ILNews

Judge: Governor doesn't have to testify in IBM case

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

Marion Superior Judge David Dreyer has ruled that Indiana Gov. Mitch Daniels doesn’t have to testify about his involvement in the cancelled multi-million dollar IBM contract to modernize the state’s welfare system.

In a three-page order Tuesday, the trial judge determined that current evidence in the case doesn’t allow him to determine at this time whether the governor falls under any purported exception in state statute calling for his testimony. As a result, ordering his deposition is precluded until at least the time the parties determine whether that need exists, the judge determined under Indiana Code 34-29-2-1(6).

“On one hand, the statute above clearly precludes a deposition of a sitting governor,” Judge Dreyer wrote. “On the other hand, an exception might be established since it is reasonable to expect any chief executive to have unique personal first-hand knowledge or experience in the management of a project of such magnitude as this IBM contract.”

That law says that discovery is possible if the governor’s testimony isn’t available from another source or if he had first-hand knowledge that can’t be reasonably obtained elsewhere in some less burdensome way, and that it would not significantly interfere with those office’s duties.

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 argues that Daniels took this on as a pet project and his depositions are needed.

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 10-year, $1.37 billion contract for the welfare system. The state sued last year trying to recoup hundreds of millions of dollars it paid the company before cancelling the contract in 2009, and the computer giant countersued on breach of contract allegations and argued the state still owes about $100 million.

Judge Dreyer previously ruled that 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 April 18 to delve into whether the governor and his chief of staff, Earl A. Goode, must appear for depositions.

In granting the state’s motion for protective order against Daniels’ testimony, this ruling means the governor is not required to testify at this time but that Goode isn’t privileged from subpoenas to testify.

Indianapolis attorney Andrew Hull issued a statement on behalf of his client, IBM, in response to the ruling.

“We are pleased that we will be able to question Earl Goode, the governor's top aide, who – presumably acting on behalf of the governor – was deeply involved in the project. But it is unfortunate that we will not be able to question Governor Daniels under oath at this time since he was personally involved from the earliest days of this project and was hands-on concerning project management – even praising IBM's efforts. Governor Daniels repeatedly has pledged transparency in government. The question remains concerning this project: ‘What is he trying to hide?’ We hope to eventually ask that question of Governor Daniels directly.”

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. Hey 2 psychs is never enough, since it is statistically unlikely that three will ever agree on anything! New study admits this pseudo science is about as scientifically valid as astrology ... done by via fortune cookie ....John Ioannidis, professor of health research and policy at Stanford University, said the study was impressive and that its results had been eagerly awaited by the scientific community. “Sadly, the picture it paints - a 64% failure rate even among papers published in the best journals in the field - is not very nice about the current status of psychological science in general, and for fields like social psychology it is just devastating,” he said. http://www.theguardian.com/science/2015/aug/27/study-delivers-bleak-verdict-on-validity-of-psychology-experiment-results

  2. Indianapolis Bar Association President John Trimble and I are on the same page, but it is a very large page with plenty of room for others to join us. As my final Res Gestae article will express in more detail in a few days, the Great Recession hastened a fundamental and permanent sea change for the global legal service profession. Every state bar is facing the same existential questions that thrust the medical profession into national healthcare reform debates. The bench, bar, and law schools must comprehensively reconsider how we define the practice of law and what it means to access justice. If the three principals of the legal service profession do not recast the vision of their roles and responsibilities soon, the marketplace will dictate those roles and responsibilities without regard for the public interests that the legal profession professes to serve.

  3. I have met some highly placed bureaucrats who vehemently disagree, Mr. Smith. This is not your father's time in America. Some ideas are just too politically incorrect too allow spoken, says those who watch over us for the good of their concept of order.

  4. Lets talk about this without forgetting that Lawyers, too, have FREEDOM OF SPEECH AND ASSOCIATION

  5. Baer filed with the U.S. Court of Appeals Seventh Circuit on April 30 2015. When will this be decided? How many more appeals does this guy have? Unbelievable this is dragging on like this.

ADVERTISEMENT