Summary judgment briefing partially stayed in Anderson redistricting dispute

IL file photo

Summary judgment briefing has been partially stayed in an electoral redistricting lawsuit that alleges Anderson’s city council districts violate constitutional and statutory rights.

Magistrate Judge Tim Baker  of the Indiana Southern District Court issued the order Thursday in Common Cause Indiana, Anderson-Madison County NAACP Branch 3058, League of Women Voters of Indiana, Cassandra Riggs, Jeffrey J. Cottrell v. City of Anderson Common Council, Madison County Board of Elections, 1:23-cv-1022.

Common Cause Indiana, the Anderson Madison County NAACP Branch 3058, League of Women Voters of Indiana and two citizens are listed as plaintiffs in the lawsuit, which was filed against the City of Anderson Common Council for its failure to draw new maps for the city’s six single-member districts before the Dec. 31, 2022, redistricting deadline. The Madison County Board of Elections is also listed as a defendant in the lawsuit.

Anderson has a nine-member city council, with six members elected from single-member districts. The 2020 census revealed population changes in the city, but the districts were not redrawn.

The plaintiffs alleged the districts are now malapportioned in violation of their constitutional and statutory rights.

Late last year, District Court Judge James Sweeney denied a motion in October to dismiss the lawsuit.

Later, the Anderson Common Council moved to stay briefing on the plaintiffs’ summary judgment motion, and in his order, Baker did extend the deadline for the council and the Madison County Board of Elections to respond to the partial summary judgment motion.

“But the motion seeks much more than this,” Baker wrote. “Anderson Council seeks a Court order compelling Plaintiffs to produce two witnesses for deposition and — asserting these witnesses have offered expert testimony — also seeks a Court order requiring Plaintiffs to provide Rule 26(a)(2) expert disclosures and to produce evidentiary materials on which these purported experts relied in reaching their opinions.

“… The parties’ briefs trade barbs and accusations that distract from the issues more than they help. The Court need not wade fully into this morass,” he continued. “It is sufficient to note that Anderson Council has made a sufficient showing under Rule 56(d) to justify a brief delay (from February 19 to March 22, 2024) in responding to Plaintiffs’ motion for partial summary judgment in order to secure the deposition testimony of two witnesses. Those witnesses are Kelsey Kaufman and Sarah Andre.”

Baker noted that the plaintiffs have not offered the testimony of Kaufman or Andre as expert witnesses, but rather as lay witnesses.

“While Anderson Council takes issue with this assertion, Plaintiffs are entitled to clarify that they are not offering expert testimony. The flip side of such an assertion, of course, is that if the Court later deems evidence proffered by Kaufman or Andre to cross the line into expert testimony, that evidence may be stricken. How that plays out remains to be seen,” Baker wrote.

The magistrate ultimately denied the motion to order the plaintiffs to provide Rule 26(a)(2) expert disclosures and to produce evidentiary materials, but he did order counsel to complete the depositions of Kaufman, a self-described “technical advisor” on redistricting litigation, and Andre, a Common Cause redistricting demography and mapping specialist, by March 5.

According to Baker, in the council’s request for an order compelling the plaintiffs to produce Kaufman and Andre for deposition, the council acknowledges that Kaufman is not a party in the litigation.

Regardless, the plaintiffs’ response brief indicates a willingness and an ability to produce Kaufman and Andre for their depositions, Baker pointed out.

“Counsel shall promptly confer to select an acceptable date for these depositions, and if no agreement can be reached (which would be highly concerning to the Court) Anderson Council can subpoena these witnesses,” he wrote.