Indiana Supreme Court creates framework for apex depositions

For the Defense

By Donald P. Eckler

Donald “Pat” Eckler is a partner at Freeman, Mathis, & Gary LLP, focusing on professional liability defense, insurance coverage litigation, and general tort defense. He is the legislative chair of the Illinois Association of Defense Trial Counsel. Eckler also is the co-host of the Podium and Panel podcast with Daniel Cotter. His views are his own and not those of his firm or its clients.

Posted July 27, 2022 10:38 AM

Updated July 28, 2022 8:58 AM

Though declining to adopt the apex deposition doctrine, the Indiana Supreme Court recently created a framework within its current discovery rules that can be used to protect high-ranking executives from depositions upon a proper showing.No Illinois court of review has addressed the doctrine, but the decision of the Indiana high court in NCAA v. Finnerty, No. 20A-CT-1069, is instructive for Illinois practitioners as the discovery rules are similar and the concerns expressed by the court apply equally irrespective of …

To Read the Full Story

Your source for legal news and information

Print & Digital Access

Stay in the know all year long with these benefits:

Delivery to your office in downtown Chicago or mailed outside our hand-delivery zone.
Unlimited access to chicagolawbulletin.com.
Access to our e-edition and mobile site.
Breaking news alerts, Morning Lineup and Afternoon Headlines.
Exclusive access to events, discounts and more.

Order now, or call 312-644-2394 or email Subscription@LawBulletinMedia.com for details.

Be in the know. These must-read insider briefings will keep you

informed of the latest legal developments in Chicago. Sign up today!

Courts split on overtime ‘gap time’ claims

There’s a 1-1 tie in the U.S. Circuit Courts of Appeal on the validity of “overtime gap time claims” under the Fair Labor Standards Act.
By Steven P. Garmisa
Court mulls over timing for stock option damages

Gautam Shah persuaded a California jury that Skillz Inc. falsely claimed it had cause to terminate his employment in 2018 and then used this pretext to block him from exercising stock options worth more than $11.5 million when the company went public in 2020.
By Steven P. Garmisa
Further analysis ordered in case involving cash-out merger

In a case involving a cash-out merger that was governed by Delaware’s “entire fairness” standard, the Illinois Appellate Court instructed a trial judge to consider the equitable remedy of “rescissory damages” as an alternative to compensatory damages.
By Steven P. Garmisa
Does Constitution come into play in Oregon homelessness appeal?

Homelessness in many U.S. cities has become a major issue. In an Oregon city, the municipality addressed the issue by an ordinance that fined the homeless for using blankets, pillows or cardboard boxes for protection while sleeping within city limits. The U.S. Supreme Court heard arguments last week in the matter.
By Daniel A. Cotter
Defendants attack assignment as champertous

When one of the plaintiffs in an antitrust case against turkey processors assigned its claim to a third party, the defendants argued the transfer was invalid as “champertous” under Illinois law. But U.S. District Judge Virginia M. Kendall of the Northern District decided “federal common law” should provide the answer.
By Steven P. Garmisa
Another judge rejects 7th Circuit case on standing

Seven weeks after a district judge in New York rejected the 7th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeal’s approach to standing for breach-of-contract claims under Article III of the U.S. Constitution, a judge in the District of Columbia added his thoughts on why Dinerstein v. Google, 73 F.4th 502 (7th Cir. 2023), is wrong.
By Steven P. Garmisa
Developments in med-mal law may signal change to health care

There is a great deal of attention paid to medical malpractice litigation and rightfully so because those cases are likely the most complex civil tort litigation with some of the highest stakes in terms of injury, emotion and damages.
By Patrick Eckler
Judge rejects ‘specific patient rule’ in case over false claims, kickbacks

Two of Allergan’s former sales representatives accused the pharmaceutical manufacturer of violating the False Claims Act and Anti-Kickback Statute by using a “speaker program” to give physicians illegal payments for prescribing two of its medications — Linzess and Viberzi — but the company insisted the complaint was defective because it didn’t “identify a specific patient to whom a doctor allegedly prescribed Linzess or Viberzi in exchange for a kickback.”
By Steven P. Garmisa