ILNews

Justices rule governor doesn't have to testify in IBM case

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

On the same day it heard arguments, the Indiana Supreme Court reversed a Marion Superior judge’s ruling and held that Gov. Mitch Daniels does not have to testify or be deposed in an ongoing lawsuit over the cancelled contract to modernize the state’s welfare system.

The justices issued an order Monday afternoon in the case of State of Indiana v. International Business Machines Corporation, No. 49S00-1201-PL-15, which follows a ruling from Judge David Dreyer in December that Daniels shouldn’t be excused from appearing for a deposition because nothing in state statute, court precedent or public policy warrants that.

During the arguments, an attorney representing the state argued that the law protected Daniels from having to testify and that the state had provided more than 50 other employees for depositions in his place. But IBM’s attorneys argued that Daniels has specific detailed knowledge about the deal that others didn’t and he should be required to share that information.

Within hours of hearing the case, the justices said that making Daniels give a deposition is contrary to Indiana Code 34-29-2-1 that protects the governor and other high-ranking officials from testifying in civil cases. The order signed by Chief Justice Randall T. Shepard said a written opinion will follow to explain more fully the Supreme Court’s decision reversing the trial court’s order. Justice Frank Sullivan concurred in result.

A trial is scheduled before Dreyer Feb. 27 in the case. The state had agreed to pay IBM $1.37 billion over 10 years to modernize Indiana’s welfare system, but Daniels canceled the contract in 2009 because of complaints about the automated system. The state sued IBM in May 2010 to take back the $437 million it paid the company. IBM countersued, saying the state still owes the company about $100 million.

Last month, Dreyer awarded small victories to each side. He ruled the state should pay IBM $40 million in subcontractor assignment fees and capped the damages the state can seek at $125 million, but he declined to dismiss the case in IBM’s favor on a request for $43 million in deferred fees and for the state to return computers and equipment used in the project.

 

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. You can put your photos anywhere you like... When someone steals it they know it doesn't belong to them. And, a man getting a divorce is automatically not a nice guy...? That's ridiculous. Since when is need of money a conflict of interest? That would mean that no one should have a job unless they are already financially solvent without a job... A photographer is also under no obligation to use a watermark (again, people know when a photo doesn't belong to them) or provide contact information. Hey, he didn't make it easy for me to pay him so I'll just take it! Well heck, might as well walk out of the grocery store with a cart full of food because the lines are too long and you don't find that convenient. "Only in Indiana." Oh, now you're passing judgement on an entire state... What state do you live in? I need to characterize everyone in your state as ignorant and opinionated. And the final bit of ignorance; assuming a photo anyone would want is lucky and then how much does your camera have to cost to make it a good photo, in your obviously relevant opinion?

  2. Seventh Circuit Court Judge Diane Wood has stated in “The Rule of Law in Times of Stress” (2003), “that neither laws nor the procedures used to create or implement them should be secret; and . . . the laws must not be arbitrary.” According to the American Bar Association, Wood’s quote drives home this point: The rule of law also requires that people can expect predictable results from the legal system; this is what Judge Wood implies when she says that “the laws must not be arbitrary.” Predictable results mean that people who act in the same way can expect the law to treat them in the same way. If similar actions do not produce similar legal outcomes, people cannot use the law to guide their actions, and a “rule of law” does not exist.

  3. Linda, I sure hope you are not seeking a law license, for such eighteenth century sentiments could result in your denial in some jurisdictions minting attorneys for our tolerant and inclusive profession.

  4. Mazel Tov to the newlyweds. And to those bakers, photographers, printers, clerks, judges and others who will lose careers and social standing for not saluting the New World (Dis)Order, we can all direct our Two Minutes of Hate as Big Brother asks of us. Progress! Onward!

  5. My daughter was taken from my home at the end of June/2014. I said I would sign the safety plan but my husband would not. My husband said he would leave the house so my daughter could stay with me but the case worker said no her mind is made up she is taking my daughter. My daughter went to a friends and then the friend filed a restraining order which she was told by dcs if she did not then they would take my daughter away from her. The restraining order was not in effect until we were to go to court. Eventually it was dropped but for 2 months DCS refused to allow me to have any contact and was using the restraining order as the reason but it was not in effect. This was Dcs violating my rights. Please help me I don't have the money for an attorney. Can anyone take this case Pro Bono?

ADVERTISEMENT