IBJNews

Indiana Supreme Court will hear IBM case

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

The Indiana Supreme Court will decide whether Gov. Mitch Daniels must appear for a deposition and testify in an ongoing lawsuit challenging the cancelled IBM contract to modernize the state’s welfare system.

An order issued by the state’s justices Monday grants the expedited briefing schedule and appeal of Judge David Dreyer’s ruling.

In December, the trial court judge ruled that nothing in state statute, court precedent or public policy allows Daniels to be excused from having to testify about his decisions and knowledge of the now-cancelled, 10-year contract worth $1.37 billion. The state sued in 2010 to recoup hundreds of millions of dollars it 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.

The state argued that Daniels delegates day-to-day management of the governor’s office and doesn’t have any “unique substantial knowledge” of that contract, while IBM argues that Daniels took this on as a pet project and his depositions are needed.

Initially, Dreyer ruled Daniels didn’t have to testify about his involvement, based on evidence he had reviewed at the time, and that no exception in state statute warranted his testimony. But after further review and consideration, Dreyer found that Indiana Code 34-29-2-1 is open to multiple interpretations because it lists the governor as someone who doesn’t have to offer testimony, despite other provisions that list officials and individuals with specific conditions.

Bypassing the Indiana Court of Appeals because of the constitutional question, the Supreme Court has set an expedited briefing schedule. The briefing schedule will be completed by early February, according to the order, and the justices will set a date for oral argument in a separate order at a later time.

The five-week IBM trial in Marion Superior Civil 10 is scheduled to start Feb. 27, with the next hearing scheduled for Tuesday on the parties’ motions for summary judgment.
 

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
ADVERTISEMENT