Comments on Advance Indiana™: Judge Dreyer Orders Daniels To Give Deposition In Welfare Privatization Lawsuit

No wonder Judge Dreyer is evaluated so highly by a...

2011-12-17T21:42:54.136-05:00

No wonder Judge Dreyer is evaluated so highly by attorneys who practice in Marion County. The deposition should be verrry interesting.

Rohshak, I would also say that what happened with...

2011-12-16T21:00:59.211-05:00

Rohshak,

I would also say that what happened with Gov. Orr was never appealed. So it never made it to the appellate court, never was published and never became precedent controlling in other cases.

Rohshak, My memory could be faulty, but as I reca...

2011-12-16T20:59:10.041-05:00

Rohshak,

My memory could be faulty, but as I recall I was at the AG's office (1987-1989) in the eminent domain section when we got a subpoena for Gov. Orr to testify in an ED matter. A defendant was unhappy about why the state opted for a certain road construction option over another, which as a result hit the homeowner. The homeowner's attorney asked to depose the governor to ask why that alternative was chosen.

As I recall, we vigorously tried to quash the subpoena and lost. The Governor had to testify, though limits were placed on the questioning of him.

What is interesting is that in that case the Governor truly had no first hand information - these type of decisions generally aren't made at the governor level. In this case though Governor Daniels probably does have first hand information and was one of the decision makers.

The legislature adopted a statute shielding the Governor and other high ranking people in state government from depositons. I don't know if the enactment of that statute post-dated the experience I remember with Gov. Orr. Even with a statute, prohibiting someone from deposing a decision-maker might violate other statutes or even the constitution.

His counsel's resignation to go to work for a ...

2011-12-16T18:12:45.490-05:00

His counsel's resignation to go to work for a big Pay To Play law firm in town has nothing to do with today's order. Just a case of another member of Daniels administration cashing in on government service. I believe in most cases the governor should be shielded from becoming entangled in the discovery process of routine litigation cases in which the state is involved. This was not a routine case. Gov. Daniels was intimately involved with this process from the get-go. He opened himself up to this, and I believe Judge Dreyer's ruling is well-founded. I believe IBM's lawyers should be allowed to depose him due to the unique circumstances of this case. Frankly, much of this would have been settled if the U.S. Attorney's office had long ago opened up a criminal investigation into this sordid mess as it should have done. This deal was done for the sole purpose of putting money in the pockets of Mitch Roob's former employer and Gov. Daniels big campaign contributors. It never had anything to do with saving taxpayers money or providing services more efficiently. This was plain to see for all who objectively looked at what was transpiring.

Greg Zoeller has already said the state will appea...

2011-12-16T17:49:47.153-05:00

Greg Zoeller has already said the state will appeal the ruling. Any ideas as to how likely they are to win on appeal or how they could lose? Also what would you tell the Governor to do if you were his lawyer? Interestingly the Governor has also gotten a new general counsel today. Dont think that is an accident! Lastly Paul Ogden I think stated that Governor's in Indiana have been compelled to give depositions before. So why is Peter Rusthoven saying there is no precedent?

Worse yet, B&T continues to represent ACS, and...

2011-12-16T14:18:38.047-05:00

Worse yet, B&T continues to represent ACS, and B&T says in its contract to represent FSSA that the law firm might have to sue current client ACS. They say ACS consented to the conflict and that the law firm will erect a Chinese Wall isolating the attorneys representing both parties if they do sue ACS.

Well of course ACS consented to the conflict. ACS knows that current counsel B&T is not about to sue them because then B&T might lose ACS' business. The problem for B&T is that the ethical rules say this is a non-waivable conflict of interest.