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
sspragins@hickmanlaw.com
Lawrence J. Tucker
lawrencetucker@hickmanlaw.com
Hickman, Goza & Spragins, PLLC
Post Office Box 668
Oxford, MS 38655-0068

John A. Banahan
john@bnscb.com
H. Benjamin Mullen
ben@bnscb.com; lawshark66@i-55.com
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