ILNews

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.


 

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. Call it unauthorized law if you must, a regulatory wrong, but it was fraud and theft well beyond that, a seeming crime! "In three specific cases, the hearing officer found that Westerfield did little to no work for her clients but only issued a partial refund or no refund at all." That is theft by deception, folks. "In its decision to suspend Westerfield, the Supreme Court noted that she already had a long disciplinary history dating back to 1996 and had previously been suspended in 2004 and indefinitely suspended in 2005. She was reinstated in 2009 after finally giving the commission a response to the grievance for which she was suspended in 2004." WOW -- was the Indiana Supreme Court complicit in her fraud? Talk about being on notice of a real bad actor .... "Further, the justices noted that during her testimony, Westerfield was “disingenuous and evasive” about her relationship with Tope and attempted to distance herself from him. They also wrote that other aggravating factors existed in Westerfield’s case, such as her lack of remorse." WOW, and yet she only got 18 months on the bench, and if she shows up and cries for them in a year and a half, and pays money to JLAP for group therapy ... back in to ride roughshod over hapless clients (or are they "marks") once again! Aint Hoosier lawyering a great money making adventure!!! Just live for the bucks, even if filthy lucre, and come out a-ok. ME on the other hand??? Lifetime banishment for blowing the whistle on unconstitutional governance. Yes, had I ripped off clients or had ANY disciplinary history for doing that I would have fared better, most likely, as that it would have revealed me motivated by Mammon and not Faith. Check it out if you doubt my reading of this, compare and contrast the above 18 months with my lifetime banishment from court, see appendix for Bar Examiners report which the ISC adopted without substantive review: https://www.scribd.com/doc/299040839/2016Petitionforcert-to-SCOTUS

  2. Wow, over a quarter million dollars? That is a a lot of commissary money! Over what time frame? Years I would guess. Anyone ever try to blow the whistle? Probably not, since most Hoosiers who take notice of such things realize that Hoosier whistleblowers are almost always pilloried. If someone did blow the whistle, they were likely fired. The persecution of whistleblowers is a sure sign of far too much government corruption. Details of my own personal experience at the top of Hoosier governance available upon request ... maybe a "fake news" media outlet will have the courage to tell the stories of Hoosier whistleblowers that the "real" Hoosier media (cough) will not deign to touch. (They are part of the problem.)

  3. So if I am reading it right, only if and when African American college students agree to receive checks labeling them as "Negroes" do they receive aid from the UNCF or the Quaker's Educational Fund? In other words, to borrow from the Indiana Appellate Court, "the [nonprofit] supposed to be [their] advocate, refers to [students] in a racially offensive manner. While there is no evidence that [the nonprofits] intended harm to [African American students], the harm was nonetheless inflicted. [Black students are] presented to [academia and future employers] in a racially offensive manner. For these reasons, [such] performance [is] deficient and also prejudice[ial]." Maybe even DEPLORABLE???

  4. I'm the poor soul who spent over 10 years in prison with many many other prisoners trying to kill me for being charged with a sex offense THAT I DID NOT COMMIT i was in jail for a battery charge for helping a friend leave a boyfriend who beat her I've been saying for over 28 years that i did not and would never hurt a child like that mine or anybody's child but NOBODY wants to believe that i might not be guilty of this horrible crime or think that when i say that ALL the paperwork concerning my conviction has strangely DISAPPEARED or even when the long beach judge re-sentenced me over 14 months on a already filed plea bargain out of another districts court then had it filed under a fake name so i could not find while trying to fight my conviction on appeal in a nut shell people are ALWAYS quick to believe the worst about some one well I DID NOT HURT ANY CHILD EVER IN MY LIFE AND HAVE SAID THIS FOR ALMOST 30 YEARS please if anybody can me get some kind of justice it would be greatly appreciated respectfully written wrongly accused Brian Valenti

  5. A high ranking Indiana supreme Court operative caught red handed leading a group using the uber offensive N word! She must denounce or be denounced! (Or not since she is an insider ... rules do not apply to them). Evidence here: http://m.indianacompanies.us/friends-educational-fund-for-negroes.364110.company.v2#top_info

ADVERTISEMENT