Kuehn Motion In Limine Re Sf Attorney

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF MISSISSIPPI SOUTHERN DIVISION HENRY KUEHN AND JUNE P. KUEHN

PLAINTIFFS

VERSUS

CIVIL ACTION NO. 1:08CV577-LTS-RHW

STATE FARM FIRE AND CASUALTY COMPANY AND JOHN DOES 1 THROUGH 10

DEFENDANTS

PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION IN LIMINE TO PROHIBIT AND/OR EXCLUDE TESTIMONY BY STATE FARM’S COUNSEL, SPRAGINS AND TUCKER COME NOW the Plaintiffs, HENRY KUEHN AND JUNE P. KUEHN, by and through their attorneys of record, DENHAM LAW FIRM, and moves the Court in limine to enter an Order prohibiting the Defendant, STATE FARM FIRE AND CASUALTY COMPANY, its counsel, representatives, agents, employees, or witnesses from referencing or attempting to utilize at the evidentiary hearing scheduled in this cause any testimony by Defendant’s counsel, H. Scot Spragins or Lawrence J. Tucker. In support of this Motion In Limine, Plaintiffs would show unto the Court the following: 1.

Plaintiffs would show that any testimony that may be offered by Defendant’s

counsel, H. Scot Spragins or Lawrence J. Tucker, should be prohibited and/or excluded. State Farm previously stated in its [55] Memorandum in Support of its Motion to Quash/For Protective Order that “State Farm’s counsel1 is not the only source of the information Plaintiffs seek. Moreover, any information they possesses [sic] is not relevant or crucial to the central issues in this case, i.e., the actual conduct of the appraisal and the propriety of the award.” (See [55] State Farm’s Memorandum in Support of its Motion to Quash/For Protective Order, pp. 2-3.) State 1

State Farm is referring to its counsel, H. Scot Spragins or Lawrence J. Tucker.

1

Farm also stated that “State Farm’s counsel does not possess independent information as to what the appraisers actually did. Whatever discussions State Farm’s counsel may have had with Mr. Minor certainly are not relevant (let alone crucial) to this case in light of Mr. Minor’s testimony that he simply did not understand Mr. Tucker and did not change the appraisal in any way on the basis of anything State Farm’s counsel said.” (See [55] State Farm’s Memorandum, p. 6, Section 2.) State Farm further argued that “none of the communications with State Farm’s counsel has any relevance to this case, because it did not factor in to the appraisal process” (See [55], p. 7, Section 2), and “the extensive testimony from the appraisers amply demonstrates that any information State Farm’s counsel may have about the appraisal or communications with Mr. Minor is neither relevant nor crucial to the preparation of this case.” (See [55], pp. 11-12.) Of course, if Tucker and Spragins did have pertinent information, they and their law firm would be properly disqualified as counsel. However, based on State Farm’s representations, this Court denied (without prejudice) Plaintiffs’ Motion to Disqualify Counsel. Because Plaintiffs were thus disallowed from taking the testimony of Spragins and Tucker, they cannot now be allowed to come forward and testify in the evidentiary hearing scheduled before this Court on July 22, 2009. 2.

Plaintiffs request that any testimony that may be offered by Defendant’s counsel,

H. Scot Spragins or Lawrence J. Tucker, should be prohibited and/or excluded during the evidentiary hearing currently scheduled in this case. It would be a miscarriage of justice to allow State Farm Fire and Casualty Company to introduce testimony by its counsel, Spragins and Tucker, when it has gone through such great lengths to prevent Plaintiffs from conducting discovery concerning those attorneys. Indeed, State Farm even went so far as to move to quash Spragins’ and Tucker’s scheduled depositions, requesting a protective order regarding same.

2

Accordingly, Plaintiffs’ due process rights, as well as their right to confront these witnesses, would be violated if these attorneys are allowed to testify at said hearing. WHEREFORE, PREMISES CONSIDERED, the Plaintiffs respectfully request that this Honorable Court will enter an order prohibiting and/or excluding Defendant’s counsel, H. Scot Spragins and Lawrence J. Tucker, from offering any testimony at the evidentiary hearing currently scheduled in this cause. Plaintiff prays for such other and further relief as may be deemed appropriate.

Respectfully submitted, HENRY KUEHN AND JUNE P. KUEHN BY: DENHAM LAW FIRM

BY: ___s/Earl L. Denham_ EARL L. DENHAM MS Bar No. 6047

CERTIFICATE I, EARL L. DENHAM, do hereby certify that I electronically filed the above and foregoing Plaintiffs’ Motion In Limine to Prohibit or Exclude Testimony or Evidence by State Farm’s Counsel, Spragins and Tucker, with the Clerk of the Court utilizing the ECF system, which provides notification of said filing to the following: H. Scot Spragins [email protected] Lawrence J. Tucker [email protected] Hickman, Goza & Spragins, PLLC Post Office Box 668 Oxford, MS 38655-0068 John A. Banahan [email protected] H. Benjamin Mullen [email protected]; [email protected] Bryan, Nelson, Schroeder, Castigliola & Banahan

3

P.O. Drawer 1529 Pascagoula, MS 39568-1529 SO CERTIFIED on this the 14th day of July, 2009.

_ s/Earl L. Denham_ EARL L. DENHAM

EARL L. DENHAM, MS Bar No. 6047 KRISTOPHER W. CARTER, MS Bar No. 101963 DENHAM LAW FIRM 424 Washington Avenue (39564) Post Office Drawer 580 Ocean Springs, MS 39566-0580 228.875.1234 Telephone 228.875.4553 Facsimile

4