August 26, 2005
Steinbuch v. Cutler Update--Cutler's Motion to Dismiss
You may recall Steinbuch v. Cutler, where a Washington staffer blogged about her modestly-scandalous sexual experiences with a Senator's counsel. For the voyeurs, I've uploaded Cutler's motion to dismiss the lawsuit filed last month.
The principal grounds for dismissal include the statute of limitations, the facts weren't private, Cutler had run a "private" blog, and the First Amendment. I'm not an expert in calculating the statute of limitations, but on its face this struck me as a pretty potent defense against most of the lawsuit.
As predicted, the lawsuit has some racy facts (I counted 7 references in the motion to dismiss to "spanking"), and the motion to dismiss names even more names. The various factual disclosures/reiterations in the motion to dismiss shows exactly there is a major downside to plaintiffs bringing invasion of privacy or defamation lawsuits. Talk about a relationship ending badly!
UPDATE: Wonkette rightly points out the weakness of the "I didn't understand how to use Blogger" defense.
Posted by Eric at August 26, 2005 09:46 AM | Publicity/Privacy Rights
One funny thing about this brief is it contains a classic English mistake: it says
"for all intensive purposes"
when what it means is
"for all intents and purposes"
which my 8th-grade teacher corrected me from doing some years ago.
Posted by: Scott at August 26, 2005 02:13 PM
Also, I didn't know that "stone-cold sober" was proper legal lexicon.
Posted by: Scott at August 26, 2005 02:14 PM
The judge should dismiss on these grounds: "Read the racy book, it took a few hours to get through, it amused me. Don't care who you are. Nobody does. Spank on, dude. But, uh, case dismissed."
Posted by: Mike M. at August 26, 2005 07:28 PM