Jackson Jambalaya

The meatrginder that is the Express Grain case chewed up more casualties Friday.  U.S. Bankruptcy Judge Celene Maddox ruled she will sanction attorney Don Barrett for violating a protective order covering financial information in the Express Grain bankruptcy. 

UMB Bank cried foul last week after Mr. Barrett appeared in an interview on March 17 on the Gallo Radio Show on WFMN on March 17.

Judge Maddox  issued a protective order sealing documents and financial information about the parties from public disclosure. To say there is no love lost between UMB Bank and Mr. Barrett is an understatement.  Mr. Barrett represents several farmers in a federal lawsuit against UMB Bank.  They accused the bank of knowing the bank was insolvent a year ago but instead propped up the grain elevator through harvest season so it could grab the crops when delivered. Earlier post. 

Mr. Barrett appeared on The Gallo Radio Show  to discuss the Express Grain case.  UMB claimed in its motion to show cause on March 22: 

8.         UMB  believes  that  Mr.  Barrett  violated  the  Protective  Order  when,  during  the morning of March 17, 2022 (shortly before the parties were set to begin mediation, Dkt. 2543), he participated in an interview on a radio show.  That interview contained numerous false accusations about UMB, so UMB will share the link to the interview with the Court under seal.  During that interview, Mr. Barrett referenced “documents that we have seen that are filtering out,” which UMB believes related to documents produced in the Interest Data Room pursuant to the Section 557 Discovery Procedures and subject to the Protective Order.¹  He also purported to paraphrase some of those documents and proclaimed that UMB made certain statements in those documents.  Then, Mr. Barrett launched into numerous unfounded and false accusations about the bank’s intentions. UMB will address the substance of those false accusations in due course, at the appropriate time contemplated by the Section 557 Discovery Procedures.

 UMB is probably referring to this portion of the interview:  

From all appearances it is like it was a gigantic trap that they had set for these farmers uh and what's turned out is uh and and we're just we really haven't had our turn at bat yet but from the from documents that we've seen that are filtering out. They knew exactly what was going on as as late as as the first part of July of 2021 this is again no grain had been had been put into the into express grain terminal where the bank could get its hands on it and they were talking about we have documents they were talking about the terrible financial shape of Express Grain and they mentioned in in that the bins are empty now but we know in September they'll be full. Now why would they mention that if that didn't, if that wasn't part of their program, part of their plan to to seize this grain that belonged to somebody else?  We think this is going to turn out to be a Bernie Madoff-type scam that's it's enormous in its implications, enormous in the amount of damage it's done to the to these communities in the Delta and all over North Mississippi. We think that bank's gonna have to pay for it, the law provides a remedy. 

 Mr. Barrett fired back at UMB two days later, refusing to back down.  He argued: 

Second, UMB complains that the undersigned counsel—in UMB’s words—“purported to paraphrase some of those documents and proclaimed that UMB made certain statements in those documents.” But the undersigned counsel did not reference any document nor state that he had a document that he was paraphrasing. UMB’s motion does not assert that the undersigned did so, because he did not. Notably, UMB does not (because it cannot) identify any document that was paraphrased  nor  any  specific  statement  that  is  somehow  in  violation  of  the  Protective  Order. Absent such an allegation, the motion is hopelessly vague and utterly pointless, as federal courts are not in the business of issuing advisory opinions concerning hypothetical sets of facts that are not  before  them.  UMB’s  motion  does  not  indicate  or  evidence  any  possible  violation  of  the Protective Order.

Third, UMB complains that the undersigned counsel “launched into numerous unfounded and false accusations about the bank’s intentions.” The Protective Order prohibits parties from disseminating protected information, not from stating views their adversaries disagree with.  Thus, even if it were true that the undersigned made statements that were “false,” it would be irrelevant to the Court’s inquiry under the Protective Order.  Notably absent from the scope of the Protective Order is any limitation on the undersigned counsel discussing the bank’s intentions. (See quote of the  Protective  Order  supra).  Discussion  of  the  bank’s  wicked  intentions  does  not  relate  to documents and is not protected or covered by the scope of the Protective Order....

UMB Bank’s motion merely seeks to broaden the scope of the Protective Order and inhibit media  coverage  of  this  dispute.  Notably,  UMB  does  not  assert  that  the  undersigned  released commercially sensitive information such as would warrant protection. For example,  UMB does not complain that the undersigned produced financial information of UMB needing protection, or that UMB was harmed or prejudiced in any way. Rather, UMB merely seeks to protect its tortious misconduct from public knowledge. This is not a sound public purpose warranting a departure from the general rule that the United States’ federal courts are, indeed, open to the public.

Mr. Barrett's protestations were to no avail.  Judge Maddox ruled Friday: 

Motion granted. UMB to submit invoice for costs and fees by April 1, 2022 at 5:00 PM CST. Court will allow three calendar days for Mr. Barrett to respond to reasonableness of claim. Court to prepare order detailing its bench ruling and assessing dollar amount sanctions within 14 days of this date.