State v. International Business MacHines Corp.
964 N.E.2d 206
| Ind. | 2012Background
- Indiana contracted with IBM to modernize the welfare system; Governor Daniels signed the contract and spoke publicly about it.
- The State terminated the contract on October 15, 2009, and IBM subsequently sued the State for breach of contract; IBM's claims were consolidated with the State's suit.
- IBM served notice seeking the Governor's testimonial deposition; the State moved for a protective order based on I.C. 34-29-2-1(6) privilege and common-law executive-privilege concerns.
- The trial court twice addressed the issue, first precluding deposition and later granting a limited-deposition order, finding the statute ambiguous.
- The Indiana Supreme Court granted transfer to determine whether the Governor’s privilege precludes deposition under I.C. 34-29-2-1(6), and whether the deposition could be compelled in this contract dispute.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Does I.C. 34-29-2-1(6) preclude deposition of the Governor? | IBM argues the Governor can be compelled via non-subpoena mechanisms. | State argues the Governor has an absolute privilege from testimony and cannot be compelled. | Yes; the Governor has an absolute privilege from deposition. |
| Is a trial-court order to compel deposition a 'subpoena' within the privilege statute? | IBM contends the statute protects against all compulsion, including court orders, not just subpoenas. | State contends the order is not a subpoena and thus falls outside the privilege. | Yes; the order to compel deposition falls within the privilege as an instrument of compelled testimony. |
| May the trial court impose limitations to ensure justice while the Governor's privilege applies? | IBM argues for broader access due to relevance of Governor's testimony. | State contends the privilege is absolute and not subject to general discovery balancing. | Yes; the court can tailor remedial measures, but the privilege remains absolute. |
Key Cases Cited
- Crisis Connection, Inc. v. Crisis Connection, 949 N.E.2d 789 (Ind. 2011) (privilege scope and limits for public officials)
- Elmer Buchta Trucking, Inc. v. Stanley, 744 N.E.2d 939 (Ind. 2001) (statutory interpretation and privileges)
- Porter Development, LLC v. First Nat'l Bank of Valparaiso, 866 N.E.2d 775 (Ind.2007) (statutory interpretation and intent)
- Vernon Fire & Casualty Insurance Co. v. Sharp, 264 Ind. 599, 349 N.E.2d 173 (Ind. 1976) (relevance of privileged information and damages context)
- Stagman v. Ryan, 176 F.3d 986 (7th Cir. 1999) (deposition and executive privilege considerations)