State Farm has also responded to the Jackson New Media request to disclose the settlement in State Farm v. Hood. In addition to asking the court to waive the local rule requirement for a memorandum citing cases, State Farm says:
1. As there are no changed circumstances with respect to its settlement agreement with Attorney General Hood, State Farm intends to continue fully honoring that agreement.
2. State Farm intends to continue its full compliance with this Court’s Orders.
YallPolitics– who (re)started this mess– has the State Farm response here.
Why have the proposed intervenors not cited Hood’s response, contending it’s a change of circumstances? And State Farm’s response, needing a change of circumstances? Then (since both sides say they don’t care) ask Judge Bramlette to enter an order that allows either side to produce it to anyone they please? This would cut through the bullshit, and then, if neither side gives a copy to anyone, it will be clear they both have something to hide. Isn’t “having something to hide” the only reason for sealing an agreement in the first place? If I were Judge Bramlette, I would — at a minimum — enter an order that says “This is only under seal because both parties asked that I seal it. If both parties ask that I unseal it, I will.” An order to this effect would give the press an opportunity to ask both parties: did you agree to unseal it, and yet it is not unsealed because the other side refused? I know this is Mississippi, but it appears the proposed intervenors, with a little help from the Judge, are in a position to paint both sides into corners from which they will have to admit that they do, or do not, agree to its release.
If the settlement was unsealed it would probably say “policy holders will be granted the right to have policies stated in “almost” plain English what they are purchasing and State Farm has the right to set insurance rates in Mississippi due to the climate and economic conditions of the State.