led to Baker’s blank answer to American Juice’s interrogatory — filed in support of summary judgment — that asked Baker to “identify the rights under the United States Constitution ... [that] were violated by Defendant.” Baker did respond to American Juice’s interrogatory vis-a-vis his state constitutional claim. Baker claimed, as he did in his complaint, Complaint ¶ 1, that he was discriminated against by American Juice and that this discrimination violated his liberty interests under Article I of the Indiana Constitution. The Indiana Constitution is no different than the federal constitution, however, in what it defends: ie., the rights of Indiana’s citizens against the governing power of the state. See Lambert v. State Dept. of Highways, 468 N.E.2d 1384, 1387 (Ind.Ct.App.1984) (<HOLDING>); see also Collins v. Day, 604 N.E.2d 647,
holding that where state rules of civil procedure apply to courts of the state they do not apply to adjudicatory proceedings before state agencies holding that when the state acts in a proprietary rather than governing capacity that constitutional limitations do not apply holding defense of statute of limitations not waived when asserted in a motion for summary judgment rather than in the answer holding that the acts of a corporate officer done in his or her official capacity are acts of the corporation holding that statute of limitations governing the most closely analogous state substantive claim controls rather than the forum states borrowing statute