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
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. Paul Ogden doing a fine job of remembering his peer Gary Welsh with the post below and a call for an Indy gettogether to celebrate Gary .... http://www.ogdenonpolitics.com/2016/05/indiana-loses-citizen-journalist-giant.html Castaways of Indiana, unite!

  2. It's unfortunate that someone has attempted to hijack the comments to promote his own business. This is not an article discussing the means of preserving the record; no matter how it's accomplished, ethics and impartiality are paramount concerns. When a party to litigation contracts directly with a reporting firm, it creates, at the very least, the appearance of a conflict of interest. Court reporters, attorneys and judges are officers of the court and must abide by court rules as well as state and federal laws. Parties to litigation have no such ethical responsibilities. Would we accept insurance companies contracting with judges? This practice effectively shifts costs to the party who can least afford it while reducing costs for the party with the most resources. The success of our justice system depends on equal access for all, not just for those who have the deepest pockets.

  3. As a licensed court reporter in California, I have to say that I'm sure that at some point we will be replaced by speech recognition. However, from what I've seen of it so far, it's a lot farther away than three years. It doesn't sound like Mr. Hubbard has ever sat in a courtroom or a deposition room where testimony is being given. Not all procedures are the same, and often they become quite heated with the ends of question and beginning of answers overlapping. The human mind can discern the words to a certain extent in those cases, but I doubt very much that a computer can yet. There is also the issue of very heavy accents and mumbling. People speak very fast nowadays, and in order to do that, they generally slur everything together, they drop or swallow words like "the" and "and." Voice recognition might be able to produce some form of a transcript, but I'd be very surprised if it produces an accurate or verbatim transcript, as is required in the legal world.

  4. Really enjoyed the profile. Congratulations to Craig on living the dream, and kudos to the pros who got involved to help him realize the vision.

  5. Why in the world would someone need a person to correct a transcript when a realtime court reporter could provide them with a transcript (rough draft) immediately?

ADVERTISEMENT