Jackson Jambalaya

Of course they would....

Please correct me if I am mistaken, but is this law firm requesting Judge Wingate to quash the subpoena that Judge Wingate, himself, issued? If so, they are obviously litigating this for appeal.

Good luck with arguing the Court doesn't have authority to subpoena records! As for the subpoena not being personally served, that is easily remedied by having the U.S. Marshall's Service serve it on the law firm. Clearly the law firm is just trying to delay the inevitable.

Lawyers took most then mayor and cronies got the rest in Jackson! Hope the judge makes them show records. But they probably don’t have any !

wonder what they are hiding.

Wingate will rule against the but Lightfoot is correct. You would think a judge might know the law

Sounds like the boys in Birmingham are freaking out. You know that $ has already been divvied up and spent on Range Rovers, plastic surgery, and a place on 30A. Heaven forbid they be forced to return any of it.

One of the poorest cities in the country trying to survive by suing everyone who has worked to improve it.
This pitiful city doesn’t provide potable water or drivable streets. It is, however, at least ranked high in one category, and that is the murder rate. Memphis seems to have a murder rate Jackson can’t duplicate.

They are correct. Wingate must have used AI to issue those subpoenas.

When this first occurred, I questioned whether a Court could issue a subpoena. I've never encountered this in my legal career.

This isn't the stone to turn over. A 30% contingency fee is pretty standard. Unless there is evidence that more that 30% was paid, or that fees were excessive, then Wingate needs to move on.

Wingate's absurd obsession with money that is long gone and pride is going to end any permanent progress with Jackson's water system from being made isn't it? If the $60 million could magically appear from thin air, what changes?

They're wrong about the 100-mile thing. It is true that Rule 45(c) says, generally, the place of compliance must be "within 100 miles[.]" However, Rule 45(d)(2)(A) dispenses with the requirement to appear in person at the place of compliance if the only thing being compelled is production of documents. Multiple courts have construed this to mean the 100-mile rule does not apply to production-only subpoenas. The most extensive opinion discussing this is CSS, Inc. v. Herrington, 354 F.Supp.3d 702 (N.D. Texas 2017). It's also grounded in the practical reality that producing documents does not need a geographical restriction in the modern era where they can easily be emailed/mailed. I would also argue they're wrong about the in-person service requirement. It is true many courts have held Rule 45 requires "personal service." But a growing number of courts are rejecting that for (what is in my opinion) the correct analysis. Fed Rule 45 only says subpoenas must be "delivered" (unlike the State rule). The drafters of the rules know how to say "personal service" when they mean "personal service." We know because "personal service" is used in Rule 4 re: service of process. So it is my opinion they are wrong on both fronts (yes, there are legal authorities that take a contrary stance—I stand by my reasoning for why they are wrong).

@11:25 AM

A judge knowing the law? Ha....thats funny!

I don't know if the judge can issue a subpoena but even a 6-month delay in approving a water rate fee hike will make little difference in the long run. I do know that a federal judge can sua sponte issue a bench subpoena instanter. Eventually, LFW is going to have to produce the records. I guess that firm is afraid that it's former client will sue the firm for breach of attorney-client privilege, so LFW is resisting acting in any voluntary manner.

He needs to subpoena JXN water records and what happened to the 600m and if millions of dollars in advertising to one tv station was a good use of taxpayer dollars.

Any updates on the former mayor's compliance with his subpoena?

So a good idea to find out how this pitiable cities money was spent!

Jxn water has only spent $150 million. They still have $450 million left. It can only be used on capital projects. The judge knows all about it.

Well said by a plaintiff’s law firm! Is 30% a standard fee and if so is this “fee” fixing?

Jx Water spending was all approved by Judge Wingate!

Like complying with his campaign reports? BTW, has anyone seen the former mayor?

So much time wasted on battles in court. (Lumumba familiy and their groups; Ted trying to get cheaper rates for some folks). The $450 million that can't be touched for things that are needed now. All the cutoffs that should have happened a year ago.

I cant imagine the size of the aspirin that the Judge needs for all of this.

Next up - order compelling document production within 10 days. All docs filed under seal and subject to protective order. In camera review of files by judge Wingate.

Scott is not only wrong on personal service and the 100 miles, the rulings have indicated this is about Lawyers without court oversight yet this comes from the Court where the case is ongoing. Choose your battles wisely.

Scott ain’t writing these motions I promise. Lightfoot is guiding this with Scott’s bar number.

What Sister R doing?

Lightfoot represents clients in Mississippi, and the Rule 45(c)(2)((A) says "at a place within 100 miles of where the person resides, is employed, or regularly transacts business in person,"

And I don't know that I'd rely on a narrow reading of the language of Rule 45 (a)(3) that says "The clerk must issue a subpoena . . . to a party who requests it."

Especially when Rule 1 says "[t]hey should be construed, administered, and employed by the court and the parties to secure the just, speedy, and inexpensive determination of every action and proceeding." Plus, there is the fact that the court has inherent power to control proceedings before it.

Finally, I don't think all the cases on witnesses subpoenas, which turned on whether the fee was tendered with the subpoena, are relevant. This is about a records subpoena, personally served on Lightfoot by certified mail.

Then there's this, from the 7th Circuit: "But the first question is personal service by whom? An agent of the postal service surely qualifies as a "person at least 18 years of age and not a party." . . . We see no reason to inflate the costs of litigation by ruling out this sensible option for serving a subpoena (along with the necessary fees)." Ott v. City of Milwaukee, 682 F.3d 552, 557 (7th Cir. 2012).

I sure would not respond by telling the court that "Because the subpoena has not been personally served on Lightfoot, no response is forthcoming," like he they did on page 4. That, plus the wacky font(s) and citations make me wonder who drafted this thing.

Hiding the $$$ that got laundered en route to Rukia.

Several spots where words are jumbled together in this motion without spaces. Can they not even look over their shit they type up? A 3rd grader could do better. Hope they ain’t paying much for this amateur service

All subpoenas that are AI generated are valid. (5th Cir. 2025)

Maybe Wingate can use his AI expertise to determine if there filing is correct on the law.

I'm curious to know if other firms were solicited for their fees, or how did this one get chosen? You know, to save Jackson money. Or was that even a consideration by his administration. Certainly, this was so cut and dry one of the attorney's in his entourage could have accomplished the same thing and bragged about how much they won for their client on their Facebook page with some hashtag or inspirational quote.

It’s possible that the court has the same suspicions as everyone else. The entire deal stinks. I wonder why the Siemens lawsuit was contracted out in the first place. And to send it to a firm in Alabama is also questionable. How often does the city contract work out to foreign firms? Was this the only time? City attorneys handle, civil, litigation, and county and federal court on behalf of the city all the time. It is alleged that the Siemens case did not even reach the Discovery phase before it was settled. For the amount of work they did this seems like it could have been done by the office of the city attorney for no fee. I’m wondering if the judge could subpoena records of communications between Siemens in the city of Jackson. I question sometimes if the settlement offer for 90 million was made prior to this case being contracted out to a foreign firm. Did the city make any sort of demand over and above the settlement amount? It was a horrible settlement. The only people who really won were Siemens and the law firm. The damage that those meters did to the city far exceeds 90 million by a lot. The city is still dealing with the aftermath. The fact that someone can say this was a good settlement is laughable.

@thelaw 12:40 p.m.: You seem to know what you are talking about, but you are citing law from other jurisdictions. Do you have any legal authority from Mississippi on the issue instead of the general law/trends mess you are throwing out?

News flash, the only people that win in any court case are lawyers.

Was this case settled out of court, and if so then does Wingate have any legal right to intervene?

Sister Rukia’s nonprofit 990 filings do not meet IRS requirements. Amazing that IRS or others don’t investigate.

@4:53pm: of course I do. I'm not writing a legal brief here. These are my academic musings. I cited the N.D. Texas case because it has one of the (if not the most) in-depth discussions on the history and commentary of that particular rule/issue. Like I said originally, there are cases that disagree with the points I made. My memory is that there are several (older) 5th Cir cases that have held explicitly a subpoena must be served through personal service. I disagree with the underlying reasoning. First, because Fed Rule 45 requires a subpoena to be "delivered" (not "personally served"). Second, there's a Circuit Court opinion somewhere (admittedly, can't remember where) that calls into question why subpoenas for documents would require "personal service" in the first place. For service of the summons under Rule 4, there's potentially other methods available beyond in-person hand delivery. The entire point of service is to ensure notice / due process. Why in the world would we give greater due-process protections to a guy getting hit with a subpoena duces tecum—where only his documents are on the line—versus Rule 4 service of process—where somebody's liability exposure is on the line? The documents-only guy shouldn't be bothered with a minor inconvenience unless I throw a process server $150 to go tag him in person? Na, doesn't make sense. I vote we should be able to slide a subpoena into somebody's dms. That's plenty of due process.

Well. They must’ve bought several condos around the country with their ripped-off commissions. How does one say I’m guilty, without saying I’m guilty?