IBJNews

Indiana fair lawsuits won't go to trial until 2014

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

A group of lawsuits related to last summer's deadly Indiana State Fair stage collapse likely won't go to trial for nearly two years, according to a judge's ruling that also warned attorneys not to release any evidence in the high-profile case.

Marion Superior Court Judge Theodore Sosin released an order acknowledging that most attorneys in the case want a trial no earlier than April 1, 2014. The judge didn't set a trial date but ordered both sides into mediation to try to work out a settlement.

The order also warns lawyers that they could face sanctions if they say anything or disclose evidence that might prejudice court proceedings, noting such a move would violate a protective order and legal codes of conduct.

"The court acknowledges that this case has and will continue to generate significant pretrial publicity," Sosin wrote.

The judge didn't rule out sanctions for past transgressions.

At a May 9 hearing, Sosin criticized attorney Kenneth J. Allen, who is representing several victims and their families, for releasing portions of a videotaped deposition by Sugarland lead singer Jennifer Nettles. Stage rigging fell onto a crowd of people waiting for the country music duo to take the stage as stormy weather moved in on Aug. 13. Seven people were killed and dozens were injured.

Allen said Wednesday that he released the Nettles video April 16 in response to misleading statements by Sugarland's publicists.

"All we've tried to do is to ... control what we believe to be the false assertions made by the other side. And I think that's what the rule contemplates," Allen said. "We have the right and duty to rebut it and that's what we've done."

Sugarland's spokesman declined comment Wednesday.

Allen also said he wasn't the first to release depositions taken from witnesses in the case. Mid-America Sound Corp., which built the roof and rigging used to hold the lights and sound equipment at the concert, released portions of a deposition in January by Indiana State Fair Commission executive director Cindy Hoye.

A spokeswoman for Mid-America also declined comment, citing the judge's order.

Victims and survivors' families who are seeking millions of dollars in damages have filed lawsuits against various entities involved in the show.

The judge's order, dated May 24, outlines a plan to consolidate pretrial preparation for the lawsuits. It also requires attorneys for both sides to take part in mediation toward possible settlements before Dec. 31, 2013.

The state government's liability is limited to $5 million by state law, but state lawmakers voted in March to give an additional $6 million to the stage collapse victims.

Allen said he was disappointed with the suggested trial timing but pleased with the overall ruling.

"We believe that the case could be tried easily within a year," said Allen, whose clients were the only ones requesting an earlier trial date.

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 IBJ 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

facebook - twitter on Facebook & Twitter

Follow on TwitterFollow IBJ on Facebook:
Follow on TwitterFollow IBJ's Tweets on these topics:
 
Subscribe to IBJ
  1. By Mr. Lee's own admission, he basically ran pro-bono ads on the billboard. Paying advertisers didn't want ads on a controversial, ugly billboard that turned off customers. At least one of Mr. Lee's free advertisers dropped out early because they found that Mr. Lee's advertising was having negative impact. So Mr. Lee is disingenous to say the city now owes him for lost revenue. Mr. Lee quickly realized his monstrosity had a dim future and is trying to get the city to bail him out. And that's why the billboard came down so quickly.

  2. Merchants Square is back. The small strip center to the south of 116th is 100% leased, McAlister’s is doing well in the outlot building. The former O’Charleys is leased but is going through permitting with the State and the town of Carmel. Mac Grill is closing all of their Indy locations (not just Merchants) and this will allow for a new restaurant concept to backfill both of their locations. As for the north side of 116th a new dinner movie theater and brewery is under construction to fill most of the vacancy left by Hobby Lobby and Old Navy.

  3. Yes it does have an ethics commission which enforce the law which prohibits 12 specific items. google it

  4. Thanks for reading and replying. If you want to see the differentiation for research, speaking and consulting, check out the spreadsheet I linked to at the bottom of the post; it is broken out exactly that way. I can only include so much detail in a blog post before it becomes something other than a blog post.

  5. 1. There is no allegation of corruption, Marty, to imply otherwise if false. 2. Is the "State Rule" a law? I suspect not. 3. Is Mr. Woodruff obligated via an employment agreement (contractual obligation) to not work with the engineering firm? 4. In many states a right to earn a living will trump non-competes and other contractual obligations, does Mr. Woodruff's personal right to earn a living trump any contractual obligations that might or might not be out there. 5. Lawyers in state government routinely go work for law firms they were formally working with in their regulatory actions. You can see a steady stream to firms like B&D from state government. It would be interesting for IBJ to do a review of current lawyers and find out how their past decisions affected the law firms clients. Since there is a buffer between regulated company and the regulator working for a law firm technically is not in violation of ethics but you have to wonder if decisions were made in favor of certain firms and quid pro quo jobs resulted. Start with the DOI in this review. Very interesting.

ADVERTISEMENT