[Jonathan Adler, December 27, 2006 at 3:15pm] Trackbacks
Washingtonienne Suit to Go to Trial:

Via Paul Caron comes news that Robert Steinbuch's $20 million lawsuit against Jessica "Washingtonienne" Cutler is headed to trial. Steinbuch is now a law professor at the University of Arkansas-Little Rock, and claims public humiliation due to the claims Cutler made about him, and their sex life, on her salacious blog. Apparently the two sides are wrangling over discovery requests and other pre-trial matters. Among other things, Cutler's attorney is seeking copies of Steinbuch's student evaluations.

Related Posts (on one page):

  1. The Washingtonienne Lawsuit, Invasion of Privacy, and Restoring One's Good Name:
  2. Washingtonienne Suit to Go to Trial:
Federal Dog:
Oh, man, not the student evaluations! That's a damned low discovery blow.
12.27.2006 4:32pm
anonVCfan:
Ouch. If I was suing someone for humiliating my by airing my dirty laundry (and/or making some of it up), I'd be a little worried when that person started demanding the rest of my laundry through the discovery process. I don't think irony is quite the word for it, but something's odd here.
12.27.2006 4:54pm
Apodaca:
Please, God, let this go to judgment so that Plaintiff may avail himself of Rule 69.
12.27.2006 5:31pm
Lev:
I don't get it.


The Associated Press reports today that former Deputy Senior Counselor to the Commissioner of the IRS, and current Arkansas-Little Rock Law Prof Robert Steinbuch's "cyberspace sex scandal" case is going to trial. Steinbuch's $20 million lawsuit against Jessica Cutler claims that she revealed details of their sex life on her Washingtonienne blog while both were staffers in the U.S. Senate:

Steinbuch's case over the embarrassing, sexually charged blog appears headed for an embarrassing, sexually charged trial. Lurid testimony about spanking, handcuffs and prostitution aside, the Washingtonienne case could help establish whether people who keep online diaries are obligated to protect the privacy of the people they interact with offline. ...

Steinbuch says he was publicly humiliated. He went to court seeking more than $20 million in damages. The case is embroiled in thorny pretrial issues, with each side demanding personal information from the other. Steinbuch wants to know how much money Cutler received from the man she called her "sugar daddy." Cutler demanded Steinbuch's student evaluations from the University of Arkansas at Little Rock Law School, where he teaches....

Jonathan Rosen said Steinbuch wants to restore his good name. Students in his legal ethics class all search the Internet and learn about the blog, Rosen said.


He is claiming he did not have a sex life? That they did not have a sex life? That she cannot publish her diary about her sex life with him? That they had a sex life but she was too...creative...in reciting what they did?

What?
12.27.2006 5:37pm
Anderson (mail) (www):
Lev, there's actually a cause of action in their jurisdiction for spilling details of one's sexual activities with another.

I don't believe he was the lover who sodomized her anally, but he had some other kinky pastimes. (The former provided the only memorable line from her blog: "A man who will f--- you up the a-- when you're sober, does not love you." Or words to that effect.)
12.27.2006 5:56pm
meld:
Oh, man. This is fabulous. Where politics, law, kinky sex, invasion of privacy, and tax law blogs intersect.

But seriously. I read her blog, and the stuff about him was not all that bad. About her? Wow. I don't think prostituting yourself for a Lilly Pulitzer dress is the most flattering thing to reveal about yourself.

By suing her, I'm sure that the worst secrets he has in life will be exposed. Not a smart move.
12.27.2006 6:21pm
Cornellian (mail):
I'll bet every single student in his class knows the details of his sexual adventures with Ms. Cutler (at least as she has recited them) better than they know whatever subject he's been teaching all semester. I can't imagine what this guy is thinking in taking this to trial, which will accomplish nothing but reviving the details of this story long after everyone had forgotten them. I mean if he had a strong cause of action and Ms. Cutler were rich I can see putting up with a certain degree of embarrassment for the prospect of a big payoff, but his case seems pretty far fetched and, according to the CNN story, Ms. Cutler now uses her website to solicit donations. So what exactly does he expect to get out of this?
12.27.2006 6:23pm
Cornellian (mail):
OK, re what does the guy want out of this, the Caron blog citing this story says:

"Jonathan Rosen (his lawyer) said Steinbuch wants to restore his good name. Students in his legal ethics class all search the Internet and learn about the blog, Rosen said."

So he had mildly kinky sex with Ms. Cutler, so mild (judging from the CNN story description) it barely qualifies as kinky anymore. No drugs, no teenagers, no illegal conduct of any kind, so where exactly is the damage that has to be restored? Embarrassing sure, sex usually is, but did anyone think less of him when they found out he had an affair with her? Heck, I've seen Ms. Cutler's picture and she's pretty damn good looking. A lot of guys would think more of him for having had that affair, not less.
12.27.2006 6:32pm
Dan Simon (mail) (www):
I can't imagine what this guy is thinking in taking this to trial, which will accomplish nothing but reviving the details of this story long after everyone had forgotten them.

I believe economists would refer to this as a "revealed preference".
12.27.2006 6:45pm
godfodder (mail):
I think it is safe to say that over 50% of all lawsuits are filed for irrational reasons (an oxymoron, but you know what I mean). People get pissed off/hurt/humiliated/looking for revenge, and they get to a point where what they are doing makes no sense anymore, but they won't back down.

The courts have become our version of "a duel, sir!" Of course, his lawyer should have talked him out of this, but, hey, he's a law school professor! He should know better. A lot of people should know better... but they don't.
12.27.2006 6:48pm
Cornellian (mail):
I think it is safe to say that over 50% of all lawsuits are filed for irrational reasons (an oxymoron, but you know what I mean). People get pissed off/hurt/humiliated/looking for revenge, and they get to a point where what they are doing makes no sense anymore, but they won't back down.

I'm sure a lot of lawsuits work like that, but this guy was not only a law professor (as you point out) but also a former counsel to a US Senator's committee. One would think he, of all people, could assess both the legal and political implications of taking a lawsuit forward, and the personal cost of doing so.
12.27.2006 6:55pm
John (mail):
Whose law governs this? She wrote in DC, but the internet took her words everywhere. At the time of the "libel," I gather the plaintiff was also in DC. Yes? No? So is this governed by the libel law of DC or Ark.?
12.27.2006 7:08pm
Dave Hardy (mail) (www):
This is one trial where there will be people TRYING to get picked as jurors. I bet the court reporters had a heck of a time with the depositions.
12.27.2006 7:30pm
A.S.:
I think people are looking at this all wrong. This isn't a lawsuit; it's a very well placed personal ad. He is saying, in effect, "I'm into having kinky sex with attractive women. If you are an attractive woman interested in same, I can be reached at the University of Arkansas-Little Rock." Think about it this way - how much would the guy have to pay to place THAT personal ad all over the internet? More than the the legal fees incurred?
12.27.2006 7:31pm
Justice Fuller:
A.S., you're making a claim about subjective intent. What's the evidence for your claim? Do you know him?
12.27.2006 7:53pm
Steve:
All the attractive women who had no way of getting kinky sex prior to this must be thrilled.
12.27.2006 8:12pm
Dave Hardy (mail) (www):
I suppose he could settle for reinstating her blog and saying even more about him... "Was it ten climaxes, or fifteen? How can I say, I lost count. Then he took out the garbage, dashed off a love poem in iambic pentameter, and took me to a 'girlie movie.'"
12.27.2006 8:39pm
Ted Frank (www):
Cutler got Steinbuch's evaluations, which, according to the publicly available filing reported by the DC Examiner, accused him of excessive flirting with his female students. So Steinbuch's suit has only succeeded in revealing more embarrassing information about himself.
12.27.2006 8:41pm
Cornellian (mail):
Cutler got Steinbuch's evaluations, which, according to the publicly available filing reported by the DC Examiner, accused him of excessive flirting with his female students. So Steinbuch's suit has only succeeded in revealing more embarrassing information about himself.

Not just embarrassing information, but probably career damaging information as well. It doesn't help that his students are probably pretty close in age to Cutler's age at the time of her affair with him. I think he needs to bail out of this lawsuit, sooner rather than later.
12.27.2006 9:03pm
Anderson (mail) (www):
Steinbuch wants to restore his good name.

That's legal jargon. Means "he wants money."
12.27.2006 9:44pm
Nada (mail):


The details of his sex life with Cutler are private. He did not wish to see them revealed publicly. They were. He was embarrassed, and his privacy was invaded. It's not libel; it's one of the privay torts, in this case public disclosure.

As far as all his other laundry being released, that's what protective orders are for.
12.27.2006 9:44pm
Lev:

The details of his sex life with Cutler are private. He did not wish to see them revealed publicly. They were. He was embarrassed, and his privacy was invaded.


It's her sex life too, and she wanted to reveal it publicly, so there was no invasion.

Maybe he should pick different sex partners.
12.27.2006 10:00pm
Lev:

Maybe he should pick different sex partners.


And he isn't the only one:

Cops say spa's hidden cameras may have broadcast sex acts over the Internet
12.27.2006 10:06pm
therut:
What did a man in the modern world of today expect? A woman with honor? One that would not kiss and tell? You jest. Women have become what they hate "caddy men". At least they can FEEL equal.
12.27.2006 10:25pm
Dan Simon (mail) (www):
Incidentally, I wonder how many people would have a different opinion of this lawsuit if the roles were reversed....
12.27.2006 10:37pm
DG:
Dan Simon: If the case was reversed, we would think the man was a cad, but we would still think dredging this all up in course again was counter-productive. What does the plaintiff want here? To get his "good name" back? Did he lose it? If so, you would think that getting all of this press would be a particularly bad way to find it again. This is revenge.
12.27.2006 11:26pm
Lev:
http://washingtonienne.com/

So. Is she really a babe? Or just a babe by congressional standards?
12.27.2006 11:57pm
RainerK:
To change the subject a little bit, I love the Chicago Sun-Times story (Lev's first link). Isn't it Chicago where it was decided to post arrested Johns' names plus mug shots on the Net? And now they're seeking to charge for "unlawful video-taping"? Heh, the irony of it! I guess they don't mind the exposure, but only minus the details.
Man, oh man, it's a good thing I'm too old to find massage parlors exciting. The exposed customers ought to sue the business for a refund and a share of the loot. Heh! I bet those suits would make Mr. Steinbuch's embarrassment look like nothing at all.
12.28.2006 12:29am
American Psikhushka (mail) (www):
DG-

If the case was reversed, we would think the man was a cad, but we would still think dredging this all up in course again was counter-productive. What does the plaintiff want here? To get his "good name" back? Did he lose it? If so, you would think that getting all of this press would be a particularly bad way to find it again. This is revenge.

If the case was reversed and the woman was deranged enough we would be talking about false rape claims. And violence or threats of violence from various parties. And near complete demonization spread around the world.
12.28.2006 7:35am
Mark Buehner (mail):
Am i wrong in recalling that she never used his real name, only initials in her blog (not to mention a psuedonym of her own)? She made some attempt at maintaining privacy, how does that affect this case?
12.28.2006 9:52am
A.S.:
A.S., you're making a claim about subjective intent. What's the evidence for your claim? Do you know him?

Aw, jeez. [Sigh.]
12.28.2006 10:09am
Houston Lawyer:
A.S.

I thought that he was just bragging. I like your gloss better.
12.28.2006 11:07am
meld:
She did use just his initials. When Cox picked up the story, Cutler took the page down. Cox then I believe used a cached version, but changed the initials to further hide identities. I think there were original initials floating around. So, you would have to really be in the loop of gossip circles on the Hill to figure it out, or investigate it thoroughly and have the time and inclination to investigate it thoroughly.
12.28.2006 3:48pm
American Psikhushka (mail) (www):
meld-

Yes, but once that legwork was done and the results were publicized the cat would be out of the bag. Especially since this had become sort of popular as a window into the "secret" sexual side of Washington. So if she claims she was protecting their privacy that claim is a little weak. I'm not demonizing her but if she claims she was protecting their privacy she doesn't seem like she was very serious about it.
12.28.2006 11:07pm