Aside from those of us who are unhappy alumni of the White v. Coleman (Tulia) lawsuit, has anyone out there had the joy of defending one of these slap suits against a task force, with every county conceivably connected with the task force being named as a defendant? If so, I would like to hear your experiences, and what worked and didn't work.

A number of years ago our County was part of a program. A bureaucracy developed but one day the Executive Director became crosswise with the Board (made up of all the governmental entities). Terminations and lawsuits later every governmental entity was lawyered up and paying for the settlement. I have tried to explain to my clients that these collaborative efforts look fine until a plaintiff's lawyer starts up the lawsuit. As you know the costs of defending will far exceed the settlement offer. So any risk benefit analysis indicates settlement.
Of course my clients claim they never do anything wrong so why they get sued and need all these lawyers is a mystery.

Your observation about settlement cost vs. litigation cost is painfully correct. However, in our new lawsuit, we've decided we're going to bow up and press our point that suing a county in a section 1983 lawsuit simply because it's a member of a task force (as opposed to its officers being the key players) is nothing but good old-fashioned vicarious liability, which the Fifth Circuit and the big Supremes have repeatedly said is a no-go.

You have another suit involving a task force. Off line and private email please. We have some folks who are hard of hearing on this issue.