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
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. The is an unsigned editorial masquerading as a news story. Almost everyone quoted was biased in favor of letting all illegal immigrants remain in the U.S. (Ignoring that Obama deported 3.5 million in 8 years). For some reason Obama enforcing part of the immigration laws was O.K. but Trump enforcing additional parts is terrible. I have listed to press conferences and explanations of the Homeland Security memos and I gather from them that less than 1 million will be targeted for deportation, the "dreamers" will be left alone and illegals arriving in the last two years -- especially those arriving very recently -- will be subject to deportation but after the criminals. This will not substantially affect the GDP negatively, especially as it will take place over a number of years. I personally think this is a rational approach to the illegal immigration problem. It may cause Congress to finally pass new immigration laws rationalizing the whole immigration situation.

  2. Mr. Straw, I hope you prevail in the fight. Please show us fellow American's that there is a way to fight the corrupted justice system and make them an example that you and others will not be treated unfairly. I hope you the best and good luck....

  3. @ President Snow - Nah, why try to fix something that ain't broken??? You do make an excellent point. I am sure some Mickey or Minnie Mouse will take Ruckers seat, I wonder how his retirement planning is coming along???

  4. Can someone please explain why Judge Barnes, Judge Mathias and Chief Judge Vaidik thought it was OK to re weigh the evidence blatantly knowing that by doing so was against the rules and went ahead and voted in favor of the father? I would love to ask them WHY??? I would also like to ask the three Supreme Justices why they thought it was OK too.

  5. How nice, on the day of my car accident on the way to work at the Indiana Supreme Court. Unlike the others, I did not steal any money or do ANYTHING unethical whatsoever. I am suing the Indiana Supreme Court and appealed the failure of the district court in SDIN to protect me. I am suing the federal judge because she failed to protect me and her abandonment of jurisdiction leaves her open to lawsuits because she stripped herself of immunity. I am a candidate for Indiana Supreme Court justice, and they imposed just enough sanction so that I am made ineligible. I am asking the 7th Circuit to remove all of them and appoint me as the new Chief Justice of Indiana. That's what they get for dishonoring my sacrifice and and violating the ADA in about 50 different ways.

ADVERTISEMENT