In an order yesterday, Judge LT Senter upheld a lower court ruling that Richard “Dickie” Scruggs and his son Zach could be deposed by opposing counsel in the McIntosh case.
A copy of the order can be found here.
From the order . . .
Much of the argument with respect to the Scruggses’ depositions hinges on their positions
that what is involved is subject to the attorney-client privilege, that they are being deposed as
“opposing counsel,” and that their rights and defenses are jeopardized in a criminal contempt
proceeding pending in Alabama. Yet, as the Magistrate’s [911] Order points out, it is difficult to
determine at any stage of the proceedings exactly what roles the Scruggses were playing. The
example used by the Magistrate is the statement made at the depositions in April/May 2007 that
Richard Scruggs was wearing “two hats”–one as the Rigsbys’ lawyer and the other as their
employer. It appears from the record that Zach Scruggs did the same thing on at least one other
occasion. How all this connects with their representation of the Plaintiffs is also unclear. This is
why the Scruggses’ depositions are appropriate–to ferret through this forest of relationships,
especially in terms of the timing of various conduct and activity. Whether substantive
information is obtained is largely up to the deponents, who are represented by their own counsel
on different fronts.
Magnolia Tribune
