Posted on 12/08/2004 7:09:54 PM PST by Tumbleweed_Connection
Former Rep. Gary Condit must answer questions about his sexual history in his slander case against a magazine writer who suggested Condit knew more than he let on about the death of intern Chandra Levy, a judge ruled Wednesday.
The ruling does not mean the information elicited by lawyers for Dominick Dunne, a special correspondent to Vanity Fair, will be made public. Judge Peter K. Leisure said he may order that the testimony be kept confidential.
But Condit cannot "use the court system as both a sword and a shield" by filing the $11 million lawsuit in December 2002, and then refusing to answer questions that may help Dunne's defense, the judge wrote.
Condit refused to answer questions about his sexual relationships and his finances in a Sept. 27 deposition, the judge said.
Condit's lawsuit claims statements by Dunne led millions of people to believe Condit was criminally involved in the disappearance and death of Levy.
After the 24-year-old U.S. Bureau of Prisons employee disappeared in 2001, Condit reportedly told police he had an affair with Levy but knew nothing of her disappearance.
He is not considered a suspect in her unsolved death, which was ruled a homicide after her remains were discovered in a Washington, D.C., park in May 2002.
The case drew months of negative publicity and was cited as the main cause of the former California congressman's re-election defeat in the March 2002 primary.
The lawsuit was filed after Dunne made comments on "The Laura Ingraham Show," "ET Online" and "Larry King Live" about Levy's disappearance.
On "ET Online" in January 2002, for example, Dunne was quoted as suggesting Levy was taken away by someone on a motorcycle as a favor to Condit, the judge said. And on "Larry King Live" in February 2002, Dunne stated, "I believe firmly that he knows more than what he has ever said," according to the judge.
In his lawsuit, Condit said he had no involvement in the disappearance and death of Levy and no knowledge of how she was abducted and killed or who was responsible.
Lawyers for Dunne have argued in court papers that Condit's relationship with other women shows a pattern of behavior in which Condit required women to carry no identification when they met him, the judge said.
Levy was not carrying identification when she disappeared, the judge noted.
"Dunne further claims he can use this discovery to impeach Condit, as showing he lied to authorities, the press, and the Levy family regarding all of these relationships," the judge said.
A message left with L. Lin Wood, a lawyer for Condit, was not immediately returned.
I heard he molests dead horses
Dominick Dunne is NOT a fool and he's not going to play around with this creep.
Gary's playing with the big boys now.
The ruling does not mean the information elicited by lawyers for Dominick Dunne, a special correspondent to Vanity Fair, will be made public. Judge Peter K. Leisure said he may order that the testimony be kept confidential.
That's what they told Bill Clinton at the Paula Jones deposition!
oh noooooooooo, that will never leak out or get left in a copier at Kinkos. I can't wait!
I have no use whatsoever for Condit, but what does his sex life have to do with his lawsuit? I can see his finances being an issue if he is claiming financial damages as a result of Dunne’s comments, but why is his sex life relevant?
what the gossip on what they think Condit was into? S&M?
Gosh, the very guy that ruined the case for the girl who accused Kobe Bryant!
The return of Condidit
Yes! And there are a LOT Of people in D.C. (and people who left D.C. shortly after this happened) who have to be shaking in their boots right now.
There was a pack of them that ran around together; all about the same age; Dems AND GOPers.
The D.C. police found MULTIPLE samples of DNA in his apartment; evidently they all used it.
Condit's ego must be the size of the great outdoors for him to have filed this suit. And I'll bet he ignored his lawyer's advice not to sue . . .
The liberal discovery rules mean that he is going to have to answer any and all questions "calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence" . . . or the judge is going to dismiss his complaint. And probably award attorney fees.
Absolutely. We talked about that then!
The deposition might not be leaked, but you can bet Dunne's next "fiction" book will be about a congressman who screws everything that moves.
Condit should have taken a look at Michael Skakel and run like hell.
It may be relevant if he was into sadomasochism. There were stories at the time about ropes to tie women to the bedposts, for instance. No idea if they were true.
"Avoid litigation. You never know where you are."
That's particularly true if you have something to hide. Because it won't remain hidden for long.
Maybe Condidit thought that if he filed a libel suit, it would appear as though he had nothing to hide wrt Levy's disappearance.
Ewww. What is the "it?" Do you mean they all used the apartment or they all used the DNA?
The appearance that you have nothing to hide only lasts until the first substantive question in the deposition . . . and the real-time telephone call to the judge on the motion to compel . . .
Maybe, but it seems to me that the sex-life question is designed to harrass rather than [properly] defend.
First of all, that is not true; he denied it until confronted with the facts.
He lied to EVERYBODY in the beginning; and his sex life is relevant because he's claiming Dunne defamed him when he said Condit was a serial adulterer.
This was a very, very stupid move on Gary Condit's part.
In a civil suit, the defendant is entitled to know EVERYTHING about your entire life; everything.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.