Indiana judge declines to release Sugarland testimony

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

A judge hearing several lawsuits filed over last summer's Indiana State Fair stage collapse declined Wednesday to release depositions from country duo Sugarland and told a plaintiff's attorney he shouldn't have publicized videotaped portions of the lead singer's testimony last month.

Marion Superior Court Judge Theodore Sosin also told attorneys for numerous parties involved in those lawsuits that he'll rule by early next week on a schedule for moving those suits toward resolution and may also expand an existing gag order.

Just before Sugarland was scheduled to take the stage for a concert the night of Aug. 13, stage rigging collapsed, killing seven people and injured nearly 60 others. Fair officials say they had a concert promoter ask the band twice to delay the concert because of concerns about severe weather, but were rebuffed.

Valparaiso attorney Kenneth J. Allen, who represents several of the victims, released videotaped portions of Sugarland lead singer Jennifer Nettles' deposition. He said he released that video in response to what he called inaccurate statements by the band's publicists.

Nettles said in the deposition she was told about 90 minutes before the scheduled start of the concert that weather was coming but wasn't specifically told it was a severe thunderstorm. She said she relies on others to alert her about weather.

Allen asked the court Wednesday for permission to release full transcript of Nettles' deposition and also that of fellow band member Kristian Bush. He said those documents would help his clients counter what he called misleading statements by Sugarland's "publicity machine."

"Our problem is our clients don't have publicists," Allen told the judge.

Bill Johnson, an attorney for the band's ownership company, Lucky Star Inc., told Sosin with sarcasm that he considers Allen's comments "very interesting."

Johnson said four of the five statements released by Sugarland's publicists had been drafted as direct responses to comments made or statements released by Allen. He also said the selected portions of Nettles' video deposition that Allen had released was a "stunt" to cast Sugarland in a bad light and suggest the bad somehow contributed to the tragedy.

"They're the entertainers and they caused it — that's the spin he's put on it," Johnson told the judge.

Sosin said he would not allow the release of Nettles and Bush's depositions because they're covered by a gag order he approved in January barring the release of certain evidence. The judge said that he'll rule early next week on whether to expand the scope of that protective order.

Sosin also reminded the attorneys that they are all subject to standards of ethical conduct and could face repercussions if they violate those standards. He also criticized Allen for attaching the band members' full deposition to his motion seeking the release of those transcripts.

"Even my court reporter, who has no legal training, said 'He attached the full deposition and he didn't mark it as confidential," Sosin said. "I hope that method of transmission does not happen again."

The judge said he will also rule early next week on a proposed agreement by several parties to the lawsuits that calls for them to go to trial after April 1, 2014 and sets other dates for the discovery process and mediation involving the suits.

A motion filed by Allen last week proposed an earlier trial date, specifying they start after Aug. 1, 2013. His motion said the proposed "deadlines are too long and only serve to delay the ultimate resolution of the matters and increase the parties' costs."

"We believe we've done everything to get this case ready for trial," Allen told the judge Wednesday.

Attorney for other parties either suing or being sued over the rigging collapse told Sosin they need the extra time to collect information such as depositions and other discovery material to prepare for trial.


  • Sugarless - too funny!
    Love the Sugarless barb. That was genius! I see both sides but when big money is involved, I see why the Judge did it and not for the reason that the other two mention. It is more sinister. I am willing to bet a week's worth of salary that Sugarland did indeed flex its muscle that night(We HAVE to play we HAVE to get to IOWA!). I bet that the Fair got scared that they would breach some part of the contract. Have you seen those contracts and riders for Fair concerts. Don't have the right amount of Perrier? Breach! Don't have the right color tablke cloth? Breach. Don't get us outloaded by 11 PM, so we can get to Iowa? Breach, breach, breach!
  • Leaks are not productive
    The action is to protect the evidence, not Sugarland. Releasing the depositions causes information to be taken maliciously out of context which can result in more hurt than is necessary. The bottom line is that the State Fair has to be responsible for their facilities. No one, not entertainers, customers nor exhibitors can make these types of safety decisions. Others can try, but the State Fair has the obligation to control and safeguard their facilities.
  • No Rights to Depositions
    Ramz . . . it matters not who the defendent is, the public does NOT have the right to deposition testimony. The public has the right to hear/view testimony given in open court. But testimony in a deposition does not have the rules of evidence in place, in fact, it does not have to even be related to the cause of action . . .only a "reasonably related" to the case to potentially provide evidence. That is a fairly low standard and allows the questions to be very broad and cover areas that may not be anyone's business and not things in the public's interst.
  • This is taking too long...
    Quite honestly, people have the right to hear this especially the victims' families and the public at large. To put a gag order on this to protect sugarless is pretty irresponsible in my view and I'm sure others as well.

    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 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

    facebook - twitter on Facebook & Twitter

    Follow on TwitterFollow IBJ on Facebook:
    Follow on TwitterFollow IBJ's Tweets on these topics:
    Subscribe to IBJ
    1. PJ - Mall operators like Simon, and most developers/ land owners, establish individual legal entities for each property to avoid having a problem location sink the ship, or simply structure the note to exclude anything but the property acting as collateral. Usually both. The big banks that lend are big boys that know the risks and aren't mad at Simon for forking over the deed and walking away.

    2. Do any of the East side residence think that Macy, JC Penny's and the other national tenants would have letft the mall if they were making money?? I have read several post about how Simon neglected the property but it sounds like the Eastsiders stopped shopping at the mall even when it was full with all of the national retailers that you want to come back to the mall. I used to work at the Dick's at Washington Square and I know for a fact it's the worst performing Dick's in the Indianapolis market. You better start shopping there before it closes also.

    3. How can any company that has the cash and other assets be allowed to simply foreclose and not pay the debt? Simon, pay the debt and sell the property yourself. Don't just stiff the bank with the loan and require them to find a buyer.

    4. If you only knew....

    5. The proposal is structured in such a way that a private company (who has competitors in the marketplace) has struck a deal to get "financing" through utility ratepayers via IPL. Competitors to BlueIndy are at disadvantage now. The story isn't "how green can we be" but how creative "financing" through captive ratepayers benefits a company whose proposal should sink or float in the competitive marketplace without customer funding. If it was a great idea there would be financing available. IBJ needs to be doing a story on the utility ratemaking piece of this (which is pretty complicated) but instead it suggests that folks are whining about paying for being green.