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
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. What a fine article, thank you! I can testify firsthand and by detailed legal reports (at end of this note) as to the dire consequences of rejecting this truth from the fine article above: "The inclusion and expansion of this right [to jury] in Indiana’s Constitution is a clear reflection of our state’s intention to emphasize the importance of every Hoosier’s right to make their case in front of a jury of their peers." Over $20? Every Hoosier? Well then how about when your very vocation is on the line? How about instead of a jury of peers, one faces a bevy of political appointees, mini-czars, who care less about due process of the law than the real czars did? Instead of trial by jury, trial by ideological ordeal run by Orwellian agents? Well that is built into more than a few administrative law committees of the Ind S.Ct., and it is now being weaponized, as is revealed in articles posted at this ezine, to root out post moderns heresies like refusal to stand and pledge allegiance to all things politically correct. My career was burned at the stake for not so saluting, but I think I was just one of the early logs. Due, at least in part, to the removal of the jury from bar admission and bar discipline cases, many more fires will soon be lit. Perhaps one awaits you, dear heretic? Oh, at that Ind. article 12 plank about a remedy at law for every damage done ... ah, well, the founders evidently meant only for those damages done not by the government itself, rabid statists that they were. (Yes, that was sarcasm.) My written reports available here: Denied petition for cert (this time around): http://tinyurl.com/zdmawmw Denied petition for cert (from the 2009 denial and five year banishment): http://tinyurl.com/zcypybh Related, not written by me: Amicus brief: http://tinyurl.com/hvh7qgp

  2. Justice has finally been served. So glad that Dr. Ley can finally sleep peacefully at night knowing the truth has finally come to the surface.

  3. While this right is guaranteed by our Constitution, it has in recent years been hampered by insurance companies, i.e.; the practice of the plaintiff's own insurance company intervening in an action and filing a lien against any proceeds paid to their insured. In essence, causing an additional financial hurdle for a plaintiff to overcome at trial in terms of overall award. In a very real sense an injured party in exercise of their right to trial by jury may be the only party in a cause that would end up with zero compensation.

  4. Why in the world would someone need a person to correct a transcript when a realtime court reporter could provide them with a transcript (rough draft) immediately?

  5. This article proved very enlightening. Right ahead of sitting the LSAT for the first time, I felt a sense of relief that a score of 141 was admitted to an Indiana Law School and did well under unique circumstances. While my GPA is currently 3.91 I fear standardized testing and hope that I too will get a good enough grade for acceptance here at home. Thanks so much for this informative post.

ADVERTISEMENT