ILNews

Depositions delayed in Spierer civil case

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

Attorneys for the parents of missing Indiana University student Lauren Spierer must delay more than a dozen planned depositions. The depositions were scheduled this month in four cities in the federal civil trial naming two of the people believed to have last seen Spierer.

The court first will rule on motions for summary judgment sought by defendants Jason Rosenbaum and Corey Rossman. Spierer was 20 when she disappeared from the Bloomington campus in the early morning hours of June 3, 2011, after a night of drinking and club-hopping. No criminal charges have been filed.

Spierer’s parents last year filed the suit, Robert Evan Spierer and Mary Charlene Spierer v. Corey E. Rossman and Jason Isaac Rosenbaum, 1:13-cv-991, but Magistrate Judge Tim A. Baker of the District Court for the Southern District of Indiana, Indianapolis, last month temporarily stayed discovery. Baker noted at the time the “precarious” posture of the Spierers’ claims as a factor in limiting further discovery.

The defendants face remaining Dram Shop and negligence per se claims.

Baker held a hearing last week, and on Tuesday he ordered the discovery stay to remain in effect, denying the Spierers’ motion to reconsider the discovery stay.

“Plaintiffs advised the Court at the May 28 hearing that they want to take fourteen depositions in June, twelve of them from non-parties. These depositions are to occur in New York, Chicago, Detroit, and Boston,” Baker wrote. “On balance, principles of fairness and judicial economy suggest that the potentially dispositive motion for summary judgment should be resolved before unleashing such unduly burdensome and expensive discovery.”

Baker denied Rosenbaum’s and Rossman’s motions to quash non-party subpoenas as moot in light of the discovery stay.

“Defendants suggest that Plaintiffs’ proposed discovery ‘makes it clear that they are attempting to conduct their own independent investigation into the disappearance of Lauren Spierer using federal subpoena power under the guise of prosecuting a Dram Shop claim.’” Baker wrote.

“If this description is correct, Plaintiffs’ pursuit of information is understandable given the mystery and misery that surrounds Lauren Spierer’s disappearance three years ago today. Nevertheless … the discovery stay will remain in place and discovery will remain on hold for now.”







 

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

facebook - twitter on Facebook & Twitter

Indiana State Bar Association

Indianapolis Bar Association

Evansville Bar Association

Allen County Bar Association

Indiana Lawyer on Facebook

facebook
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. It appears the police and prosecutors are allowed to change the rules halfway through the game to suit themselves. I am surprised that the congress has not yet eliminated the right to a trial in cases involving any type of forensic evidence. That would suit their foolish law and order police state views. I say we eliminate the statute of limitations for crimes committed by members of congress and other government employees. Of course they would never do that. They are all corrupt cowards!!!

  2. Poor Judge Brown probably thought that by slavishly serving the godz of the age her violations of 18th century concepts like due process and the rule of law would be overlooked. Mayhaps she was merely a Judge ahead of her time?

  3. in a lawyer discipline case Judge Brown, now removed, was presiding over a hearing about a lawyer accused of the supposedly heinous ethical violation of saying the words "Illegal immigrant." (IN re Barker) http://www.in.gov/judiciary/files/order-discipline-2013-55S00-1008-DI-429.pdf .... I wonder if when we compare the egregious violations of due process by Judge Brown, to her chiding of another lawyer for politically incorrectness, if there are any conclusions to be drawn about what kind of person, what kind of judge, what kind of apparatchik, is busy implementing the agenda of political correctness and making off-limits legit advocacy about an adverse party in a suit whose illegal alien status is relevant? I am just asking the question, the reader can make own conclsuion. Oh wait-- did I use the wrong adjective-- let me rephrase that, um undocumented alien?

  4. of course the bigger questions of whether or not the people want to pay for ANY bussing is off limits, due to the Supreme Court protecting the people from DEMOCRACY. Several decades hence from desegregation and bussing plans and we STILL need to be taking all this taxpayer money to combat mostly-imagined "discrimination" in the most obviously failed social program of the postwar period.

  5. You can put your photos anywhere you like... When someone steals it they know it doesn't belong to them. And, a man getting a divorce is automatically not a nice guy...? That's ridiculous. Since when is need of money a conflict of interest? That would mean that no one should have a job unless they are already financially solvent without a job... A photographer is also under no obligation to use a watermark (again, people know when a photo doesn't belong to them) or provide contact information. Hey, he didn't make it easy for me to pay him so I'll just take it! Well heck, might as well walk out of the grocery store with a cart full of food because the lines are too long and you don't find that convenient. "Only in Indiana." Oh, now you're passing judgement on an entire state... What state do you live in? I need to characterize everyone in your state as ignorant and opinionated. And the final bit of ignorance; assuming a photo anyone would want is lucky and then how much does your camera have to cost to make it a good photo, in your obviously relevant opinion?

ADVERTISEMENT