ILNews

Judge: Governor can be deposed

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

Indiana Gov. Mitch Daniels shouldn’t be excused from appearing for a deposition in a lawsuit challenging the cancelled multi-million dollar contract with IBM to modernize the state’s welfare system, according to Marion Superior Judge David Dreyer.

The trial judge issued a ruling Thursday that held neither state statute, court precedent or public policy warrants Daniels being excused from having to appear to discuss his decision-making and knowledge of the now-cancelled, 10-year contract worth $1.37 billion.

“The effect and consequences of not allowing the deposition are simply untenable,” Dreyer wrote. “Under such an interpretation, the Statute is at best unwise when so much public money depends upon the outcome. But lack of wisdom is not grounds to depose a governor.”

This is the latest ruling in the consolidated suit and countersuit of State v. International Business Machines Corp. and IBM v. State, No. 49D10-1005-PL-021451, centering on the cancelled contract between the state and IBM for the modernization of the state’s welfare system. The state sued last year trying to recoup hundreds of millions of dollars it had paid IBM before cancelling the contract in 2009. The computer giant countersued on breach of contract allegations and argued the state still owes about $100 million.

Dreyer had earlier this year ruled the state must turn over thousands of pages of documents, including emails from the governor and other state officials, relating to that cancelled contract. The state decided not to immediately appeal that ruling about “deliberative” documents and privilege, and the judge held a hearing in April about whether the governor and chief of staff, Earl A. Goode, must appear for depositions.

The state argued that Daniels delegates day-to-day management of the governor’s office and doesn’t have any “unique substantial knowledge” of that contract, while IBM argued that Daniels took this on as a pet project and his depositions are needed.

Dreyer initially ruled Daniels didn’t have to testify about his involvement, based on evidence he had reviewed at the time, and that no exception in state statute warranted his testimony.

But after further review and consideration, Dreyer found that Indiana Code 34-29-2-1 is open to multiple interpretations. Only one reported case, Government Supplies Consolidating Servs., Inc. v. Bayh, 753 F. Supp. 739 (S.D. Ind. 1993), addresses the issue, but it focuses on federal privilege law and not the state statute.

The ruling this week is narrow and isn’t meant to apply in all situations or create any lasting exception to the state statute, Dreyer wrote.

 

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. Indiana's seatbelt law is not punishable as a crime. It is an infraction. Apparently some of our Circuit judges have deemed settled law inapplicable if it fails to fit their litmus test of political correctness. Extrapolating to redefine terms of behavior in a violation of immigration law to the entire body of criminal law leaves a smorgasbord of opportunity for judicial mischief.

  2. I wonder if $10 diversions for failure to wear seat belts are considered moral turpitude in federal immigration law like they are under Indiana law? Anyone know?

  3. 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

  4. 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.

  5. 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.

ADVERTISEMENT