ILNews

Court won’t seal evidence in Spierer civil suit

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

Evidence in the federal civil suit against the last people believed to have seen missing Indiana University student Lauren Spierer may not be covered by a broad order shielding exhibits and testimony from public view.

Spierer was 20 and a freshman on the IU Bloomington campus when she disappeared in June 2011. No arrests have been made, but Spierer’s parents sued the three men believed to have last seen her after a night of drinking and partying.

Robert and Mary Spierer in January asked Judge Tanya Walton Pratt of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Indiana to grant a protective order that would have broadly granted sealed discovery. The Spierers’ motion said a protective order was necessary “to protect the public disclosure of private and sensitive information that could detrimentally affect the ongoing criminal investigation and ensure an impartial jury at trial.”

Magistrate Tim Baker denied the motion Wednesday, writing the request was overbroad and failed to meet 7th Circuit standards. 

“The Court will not grant carte blanche to seal such material by way of an approved protective order,” Baker wrote, “and any subsequent motion seeking to seal any part of the record will be strictly scrutinized.”

The suit is Robert Evan Spierer and Mary Charlene Spierer v. Corey Rossman, Jason Isaac Rosenbaum and Michael B. Beth, 1:13-CV-00991-TWP-TAB. Pratt in December dismissed Beth from the suit and also dismissed negligence claims against Rosenbaum and Rossman. But she let stand negligence per say and dram shop liability claims against Rosenbaum and Rossman.

“Whether or not these claims can survive summary judgment is a matter for another day,” Pratt wrote in December.
 

ADVERTISEMENT

Post a comment to this story

COMMENTS POLICY
We reserve the right to remove any post that we feel is obscene, profane, vulgar, racist, sexually explicit, abusive, or hateful.
 
You are legally responsible for what you post and your anonymity is not guaranteed.
 
Posts that insult, defame, threaten, harass or abuse other readers or people mentioned in Indiana Lawyer editorial content are also subject to removal. Please respect the privacy of individuals and refrain from posting personal information.
 
No solicitations, spamming or advertisements are allowed. Readers may post links to other informational websites that are relevant to the topic at hand, but please do not link to objectionable material.
 
We may remove messages that are unrelated to the topic, encourage illegal activity, use all capital letters or are unreadable.
 

Messages that are flagged by readers as objectionable will be reviewed and may or may not be removed. Please do not flag a post simply because you disagree with it.

Sponsored by
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. Contact Lea Shelemey attorney in porter county Indiana. She just helped us win our case...she is awesome...

  2. We won!!!! It was a long expensive battle but we did it. I just wanted people to know it is possible. And if someone can point me I. The right direction to help change the way the courts look as grandparents as only grandparents. The courts assume the parent does what is in the best interest of the child...and the court is wrong. A lot of the time it is spite and vindictiveness that separates grandparents and grandchildren. It should not have been this long and hard and expensive...Something needs to change...

  3. Typo on # of Indiana counties

  4. The Supreme Court is very proud that they are Giving a billion dollar public company from Texas who owns Odyssey a statewide monopoly which consultants have said is not unnecessary but worse they have already cost Hoosiers well over $100 MILLION, costing tens of millions every year and Odyssey is still not connected statewide which is in violation of state law. The Supreme Court is using taxpayer money and Odyssey to compete against a Hoosier company who has the only system in Indiana that is connected statewide and still has 40 of the 82 counties despite the massive spending and unnecessary attacks

  5. Here's a recent resource regarding steps that should be taken for removal from the IN sex offender registry. I haven't found anything as comprehensive as of yet. Hopefully this is helpful - http://www.chjrlaw.com/removal-indiana-sex-offender-registry/

ADVERTISEMENT