State won't immediately appeal IBM 'deliberative processes' ruling

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

At least for now, the Indiana Court of Appeals isn’t being asked to consider a Marion County judge’s decision that held a “deliberative process” privilege exists in Indiana.

That means the state will be turning over thousands of documents, including e-mails from the governor and other state officials, relating to a cancelled $1.37 billion welfare system contract.

Released earlier this week, a notice filed Friday by attorneys representing the state notified the Marion Superior Court that they wouldn’t be initiating an interlocutory appeal in the consolidated case of State v. International Business Machines Corp. and IBM v. State, No. 49D10-1005-PL-021451, centering on the cancellation of IBM's contract to modernize the state's welfare system. The state sued last year trying to recoup hundreds of millions of dollars it had 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.

But a discovery question about what documents should be turned over became controversial, and the state asserted a “deliberative process” executive process shielding the documents from release. Judge David Dreyer ruled in February the privilege exists but it didn’t apply to many documents in this case. After a private review of more than 11,000 documents, the judge decided March 22 what documents must be turned over. The list included state employee e-mails and some from Gov. Mitch Daniels. The documents are to be released only to IBM and not be available for public review.

With the latest notice, the company’s attorney Andrew Hull says the documents and e-mails are already being turned over to IBM. The state will not exercise its immediate right to ask for an interlocutory appeal on this issue. But this doesn’t stop attorneys from ultimately appealing any final judgment from Judge Dreyer and raising these or other issues that may come up.

One of those issues could be a yet unresolved question about whether the governor and his chief of staff must participate in depositions. The state argues the two shouldn’t have to appear and has requested a protective order to stop this from happening, while IBM contends both were intimately involved with the project and should be transparent in revealing those details.

A hearing on that issue is set for April 18, while a hearing is set for other pending matters the following day.


Post a comment to this story

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
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. I think the cops are doing a great job locking up criminals. The Murder rates in the inner cities are skyrocketing and you think that too any people are being incarcerated. Maybe we need to lock up more of them. We have the ACLU, BLM, NAACP, Civil right Division of the DOJ, the innocent Project etc. We have court system with an appeal process that can go on for years, with attorneys supplied by the government. I'm confused as to how that translates into the idea that the defendants are not being represented properly. Maybe the attorneys need to do more Pro-Bono work

  2. We do not have 10% of our population (which would mean about 32 million) incarcerated. It's closer to 2%.

  3. If a class action suit or other manner of retribution is possible, count me in. I have email and voicemail from the man. He colluded with opposing counsel, I am certain. My case was damaged so severely it nearly lost me everything and I am still paying dearly.

  4. There's probably a lot of blame that can be cast around for Indiana Tech's abysmal bar passage rate this last February. The folks who decided that Indiana, a state with roughly 16,000 to 18,000 attorneys, needs a fifth law school need to question the motives that drove their support of this project. Others, who have been "strong supporters" of the law school, should likewise ask themselves why they believe this institution should be supported. Is it because it fills some real need in the state? Or is it, instead, nothing more than a resume builder for those who teach there part-time? And others who make excuses for the students' poor performance, especially those who offer nothing more than conspiracy theories to back up their claims--who are they helping? What evidence do they have to support their posturing? Ultimately, though, like most everything in life, whether one succeeds or fails is entirely within one's own hands. At least one student from Indiana Tech proved this when he/she took and passed the February bar. A second Indiana Tech student proved this when they took the bar in another state and passed. As for the remaining 9 who took the bar and didn't pass (apparently, one of the students successfully appealed his/her original score), it's now up to them (and nobody else) to ensure that they pass on their second attempt. These folks should feel no shame; many currently successful practicing attorneys failed the bar exam on their first try. These same attorneys picked themselves up, dusted themselves off, and got back to the rigorous study needed to ensure they would pass on their second go 'round. This is what the Indiana Tech students who didn't pass the first time need to do. Of course, none of this answers such questions as whether Indiana Tech should be accredited by the ABA, whether the school should keep its doors open, or, most importantly, whether it should have even opened its doors in the first place. Those who promoted the idea of a fifth law school in Indiana need to do a lot of soul-searching regarding their decisions. These same people should never be allowed, again, to have a say about the future of legal education in this state or anywhere else. Indiana already has four law schools. That's probably one more than it really needs. But it's more than enough.

  5. This man Steve Hubbard goes on any online post or forum he can find and tries to push his company. He said court reporters would be obsolete a few years ago, yet here we are. How does he have time to search out every single post about court reporters and even spy in private court reporting forums if his company is so successful???? Dude, get a life. And back to what this post was about, I agree that some national firms cause a huge problem.