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. I need an experienced attorney to handle a breach of contract matter. Kindly respond for more details. Graham Young

  2. I thought the slurs were the least grave aspects of her misconduct, since they had nothing to do with her being on the bench. Why then do I suspect they were the focus? I find this a troubling trend. At least she was allowed to keep her law license.

  3. Section 6 of Article I of the Indiana Constitution is pretty clear and unequivocal: "Section 6. No money shall be drawn from the treasury for the benefit of any religious or theological institution."

  4. Video pen? Nice work, "JW"! Let this be a lesson and a caution to all disgruntled ex-spouses (or soon-to-be ex-spouses) . . . you may think that altercation is going to get you some satisfaction . . . it will not.

  5. First comment on this thread is a fitting final comment on this thread, as that the MCBA never answered Duncan's fine question, and now even Eric Holder agrees that the MCBA was in material error as to the facts: "I don't get it" from Duncan December 1, 2014 5:10 PM "The Grand Jury met for 25 days and heard 70 hours of testimony according to this article and they made a decision that no crime occurred. On what basis does the MCBA conclude that their decision was "unjust"? What special knowledge or evidence does the MCBA have that the Grand Jury hearing this matter was unaware of? The system that we as lawyers are sworn to uphold made a decision that there was insufficient proof that officer committed a crime. How can any of us say we know better what was right than the jury that actually heard all of the the evidence in this case."

ADVERTISEMENT