Purdue University v. Michael A. Wartell - 12/17/13

Back to TopPrintE-mail
Tuesday  December 17, 2013 
2:00 PM  EST

2 p.m. 79A02-1304-PL-342. In this interlocutory appeal, appellant-defendant Purdue University appeals the order of the trial court determining that it may not assert the attorney-client privilege and the attorney work product doctrine to withhold documents and other tangibles from appellee-plaintiff Michael A. Wartell. Wartell, the Chancellor at the Fort Wayne campus of Indiana University-Purdue University, had filed a complaint against Purdue’s president. Because the complaint was to be internally investigated, a process was agreed upon, which included the use of a third-party, neutral investigator. Purdue, without information Wartell, chose its own attorney to serve in that capacity. Wartell requested the report generated from the investigation; Purdue denied Wartell’s request. Following the trial court’s order granting Wartell’s request on equitable grounds, this appeal ensues.

Back to Events
Sponsored by
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/