ILNews

Spierer civil suit discovery halted; claims called ‘precarious’

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

The federal civil lawsuit naming two former Indiana University students who were among the last to see missing IU freshman Lauren Spierer will proceed, but a judge Monday narrowed the inquiry regarding one defendant and halted discovery in the meantime.

Spierer was last seen near the Bloomington campus in the early morning hours of June 3, 2011, after a night of drinking and club-hopping with fellow students. No one has been charged in her disappearance, but Spierer’s parents sued those who were the last to see her and who are alleged to have supplied her alcohol.

U.S. District Court Magistrate Tim Baker on Monday issued an order granting Jason Rosenbaum’s motion to bifurcate the case against him and limit discovery to issues relating to proximate cause.

“In considering these issues, it is relevant and appropriate to consider the seemingly precarious posture of the Spierers’ remaining claims,” Baker wrote in granting Rosenbaum’s motion in Robert Evan Spierer and Mary Charlene Spierer v. Corey Rossman and Jason Rosenbaum, 1:13-CV-991.

“In light of the foregoing developments, particularly the fully briefed summary judgment motion, the Court is hard-pressed to see why discovery should not be halted,” Baker wrote. “For now, the Court grants the motion to bifurcate and stays further discovery pending a discovery hearing, at which time the motions to quash will be addressed along with any remaining discovery issues.”

Baker set that hearing for 2 p.m. May 28 at the Birch Bayh Federal Courthouse in Indianapolis.

The Spierers claim Rosenbaum and Rossman should face civil liability for negligence per se and dram shop. A third defendant, Michael Beth, was previously dismissed from the case, and Judge Tanya Walton Pratt in December dismissed other counts against Rosenbaum and Rothman.

 





 

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. Well, maybe it's because they are unelected, and, they have a tendency to strike down laws by elected officials from all over the country. When you have been taught that "Democracy" is something almost sacred, then, you will have a tendency to frown on such imperious conduct. Lawyers get acculturated in law school into thinking that this is the very essence of high minded government, but to people who are more heavily than King George ever did, they may not like it. Thanks for the information.

  2. I pd for a bankruptcy years ago with Mr Stiles and just this week received a garnishment from my pay! He never filed it even though he told me he would! Don't let this guy practice law ever again!!!

  3. Excellent initiative on the part of the AG. Thankfully someone takes action against predators taking advantage of people who have already been through the wringer. Well done!

  4. Conour will never turn these funds over to his defrauded clients. He tearfully told the court, and his daughters dutifully pledged in interviews, that his first priority is to repay every dime of the money he stole from his clients. Judge Young bought it, much to the chagrin of Conour’s victims. Why would Conour need the $2,262 anyway? Taxpayers are now supporting him, paying for his housing, utilities, food, healthcare, and clothing. If Conour puts the money anywhere but in the restitution fund, he’s proved, once again, what a con artist he continues to be and that he has never had any intention of repaying his clients. Judge Young will be proven wrong... again; Conour has no remorse and the Judge is one of the many conned.

  5. Pass Legislation to require guilty defendants to pay for the costs of lab work, etc as part of court costs...

ADVERTISEMENT