In court documents filed Wednesday, State Farm said Scruggs and Hood were conspirators in an "extortion conspiracy."
Hood issued a statement denying the allegations.
"In an attempt to goad the media into writing another article about their suit, State Farm continues to add more irrelevant, inflammatory and frivolous allegations," Hood said. "I hope the learned members of the media recognize this fact and refuse to fall for their game."
An attorney for Scruggs did not immediately respond to a request for comment.
However, a copy of an e-mail from his attorney, John Keker, was entered into court records. The e-mail from Keker to a State Farm attorney says Scruggs does not plan to participate in Friday's deposition because Keker will be out of the country and unable to represent him.
Scruggs will invoke his Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination if forced to submit to questioning in the State Farm lawsuit, Keker's e-mail said.
State Farm sued Hood in September, accusing him of using the criminal investigation to coerce the company to settle lawsuits with private attorneys.
The insurer also claims Hood violated his part of a January 2007 settlement in which the Mississippi attorney general's office agreed to end the criminal investigation of the Bloomington, Ill.-based State Farm.
A judge last year ordered Hood to temporarily halt his criminal investigation. Scruggs' deposition is just the latest in the legal wrangling that has followed.
State Farm said in a motion filed Wednesday that the fact that Hood wants to stop the deposition "is very telling indeed."
"General Hood is clearly concerned that his co-conspirator will either tell the truth or invoke the Fifth Amendment on specific questions related to their extortion conspiracy," the motion said.
Hood spokeswoman Jan Schaefer told The Associated Press that "we have not filed any motions to stop testimony in this case."
But one of Hood's attorneys, J. Lawson Hester, wrote in a letter to U.S. Magistrate Judge Michael T. Parker: "I am in no way attempting to be obstructionist as regards the taking of Mr. Scruggs' deposition, but the realistic eventuality that this deposition will not yield a benefit to either party is now known clearly to both sides and I would like to avoid as much unnecessary expense and burden to my client as is possible, consistent with the rights of the respective parties."
