Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Mr. President please step down for the good of the country -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Mo Chips who wrote (97)	8/20/1998 10:09:00 AM
From: mph	Respond to of 190

Relevancy is a very broad standard in civil litigation, especially for discovery purposes as in a deposition. The Federal Rules relating to privacy interests are not as strict as the rules in California, for example. In advance of a deposition it is possible to obtain a protective order limiting the scope of the questioning to protect privacy rights. The court must balance the need to know of the party seeking the information against the privacy, or other significant rights, of the opponent/witness. Since we have not seen the actual transcript of the deposition, it is difficult to say how the Lewinsky topic came up. For example, if BC first denied that he ever had any sexual relationship with a subordinate, it would be entirely proper, and relevant, to explore the Monica affair in detail. This would be in the nature of impeachment to show that his prior statement was incorrect. Even absent that situation, for discovery purposes the fact that BC might have had relationships with subordinates could arguably be relevant, at least in a deposition. Whether it would ultimately be admissible at trial is a separate question. Depositions are not limited to admissible evidence or even relevant evidence. The scope of inquiry is wide-ranging and the standard is basically whether the question is reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. So, just because BC says the affair was consensual doesn't make it so. Jones' attorneys can find out whether there was some relationship and then proceed to determine whether it showed a pattern or similarity to the Jones case, e.g., whether there was any coercion or unwelcome aspect. Just a few thoughts. Don't have time for a total treatise! mph

To: Mo Chips who wrote (97)	8/20/1998 11:09:00 AM
From: j_b	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 190

<<A question back, wasn't the questioning related to the Lewinski relationship thrown out of the Jones case? >> Currently a bit of a moot point, since (pending appeal) the entire Jones case was thrown out. However, I believe you're correct. As to the question of previous escapades - I think the judge agreed with you here also, but it's something I haven't been able to understand. In a rape case or other sex-related crime, both the victim's past and the defendant's past are open game for dissection. Why would harassment be different? Personally, I despise the current state of sexual harassment law - it is too vague and intrusive. As to the consensual nature of the Clinton-Lewinski relationship - assuming that it was relevant to the Jones case at all - Jones' lawyers wanted to show that Clinton had a history of sexual encounters with low level government employees. It wouldn't matter if they were consensual, only that Clinton had instigated them and that they happened regularly. That would make Jones' claim far more credible than if Clinton were seen as Mr. Faithful and Pure.