Tony Dewitt one of the attorneys representing the Rigsby Gals in the Qui Tam action, had an interesting reference in a footnote to a response by co-counsel Michael Rader. This was in a response to a recent State Farm filing in the Qui Tam case.
In the motion on the bottom of Page 2, Michael Rader notes the following . . .
Paragraph 4 of Defendant’s response appears to rely on (or fan) Internet speculation that Mr. Dewitt broke into State Farm’s computer network to take and share information with SKG and/or KLG. Without waiving any privileges, counsel note that the only “State Farm [sic] computer system” accessed by Mr. Dewitt was Ms. Rigsby’s laptop, to copy files already on that computer. Mr. Dewitt did not access State Farm’s network or servers. Bloggers with day jobs can be excused for hasty conclusions based on partial transcripts. Defendants’ counsel, however, should know better.
Well, Mr. Rader, congratulations. I really didn’t pay much attention to the State Farm motion, but you had me at “bloggers with day jobs”. You could have just as easily taken a cheap footnoted swipe at opposing counsel without bring bloggers into it, but you now have my utmost attention. I look forward to following each and every word of subsequent motions the Rigsby Gals and the attorneys on their behalf will be filing in this case.
Of course, now, you’ve brought up some questions worth asking.
Though you assert that Mr. Dewitt didn’t breach State Farm’s network or servers, are you now also saying that Mr. Dewitt didn’t knowingly view data he knew to have been impropertly pilfered from State Farm? Just because the Rigsby Gals may have downloaded things to a non State Farm owned computer doesn’t seem to make that correct. Your clients admittedly took documents from State Farm. Does accessing stolen data on a “C” drive somehow make it more ethical or legal that looking at it on the same screen through a browser? That seems to be the distinction you parse in your footnote.
The “day job bloggers” wait with baited breath for your next response to the Court. For future reference, please at least have the courtesy of mentioning the “day job bloggers” in question by name (which in this case, I’m pretty sure is not me) . It does wonders for site traffic as we found out in the Scruggs criminal pre-trial motions . . . you know before they all pleaded guilty to felonies.