IBM litigation explores executive privilege issue

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

A Marion Superior judge has ordered Indiana state officials to turn over thousands of documents relating to the state’s cancellation of a welfare system modernization, ruling on an issue of first impression about whether a “deliberative processes” executive privilege exists in Indiana.

Two rulings by Judge David Dreyer since early February open the door for the state’s highest appellate courts to tackle an issue they have not considered and ruled on before, and the state’s legal team is deciding in the next 10 days whether an appeal will be filed to have that question resolved.

The ruling Tuesday outlines what Indiana must turn over in the suit and countersuits of State of Indiana v. IBM and IBM v. State of Indiana, No. 49D10-1005-PL-021451, which centers on the cancellation of IBM's $1.37 billion contract to modernize the state's welfare system. The state sued IBM in May to try and recoup $437 million it had paid to the company before cancelling the 10-year contract in 2009, as a result of what the governor described as three years of complaints about the automated system. The computer giant countersued, claiming breach of contract and saying the state still owes about $100 million.

As the discovery has progressed, both sides are disputing what materials should be available and are also arguing about whether Gov. Mitch Daniels and his chief of staff Earl Goode should have to appear for depositions in the lawsuits. The state’s legal team requested a protective order during a March 18 hearing to keep the two executive branch leaders from providing “unnecessary and burdensome depositions,” while IBM’s attorney argued that Daniels was a key player in the project and can provide insight into what happened.

Ruling on the “deliberative processes" issue in February, Judge Dreyer determined that this type of executive privilege does apply in Indiana but that it may not apply to the materials in this particular state-initiated litigation. That ruling relied on federal law and other state statutes and court rulings addressing the qualified executive privilege, and the judge found guidance in Indiana statutes and legislative discussion about maintaining a “clear and deliberate regard” for executive privilege involving decision-making material.

Judge Dreyer also determined that this type of privilege should be allowed in civil litigation, citing an Ohio case from 2006 as a key guidance on that.

“Although not provided by statute, or directly found in Indiana common law, it is simply untenable to find an executive privilege can not apply to Indiana civil discovery,” he wrote. “Otherwise, there is no executive communication that is not discoverable – any lawsuit with minimally adequate allegations may suffice. As Indiana law generally endorses the public interest policy and application of executive privilege, civil discovery is at least analogous to, if not directly bound by, the weight of this surrounding authority.”

After that initial ruling, the state in early March turned over the documents in question for Judge Dreyer to review privately in order to make his decision.

The second order came Tuesday, when Judge Dreyer detailed specifically what should be produced by the state. Prior to making his ruling, he reviewed more than 11,000 documents that involved state employee e-mails, some from Daniels, as well as many more relating to the IBM contract and system. He wrote that more than half of the substantive materials involving e-mail strings are non-deliberative and include procedural manuals, public articles, charts and data graphs, and technical materials; and that some of the e-mails are more informative and functional rather than deliberative.

The items determined not to be deliberative will be turned over to IBM, but they will not be available for public review. That order may be appealed, in conjunction with the legal analysis outlined in the Feb. 5 ruling.

No ruling has been issued about whether Daniels and Goode will have to participate in depositions.



Post a comment to this story

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
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. Great observation Smith. By my lights, speaking personally, they already have. They counted my religious perspective in a pro-life context as a symptom of mental illness and then violated all semblance of due process to banish me for life from the Indiana bar. The headline reveals the truth of the Hoosier elite's animus. Details here: Denied 2016 petition for cert (this time around): (“2016Pet”) Amicus brief 2016: (“2016Amici”) As many may recall, I was banned for five years for failing to "repent" of my religious views on life and the law when a bar examiner demanded it of me, resulting in a time out to reconsider my "clinging." The time out did not work, so now I am banned for life. Here is the five year time out order: Denied 2010 petition for cert (from the 2009 denial and five year banishment): (“2010Pet”) Read this quickly if you are going to read it, the elites will likely demand it be pulled down or pile comments on to bury it. (As they have buried me.)

  2. if the proabortion zealots and intolerant secularist anti-religious bigots keep on shutting down every hint of religious observance in american society, or attacking every ounce of respect that the state may have left for it, they may just break off their teeth.

  3. "drug dealers and traffickers need to be locked up". "we cannot afford just to continue to build prisons". "drug abuse is strangling many families and communities". "establishing more treatment and prevention programs will also be priorities". Seems to be what politicians have been saying for at least three decades now. If these are the most original thoughts these two have on the issues of drug trafficking and drug abuse, then we're no closer to solving the problem than we were back in the 90s when crack cocaine was the epidemic. We really need to begin demanding more original thought from those we elect to office. We also need to begin to accept that each of us is part of the solution to a problem that government cannot solve.

  4. What is with the bias exclusion of the only candidate that made sense, Rex Bell? The Democrat and Republican Party have created this problem, why on earth would anyone believe they are able to fix it without pushing government into matters it doesn't belong?

  5. This is what happens when daddy hands over a business to his moron son and thinks that everything will be ok. this bankruptcy is nothing more than Gary pulling the strings to never pay the creditors that he and his son have ripped off. they are scum and they know it.