ILNews

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.
 

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. First comment on this thread is a fitting final comment on this thread, as that the MCBA never answered Duncan's fine question, and now even Eric Holder agrees that the MCBA was in material error as to the facts: "I don't get it" from Duncan December 1, 2014 5:10 PM "The Grand Jury met for 25 days and heard 70 hours of testimony according to this article and they made a decision that no crime occurred. On what basis does the MCBA conclude that their decision was "unjust"? What special knowledge or evidence does the MCBA have that the Grand Jury hearing this matter was unaware of? The system that we as lawyers are sworn to uphold made a decision that there was insufficient proof that officer committed a crime. How can any of us say we know better what was right than the jury that actually heard all of the the evidence in this case."

  2. wow is this a bunch of bs! i know the facts!

  3. MCBA .... time for a new release about your entire membership (or is it just the alter ego) being "saddened and disappointed" in the failure to lynch a police officer protecting himself in the line of duty. But this time against Eric Holder and the Federal Bureau of Investigation: "WASHINGTON — Justice Department lawyers will recommend that no civil rights charges be brought against the police officer who fatally shot an unarmed teenager in Ferguson, Mo., after an F.B.I. investigation found no evidence to support charges, law enforcement officials said Wednesday." http://www.nytimes.com/2015/01/22/us/justice-department-ferguson-civil-rights-darren-wilson.html?ref=us&_r=0

  4. Dr wail asfour lives 3 hours from the hospital,where if he gets an emergency at least he needs three hours,while even if he is on call he should be in a location where it gives him max 10 minutes to be beside the patient,they get paid double on their on call days ,where look how they handle it,so if the death of the patient occurs on weekend and these doctors still repeat same pattern such issue should be raised,they should be closer to the patient.on other hand if all the death occured on the absence of the Dr and the nurses handle it,the nurses should get trained how to function appearntly they not that good,if the Dr lives 3 hours far from the hospital on his call days he should sleep in the hospital

  5. It's a capital offense...one for you Latin scholars..

ADVERTISEMENT