorandum in support of
their motion for an order compelling Defendant State Farm Fire & Casualty Company (“State
Farm”) to produce immediately the untimely disclosed documents first referenced in a privilege
log provided to Relators on January 14, 2011 (the “Documents”).
I. Introduction
On November 23, 2009, Relators served their First Set of Requests for Production of
Documents on State Farm. Document Request No. 1 asked State Farm to produce “[a]ll
documents related to the McIntosh home and the damage it sustained as a result of Hurricane
Katrina,” including “documents related to adjusting claims under the flood and homeowner
policies.”1 In its Responses and Objections, served on January 11, 2010, State Farm committed
to produce documents responsive to this request subject to certain limited objections, and stated
1
Relators’ First Set of Requests for Production of Documents to State Farm Mutual Insurance Co., November 23,
2009, excerpted at Exh. A. See also Relators’ Fourth Set of Requests for Production to State Farm, May 25, 2010,
Document Request No. 24 , requiring State Farm to produce all documents “received in response to any subpoena
issued in this action or in McIntosh v. State Farm Fire & Casualty Company, et al., No. 1:06-cv-1080 (S.D. Miss.),”
excerpted at Exh. C.
that “[a]ny privileged or protected documents will be listed on a privilege log.” 2 The close of
discovery in this case was July 1, 2010.3 In total, State Farm produced approximately 19,000
pages of documents identified as responsive to all of Relators’ requests.
On January 14, 2011, more than a year after responses to Relators’ first document
requests were due and more than six months after the close of discovery, State Farm disclosed
the existence of another 8,000 pages of documents in three boxes labeled “McIntosh Zone
Litigation File.” These Documents had been “discovered” in the office of Terry Blaylock, State
Farm’s 30(b)(6) witness who was designated specifically to testify on matters related to State
Farm’s document production and document retention practices.4
State Farm acknowledges that the Documents were “brought . . . to the attention of the
State Farm corporate legal department in December 2010”5 but the existence of the Documents
was not disclosed to Relators at that time. Despite the fact that a hearing related to dispositive
motions and trial scheduling was to occur on January 12, 2011 and despite the fact that State
Farm was taking depositions in this case during the last week of December and the first week of
January, State Farm chose not to disclose these Documents to the Relators or this Court. Instead,
on January 14, 2011, two days after oral argument, State Farm gave Relators a three-line
privilege log that identified these 8,000 pages of Documents simply as “Zone litigation file for
McIntosh claim.”
The January 14 “privilege log” in its entirety provides as follows6:
2
State Farm’s Responses and Objections to Relators’ First Set of Requests for Production of Documents,
January 11, 2010, excerpted at Exh. B.
3
Case Management Order, [365], at 2.
4
Letter from A. Barbour to A. Matteis, dated Feb. 7, 2011, Exh. F-4; Deposition of Terry Blalock at 6:10-7:8,
Exh. D.
5
Exh. F-4.
6
See Privilege Log, Submitted by State Farm on 01/14/11, Exh. E.
2
UNITED STATES OF
Row Privilege AMERICA ET AL V. SF ET
# Description Date Pgs Int/RFP Asserted AL PRIVILEGE LOG
Box 1 of zone
litigation file for 10/30/06 Prepared in USARIGSBY00000114PRIV
McIntosh claim - anticipation -
1 - 24-z178-602 04/09 2467 RFP 01 of litigation USARIGSBY00002580PRIV
Box 2 of zone
Box 3 of zone
As the fifth and sixth columns above demonstrate, the log characterized all 8,000 pages of the
Documents as responsive to the Relators’ First Request for Production of Documents but
indicated that State Farm was withholding them because they were “[p]repared in anticipation of
litigation” – a description that suggests that State Farm meant to assert one of several possible
protections. The “log” contained no description of any of the individual Documents, did not
identify by whom the Documents were created or collected, did not identify to whom the
Documents were addressed or distributed, and failed to identify any privilege or other protection
applicable to any such document. Although State Farm’s counsel had been aware of the
Documents for at least a month, State Farm chose not to provide a legally adequate description
of them or assert any specific privilege to justify withholding them.
On February 11, 2011, after repeated correspondence between counsel for the parties,7
State Farm provided the Relators a second supplemental privilege log that contradicted the first
supplemental log.8 The second log contains just two entries that identify only 14 pages of
materials for which State Farm now asserts attorney-client privilege. It contains no further
7
See Exh. F-1 through F-7.
8
See Privilege Log, Submitted by State Farm on 02/09/11, Exh. G.
3
description of the remaining thousands of pages of Documents referenced in the first log. The
supplemental log still fails to describe the time the Documents were prepared and fails to
indicate to whom the Documents have been distributed.
Subsequently, Relators inquired whether State Farm intended to produce the Documents
that were not identified as privileged on the second supplemental log. State Farm replied that
there would be no further production because “the boxes contain material compiled during the
course of the litigation and are privileged and/or work product.”9 State Farm still has not
described these Documents as required by Fed. R. Civ. Pro. 26(b)(5)(A)(ii).
State Farm has now taken three contradictory positions with respect to the Documents:
(1) all 8,000 pages are responsive and privileged;10 (2) “nearly all” of the Documents are
unresponsive11 and 14 pages of them are privileged;12 and (3) an unspecified number of the
Documents are responsive but privileged in some unspecified way.13 In no instance has State
Farm provided enough information to allow either Relators or the Court to make any
determination as to the applicability of any claimed privilege.
Thus, more than a month after the disclosure by State Farm of unproduced material
responsive to Relators’ document requests and after repeated requests for clarification, Relators
still do not know exactly when or how State Farm and its outside counsel learned of the
existence of these Documents. Nor do Relators know why, in spite of its assurance to this Court
that that it had “made every effort to locate all responsive documents and produce them . . . in a
9
Email from Amanda Barbour to Mickey Martinez, dated February 11, 2011, Exh. F-7.
10
Exh. E.
11
Exh. F-2 at 1 and Exh. F-4 at 2.
12
Exh. G.
13
Exh. F-7.
4
timely fashion,”14 State Farm had not “discovered” three boxes of documents labeled with the
name of the homeowner whose claim figures so prominently in this litigation. Relators do know
that State Farm chose not to disclose responsive documents even as its outside counsel continued
to file pleadings, take depositions, and argue dispositive motions before the Court.
Accordingly, Relators respectfully request that the Court order State Farm to produce all
8,000 pages of Documents identified in its January 14, 2011 privilege log. State Farm initially
conceded that these Documents are responsive, and it has forfeited any claim to privilege it may
have had by its late disclosure and inadequate descriptions.
II. ARGUMENT
Discovery rules require that a party respond to a request for production of documents
within 30 days. Fed. R. Civ. P. 34(b)(2). Parties must make a reasonably diligent search for
responsive documents in order to produce them in a timely manner. A party asserting a privilege
over material otherwise responsive to a request must produce a privilege log that sufficiently
asserts the basis of the privilege, Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(5)(A), and it must do so in a timely
manner.
In Crawford v. Franklin Credit Management. Corp., 261 F.R.D. 34 (S.D.N.Y. 2009), the
court found a waiver of privilege where the privilege log “failed to identify the general subject
matter of any of the listed documents.” Id. at 42-43. A privilege log in which the entries “fail to
provide adequate information to support the claim” is insufficient. OneBeacon Ins. Co. v.
Forman Int’l.., Ltd., No. 04 Civ. 2271, 2006 WL 3771010 at *6 (S.D.N.Y. December 15, 2006)
(finding party had failed to establish essential elements of privilege invoked by “not providing
the required information to support the assertion of a privilege”).

14
State Farm Fire and Casualty Company’s Response Memorandum in Opposition to the Rigsbys’ Motion to
Compel and for Sanctions, [599] at 5.
5
Moreover, failure to timely provide a privilege log also operates as a waiver of the
asserted privileges. See, e.g., Bullion Monarch Mining, Inc. v. Newmont USA Ltd., No. 3:08-CV-
0227-ECR (VPC), 2010 WL 2985496 at *6-7 (D. Nev. July 23, 2010) (finding waiver of
privilege for “gross untimeliness” where detailed privilege log was served more than a year after
document requests made and seven months after close of discovery); Truckstop.Net L.L.C. v.
Spring Communications Co., L.P., Nos. CV-04-561-S-BLW, CV-05-138-S-BLW, 2008 WL
2357008 at *2 (D. Id. June 6, 2008) (finding waiver for a seven month delay in producing a
privilege log); Rhoads Indus., Inc. v. Building Materials Corp. of Am., 254 F.R.D. 216, 226 (E.D.
Pa. 2008) (finding delay of less than five months in serving privilege log “too long and
inexcusable”); Get-A-Grip, II, Inc. v. Hornell Brewing Co., Inc., 2000 WL 1201385 (E.D. Pa.
Aug. 8, 2000) (finding that privilege had been waived where privilege log was produced two
months late).
In Burlington Northern & Santa Fe Railway Co. v. United States District Court for
District of Montana, 408 F.3d 1142 (9th Cir. 2005), the circuit court applied a balancing test to
determine that the district court did not err in requiring the defendant to produce documents for
which it had untimely asserted a privilege. Id. at 1149. Burlington articulated four factors for
consideration: (1) the degree of detail of the log; (2) how long after the time limit it was
disclosed (with 30 days serving as a rule of thumb for an acceptable delay); (3) the magnitude of
the documents being withheld; and (4) other particular circumstances of the litigation that make
responding to discovery unusually easy (such as the degree of sophistication of the responding
party and its repeated involvement in litigation, or the fact that many of the documents at issue
were the subject of discovery in an earlier action) or unusually hard. Id. The court specified that
these factors “should be applied in the context of a holistic reasonableness analysis, intended to
6
forestall needless waste of time and resources, as well as tactical manipulation of the rules and
the discovery process.” Id.
The facts in this instance strongly weigh on the side of waiver under Burlington.
First, State Farm produced two privilege logs that fail to provide basic information
necessary to support privilege claims over these 8,000 pages of documents, including the identity
of the author and recipient and the specific privilege asserted. Indeed, lumping all of these
Documents into three entries makes the first log inadequate on its face. Second, the privilege log
is nearly one year late. State Farm has provided no justification for failing to identify these
Documents until more than a year after Relators’ requests were served and more than six months
after the close of discovery.15 Third, the magnitude of the withheld Documents is significant
relative to the total document production in this case. State Farm is withholding 8,000 pages of
documents, which is equal to nearly half of the total number of documents produced. Finally,
production of these three boxes will not be difficult for State Farm. The Documents at issue here
were both already compiled from previous litigation and were “discovered” in the office of the
State Farm official designated to testify as to State Farm’s document retention policies. State
Farm’s status as a “sophisticated corporate litigant” and a “repeat player” in litigation16 makes its
failure to comply with its discovery obligations even less excusable.
State Farm has therefore waived any privilege that might have attached to these
Documents and should be ordered to produce them.
15
Indeed, counsel for State Farm had previously “‘certifie[d] that to the best of [counsel’s] knowledge, information,
and belief formed after a reasonable inquiry’ [State Farm’s] disclosure ‘is complete and correct as of the time it is
made.’” State Farm Fire and Casualty Company’s Response Memorandum in Opposition to the Rigsbys’ Motion to
Compel and for Sanctions [599] at 4.
16
Burlington Northern, 408 F.3d at 1149.
7
III. CONCLUSION
Relators respectfully ask this Court to grant their motion and order State Farm to produce
immediately and in their entirety the Documents referenced in the purported privilege log
provided to Relators on January 14, 2011.
THIS the 18th of February, 2011 Respectfully submitted,
/s/ C. Maison Heidelberg

C. MAISON HEIDELBERG, MB #9559
GINNY Y. KENNEDY, MB #102199
OF COUNSEL Attorneys for Cori Rigsby and Kerri Rigsby

August J. Matteis, Jr. (admitted pro hac vice) HEIDELBERG HARMON PLLC
Craig J. Litherland (admitted pro hac vice) 795 Woodlands Parkway, Suite 220
Benjamin Davidson (admitted pro hac vice) Ridgeland, Mississippi 39157
Derek Sugimura (admitted pro hac vice) Phone No. (601) 351-3333
Lucian C. Martinez, Jr. (admitted pro hac vice) Fax No. (601) 956-2090
GILBERT LLP mheidelberg@heidelbergharmon.com
1100 New York Avenue NW, Suite 700
Washington, DC 20005
Phone No. (202) 772-2200
Fax No. (202) 772-3333
matteisa@gotofirm.com
litherlandc@gotofirm.com
davidsonb@gotofirm.com
sugimurad@gotofirm.com
martinezm@gotofirm.com Attorneys for Kerri Rigsby and Cori Rigsby
8
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I, C. Maison Heidelberg, attorney for Cori Rigsby and Kerri Rigsby, do hereby certify
that I have this 18th day of February, 2011 caused the foregoing document to be filed with the
Court’s CM/ECF system, which will cause notice to be delivered to all counsel of record.
Don Burkhalter, Esq.

UNITED STATES ATTORNEY
FOR MISSISSIPPI
188 East Capitol Street, Suite 500
Jackson, MS 39201
Felicia Adams, Esq.

ASSISTANT U.S. ATTORNEY
Jackson, MS 39201
Joyce R. Branda, Esq.

Patricia R. Davis, Esq.
Jay D. Majors, Esq.
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
Commercial Litigation Branch
Civil Division
601 D Street, NW
Larry G. Canada, Esq.

Kathryn Breard Platt, Esq.
Galloway, Johnson, Tompkins, Burr & Smith
701 Poydras Street, Suite 4040
New Orleans, LA 70139
(p) 504-525-6802
ATTORNEYS FOR HAAG ENGINEERING CO.
Robert C. Galloway, Esq.

Emerson Barney Robinson, III, Esq.
Benjamin M. Watson, Esq.
Jeffrey A. Walker, Esq.
Amanda B. Barbour, Esq.
BUTLER, SNOW, O’MARA,
STEVENS & CANNADA, PLLC
P.O. Box 22567
Jackson, MS 39225
(p) 601-948-5711
Michael B. Beers, Esq.

BEERS, ANDERSON, JACKSON
PATTY & FALWAL, PC
250 Commerce Street, Suite 100
Montgomery, AL 36104
(p) 334-834-5311
ATTORNEYS FOR STATE FARM MUTUAL
INSURANCE COMPANY
Robert D. Gholson
GHOLSON BURSON ENTREKIN & ORR, P.A.
55 North 5th Avenue
P.O. Box 1289
Laurel, MS 39441-1289
ATTORNEYS FOR FORENSIC ANALYSIS
ENGINEERING CORPORATION
2
Case 1:06-cv-00433-LTS -RHW Document 881-1 Filed 02/18/11 Page 1 of 14
Exhibit A

SOUTHERN DIVISION

STATE FARM MUTUAL

INSURANCE COMPANY et al DEFENDANT/COUNTER-PLAINTIFF
RELATORS’ FIRST SET OF REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS TO

STATE FARM MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY
Pursuant to Rule 34 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Cori and Kerri Rigsby
(“Relators”), by their attorneys, hereby propound the following First Set of Requests for
Production of Documents (the “Document Requests”) to Defendant State Farm Mutual Insurance
Company (“State Farm”). The Document Requests are to be answered separately and fully in
writing under oath within thirty (30) days of service as provided in Rule 34 of the Federal Rules
of Civil Procedure, or at such earlier time as the Court may direct. State Farm is to produce the
requested Documents at the offices of Gilbert LLP, 1100 New York Avenue NW, Suite 700,
Washington, DC 20005 within thirty (30) days after service hereof.
The Document Requests shall be deemed continuing, and if Defendant State Farm
discovers additional information as to matters inquired of in these Document Requests between
the time answers are made and the time of trial, supplemental or amended answers must be made
at the earliest practical date.
DEFINITIONS
1. “Any,” “each,” “all,” “every,” and similar terms mean “each and every,” as
1
well as “anyone,” as necessary to make the terms inclusive rather than exclusive.
2. “Adjust,” “Adjusting,” and “Adjustment” refer to the entire process by
which You determine the amount payable for a claim under an insurance policy. The term
includes policy interpretation, assessment of damage, assessment of cost to repair, and
compliance with applicable regulations.
3. “Communication” means every manner or means of disclosure, transfer, or
exchange of information (in the form of facts, ideas, inquiries, or otherwise), and every
disclosure, transfer, or exchange of information, whether oral or written, including, but not
limited to, all letters, memoranda, notes, and messages, whether printed, typed, or handwritten,
all electronic modes of correspondence such as electronic mail and facsimiles, and all documents
reflecting the substance or occurrence of conversations or meetings.
4. “Concerning,” “referring,” “regarding,” “relating,” “reflecting,” and
“constituting” are interchangeable, and mean mentioning, describing, pertaining to, created in
connection with or as a result of, commenting on, embodying, evaluating, analyzing, reflecting,
or constituting, whether directly or indirectly, explicitly or implicitly, or in whole or in part, a
stated subject matter, and refer to any documents of any kind relating to, referring to, regarding,
constituting, or concerning in any way the referenced subject.
5. The terms “Document” and “Documents” are used in the broadest sense
permissible under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 34, and include, but are not limited to, all:
a. “correspondence, memoranda, records, letters, telegrams, reports,
notes, drafts, books, records, papers, minutes, schedules, tabulations,
computations, lists, ledgers, journals, purchase orders, contracts, bills
of lading, invoices, agreements, vouchers, accounts, checks, books of
2
original entry, recordings, affidavits, diaries, calendars, desk pads,
drawings, photostats, motion pictures, slides, photographs, sketches,
charts, graphs, or any written or printed matter or tangible thing on
which any words or phrases are affixed;
b. information contained in any computer, electronic, digital, or
tape-recorded format or media, including any computer or
electronic database, electronic mail or “e-mail,” translated, if
necessary into reasonably usable form;
c. originals and copies, any and all drafts, and all copies that contain any
notation not on the original; and
d. Communications
6. “Employee” means any former or current employee, officer, agent,
representative, consultant, expert, independent contractor, office, committee, department,
division, or group, including, but not limited to, those at corporate or division headquarters, or at
any regional, departmental, or local office anywhere in the world.
7. “Flood Policy” refers to any insurance policy issued pursuant to the NFIP.
8. “Forensic” means Forensic Analysis and Engineering Co. Inc. and/or any of its
divisions, departments, officers, executives, trustees, Employees, brokers, attorneys, or
representatives.
9. “Haag” means Haag Engineering Co. and/or any of its divisions, departments,
officers, executives, trustees, Employees, brokers, attorneys, or representatives.
3
10. “Haag Report” refers to the “Katrina Storm Damage Survey” prepared by Haag.
A copy of the Haag Report was attached as Exhibit A to the Affidavit of Paul O’Conner which
was presented as Exhibit D-38 during the May 20-22, 2009 evidentiary hearing in this case.
11. “Homeowner Policy” refers to any insurance policy sold by State Farm that
provides insurance coverage for a home or residence. The term includes policies written on the
form FP-7955 but excludes Flood policies.
12. “Includes” means including but not limited to.
13. “McIntosh” means Thomas and Pamela McIntosh, who lived at 2558 S. Shore
Drive, Biloxi, MS before Hurricane Katrina.
14. “National Flood Insurance Program” or “NFIP” refers to all federal
departments, agencies, and employees who have any Relation to or involvement with Flood
Policies. The term Includes the Department of Homeland Security, the Federal Emergency
Management Agency, the National Flood Insurance Administration, the Federal Insurance
Administration and all Employees of those agencies or departments all divisions within those
agencies.
15. The term “Person” or “Persons” means any natural persons, any form of
business entity (whether partnership, association, cooperative, corporation, division,
committee, company or otherwise), legal entity, and any governmental entity or department,
agency, bureau, or political subdivision thereof.
16. “State Farm” means State Farm Insurance, State Farm Mutual Automobile
Insurance Company, State Farm Life Insurance Company, State Farm Fire and Casualty
Company, State Farm County Mutual Insurance Company of Texas, State Farm Indemnity
Company, State Farm General Insurance Company, State Farm Florida Insurance Company,
4
State Farm Lloyds, State Farm Bank, F.S.B., and any other State Farm companies, divisions,
departments, officers, executives, trustees, Employees, brokers, attorneys, or representatives.
17. “You” and “Your” refer to “State Farm,” as that term is described above.
INSTRUCTIONS
1. The singular includes the plural and the plural includes the singular; the words
“and” and “or” shall be both conjunctive and disjunctive; “any” means “any and all”; the word
“including” means including without limitation.
2. In responding to each Request for Production of documents, You must furnish
all documents in Your possession, custody, or control, including documents in the possession
of Your officers, directors, Employees, agents, attorneys, investigators and all persons acting
on Your behalf.
3. The scope of one Request for Production does not affect the scope of any other
Request for Production. The same document may be responsive to multiple Requests for
Production.
4. The original of each document requested herein shall be produced together with
any drafts, revisions, or copies of the same which bear any mark or notation not present on the
original or which otherwise differ from the original.
5. These document requests call for the production of each requested document in
its entirety, without abbreviation or expurgation, including all attachments or other matters
affixed thereto.
6. Where these document Requests require you to state a date, state the exact date
required. If the exact dates are not known and cannot be determined using due diligence, state
the applicable time period as specifically as possible (i.e., month, season, year or range of
5
years).
7. To the extent any request is objected to, set forth all reasons therefore. If any
documents are withheld on the basis of any privilege, a privilege log or index must be provided
at the time of the document production. The log or index must establish the basis for assertion
of a privilege, such that the assertion can be reasonably tested. The log or index must, at a
minimum, Identify the (a) date; (b) type of document (e.g., letter, memorandum, contract,
report, etc.); (c) author or sender’s name, address, and position; (d) recipient or addressee’s
name, address, and position; (d) any “cc” or “carbon copy” names, addresses, and positions; and
(e) a “re” line describing the subject matter of the document, sufficient to provide an
understanding as to why privilege is asserted.
8. If any documents are withheld on the assertion that production is precluded by a
protective order or confidentiality agreement, describe the terms of the order or agreement, such
that the assertion can be reasonably tested.
9. The specific or duplicative or overlapping nature of any of the document
descriptions set forth below shall not be construed to limit the generality or breadth of any other
document description contained in this or any other document Request.
10. If any document called for by a document Request is not available or accessible
or does not contain the information sought in the full detail requested, the Request shall be
deemed to call for production of the best documents available.
11. These document Requests are continuing in nature and must be supplemented
and amended as required by Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(e).
12. If any documents requested were at one time in Your possession, custody or
control, but no longer are in Your possession, custody or control, for each such document: (a)
6
describe the document and the circumstances under which it was prepared, including by whom
and at whose insistence it was generated; (b) state the date upon and circumstances under which
it left Your possession, custody or control, ceased to exist or was lost; (c) identify all persons
having knowledge of the circumstances under which it left Your possession, custody or control,
ceased to exist or was lost; (d) identify its last known custodian; (e) identify all persons having
knowledge of the contents thereof; (f) identify each person who received it; and (g) provide a
summary of its contents.
13. All documents are to be produced as they are kept in the usual course of business
so that Plaintiffs may ascertain the file in which they are located, their relative order in such
files and how such files are maintained.
14. Electronically stored information is to be produced in its native format, including
all metadata, and load files that distinguish where a particular document begins and ends.
DOCUMENT REQUESTS
Document Request No. 1:
All documents related to the McIntosh home and the damage it sustained as a result of
Hurricane Katrina. This request includes but is not limited to documents related to adjusting
claims under the flood and homeowner policies.
All documents related to your adjusting of claims under flood policies or homeowner
policies for properties located within a half mile of the McIntosh home. The request includes but
is not limited to complete copies of the flood file and homeowner file for each such claim.
7
All documents relating to the policies and procedures for adjusting claims made under
flood policies for damage caused by Hurricane Katrina. This request includes but is not limited
to all documents instructing adjusters on how to adjust flood claims, documents related to the
procedure for handling eye witness testimony, all documents interpreting the flood policy
(including all operation guides, claims handling manuals, and memos written by claims
consultants), all documents describing categories of flood claims (i.e., slabs, popsicle sticks,
cabanas, and/or constructive totals), and all documents regarding the September 13, 2005
Wind/Water Claim Handling Protocol, including prior drafts or versions of the Wind/Water
Claim Handling Protocol.
homeowner policies during Hurricane Katrina. This request includes but is not limited to all
documents instructing adjusters on how to adjust homeowner claims, documents related to the
procedure for handling eye witness testimony, all documents interpreting the homeowner policy
(including all operation guides, claims handling manuals, and memos written by claims
consultants), all documents describing categories of homeowner claims (i.e., slabs, popsicle
sticks, cabanas, and/or constructive totals), and all documents regarding the September 13, 2005
8
All training materials related to instructing adjusters on how to adjust claims under flood
policies and homeowner policies for damage caused by Hurricane Katrina. This request includes
but is not limited to, training materials and other documents relating to certifying adjusters under
NFIP requirements, describing the weather conditions during Hurricane Katrina, interpreting the
flood policy and homeowner policy, and instructing adjusters how to distinguish between
damage caused by wind and damage caused by water.
All documents relating to meetings in which State Farm discussed procedures for
adjusting flood claims and homeowner claims for damage caused by Hurricane Katrina. This
request includes but is not limited to documents related to the meetings held in Duluth, Georgia;
Birmingham, Alabama; and Bloomington, Indiana following Hurricane Katrina, meetings
discussing the Mississippi Insurance Department’s requirements for adjusting claims under flood
policies and homeowner policies, meetings discussing the NFIP adjusting requirements
following Hurricane Katrina, and all notes taken by Steve Burke during any such meetings.
All documents related to any software programs used to adjust claims under flood
policies and homeowner policies for damage caused by Hurricane Katrina. This request includes
but is not limited to all licensing agreements and other contracts for software programs used in
adjusting claims (for example, XACTOTAL, Xactimate and the flood calculator), all documents
relating to when a particular software program should be used instead of other software
9
programs, and all training materials and instruction manuals for the software programs.
All documents related to weather conditions during Hurricane Katrina. This request
includes but is not limited to any summaries or reports of the weather conditions (including the
Haag Report), any communications related to the weather conditions during Hurricane Katrina,
(including all communications with Tim Marshall), and any documents provided to adjusters that
were used to analyze and explain the weather conditions during Hurricane Katrina.
All documents concerning Haag Engineering that are related to the weather conditions
during Hurricane Katrina. This request includes but is not limited to any invoices and orders
relating to the Haag report, communications with Haag relating to the scope, content, or
conclusions of the Haag Report, all training materials, presentations, and other information
provided by Haag summarizing weather conditions during Hurricane Katrina, and all documents
related to your decision to order the Haag Report.
All documents concerning Forensic Analysis and Engineering Company related to the
McIntosh home including communications related to the engineering reports drafted by Brian
Ford and John Kelly.
10
All documents related to the use of engineers in assessing damage caused by Hurricane
Katrina. This request includes but is not limited to any decisions to order or cancel multiple
engineer reports, and decisions to order or cancel engineer reports on a blanket or categorical
basis.
All documents related to the procedures used by engineers to assess damage caused by
Hurricane Katrina. This request includes but is not limited to the procedures for handling
finished engineering reports and any instructions given to engineering firms related to how to
conduct an engineering analysis including the use of eye witness testimony, distinguishing
between damage caused by wind and damage caused by water, and describing the damage
sustained by a home.
All documents to, from, addressing, or involving the NFIP that are related to flood
policies or adjusting flood claims for damage caused by Hurricane Katrina. This request
includes but is not limited to communications with the NFIP related to flood claim handling
protocols for Hurricane Katrina, communications with the NFIP related to alterations,
supplementations, or changes to written NFIP flood claim handling protocols or requirements,
communications related to any software programs used to adjust flood claims (such as
XACTOTAL, Xactimate, or the flood calculator) and when those software programs could be
used, communications related to differentiating between wind and water damage including
11
authorization to presume that damage in particular areas was caused by flood, written audits of
claims review procedures and reinspection reports, written agreements between You and the
NFIP that were in place during Hurricane Katrina, internal communications related to proposing
flood claim handling protocols for use in adjusting damage caused by Hurricane Katrina, and
internal communications interpreting and applying the applicable NFIP requirements for
adjusting flood claims.
All documents relating to your retention, storage, or destruction of documents related to
Hurricane Katrina. This request includes but is not limited to a copy of your document retention
policy, copies of any contracts with third-party companies used to destroy documents related to
Hurricane Katrina, any documents related to a requirement that your employees surrender,
return, or destroy all Hurricane Katrina-related documents in their possession.
Organizational charts or other similar graphical depictions showing the internal structure
of State Farm sufficient to identify the CEO, COO, vice president, and internal departments,
divisions or groups for all employees involved in interpreting the flood and homeowner policies
and adjusting claims under those policies for damage caused by Hurricane Katrina.
All documents Identified or referenced in Your responses to Relators’ First Set of
Interrogatories.
12
THIS the 23rd day of November.
Respectfully, submitted,

GINNY H. KENNEDY, MB#102199

August J. Matteis, Jr. (admitted pro hac vice) MAISON HEIDELBERG PA
Scott D. Gilbert (admitted pro hac vice) Ridgeland, Mississippi 39157
Benjamin Davidson (admitted pro hac vice) Phone No. (601) 351-3333
GILBERT LLP Fax No. (602) 956-2090
1100 New York Avenue NW, Suite 700
Fax No. (202) 772-3333
Phone No. (202) 772-2200
13
Exhibit B

SOUTHERN DIVISION
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA ex rel.
CORI RIGSBY and KERRI RIGSBY RELATORS/COUNTER-DEFENDANTS
v. CASE NO. 1:06cv433-LTS-RHW
STATE FARM MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY DEFENDANT/COUNTER-PLAINTIFF
and
FORENSIC ANALYSIS ENGINEERING CORPORATION;

HAAG ENGINEERING CO.; and ALEXIS KING DEFENDANTS
STATE FARM FIRE AND CASUALTY COMPANY’S RESPONSES AND OBJECTIONS

TO RELATORS’ FIRST SET OF REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS
Defendant/Counter-Plaintiff State Farm Fire and Casualty Company, improperly
denominated in the First Amended Complaint as “State Farm Mutual Insurance Company”
(“State Farm”), submits its Responses and Objections to Relators’ First Set of Requests for
Production of Documents as follows:
OBJECTIONS TO DEFINITIONS
State Farm objects to the terms defined by Relators to the extent that they seek to impose
requirements on State Farm beyond those contained in the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.
State Farm also asserts the following specific objections to the below terms defined by Relators:
16. “State Farm” refers to State Farm Insurance, State Farm Mutual Automobile
Insurance Company, State Farm Life Insurance Company, State Farm Fire and Casualty
Company, State Farm County Mutual Insurance Company of Texas, State Farm Indemnity
Company, State Farm General Insurance Company, State Farm Florida Insurance Company,
State Farm Lloyds, State Farm Bank, F.S.B., and any other State Farm companies, divisions,
departments, officers, executives, trustees, Employees, brokers, attorneys, or representatives.

OBJECTION: State Farm objects to this defined term because it includes entities
other than the Defendant in this action, State Farm Fire and Casualty Company. It is beyond the
scope of State Farm’s obligations under the Federal Rules and would be unduly burdensome for
State Farm to respond on behalf of entities that are not parties to this action.
17. “You” and “Your” refer to “State Farm,” as that term is described above.
OBJECTION: State Farm adopts herein its objection to defined term 16 above.
Additionally, State Farm objects to Relators’ demand that the responsive documents be
produced in Washington, D.C. as this action is pending in the Southern District of Mississippi
and Relators have counsel who is located in the Southern District of Mississippi.
RESPONSES AND OBJECTIONS TO DOCUMENT REQUESTS
All documents related to the McIntosh home and the damage it sustained as a result of
Hurricane Katrina. This request includes but is not limited to documents related to adjusting
claims under the flood and homeowner policies.
Response No. 1:
State Farm objects to this request because it is unlimited in scope as to time and, for
example, seeks discovery of information concerning events well after State Farm paid the
McIntosh flood claim on October 2, 2005. State Farm also objects to the extent that this
request calls for the production of information protected by the attorney-client privilege
and/or the attorney work-product doctrine. With respect to objections based on the attorney-
client privilege and/or the attorney work-product doctrine, State Farm incorporates herein its
January 8, 2010 agreement with counsel for Relators that Relators are not seeking any
communications at any time with State Farm’s outside counsel, nor do they seek
2
communications on or after October 23, 2006 involving State Farm’s in-house counsel.
Subject to these objections, State Farm has produced the McIntosh flood claim file, number
24-Z494-638 bearing Bates Numbers SJ0000001-SJ000075, SJ000867-SJ001373, the
McIntosh homeowners claim file, number 24-Z178-602 bearing Bates Numbers SJ000224-
SJ000366, and the expert reports of State Farm previously served in this action on April 20,
2009. See also the additional documents that have been or will be produced by State Farm.
Any privileged or protected documents will be listed on a privilege log.
All documents related to your adjusting of claims under flood policies or homeowner
policies for properties located within a half mile of the McIntosh home. The request includes
but is not limited to complete copies of the flood file and homeowner file for each such claim.
Response No. 2:
State Farm has filed concurrently herewith a motion for a protective order requesting
that this discovery not be had. Specifically, the Court has ruled that the issues in the case are
currently “limited to the McIntosh claim” for payments made under the federal flood policy
to the McIntoshes [363] and that it “will limit the presentation of evidence in this action to
facts relevant to the McIntosh claim.” [343] However, this request seeks information
concerning State Farm policyholders other than the McIntoshes as well as information that is
otherwise unrelated to the McIntosh flood claim. For example, the request seeks information
related to the adjustment of other homeowners claims which, by their very nature, have
nothing to do with the McIntosh flood claim. Additionally, the request seeks information
concerning events long after the McIntosh flood claim was paid on October 2, 2005.
3
flood policies for damage caused by Hurricane Katrina. This request includes but is not
limited to all documents instructing adjusters on how to adjust flood claims, documents related
to the procedure for handling eye witness testimony, all documents interpreting the flood
policy (including all operation guides, claims handling manuals, and memos written by claims
consultants), all documents describing categories of flood claims (i.e., slabs, popsicle sticks,
cabanas, and/or constructive totals), and all documents regarding the September 13, 2005
Response No. 3:
State Farm objects to this request because it is overly broad, it seeks information,
including but not limited to prior drafts or versions of the wind/water claim handling protocol,
that is irrelevant to the claims and defenses in this action, and it seeks information that
otherwise is not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. The
request is unlimited in scope as to time and, for example, seeks discovery of information
concerning events well after State Farm paid the McIntosh flood claim on October 2, 2005, as
well as events that are unrelated to the adjustment of the McIntosh flood claim. State Farm
also objects to the extent that this request calls for the production of information protected by
the attorney-client privilege and/or the attorney work-product doctrine. With respect to
objections based on the attorney-client privilege and/or the attorney work-product doctrine,
State Farm incorporates herein its January 8, 2010 agreement with counsel for Relators that
Relators are not seeking any communications at any time with State Farm’s outside counsel,
4
nor do they seek communications on or after October 23, 2006 involving State Farm’s in-
house counsel. Without waiving these objections, State Farm will produce responsive, non-
privileged documents. Any privileged or protected documents will be listed on a privilege
log.
homeowner policies during Hurricane Katrina. This request includes but is not limited to all
documents instructing adjusters on how to adjust homeowner claims, documents related to the
procedure for handling eye witness testimony, all documents interpreting the homeowner
policy (including all operation guides, claims handling manuals, and memos written by claims
consultants), all documents describing categories of homeowner claims (i.e., slabs, popsicle
sticks, cabanas, and/or constructive totals), and all documents regarding the September 13,
2005 Wind/Water Claim Handling Protocol, including prior drafts or versions of the
Wind/Water Claim Handling Protocol.
Response No. 4:
State Farm objects to this request because it is overly broad, it seeks information,
including but not limited to prior drafts or versions of the wind/water claim handling protocol,
it seeks information that is irrelevant to the claims and defenses in this action, and it seeks
information that otherwise is not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible
evidence. The request is unlimited in scope as to time and, for example, seeks discovery of
information concerning events well after State Farm paid the McIntosh flood claim on
October 2, 2005, as well as events that are unrelated to the adjustment of the McIntosh flood
claim. State Farm also objects to the extent that this request calls for the production of
5
information protected by the attorney-client privilege and/or the attorney work-product
doctrine. With respect to objections based on the attorney-client privilege and/or the attorney
work-product doctrine, State Farm incorporates herein its January 8, 2010 agreement with
counsel for Relators that Relators are not seeking any communications at any time with State
Farm’s outside counsel, nor do they seek communications on or after October 23, 2006
involving State Farm’s in-house counsel. Without waiving these objections, State Farm will
produce responsive, non-privileged documents. Any privileged or protected documents will
be listed on a privilege log.
All training materials related to instructing adjusters on how to adjust claims under
flood policies and homeowner policies for damage caused by Hurricane Katrina. This request
includes but is not limited to, training materials and other documents relating to certifying
adjusters under NFIP requirements, describing the weather conditions during Hurricane
Katrina, interpreting the flood policy and homeowner policy, and instructing adjusters how to
distinguish between damage caused by wind and damage caused by water.
Response No. 5:
State Farm objects to this request because it is overly broad, it seeks information that
is irrelevant to the claims and defenses in this action, and it seeks information that otherwise
is not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. The request is
unlimited in scope as to time and, for example, seeks discovery of information concerning
events well after State Farm paid the McIntosh flood claim on October 2, 2005 as well as
events that are unrelated to the adjustment of the McIntosh flood claim. State Farm also
objects to the extent that this request calls for the production of information protected by the
9
attorney-client privilege and/or the attorney work-product doctrine. With respect to
house counsel. Without waiving these objections, State Farm will produce responsive, non-
privileged documents. Any privileged or protected documents will be listed on a privilege
log.
All documents relating to meetings in which State Farm discussed procedures for
adjusting flood claims and homeowner claims for damage caused by Hurricane Katrina. This
request includes but is not limited to documents related to the meetings held in Duluth,
Georgia; Birmingham, Alabama; and Bloomington, Indiana following Hurricane Katrina,
meetings discussing the Mississippi Insurance Department’s requirements for adjusting claims
under flood policies and homeowner policies, meetings discussing the NFIP adjusting
requirements following Hurricane Katrina, and all notes taken by Steve Burke during any
such meetings.
Response No. 6:
7
events that are unrelated to the adjustment of the McIntosh flood claim. State Farm further
objects to the production of any information relating to the Mississippi Insurance Department
on the grounds that the Mississippi Insurance Department does not regulate the adjustment of
flood claims. State Farm also objects to the extent that this request calls for the production of
produce all copies of minutes of Core Response Team (“CRT”) meetings and meeting
attendee notes from on-site adjuster meetings in which State Farm discussed procedures for
adjusting flood claims and homeowner claims for damage caused by Hurricane Katrina for
meetings on or before October 2, 2005 that it has been able to locate to date. To the extent
that any additional relevant, non-privileged documents are located, they will be produced in
accordance with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Any privileged or protected
documents will be listed on a privilege log.
All documents related to any software programs used to adjust claims under
flood policies and homeowner policies for damage caused by Hurricane Katrina. This request
includes but is not limited to all licensing agreements and other contracts for software
programs used in adjusting claims (for example, XACTOTAL [sic], Xactimate and the flood
calculator), all documents relating to when a particular software program should be used
8
instead of other software programs, and all training materials and instruction manuals for the
software programs.
Response No. 7:
house counsel. Without waiving these objections, State Farm will produce, subject to an
appropriate protective order, all licensing agreements and other contracts in effect for the time
that the total valuation estimatic tool sometimes referred to as XactTotal or XactValue was
used in adjusting claims related to Hurricane Katrina, as well as any non-privileged documents
relating to when this program should be used, and any related training materials and
instruction manuals for this time period that it has been able to locate to date. To the extent
that any additional relevant, non-privileged documents are located, they will be produced in
accordance with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Any privileged or protected
9
documents will be listed on a privilege log.
All documents related to weather conditions during Hurricane Katrina. This request
includes but is not limited to any summaries or reports of the weather conditions (including the
Haag Report), any communications related to the weather conditions during Hurricane Katrina,
(including all communications with Tim Marshall), and any documents provided to adjusters
that were used to analyze and explain the weather conditions during Hurricane Katrina.
Response No. 8:
events that are unrelated to the adjustment of the McIntosh flood claim. Furthermore, it
would be unduly burdensome for State Farm to attempt to locate all documents related in any
way to “weather conditions during Hurricane Katrina.” State Farm also objects to the extent
that this request calls for the production of information protected by the attorney-client
privilege and/or the attorney work-product doctrine. With respect to objections based on the
attorney-client privilege and/or the attorney work-product doctrine, State Farm incorporates
herein its January 8, 2010 agreement with counsel for Relators that Relators are not seeking
any communications at any time with State Farm’s outside counsel, nor do they seek
communications on or after October 23, 2006 involving State Farm’s in-house counsel.
Without waiving these objections, State Farm will produce the Haag Storm Damage Survey,
10
the e-mail communications between Dave Randel and Haag concerning the Haag Storm
Damage Survey, and any information provided to adjusters that were used to analyze and
explain the weather conditions during Hurricane Katrina that have been located to date. To
the extent that any additional relevant, non-privileged documents are located, they will be
produced in accordance with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Any privileged or
protected documents will be listed on a privilege log.
All documents concerning Haag Engineering that are related to the weather conditions
during Hurricane Katrina. This request includes but is not limited to any invoices and orders
relating to the Haag report, communications with Haag relating to the scope, content, or
conclusions of the Haag Report, all training materials, presentations, and other information
provided by Haag summarizing weather conditions during Hurricane Katrina, and all
documents related to your decision to order the Haag Report.
Response No. 9:
events that are unrelated to the adjustment of the McIntosh flood claim. Furthermore, it
would be unduly burdensome for State Farm to attempt to locate all documents related in any
way to any communications with Haag concerning “weather conditions during Hurricane
Katrina.” For example, this request would require State Farm to produce all engineering
11
reports generated by Haag for claims related to State Farm policyholders other than the
McIntoshes. State Farm also objects to the extent that this request calls for the production of
produce any invoices and orders for the Haag Storm Damage Survey, any communications
with Haag regarding the Haag Storm Damage Survey, any training materials, presentations,
and other information provided by Haag summarizing weather conditions during Hurricane
Katrina, and any documents related to State Farm’s decision to order the Haag Storm Damage
Survey that have been located to date. To the extent that any additional relevant, non-
privileged documents are located, they will be produced in accordance with the Federal Rules
of Civil Procedure. Any privileged or protected documents will be listed on a privilege log.
All documents concerning Forensic Analysis and Engineering Company related to the
McIntosh home including communications related to the engineering reports drafted by Brian
Ford and John Kelly.
Response No. 10:
12
house counsel. Without waiving these objections, State Farm has or will produce the
McIntosh homeowners claim file number 24-Z178-602 bearing Bates Numbers SJ000224-
SJ000366, the report of Brian Ford obtained from ABC News, and any communications
concerning the engineering reports authored by Brian Ford and/or Jack Kelly for the McIntosh
property occurring on or before the McIntoshes initiated litigation against State Farm and
Forensic on October 23, 2006 that have been located to date. To the extent that any additional
relevant, non-privileged documents are located, they will be produced in accordance with the
Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Any privileged or protected documents will be listed on a
privilege log.
All documents related to the use of engineers in assessing damage caused by Hurricane
Katrina. This request includes but is not limited to any decisions to order or cancel multiple
engineer reports, and decisions to order or cancel engineer reports on a blanket or categorical
basis.
13
Response No. 11:
currently “limited to the McIntosh claim” for the payments made under their federal flood
policy to the McIntoshes [363] and that it “will limit the presentation of evidence in this
action to facts relevant to the McIntosh claim.” [343] However, this request seeks
information concerning State Farm policyholders other than the McIntoshes as well as
information that is otherwise unrelated to the McIntosh flood claim. For example, the
request seeks information related to the adjustment of other homeowners claims which, by
their very nature, have nothing to do with the McIntosh flood claim. Additionally, the
request seeks information concerning events long after the McIntosh flood claim was paid on
October 2, 2005. Furthermore, it would be unduly burdensome for State Farm to attempt to
locate all documents related in any way “to the use of engineers in assessing damage caused
by Hurricane Katrina.”
All documents related to the procedures used by engineers to assess damage caused by
Hurricane Katrina. This request includes but is not limited to the procedures for handling
finished engineering reports and any instructions given to engineering firms related to how to
conduct an engineering analysis including the use of eye witness testimony, distinguishing
between damage caused by wind and damage caused by water, and describing the damage
sustained by a home.
Response No. 12:
14
currently “limited to the McIntosh claim” for payments made under their federal flood policy
to the McIntoshes [363] and that it “will limit the presentation of evidence in this action to
facts relevant to the McIntosh claim.” [343] However, this request seeks information
concerning State Farm policyholders other than the McIntoshes as well as information that is
otherwise unrelated to the McIntosh flood claim. For example, the request seeks information
related to the adjustment of other homeowners claims which, by their very nature, have
nothing to do with the McIntosh flood claim. Additionally, the request seeks information
concerning events long after the McIntosh flood claim was paid on October 2, 2005.
Furthermore, it would be unduly burdensome for State Farm to attempt to locate all
documents related in any way “to the procedures used by engineers to assess damage caused
by Hurricane Katrina.”
All documents to, from, addressing, or involving the NFIP that are related to flood
policies or adjusting flood claims for damage caused by Hurricane Katrina. This request
includes but is not limited to communications with the NFIP related to flood claim handling
protocols for Hurricane Katrina, communications with the NFIP related to alterations,
supplementations, or changes to written NFIP flood claim handling protocols or requirements,
communications related to any software programs used to adjust flood claims (such as
XACTOTAL [sic], Xactimate, or the flood calculator) and when those software programs
could be used, communications related to differentiating between wind and water damage
including authorization to presume that damage in particular areas was caused by flood,
written audits of claims review procedures and reinspection reports, written agreements
15
12
between You and the NFIP that were in place during Hurricane Katrina, internal
communications related to proposing flood claim handling protocols for use in adjusting
damage caused by Hurricane Katrina, and internal communications interpreting and applying
the applicable NFIP requirements for adjusting flood claims.
Response No. 13:
events and communications related to other states, as well as those long after State Farm paid
the McIntosh flood claim on October 2, 2005, and other events that are unrelated to the
adjustment of the McIntosh flood claim. State Farm further objects to the production of any
“written audits of claims review procedures and reinspection reports” which do not
specifically refer to the McIntosh flood claim. State Farm also objects because the request is
vague and ambiguous, particularly the phrase “involving the NFIP”. State Farm also objects
to the extent that this request calls for the production of information protected by the attorney-
client privilege and/or the attorney work-product doctrine. With respect to objections based
on the attorney-client privilege and/or the attorney work-product doctrine, State Farm
incorporates herein its January 8, 2010 agreement with counsel for Relators that Relators are
not seeking any communications at any time with State Farm’s outside counsel, nor do they
seek communications on or after October 23, 2006 involving State Farm’s in-house counsel.
Without waiving these objections, State Farm has or will produce the WYO arrangement in
effect at the time that the McIntosh flood claim was adjusted, any communications with the
16
NFIP related to flood claim handling protocols for Hurricane Katrina, any communications
with the NFIP related to alterations, supplementations, or changes to written NFIP flood claim
handling protocols or requirements, any communications related to any software programs
used to adjust flood claims and when those software programs could be used, any
communications related to differentiating between wind and water damage including
authorization to presume that damage in particular areas was caused by flood, any written
agreements between State Farm and the NFIP that were in place during Hurricane Katrina, any
internal communications related to proposing flood claim handling protocols for use in
adjusting damage caused by Hurricane Katrina, and any internal communications interpreting
and applying the applicable NFIP requirements for adjusting flood claims that have been
located to date. To the extent that any additional relevant, non-privileged documents are
located, they will be produced in accordance with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Any
privileged or protected documents will be listed on a privilege log.
All documents relating to your retention, storage, or destruction of documents related to
Hurricane Katrina. This request includes but is not limited to a copy of your document
retention policy, copies of any contracts with third-party companies used to destroy documents
related to Hurricane Katrina, any documents related to a requirement that your employees
surrender, return, or destroy all Hurricane Katrina-related documents in their possession.
Response No. 14:
12
17
house counsel. Without waiving these objections, State Farm is producing its document
retention policy in effect in 2005, 2006 and 2007.
Organizational charts or other similar graphical depictions showing the internal
structure of State Farm sufficient to identify the CEO, COO, vice president, and internal
departments, divisions or groups for all employees involved in interpreting the flood and
homeowner policies and adjusting claims under those policies for damage caused by
Hurricane Katrina.
Response No. 15:
18
information concerning persons and events that are unrelated to the adjustment of the
McIntosh flood claim. Without waiving these objections, State Farm does not have such a
chart but will produce a general organizational chart of State Farm Fire and Casualty
Company as the company existed in 2005.
All documents Identified or referenced in Your responses to Relators’ First Set of
Interrogatories.
Response No. 16:
State Farm will produce these documents except to the extent an objection has been
interposed in the interrogatory responses.
This the 11th day of January, 2010.
Respectfully submitted,
STATE FARM FIRE AND CASUALTY COMPANY
By: s/ Robert C. Galloway (MSB # 4388)

Robert C. Galloway (MSB # 4388)
Jeffrey A. Walker (MSB # 6879)
E. Barney Robinson III (MSB # 09432)
Benjamin M. Watson (MSB # 100078)
ITS ATTORNEYS
OF COUNSEL:
BUTLER, SNOW, O’MARA, STEVENS & CANNADA, PLLC

Post Office Box 6010
Ridgeland, Mississippi 39158
(P) (601) 948-5711
(F) (601) 985-4500
(E) bob.galloway@butlersnow.com
(E) jeff.walker@butlersnow.com
(E) barney.robinson@butlersnow.com
(E) ben.watson@butlersnow.com
19
Michael B. Beers (ASB-4992-S80M)

BEERS, ANDERSON, JACKSON, PATTY & FAWAL, P.C.
Suite 100
250 Commerce Street (36104)
Montgomery, Alabama 36102
(P) (334) 834-5311
(F) (334) 834-5362
(E) mbeers@beersanderson.com
PRO HAC VICE
20
I, Robert C. Galloway, one of the attorneys for State Farm Fire and Casualty Company,
do hereby certify that I have this day caused a true and correct copy of the foregoing instrument
to be delivered to the following, via U.S. Mail and e-mail:
C. Maison Heidelberg
Ginny Y. Kennedy
MAISON HEIDELBERG P.A.
795 Woodlands Parkway, Suite 220
Ridgeland, MS 39157
(P) (601) 351-3333
(F) (601) 956-2090
maison@heidlebergpa.com
ginny@heidelbergpa.com
Scott D. Gilbert
August J. Matteis, Jr.
Craig J. Litherland
Benjamin R. Davidson
GILBERT LLP
11 New York Avenue, NW
Suite 700
gilberts@gotofirm.com
COUNSEL FOR CORI RIGSBY AND KERRI RIGSBY
Jeffrey S. Bucholtz
Joyce R. Branda
Patricia R. Davis
Jay D. Majors
Civil Division
P.O. Box 261
Ben Franklin Station
(P) (202) 307-0264
(F) (202) 514-0280
21
Stan Harris
Alfred B. Jernigan, Jr.
Felicia C. Adams
UNITED STATES ATTORNEY’S OFFICE
Southern District of Mississippi
Suite 500
188 East Capitol Street
Jackson, MS 39201
(P) (601) 965-4480
(F) (601) 965-4409
(E) felicia.adams@usdoj.gov
ATTORNEYS FOR THE UNITED STATES
Larry G. Canada
Kathryn Breard Platt
GALLOWAY, JOHNSON, TOMPKINS, BURR & SMITH
701 Poydras Street
Suite 4040
(P) (504) 525-6802
(F) (504) 525-2456
lcanada@gjtbs.com
kplatt@gjtbs.com
Robert D. Gholson
Daniel D. Wallace
GHOLSON, BURSON, ENTREKIN & ORR, P.A.
535 North 5th Avenue (39440)
P.O. Box 1289
Laurel, MS 39441-1289
(P) (601) 649-4440
(F) (601) 649-4441
gholson@gbeolaw.com
wallace@gbeolaw.com
ATTORNEYS FOR FORENSIC ANALYSIS ENGINEERING CORPORATION
THIS the 11th day of January, 2010.
s/ Robert C. Galloway (MSB # 4388)

Robert C. Galloway (MSB # 4388)
22
Exhibit C

SOUTHERN DIVISION

STATE FARM FIRE AND CASUALTY

COMPANY, et al. DEFENDANTS/COUNTER-PLAINTIFFS
RELATORS’ FOURTH SET OF REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION

OF DOCUMENTS TO STATE FARM FIRE AND CASUALTY COMPANY
Pursuant to Rule 33 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, plaintiffs Cori and Kerri
Rigsby (“Relators”), by their attorneys, hereby propound the following Fourth Set of Requests
for Production of Documents (the “document requests”) to Defendant State Farm Fire &
Casualty Company (“State Farm”). Relators request that the Document Requests be answered
separately and fully in writing under oath within thirty (30) days of service as provided in Rule
34 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, or at such earlier time as the Court may direct. State
Farm is to produce the requested documents at the offices of Gilbert LLP, 1100 New York
Avenue NW, Suite 700, Washington, DC 20005 within thirty (30) days after service hereof.
The Document Requests shall be deemed continuing, and if State Farm discovers
additional information as to matters inquired of in these Document Requests between the time
answers are made and the time of trial, supplemental or amended answers must be made at the
earliest practical date.
DEFINITIONS AND INSTRUCTIONS
The Relators incorporate by reference the Definitions and Instructions set forth in their
1229/001/1235890.1 1
First Set of Requests for Production to State Farm Fire & Casualty Company (formerly
referenced as State Farm Mutual Insurance Company).
DOCUMENT REQUESTS
Document Request No. 21
All Documents You sent and/or received from the federal government, including but not
limited to the Federal Emergency Management Agency (“FEMA”), that concern, relate, or refer
to this action, United States ex rel. Rigsby v. State Farm Fire & Casualty Co., et al., No. 1:06-cv-
433 (S.D. Miss.).
All Documents You sent to or received from Kacie Denny.
All deposition or trial transcripts and exhibits thereto for any testimony of a person with
knowledge of this matter, including but not limited to the persons identified in State Farm’s
responses to Relators’ Interrogatories and State Farm’s Initial Disclosures and any supplements
thereto.
All Documents You received in response to any subpoena issued in this action or in
McIntosh v. State Farm Fire & Casualty Company, et al., No. 1:06-cv-1080 (S.D. Miss.).
1229/001/1235890.1 2
All Documents You received in response to any subpoena issued to Kerri Rigsby, Cori
Rigsby, or Patricia Lobrano, including but not limited to subpoenas issued to attorneys on behalf
of Kerri Rigsby, Cori Rigsby, or Patricia Lobrano.
This the 25th day of May, 2010 Respectfully, submitted,

GINNY Y. KENNEDY, MB #102199

August J. Matteis, Jr. (admitted pro hac vice) HEIDELBERG HARMON PLLC
Scott D. Gilbert (admitted pro hac vice) Ridgeland, Mississippi 39157
Benjamin Davidson (admitted pro hac vice) Phone No. (601) 351-3333
GILBERT LLP Fax No. (601) 956-2090
1100 New York Avenue NW, Suite 700 mheidelberg@heidelbergharmon.com
Phone No. (202) 772-2200
Fax No. (202) 772-3333
gilberts@gotofirm.com
1229/001/1235890.1 3
I, C. Maison Heidelberg, attorney for Cori Rigsby and Kerri Rigsby, do hereby certify
that I have this day caused a true and correct copy of the foregoing instrument to be delivered to
the following, via electronic and United States mail, where available:
Don Burkhalter, Esq.

UNITED STATES ATTORNEY
FOR MISSISSIPPI
Jackson, MS 39201
Felicia Adams, Esq.

ASSISTANT U.S. ATTORNEY
Jackson, MS 39201
Joyce R. Branda, Esq.

Patricia R. Davis, Esq.
Jay D. Majors, Esq.
Commercial Litigation Branch
Civil Division
601 D Street, NW
Larry G. Canada, Esq.

Kathryn Breard Platt, Esq.
Galloway, Johnson, Tompkins, Burr & Smith
701 Poydras Street, Suite 4040
(p) 504-525-6802
Robert C. Galloway, Esq.

Emerson Barney Robinson, III, Esq.
Benjamin M. Watson, Esq.
Jeffrey A. Walker, Esq.
Amanda B. Barbour, Esq.
BUTLER, SNOW, O’MARA,
STEVENS & CANNADA, PLLC
P.O. Box 22567
Jackson, MS 39225
(p) 601-948-5711
1229/001/1235890.1 4
Michael B. Beers, Esq.

BEERS, ANDERSON, JACKSON
PATTY & FALWAL, PC
250 Commerce Street, Suite 100
Montgomery, AL 36104
(p) 334-834-5311
ATTORNEYS FOR STATE FARM FIRE & CASUALTY
COMPANY
Robert D. Gholson
GHOLSON BURSON ENTREKIN & ORR, P.A.
55 North 5th Avenue
P.O. Box 1289
Laurel, MS 39441-1289
ATTORNEYS FOR FORENSIC ANALYSIS
ENGINEERING CORPORATION
1229/001/1235890.1 5
Exhibit D

SOUTHERN DIVISION
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA RELATORS/COUNTER-DEFENDANTS

EX REL.; CORI RIGSBY; AND
KERI RIGSBY
VERSUS NO. 1:06-cv-433-LTS-RHW
STATE FARM FIRE & DEFENDANTS/COUNTER-PLAINTIFFS

CASUALTY COMPANY, ET AL.
*******************************************************
DEPOSITION OF TERRY BLALOCK
*******************************************************
Deposition Taken at the Instance of Relators

In the Offices of Butler, Snow, O'Mara, Stevens &
Cannada
Ridgeland, Mississippi
On July 9th, 2010
Commencing at 10:13 a.m.
REPORTED BY: CARRIE L. BENOIST

Certified Shorthand Reporter
CSR #1744
BOND & BENOIST

Madison, Mississippi 39130
831aff3c-e81a-4283-8ea9-26c267870ef5
Page 6
1 EXAMINATION
2 BY MR. HEIDELBERG:
3 Q Mr. Blalock, will you state your full name
4 for the record, please?
5 A My name is Terry Herman Blalock.
6 Q And what is your present address?
7 A My present home address is 110 Green Oak
8 Cove, Clinton, Mississippi 39056.
9 Q Where are you presently employed?
10 A I'm presently employed at State Farm Fire &
11 Casualty Company. The office is located in Flowood,
12 Mississippi.
13 Q Now, we are here for a deposition of the
14 company today, which is referred to as a 30(b)(6)
15 deposition. It's my understanding that you have been
16 designated by the company to speak to one particular
17 topic. Is that correct?
18 A Yes. To the best of my understanding,
19 that's correct.
20 Q And the topic -- we have made the -- the
21 notice Exhibit No. 1. But if I understand correctly,
22 the topic that you're here to address would go to
23 document retention policies of State Farm. Is that
24 correct?
25 A Yes. That's my understanding.
831aff3c-e81a-4283-8ea9-26c267870ef5
Page 7
1 Q And specifically, steps taken to preserve
2 documents and other data relating to the McIntosh
3 policy and claim and whether State Farm, in fact,
4 followed its document retention policies with respect
5 to the McIntosh claim. Is that your understanding of
6 what you're here to discuss today?
7 A Yes. To the best of my understanding,
8 that's why I'm here today.
9 Q And you're authorized, I assume, to speak on
10 behalf of State Farm as its company representative --
11 is that correct?
12 A To the best of my understanding, that is
13 correct, yes.
14 Q We had previously before the deposition
15 looked at what's been marked as Exhibit No. 2. Can
16 you identify for -- for the record, please, what that
17 is?
18 A Exhibit 2 is a copy of the records
19 management manual, including updates starting at March
20 8th of 2005. The Bates number -- do you want me to
21 say what the Bates number is?
22 Q Yeah.
23 A How do you want me to identify it?
24 Q The Bates number is fine.
25 A Bates number starts -- the last five digits
831aff3c-e81a-4283-8ea9-26c267870ef5
Exhibit E
United States of America ex rel v. State Farm, et al
PRIVILEGE LOG
Submitted by State Farm on 01/14/11
A B C D E F G
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA ET AL V. SF ET AL
1 Row # Description Date Pgs Int/RFP Privilege Asserted PRIVILEGE LOG
Box 1 of zone litigation file
for McIntosh claim - 24-z178- 10/30/06 -
2 1 602 04/09 2467 RFP 01 Prepared in anticipation of litigation USARIGSBY00000114PRIV - USARIGSBY00002580PRIV
1/14/11 1
Exhibit F-1
Exhibit F-2
Exhibit F-3
Exhibit F-4
Exhibit F-5
1229/001/1416264.6
Exhibit F-6
1229/001/1416264.6
Exhibit F-7
1229/001/1416264.6
Page 1 of 2
Martinez, Mickey
From: Amanda Barbour [Amanda.Barbour@butlersnow.com]

Sent: Friday, February 11, 2011 6:08 PM
To: Martinez, Mickey; Litherland, Craig; Matteis, August; Davidson, Benjamin; Sugimura, Derek;
mheidelberg@heidelbergharmon.com
Cc: Bob Galloway; Ben Watson; Barney Robinson; Jeff Walker; mbeers@beersanderson.com
Subject: RE: U.S. ex rel Rigsby Supplemental Privilege Log
Mickey,

There will not be a production of any of the documents contained in the zone litigation
file concerning the litigation over the McIntosh homeowner claim. As I stated in my letter
Wednesday, the boxes contain materials compiled during the course of the litigation and are
privileged and/or work product.

If you have any other questions, let me know.

Amanda

From: Martinez, Mickey [mailto:martinezm@gotofirm.com]
To: Amanda Barbour; Litherland, Craig; Matteis, August; Davidson, Benjamin; Sugimura, Derek;
Subject: RE: U.S. ex rel Rigsby Supplemental Privilege Log

Amanda,

Is there also a production forthcoming of any of the remaining documents identified on State
Farm's initial supplemental privilege log?

Mickey

Mickey Martinez
martinezm@gotofirm.com
O 202.772.3994
C 202.731.9065
F 202.772.3995
1100 New York Avenue, NW
Suite 700
gotofirm.com
This email and any attachments may contain confidential information that is privileged at law. If you are not a named recipient or
have received this communication by error, please notify the sender immediately and destroy this email and its attachments, and
all copies thereof, without further distr buting or copying them.

From: Amanda Barbour [mailto:Amanda.Barbour@butlersnow.com]
2/14/2011
Page 2 of 2

To: Martinez, Mickey; Litherland, Craig; Matteis, August; Davidson, Benjamin; Sugimura, Derek;
Subject: U.S. ex rel Rigsby Supplemental Privilege Log
Gentlemen:

Please see the attached privilege log for the documents recently identified to you regarding the
McIntosh HO litigation. Please let me know if you have any questions.

Amanda

Amanda B. Barbour
Butler, Snow, O'Mara, Stevens & Cannada, PLLC
Direct: (601) 985-4585
Fax: (601) 985-4500
amanda.barbour@butlersnow.com

P.O. Box 6010 Suite 1400
Ridgeland, MS 39158-6010 1020 Highland Colony Parkway
Ridgeland, MS 39157

CONFIDENTIALITY NOTE: This e-mail and any attachments may be confidential and protected by legal
privilege. If you are not the intended recipient, be aware that any disclosure, copying, distribution or use of
the e-mail or any attachment is prohibited. If you have received this e-mail in error, please notify us
immediately by replying to the sender and deleting this copy and the reply from your system. Thank you
for your cooperation.
CIRCULAR 230 DISCLOSURE: Pursuant to Treasury guidelines, any federal tax advice contained in this
communication, or any attachment, does not constitute a formal tax opinion. Accordingly, any federal tax
advice contained in this communication, or any attachment, is not intended or written to be used, and
cannot be used, by you or any other recipient for the purpose of avoiding penalties that may be asserted
by the Internal Revenue Service.
CONFIDENTIALITY NOTE: This e-mail and any attachments may be confidential and protected by legal privilege.
If you are not the intended recipient, be aware that any disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the e-mail or any
attachment is prohibited. If you have received this e-mail in error, please notify us immediately by replying to the
sender and deleting this copy and the reply from your system. Thank you for your cooperation.
CIRCULAR 230 DISCLOSURE: Pursuant to Treasury guidelines, any federal tax advice contained in this
communication, or any attachment, does not constitute a formal tax opinion. Accordingly, any federal tax advice
contained in this communication, or any attachment, is not intended or written to be used, and cannot be used, by
you or any other recipient for the purpose of avoiding penalties that may be asserted by the Internal Revenue
Service.
2/14/2011
Exhibit G
United States of America ex rel v. State Farm, et al
PRIVILEGE LOG
Submitted by State Farm on 02/09/11
B C D E F G
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA ET AL V. SF ET AL
1 Description Date Pgs Int/RFP Privilege Asserted PRIVILEGE LOG
Memo from in-house counsel,

Kelly R. Charnock, to the File
and in-house counsel, J. Peter Attorney Client Communication
Martin, regarding Claim Privilege/Attorney Work Product -
2 Number 24-z178-602 9/1/2006 9 RFP 01 Prepared in Anticipation of Litigation USARIGSBY00006013PRIV - USARIGSBY00006021PRIV
Memo from in-house counsel,

Kelly R. Charnock, to the File
and in-house counsel, J. Peter Attorney Client Communication
Martin, regarding Claim Privilege/Attorney Work Product -
3 Number 24-z178-602 8/31/2006 5 RFP 01,10 Prepared in Anticipation of Litigation USARIGSBY00006022PRIV - USARIGSBY00006026PRIV
02/09/11 1

Ex Rel Rigsby V State Farm: Relators' Memorandum in Support of Their Motion For An Order To Compel Complete and Prompt Production of Late-Disclosed Documents

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Ex Rel Rigsby V State Farm: Relators' Memorandum in Support of Their Motion For An Order To Compel Complete and Prompt Production of Late-Disclosed Documents

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Case 1:06-cv-00433-LTS -RHW Document 881 Filed 02/18/11 Page 1 of 10

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA ex rel.;

v. CASE No. 1:06-cv-433-LTS-RHW

STATE FARM FIRE & CASUALTY

RELATORS’ MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT OF THEIR

log provided to Relators on January 14, 2011 (the “Documents”).

pages of documents identified as responsive to all of Relators’ requests.

Farm’s document production and document retention practices.4

The January 14 “privilege log” in its entirety provides as follows6:

of them or assert any specific privilege to justify withholding them.

indicate to whom the Documents have been distributed.

described these Documents as required by Fed. R. Civ. Pro. 26(b)(5)(A)(ii).

determination as to the applicability of any claimed privilege.

have had by its late disclosure and inadequate descriptions.

the required information to support the assertion of a privilege”).

Spring Communications Co., L.P., Nos. CV-04-561-S-BLW, CV-05-138-S-BLW, 2008 WL

the discovery process.” Id.

failure to comply with its discovery obligations even less excusable.

Documents and should be ordered to produce them.

provided to Relators on January 14, 2011.

THIS the 18th of February, 2011 Respectfully submitted,

/s/ C. Maison Heidelberg

OF COUNSEL Attorneys for Cori Rigsby and Kerri Rigsby

Don Burkhalter, Esq.

Felicia Adams, Esq.

Joyce R. Branda, Esq.

Larry G. Canada, Esq.

Robert C. Galloway, Esq.

Michael B. Beers, Esq.

/s/ C. Maison Heidelberg

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA ex rel.;

v. CASE No. 1:06-cv-433-LTS-RHW

STATE FARM MUTUAL

RELATORS’ FIRST SET OF REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS TO

Washington, DC 20005 within thirty (30) days after service hereof.

discovers additional information as to matters inquired of in these Document Requests between

at the earliest practical date.

2. “Adjust,” “Adjusting,” and “Adjustment” refer to the entire process by

includes policy interpretation, assessment of damage, assessment of cost to repair, and

compliance with applicable regulations.

3. “Communication” means every manner or means of disclosure, transfer, or

reflecting the substance or occurrence of conversations or meetings.

4. “Concerning,” “referring,” “regarding,” “relating,” “reflecting,” and

or constituting, whether directly or indirectly, explicitly or implicitly, or in whole or in part, a

constituting, or concerning in any way the referenced subject.

a. “correspondence, memoranda, records, letters, telegrams, reports,

notes, drafts, books, records, papers, minutes, schedules, tabulations,

computations, lists, ledgers, journals, purchase orders, contracts, bills

of lading, invoices, agreements, vouchers, accounts, checks, books of

original entry, recordings, affidavits, diaries, calendars, desk pads,

drawings, photostats, motion pictures, slides, photographs, sketches,

charts, graphs, or any written or printed matter or tangible thing on

which any words or phrases are affixed;

b. information contained in any computer, electronic, digital, or

tape-recorded format or media, including any computer or

electronic database, electronic mail or “e-mail,” translated, if

necessary into reasonably usable form;

notation not on the original; and

6. “Employee” means any former or current employee, officer, agent,

representative, consultant, expert, independent contractor, office, committee, department,