ILNews

Protective order sought in law examiners case

Back to TopE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

The Indiana State Board of Law Examiners wants a U.S. District judge to issue a protective order stopping the ACLU of Indiana from obtaining what the agency describes as confidential information about bar applicants' answers to questions.

This is the latest litigation in a potential class action case of Jane Doe, et al. v. The Individual Members of the Indiana State Board of Law Examiners, No. 1:09-CV-842, which charges that the bar examination application violates the Americans with Disabilities Act because of certain mental health questions. The plaintiffs are an Indiana woman admitted in Illinois who wants to practice in her home state, as well as the student ACLU chapter at Indiana University School of Law - Indianapolis where individuals could be impacted by the controversial question.

Laura Bowker, deputy attorney general, filed the protective order motion Monday on grounds that disputed discovery requests from the civil liberties group were off-limits. Two reasons are cited: the information is deemed confidential by Rule 19 of the Indiana Rules for Admission to the Bar and the Discipline of Attorneys; and the request would be too difficult for the five-person office to compile even if it could.

Applicants for any given year total about 1,000, according to the BLE's brief. But wading through those applications by hand to review the questions and responses would be too burdensome for the state agency, it argues. While the ACLU of Indiana had originally sought answers from applications between 2006 and 2009, it has since indicated to the court and in its own brief that the request could be curtailed to only February to July 2009.

In his brief opposing the protective order filed Tuesday, ACLU of Indiana's legal counsel Ken Falk said this information is critical to the plaintiffs' class certification and overall case, and he poked holes in the BLE's argument that the data requested isn't available.

"The argument appears to be that although the questions challenged in this case are considered essential by the members and will, if answered affirmatively, lead to the burden of more reporting by the applicant and perhaps an evaluation by the Judges and Lawyers Assistance Program, no record is kept of those answering the questions affirmatively, who is evaluated, and whether the persons are allowed to sit for the bar or not. This is curious."

Of the confidentiality argument, Falk said he's seeking only the numbers of applicants who answered affirmatively to certain questions, not any names or private information that could be considered confidential. Falk compared the information requested to census data, which is available in statistical format publicly but that all other individual data is confidential. He also noted the BLE distributes membership information about the demographics of those who've taken the bar exam each year.

"The only conclusion that can be drawn from this is that anonymous statistical information is not deemed to be confidential by the Board of Law Examiners," Falk wrote.

The court hasn't issued a ruling on the issue or scheduled a date for any hearing on that point. Still pending before the court are a handful of other issues, such as whether class certification will be allowed.

ADVERTISEMENT

Sponsored by
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. Living in South Bend, I travel to Michigan a lot. Virtually every gas station sells cold beer there. Many sell the hard stuff too. Doesn't seem to be a big deal there.

  2. Mr. Ricker, how foolish of you to think that by complying with the law you would be ok. Don't you know that Indiana is a state that welcomes monopolies, and that Indiana's legislature is the one entity in this state that believes monopolistic practices (such as those engaged in by Indiana Association of Beverage Retailers) make Indiana a "business-friendly" state? How can you not see this????

  3. Actually, and most strikingly, the ruling failed to address the central issue to the whole case: Namely, Black Knight/LPS, who was NEVER a party to the State court litigation, and who is under a 2013 consent judgment in Indiana (where it has stipulated to the forgery of loan documents, the ones specifically at issue in my case)never disclosed itself in State court or remediated the forged loan documents as was REQUIRED of them by the CJ. In essence, what the court is willfully ignoring, is that it is setting a precedent that the supplier of a defective product, one whom is under a consent judgment stipulating to such, and under obligation to remediate said defective product, can: 1.) Ignore the CJ 2.) Allow counsel to commit fraud on the state court 3.) Then try to hide behind Rooker Feldman doctrine as a bar to being held culpable in federal court. The problem here is the court is in direct conflict with its own ruling(s) in Johnson v. Pushpin Holdings & Iqbal- 780 F.3d 728, at 730 “What Johnson adds - what the defendants in this suit have failed to appreciate—is that federal courts retain jurisdiction to award damages for fraud that imposes extrajudicial injury. The Supreme Court drew that very line in Exxon Mobil ... Iqbal alleges that the defendants conducted a racketeering enterprise that predates the state court’s judgments ...but Exxon Mobil shows that the Rooker Feldman doctrine asks what injury the plaintiff asks the federal court to redress, not whether the injury is “intertwined” with something else …Because Iqbal seeks damages for activity that (he alleges) predates the state litigation and caused injury independently of it, the Rooker-Feldman doctrine does not block this suit. It must be reinstated.” So, as I already noted to others, I now have the chance to bring my case to SCOTUS; the ruling by Wood & Posner is flawed on numerous levels,BUT most troubling is the fact that the authors KNOW it's a flawed ruling and choose to ignore the flaws for one simple reason: The courts have decided to agree with former AG Eric Holder that national banks "Are too big to fail" and must win at any cost-even that of due process, case precedent, & the truth....Let's see if SCOTUS wants a bite at the apple.

  4. I am in NJ & just found out that there is a judgment against me in an action by Driver's Solutions LLC in IN. I was never served with any Court pleadings, etc. and the only thing that I can find out is that they were using an old Staten Island NY address for me. I have been in NJ for over 20 years and cannot get any response from Drivers Solutions in IN. They have a different lawyer now. I need to get this vacated or stopped - it is now almost double & at 18%. Any help would be appreciated. Thank you.

  5. I am in NJ & just found out that there is a judgment against me in an action by Driver's Solutions LLC in IN. I was never served with any Court pleadings, etc. and the only thing that I can find out is that they were using an old Staten Island NY address for me. I have been in NJ for over 20 years and cannot get any response from Drivers Solutions in IN. They have a different lawyer now. I need to get this vacated or stopped - it is now almost double & at 18%. Any help would be appreciated. Thank you.

ADVERTISEMENT