« Ind. Law - Still more on "Kentucky ban on gay marriages from other states struck down by federal judge" | Main | Ind. Decisions - Court of Appeals issues 3 today (and 6 NFP) »

Wednesday, February 12, 2014

Ind. Courts - More on "Parents of Lauren Spierer ask judge to seal information in lawsuit"

Updating this ILB post from Jan. 30th, Laura Lane reports today in this freely available Bloomington Herald-Times story:

Two men accused by Lauren Spierer’s parents of contributing to her intoxication and being responsible for the 20-year-old’s disappearance and likely death say there is no legal reason to keep information that might surface in the federal lawsuit against them confidential.

Last month, Robert and Charlene Spierer asked Judge Tanya Walton Pratt to impose a protective order to seal sensitive information from the public “to prevent the harm that would result from the unnecessary public dissemination of private information relating to the parties and nonparties and ongoing criminal investigations,” their motion reads.

But in responses filed this week in U.S. District Court in Indianapolis, lawyers representing Corey Rossman and Jason “Jay” Rosenbaum argue the Spierers have not met the legal standard for sealing court documents from the public. * * *

[Attorney Dane] Mize argued there is no expectation for privacy in such investigations that end up in court, and cited case law that restricts the withholding of information in cases such as this.

John Trimble, one of the lawyers representing Rosenbaum, also is fighting the protective order. He said there is no legal basis for the request, and that the Spierers have to do more than allege there could be an issue.

He said the request to seal court documents and testimony “seeks to prohibit public dissemination of information obtained during discovery in this case and to bar the public from accessing such information when filed with the court.”

Here is Tim Evans' story in the Indianapolis Star. A quote:
Rosenbaum and Rossman both contend the Spierer’s request is too vague, premature and fails to demonstrate a legitimate reason for keeping information under seal. They also note the request does not meet the requirements for such a protective order set out by the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals.

The “case does not involve any trade secrets or the identity of undercover agents,” Rosenbaum said. His motion also notes the Spierers “fail to identify any specific types of information the disclosure of which would jeopardize ongoing investigations.”

Posted by Marcia Oddi on February 12, 2014 07:23 PM
Posted to Indiana Courts