This case stems from an appeal pending before a state Supreme Court in which an insurance company was the defendant. After the judgment was entered, a vacancy arose on the Supreme Court. An election to fill that seat took place. A then Circuit Judge was recruited to run for the vacancy by a particular committee, who had an influential member that happened to be the chief lobbyist for the defendant insurance company in that case. The committee helped run the judge’s campaign and coordinated the donations of various conservative pro-business groups. The defendant insurance company contributed millions of dollars to these organizations with an understanding that those groups would direct the funds to the judge’s campaign. These groups contributed millions of dollars to the campaign, directly and indirectly through in-kind contributions. After the judge was elected to the state Supreme Court, the plaintiffs in the aforementioned case filed a motion for the new supreme court justice to recuse himself from the decision. The judge denied. The defendant insurance company filed a response to that motion denying any allegations that it contributed funds to the campaign. That year the pending appeal in the case was overturned. Years later, the plaintiffs uncovered new evidence which prompted them to file a motion to recall the mandate, again stating that the justice should have recused himself. The defendant insurance company filed a response again denying all allegations. It was alleged that the defendant violated the RICO Act by lying in state Supreme Court filings and perpetrating a conspiracy to defraud the court in its attempts to circumvent the judgment. An expert forensic accountant was sought to opine on contributions made by the defendant insurance company to third-party organizations which subsequently donated money to the judicial campaign the judge now a Chief Justice of the state Supreme Court.