Dr. Norma Kreilein, Rock Emmert, and Healthy Dubois County, Inc. v. Common Council of the City of Jasper and Jasper Utility Board
2012 Ind. App. LEXIS 571
Ind. Ct. App.2012Background
- HDC sued Jasper entities for declaratory judgment and injunction under Indiana Open Door Law regarding lease negotiations for converting a coal plant.
- A volunteer group negotiated the lease; its meetings were not publicly noticed or open to the public.
- Public meetings and votes occurred August 2011; the lease with Twisted Oak was approved amid controversy over process.
- Discovery disputes arose; HDC sought production of executive-session minutes and depositions, while Jasper resisted.
- Trial court found no Open Door Law violations by defendants but allowed limited discovery; HDC advanced multiple amend/continuance motions.
- On appeal, the Indiana Court of Appeals reversed and remanded, ordering further discovery and allowing third amendment and continuance.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Did the trial court abuse its discretion denying the third amendment? | Kreilein/HDC argued discovery showed volunteer group governed by Open Door Law; amendment needed. | Jasper argued amendment would surprise and prejudice and was a late, complete departure. | Yes; court abused discretion, allow amendment and further discovery. |
| Did the court abuse its discretion denying a continuance? | HDC needed time for depositions and new discovery related to volunteer group. | Jasper argued no continuance required; deadlines should be met. | Yes; remand for trial with additional discovery and a new trial date. |
| Did the court abuse its discretion denying discovery motions? | Additional discovery was necessary to determine governing-body status and potential IODL violations. | Discovery deemed unnecessary after initial determinations. | Yes; instruct trial court to grant discovery motions on remand. |
| Does the volunteer group constitute a governing body under the Open Door Law? | Volunteer group possibly took official action and was not legally noticed. | Group had no decision-making authority or quorum; not a governing body. | The issue requires further discovery to determine status; remand. |
Key Cases Cited
- City of Gary v. McCrady, 851 N.E.2d 359 (Ind. Ct. App. 2006) (open-door law liberal construction to effect legislative intent)
- State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. v. Shuman, 370 N.E.2d 941 (Ind. Ct. App. 1977) (freedom to amend pleadings to avoid prejudice; policy of broad amendment)
- Huff v. Travelers Indemnity Co., 363 N.E.2d 989 (Ind. Ct. App. 1977) (leave to amend should be freely given to avoid undue prejudice)