STEINBUCH v. CUTLER

Filing 52

ENTERED IN ERROR. . . .MOTION to Compel to Deem Rule 36 Requests Admitted, Motion to Compel Discovery, and Alternative Motion to Preclude Evidence and Incorporated Memorandum of Law, MOTION for Discovery by JESSICA CUTLER. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1# 2 Exhibit 2# 3 Exhibit 3# 4 Exhibit 4# 5 Exhibit 5# 6 Exhibit 6# 7 Exhibit 7# 8 Exhibit 8)(Billips, Matthew) Modified on 10/11/2006 (td, ).

STEINBUCH v. CUTLER

Doc. 52

Case 1:05-cv-00970-PLF-JMF

Document 52

Filed 10/10/2006

Page 1 of 53

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA ROBERT STEINBUCH, ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) v. ) ) JESSICA CUTLER, ) ) Defendant ) ______________________________________ )

Case No. 1:05-CV-970 (PLF) (JMF) Judge Paul L. Friedman Magistrate Judge John M. Facciola

MOTION TO DEEM RULE 36 REQUESTS ADMITTED, MOTION TO COMPEL DISCOVERY, AND ALTERNATIVE MOTION TO PRECLUDE EVIDENCE AND INCORPORATED MEMORANDUM OF LAW COMES NOW DEFENDANT, Jessica Cutler, and moves to compel discovery from Plaintiff. In the alternative to the motion to compel, Defendant asks that the Court exclude the evidence from Plaintiff which is the subject of this Motion. Because Plaintiff has so completely obfuscated Defendant's legitimate discovery efforts, this will have the effect of precluding Plaintiff from meeting his burden of proof on the claims at issue in this case. Defendant has served Requests for Admissions, Interrogatories, and Requests for Production of Documents on Plaintiff. See Exhibit 1. Plaintiff has responded, providing very little in the way of information and completely failing to provide information which will be necessary for him to meet his burden of proof in this case. See Exhibit 2. Defendant sent Plaintiff a letter in an effort to resolve these disputes. See Exhibit 3. Counsel have had a lengthy telephone conversation regarding these requests, but no supplementation has been received to date. Plaintiff has failed to provide a verification for his responses, which remain unsworn and therefore completely deficient. Given the limited period remaining in discovery ­ and particularly given Plaintiff's opposition to an extension of time to conduct discovery ­ Defendant has no choice but to file this Motion.

Dockets.Justia.com

Case 1:05-cv-00970-PLF-JMF

Document 52

Filed 10/10/2006

Page 2 of 53

A.

Defendant Asks That The Following Requests For Admission Be Deemed Admitted

Defendant's Requests for Admissions and the argument related thereto are set out in two sections, as the Requests have two essential purposes. The first purpose to ask Plaintiff to admit or deny certain facts regarding his own discussions with third parties regarding his sexual relationship with Defendant. The second is to ask Plaintiff to admit or deny the date on which certain blog entries were first posted. Each purpose is related to matters of critical importance to this case. 1. Plaintiff's own publications of the intimate details of his sexual relationship with Defendant are material to issues of waiver and purported harm to reputation As set out in Defendant's blog entries, Plaintiff had engaged in numerous discussions with co-workers regarding his sexual relationship with Plaintiff prior to May 16, 2004. Plaintiff had commented on the fact that their relationship had become public knowledge within the office; had graphically acted out the "spanking" portion of their relationship; and had informed Defendant that he did not mind the fact that these details had become public. The following Requests for Admission seek to nail down the facts regarding Plaintiff's discussions, disclosures, and waiver of his subsequent claim to invasion of privacy regarding these same facts. As an initial matter, Plaintiff's objection that a Request for Admission "assumes facts not established" is nonsensical, as the establishment of facts is the purpose of a Request for Admission. See 1970 Advisory Committee Notes to Rule 36(a). Therefore, this Objection should be disregarded entirely. Plaintiff's other objections ­ that the requests are vague or overbroad ­ likewise lack merit given the narrow and specific nature of each Requests. The law is clear that an individual cannot complain about the invasion of his privacy by virtue of the publication of facts which he has either published himself or where he has consented to the publication. Harrison v. Washington Post Co., 391 A.2d 781(D.C. 1978); Bernstein v. NBC,

-2-

Case 1:05-cv-00970-PLF-JMF

Document 52

Filed 10/10/2006

Page 3 of 53

129 F. Supp. 817 (D.D.C. 1955). These Requests for Admissions seek to demonstrate the absence of merit in Plaintiff's claims. In Harrison, the plaintiff sued the defendant television station for public disclosure of private facts. During a news report on a bank robbery, the defendant aired a filmstrip which showed the plaintiff being falsely arrested for the crime. The plaintiff argued that the broadcast was actionable based on the "expanded" publicity of these facts. The Court of Appeals held that there is no invasion of privacy for the further publicity of what the plaintiff himself "left open to the public eye." 391 A.2d at 784. In Bernstein, the plaintiff sued the defendant broadcast company for public disclosure of private facts for airing a story on his criminal history. The plaintiff had been convicted of bank robbery and first-degree murder. The plaintiff had been pardoned for each of these crimes, and he retreated from the public eye. Four years later, the defendant broadcast the plaintiff's story. Five days prior to the telecast, the plaintiff had contacted the defendant requesting it not be broadcast. The plaintiff contended that though he had approved a newspaper campaign during his trial and did not object to a magazine article or radio program during those years, his consent did not extend to this telecast years later. The Court held that the right to privacy ceases upon the publication by the individual or with his consent. Defendant is, by the following Requests for Admissions, seeking to demonstrate that Plaintiff cannot, by virtue of his own conduct, meet these elements. This is clearly proper discovery. Because Plaintiff has failed to properly answer the Request, Defendant asks that the Court Order the Requests deemed admitted. 12. Prior to May 16, 2004, you disclosed to one or more person(s) other than Defendant that you were having a sexual relationship with Defendant.

-3-

Case 1:05-cv-00970-PLF-JMF

Document 52

Filed 10/10/2006

Page 4 of 53

Response The Plaintiff objects to Defendant's requests insofar as requests are unduly burdensome or are calculated or would otherwise operate to annoy, embarrass, oppress or cause undue expense to the Plaintiff or to any individual not a part to this action on the grounds that said requests exceed the scope of permissible discovery under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. The Plaintiff objects to Defendant's requests insofar as said requests would require the Plaintiff to respond by acquiring or supplying information which would be irrelevant and immaterial to the subject matter or issues of this action, and not reasonably calculated to lead to discovery of admissible evidence on the grounds that said requests exceed the scope of permissible discovery under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Subject to and without waiver of the foregoing objections, Plaintiff responds as follows: request is overbroad and vague. Too the extent that the request can be deciphered, Plaintiff believes that the response would be to deny. 13. Prior to May 16, 2004, you discussed with one or more person(s) other than Defendant that you were having a sexual relationship with Defendant. Response The Plaintiff objects to Defendant's requests insofar as requests are unduly burdensome or are calculated or would otherwise operate to annoy, embarrass, oppress or cause undue expense to the Plaintiff or to any individual not a part to this action on the grounds that said requests exceed the scope of permissible discovery under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. The Plaintiff objects to Defendant's requests insofar as said requests would require the Plaintiff to respond by acquiring or supplying information which would be irrelevant and immaterial to the subject matter or issues of this action, and not reasonably calculated to lead to discovery of admissible evidence on the grounds that said requests exceed the scope of permissible discovery under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Subject to and without waiver of the foregoing objections, Plaintiff responds as follows: request is overbroad and vague. Too the extent that the request can be deciphered, Plaintiff believes that the response would be to deny. 14. Prior to May 16, 2004, you discussed with one or more person(s) other than Defendant that your sexual relationship with Defendant had included spanking. Response The Plaintiff objects to Defendant's requests insofar as requests are unduly burdensome or are calculated or would otherwise operate to annoy, embarrass, oppress or cause undue expense to the Plaintiff or to any individual not a part to this action on the grounds that said requests exceed the scope of permissible discovery under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. The Plaintiff objects to Defendant's requests insofar as said requests would require the Plaintiff to respond by acquiring or supplying information which would be irrelevant and immaterial to the subject matter or issues of this action, and not reasonably calculated to lead to discovery of admissible evidence on the grounds that said requests exceed the scope of permissible discovery under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Subject to and without waiver of the foregoing objections, Plaintiff responds as follows:

-4-

Case 1:05-cv-00970-PLF-JMF

Document 52

Filed 10/10/2006

Page 5 of 53

request is overbroad, vague and assumes facts not established. As such, Plaintiff denies too the extent that the inquiry can be deciphered and/or understood. 15. Prior to May 16, 2004, you discussed with one or more person(s) other than Defendant that your sexual relationship with Defendant had included oral sex. Response The Plaintiff objects to Defendant's requests insofar as requests are unduly burdensome or are calculated or would otherwise operate to annoy, embarrass, oppress or cause undue expense to the Plaintiff or to any individual not a part to this action on the grounds that said requests exceed the scope of permissible discovery under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. The Plaintiff objects to Defendant's requests insofar as said requests would require the Plaintiff to respond by acquiring or supplying information which would be irrelevant and immaterial to the subject matter or issues of this action, and not reasonably calculated to lead to discovery of admissible evidence on the grounds that said requests exceed the scope of permissible discovery under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Subject to and without waiver of the foregoing objections, Plaintiff responds as follows: request is overbroad, vague and assumes facts not established. As such, Plaintiff denies too the extent that the inquiry can be deciphered and/or understood. 16. Prior to May 16, 2004, you discussed with one or more person(s) other than Defendant that your sexual relationship with Defendant had included sex in the missionary position. Response The Plaintiff objects to Defendant's requests insofar as requests are unduly burdensome or are calculated or would otherwise operate to annoy, embarrass, oppress or cause undue expense to the Plaintiff or to any individual not a part to this action on the grounds that said requests exceed the scope of permissible discovery under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. The Plaintiff objects to Defendant's requests insofar as said requests would require the Plaintiff to respond by acquiring or supplying information which would be irrelevant and immaterial to the subject matter or issues of this action, and not reasonably calculated to lead to discovery of admissible evidence on the grounds that said requests exceed the scope of permissible discovery under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Subject to and without waiver of the foregoing objections, Plaintiff responds as follows: request is overbroad, vague and assumes facts not established. As such, Plaintiff denies too the extent that the inquiry can be deciphered and/or understood. 17. Prior to May 16, 2004, you were aware that your sexual relationship with Defendant was known to one or more persons other than Defendant who were employed in the office of United States Senator Michael Dewine.

-5-

Case 1:05-cv-00970-PLF-JMF

Document 52

Filed 10/10/2006

Page 6 of 53

Response The Plaintiff objects to Defendant's requests insofar as requests are unduly burdensome or are calculated or would otherwise operate to annoy, embarrass, oppress or cause undue expense to the Plaintiff or to any individual not a part to this action on the grounds that said requests exceed the scope of permissible discovery under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. The Plaintiff objects to Defendant's requests insofar as said requests would require the Plaintiff to respond by acquiring or supplying information which would be irrelevant and immaterial to the subject matter or issues of this action, and not reasonably calculated to lead to discovery of admissible evidence on the grounds that said requests exceed the scope of permissible discovery under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Subject to and without waiver of the foregoing objections, Plaintiff responds as follows: request is overbroad, vague and assumes facts not established. As such, Plaintiff denies too the extent that the inquiry can be deciphered and/or understood. 18. Prior to May 16, 2004, you discussed the fact of your sexual relationship with Defendant with one or more persons other than Defendant who were employed in the office of United States Senator Michael Dewine. Response The Plaintiff objects to Defendant's requests insofar as requests are unduly burdensome or are calculated or would otherwise operate to annoy, embarrass, oppress or cause undue expense to the Plaintiff or to any individual not a part to this action on the grounds that said requests exceed the scope of permissible discovery under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. The Plaintiff objects to Defendant's requests insofar as said requests would require the Plaintiff to respond by acquiring or supplying information which would be irrelevant and immaterial to the subject matter or issues of this action, and not reasonably calculated to lead to discovery of admissible evidence on the grounds that said requests exceed the scope of permissible discovery under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Subject to and without waiver of the foregoing objections, Plaintiff responds as follows: request is overbroad, vague and assumes facts not established. As such, Plaintiff denies too the extent that the inquiry can be deciphered and/or understood. 19. Prior to May 16, 2004, you were aware that your sexual relationship with Defendant was known to one or more persons other than Defendant who were employed by the United States Senate Judiciary Committee Response The Plaintiff objects to Defendant's requests insofar as requests are unduly burdensome or are calculated or would otherwise operate to annoy, embarrass, oppress or cause undue expense to the Plaintiff or to any individual not a part to this action on the grounds that said requests exceed the scope of permissible discovery under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. The Plaintiff objects to Defendant's requests insofar as said requests would require the Plaintiff to respond by acquiring or supplying information which would be irrelevant and immaterial to the subject matter or issues of this action, and not reasonably calculated to lead to discovery of admissible evidence on the grounds that said requests exceed the scope of permissible discovery under the Federal Rules of Civil

-6-

Case 1:05-cv-00970-PLF-JMF

Document 52

Filed 10/10/2006

Page 7 of 53

Procedure. Subject to and without waiver of the foregoing objections, Plaintiff responds as follows: request is overbroad, vague and assumes facts not established. As such, Plaintiff denies too the extent that the inquiry can be deciphered and/or understood. 20. Prior to May 16, 2004, you discussed the fact of your sexual relationship with Defendant with one or more persons other than Defendant who were employed in the office of United States Senate Judiciary Committee Response The Plaintiff objects to Defendant's requests insofar as requests are unduly burdensome or are calculated or would otherwise operate to annoy, embarrass, oppress or cause undue expense to the Plaintiff or to any individual not a part to this action on the grounds that said requests exceed the scope of permissible discovery under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. The Plaintiff objects to Defendant's requests insofar as said requests would require the Plaintiff to respond by acquiring or supplying information which would be irrelevant and immaterial to the subject matter or issues of this action, and not reasonably calculated to lead to discovery of admissible evidence on the grounds that said requests exceed the scope of permissible discovery under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Subject to and without waiver of the foregoing objections, Plaintiff responds as follows: request is overbroad, vague and assumes facts not established. As such, Plaintiff denies too the extent that the inquiry can be deciphered and/or understood. 21. Prior to May 16, 2004, you were aware that your sexual relationship with Defendant was known to one or more persons other than Defendant who were employed by the United States Senate. Response The Plaintiff objects to Defendant's requests insofar as requests are unduly burdensome or are calculated or would otherwise operate to annoy, embarrass, oppress or cause undue expense to the Plaintiff or to any individual not a part to this action on the grounds that said requests exceed the scope of permissible discovery under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. The Plaintiff objects to Defendant's requests insofar as said requests would require the Plaintiff to respond by acquiring or supplying information which would be irrelevant and immaterial to the subject matter or issues of this action, and not reasonably calculated to lead to discovery of admissible evidence on the grounds that said requests exceed the scope of permissible discovery under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Subject to and without waiver of the foregoing objections, Plaintiff responds as follows: request is overbroad, vague and assumes facts not established. As such, Plaintiff denies too the extent that the inquiry can be deciphered and/or understood.

-7-

Case 1:05-cv-00970-PLF-JMF

Document 52

Filed 10/10/2006

Page 8 of 53

22. Prior to May 16, 2004, you discussed the fact of your sexual relationship with Defendant with one or more persons other than Defendant who were employed in the office of United States Senate. Response The Plaintiff objects to Defendant's requests insofar as requests are unduly burdensome or are calculated or would otherwise operate to annoy, embarrass, oppress or cause undue expense to the Plaintiff or to any individual not a part to this action on the grounds that said requests exceed the scope of permissible discovery under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. The Plaintiff objects to Defendant's requests insofar as said requests would require the Plaintiff to respond by acquiring or supplying information which would be irrelevant and immaterial to the subject matter or issues of this action, and not reasonably calculated to lead to discovery of admissible evidence on the grounds that said requests exceed the scope of permissible discovery under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Subject to and without waiver of the foregoing objections, Plaintiff responds as follows: request is overbroad, vague and assumes facts not established. As such, Plaintiff denies too the extent that the inquiry can be deciphered and/or understood. 2. Requests for admission regarding the date on which entries were posted on Defendant's blog should be deemed admitted The following Requests for Admissions relate to the dates of certain blog postings which are at issue in this case. Plaintiff has contended that each blog posting was a "publication," irrespective of the number of people who actually read the blog entry. However, if that is true, the vast majority of the postings may be barred by the statute of limitations, as they occurred more than one year prior to the date the Complaint was filed in this case. Therefore, this is an issue which may well be critical to the statute of limitations defense. Plaintiff also contends that each blog posting was a complete republication and reposting of the prior blog entries, in an apparent effort to claim that this would restart the statute of limitations. Plaintiff may be entitled to assert the legal position that each "posting" was a new and complete publication. But see Oparaugo v. Watts, 884 A.2d 63, 73-74 (D.C. 2005) and Mullin v. Washington Free Weekly, 785 A.2d 296, 298-299 (DC App. 2001) ((rejecting "discovery rule" in mass media invasion of privacy cases) and Wilson v. Prudential Fin., Civil Action File No. 03-2313 (RMU) (D.D.C. 2004) and Ogden v. Ass'n of the United States Army, 177 F. Supp. 498, 502 (D.D.C. 1959)

-8-

Case 1:05-cv-00970-PLF-JMF

Document 52

Filed 10/10/2006

Page 9 of 53

(adopting "single publication" rule). However, Plaintiff is not also entitled to refuse to respond directly to the question of whether the blog entries had first been posted on a date outside the statute of limitations. The following Requests for Admissions are the subject of this aspect of Defendant's Motion: 23. On or before Friday, May 14, 2004, 4:34 p.m., EST, Defendant published the following entry in her web log: I got a raise today! Now I make $25K. (Wasn't that what I was making before??) Most of my living expenses are thankfully subsidized by a few generous older gentlemen. I'm sure I am not the only one who makes money on the side this way: how can anybody live on $25K/year?? If you investigated every Staff Ass on the Hill, I am sure you would find out some freaky shit. No way can anybody live on such a low salary. I am convinced that the Congressional offices are full of dealers and hos. Response The Plaintiff objects to Defendant's requests insofar as requests are unduly burdensome or are calculated or would otherwise operate to annoy, embarrass, oppress or cause undue expense to the Plaintiff or to any individual not a part to this action on the grounds that said requests exceed the scope of permissible discovery under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. The Plaintiff objects to Defendant's requests insofar as said requests would require the Plaintiff to respond by acquiring or supplying information which would be irrelevant and immaterial to the subject matter or issues of this action, and not reasonably calculated to lead to discovery of admissible evidence on the grounds that said requests exceed the scope of permissible discovery under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Subject to and without waiver of the foregoing objections, Plaintiff responds as follows: Defendant's blog is known as the Washingtonienne. Defendant's complete blog is set forth in the complaint. The Complete blog was available on May 18, 2004. Otherwise Plaintiff denies. 24. On or before Friday, May 14, 2004, 3:48 p.m., EST, Defendant published the following entry in her web log: Going to see the movie Troy tonight. RS told me to call him afterwards. Wants sex. We've only been dating a week, and we already have a routine.

-9-

Case 1:05-cv-00970-PLF-JMF

Document 52

Filed 10/10/2006

Page 10 of 53

Response The Plaintiff objects to Defendant's requests insofar as requests are unduly burdensome or are calculated or would otherwise operate to annoy, embarrass, oppress or cause undue expense to the Plaintiff or to any individual not a part to this action on the grounds that said requests exceed the scope of permissible discovery under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. The Plaintiff objects to Defendant's requests insofar as said requests would require the Plaintiff to respond by acquiring or supplying information which would be irrelevant and immaterial to the subject matter or issues of this action, and not reasonably calculated to lead to discovery of admissible evidence on the grounds that said requests exceed the scope of permissible discovery under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Subject to and without waiver of the foregoing objections, Plaintiff responds as follows: Defendant's blog is known as the Washingtonienne. Defendant's complete blog is set forth in the complaint. The Complete blog was available on May 18, 2004. Otherwise Plaintiff denies. 25. On or before Friday, May 14, 2004, 9:53 a.m., EST, Defendant published the following entry in her web log: MK found my half-empty bottle of K-Y last night. He will probably never speak to me again. I feel bad about what I did to MK and I feel like our relationship deserves more than a short write-off, but we both need to move on. I never promised him a rose garden. So I called RS after MK left in a huff. I ended up sleeping over in Bethesda for the third night in a row. He wants us to get tested together so we can stop using condoms. Isn't that sweet? Hope I don't have anything! So I don't know if it's getting serious or what. We're seeing each other every day now. I like him very much and he likes me. But can it go anywhere, i.e. marriage? I don't know. He's Jewish, I'm not. And we have nasty sex like animals, not man and wife. But we work together, so there is an incentive to stay together and avoid an awkward breakup. And after a few months, people around the office will start "hearing wedding bells." I really just want to be a Jewish housewife with a big rock on my finger. Response The Plaintiff objects to Defendant's requests insofar as requests are unduly burdensome or are calculated or would otherwise operate to annoy, embarrass, oppress or cause undue expense to the Plaintiff or to any individual not a part to this action on the grounds that said requests exceed the scope of permissible discovery under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. The Plaintiff objects to Defendant's requests insofar as said requests would require the Plaintiff to respond by acquiring or supplying information which would be irrelevant and immaterial to the subject matter or issues of this action, and not reasonably calculated to lead to discovery of admissible evidence on the grounds that said requests exceed the scope of permissible discovery under the Federal Rules of Civil

-10-

Case 1:05-cv-00970-PLF-JMF

Document 52

Filed 10/10/2006

Page 11 of 53

Procedure. Subject to and without waiver of the foregoing objections, Plaintiff responds as follows: Defendant's blog is known as the Washingtonienne. Defendant's complete blog is set forth in the complaint. The Complete blog was available on May 18, 2004. Otherwise Plaintiff denies. 26. On or before Thursday, May 13, 2004, 1:11 p.m., EST, Defendant published the following entry in her web log: Thursday, May 13, 2004 Item! "The Real World: D.C." See today's Wonkette: Like You Need Another Reason to Avoid Adams Morgan Wonkette's Kalorama Citizens' Association operative writes to say that "The Real World: D.C." has found a location for its Ikea showroom/soundstage: MTV has purchased the space above Maggie Moo's on 18th St in Adams Morgan. Real World DC here we come. . . Wondering if the cast will work for MoveOn or Club for Growth. . . Or they could work at The New Republic with all the other recent college graduates who aren't paying their own rent. Or worse, they could work on the Hill! Response The Plaintiff objects to Defendant's requests insofar as requests are unduly burdensome or are calculated or would otherwise operate to annoy, embarrass, oppress or cause undue expense to the Plaintiff or to any individual not a part to this action on the grounds that said requests exceed the scope of permissible discovery under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. The Plaintiff objects to Defendant's requests insofar as said requests would require the Plaintiff to respond by acquiring or supplying information which would be irrelevant and immaterial to the subject matter or issues of this action, and not reasonably calculated to lead to discovery of admissible evidence on the grounds that said requests exceed the scope of permissible discovery under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Subject to and without waiver of the foregoing objections, Plaintiff responds as follows: Defendant's blog is known as the Washingtonienne. Defendant's complete blog is set forth in the complaint. The Complete blog was available on May 18, 2004. Otherwise Plaintiff denies.

-11-

Case 1:05-cv-00970-PLF-JMF

Document 52

Filed 10/10/2006

Page 12 of 53

27. On or before Thursday, May 13, 2004, 9:10 a.m., EST, Defendant published the following entry in her web log: I first learned about the SU logo/name change at last night's Chancellor's alumni reception. I bumped into a "contemporary" of mine from da 'Cuse who also works in da Senate--in da same office as that girl I saw MD with a few weeks ago. So we had some drinks at the reception and I went to Red River to meet some people from his office. Unf, she wasn't there, but I learned that she thinks MD is as big of a chump as I do. My SU friend told me that MD was talking to her long before I came to the Hill. She recently broke up with her boyfriend, but SU Dude believes that she won't date MD, they're just friends. (Not that I care anymore, but these things are good to know.) So my friend AS met up with me at RR and I had two genius ideas: 1. We should go to Saki. 2. AS should meet RS. So I called RS and told him to come over so AS could get a look at him. This morning she says (via IM), "He does look like George Clooney, but he's totally Woody Allen." She also said, "He will do anything to make you happy." Isn't that sweet? And it's true: he stood in line with us at Saki for 1 1/2 hours! BTW, Saki has gotten really hard to get into. But I don't know of any other place that is more action-packed on a Wednesday night in Washington. However, AS and I have decided not to go back there for a few months: we actually recognized people from the last time we were there! Which is a v. bad sign. Also, we will go home and change before we go to Saki. Next time, we will not wear our work clothes. When Saki closed, we got some nasty Pizza Mart slices that tasted really good at the time. Then AS went home and RS took me back to his place for the second night in a row. I passed out as soon as I lay down, so we didn't do anything. I woke up with an awful hangover and barfed up my Pizza Mart. (I'm losing weight!) Then RS drove me home and made me promise to call him again today. I need to take it easy tonight, which means I might not go out, and I am sitting out the taco contest for sure. Sorry to disappoint any of my fans at Tortilla Coast.

-12-

Case 1:05-cv-00970-PLF-JMF

Document 52

Filed 10/10/2006

Page 13 of 53

posted by The Washingtonienne at 10:17 AM Back to top Response The Plaintiff objects to Defendant's requests insofar as requests are unduly burdensome or are calculated or would otherwise operate to annoy, embarrass, oppress or cause undue expense to the Plaintiff or to any individual not a part to this action on the grounds that said requests exceed the scope of permissible discovery under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. The Plaintiff objects to Defendant's requests insofar as said requests would require the Plaintiff to respond by acquiring or supplying information which would be irrelevant and immaterial to the subject matter or issues of this action, and not reasonably calculated to lead to discovery of admissible evidence on the grounds that said requests exceed the scope of permissible discovery under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Subject to and without waiver of the foregoing objections, Plaintiff responds as follows: Defendant's blog is known as the Washingtonienne. Defendant's complete blog is set forth in the complaint. The Complete blog was available on May 18, 2004. Otherwise Plaintiff denies. 28. On or before Thursday, May 13, 2004, 9:10 a.m., EST, Defendant published the following entry in her web log: From the D.O.: "Syracuse changes nickname, logo" http://www.dailyorange.com/news/680748.html?mkey=414705 I don't like. Response The Plaintiff objects to Defendant's requests insofar as requests are unduly burdensome or are calculated or would otherwise operate to annoy, embarrass, oppress or cause undue expense to the Plaintiff or to any individual not a part to this action on the grounds that said requests exceed the scope of permissible discovery under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. The Plaintiff objects to Defendant's requests insofar as said requests would require the Plaintiff to respond by acquiring or supplying information which would be irrelevant and immaterial to the subject matter or issues of this action, and not reasonably calculated to lead to discovery of admissible evidence on the grounds that said requests exceed the scope of permissible discovery under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Subject to and without waiver of the foregoing objections, Plaintiff responds as follows: Defendant's blog is known as the Washingtonienne. Defendant's complete blog is set forth in the complaint. The Complete blog was available on May 18, 2004. Otherwise Plaintiff denies. 29. On or before Wednesday, May 12, 2004, 4:20 p.m., EST, Defendant published the following entry in her web log: What is my position? I am a Staff Assistant, or "Staff Ass," as the men on the Hill like to say. It's the entry-level job in each office. (For those who don't know.)

-13-

Case 1:05-cv-00970-PLF-JMF

Document 52

Filed 10/10/2006

Page 14 of 53

Response The Plaintiff objects to Defendant's requests insofar as requests are unduly burdensome or are calculated or would otherwise operate to annoy, embarrass, oppress or cause undue expense to the Plaintiff or to any individual not a part to this action on the grounds that said requests exceed the scope of permissible discovery under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. The Plaintiff objects to Defendant's requests insofar as said requests would require the Plaintiff to respond by acquiring or supplying information which would be irrelevant and immaterial to the subject matter or issues of this action, and not reasonably calculated to lead to discovery of admissible evidence on the grounds that said requests exceed the scope of permissible discovery under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Subject to and without waiver of the foregoing objections, Plaintiff responds as follows: Defendant's blog is known as the Washingtonienne. Defendant's complete blog is set forth in the complaint. The Complete blog was available on May 18, 2004. Otherwise Plaintiff denies. 30. On or before Wednesday, May 12, 2004, 12:59 p.m., EST, Defendant published the following entry in her web log: R (Threesome Dude) e-mailed me while I was out at lunch: How are things on the Hill? I assume everyone's going nuts about the Iraq (and now Afghanistan) prisoner abuse stories and the execution of that young American. Warm here, beautiful out...people trying to forget the state of the world and just enjoy life a little. And thanks again for inviting me. Barring that final drink (and anything I said that might have made that a little awkward ­ for which I apologize), I really enjoyed it. And I hope to see you again. Best, R Jesus, what a douche. Response The Plaintiff objects to Defendant's requests insofar as requests are unduly burdensome or are calculated or would otherwise operate to annoy, embarrass, oppress or cause undue expense to the Plaintiff or to any individual not a part to this action on the grounds that said requests exceed the scope of permissible discovery under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. The Plaintiff objects to Defendant's requests insofar as said requests would require the Plaintiff to respond by acquiring or supplying information which would be irrelevant and immaterial to the subject matter or issues of this action, and not reasonably calculated to lead to discovery of admissible evidence on the grounds that said requests exceed the scope of permissible discovery under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Subject to and without waiver of the foregoing objections, Plaintiff responds as follows:

-14-

Case 1:05-cv-00970-PLF-JMF

Document 52

Filed 10/10/2006

Page 15 of 53

Defendant's blog is known as the Washingtonienne. Defendant's complete blog is set forth in the complaint. The Complete blog was available on May 18, 2004. Otherwise Plaintiff denies. 31. On or before Wednesday, May 12, 2004, 9:28 a.m., EST, Defendant published the following entry in her web log: So I went to dinner w/ RS at Lebanese Taverna. He's really not mad about the gossip at all: he's actually joking around the office about it. Like, when he walks out of a room, he'll slap himself on the ass! Me, I'm just hiding in my office until this blows over. We went to his house after dinner, a four bedroom in Bethesda. Needs work, but v. cute. So it turns out that RS cannot finish with a condom on. He can barely stay hard. So he ends up taking it off and humping away at me. Maybe I forgot to tell him that I'm on the Pill. Note to self... I also learned that he was a cop, so he has scary police shit like handcuffs in his closet. He implied that we would be using them next time, which is intriguing, but I know I'm going to get scared and panicky. (Which would probably turn him on.) So 9pm comes and goes, and I missed my date with MK. And I was missing ANTM! So I just watched it with RS. Meanwhile, MK is trying to call me on my cell (which is turned off inside my handbag.) MK left a very irrate message on my voicemail. He basically hates me now. But when you're crushing on somebody new, that stuff doesn't affect you as much as it should. I slept over at RS's and he drove me home this morning to change. I'm supposed to call him again today. I'm afraid I really like him. I like this crazy hair-pulling, ass-smacking dude who wants to use handcuffs on me. Shit. Response The Plaintiff objects to Defendant's requests insofar as requests are unduly burdensome or are calculated or would otherwise operate to annoy, embarrass, oppress or cause undue expense to the Plaintiff or to any individual not a part to this action on the grounds that said requests exceed the scope of permissible discovery under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. The Plaintiff objects to Defendant's requests insofar as said requests would require the Plaintiff to respond by acquiring or supplying information which would be irrelevant and immaterial to the subject matter or issues of this action, and not reasonably calculated to lead to discovery of admissible evidence on the grounds that said requests exceed the scope of permissible discovery under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Subject to and without waiver of the foregoing objections, Plaintiff responds as follows: Defendant's blog is known as the Washingtonienne. Defendant's complete blog is set forth in the complaint. The Complete blog was available on May 18, 2004. Otherwise Plaintiff denies.

-15-

Case 1:05-cv-00970-PLF-JMF

Document 52

Filed 10/10/2006

Page 16 of 53

32. On or before Tuesday, May 11, 2004, 5:57 p.m., EST, Defendant published the following entry in her web log: RS just called again. Bad news: the rumor has spread to other offices. This is bad. Response The Plaintiff objects to Defendant's requests insofar as requests are unduly burdensome or are calculated or would otherwise operate to annoy, embarrass, oppress or cause undue expense to the Plaintiff or to any individual not a part to this action on the grounds that said requests exceed the scope of permissible discovery under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. The Plaintiff objects to Defendant's requests insofar as said requests would require the Plaintiff to respond by acquiring or supplying information which would be irrelevant and immaterial to the subject matter or issues of this action, and not reasonably calculated to lead to discovery of admissible evidence on the grounds that said requests exceed the scope of permissible discovery under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Subject to and without waiver of the foregoing objections, Plaintiff responds as follows: Defendant's blog is known as the Washingtonienne. Defendant's complete blog is set forth in the complaint. The Complete blog was available on May 18, 2004. Otherwise Plaintiff denies. 33. On or before Tuesday, May 11, 2004, 4:44 p.m., EST, Defendant published the following entry in her web log: http://www.marthastewart.com If you're like me and you're decorating a new apartment (because your boyfriend kicked you out), you need to stop hatin' on Martha: her stuff is the cutest! I'm getting the faux bois pattern throw pillows, and the seaweed and coral candles! Response The Plaintiff objects to Defendant's requests insofar as requests are unduly burdensome or are calculated or would otherwise operate to annoy, embarrass, oppress or cause undue expense to the Plaintiff or to any individual not a part to this action on the grounds that said requests exceed the scope of permissible discovery under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. The Plaintiff objects to Defendant's requests insofar as said requests would require the Plaintiff to respond by acquiring or supplying information which would be irrelevant and immaterial to the subject matter or issues of this action, and not reasonably calculated to lead to discovery of admissible evidence on the grounds that said requests exceed the scope of permissible discovery under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Subject to and without waiver of the foregoing objections, Plaintiff responds as follows: Defendant's blog is known as the Washingtonienne. Defendant's complete blog is set forth in the complaint. The Complete blog was available on May 18, 2004. Otherwise Plaintiff denies. 34. On or before Tuesday, May 11, 2004, 3:39 p.m., EST, Defendant published the following entry in her web log:

-16-

Case 1:05-cv-00970-PLF-JMF

Document 52

Filed 10/10/2006

Page 17 of 53

Praise for Washingtonienne: "This is pretty cool - she sounds like a 'fun' girl. I'd like to blog her."--James, San Diego, CA. Response The Plaintiff objects to Defendant's requests insofar as requests are unduly burdensome or are calculated or would otherwise operate to annoy, embarrass, oppress or cause undue expense to the Plaintiff or to any individual not a part to this action on the grounds that said requests exceed the scope of permissible discovery under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. The Plaintiff objects to Defendant's requests insofar as said requests would require the Plaintiff to respond by acquiring or supplying information which would be irrelevant and immaterial to the subject matter or issues of this action, and not reasonably calculated to lead to discovery of admissible evidence on the grounds that said requests exceed the scope of permissible discovery under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Subject to and without waiver of the foregoing objections, Plaintiff responds as follows: Defendant's blog is known as the Washingtonienne. Defendant's complete blog is set forth in the complaint. The Complete blog was available on May 18, 2004. Otherwise Plaintiff denies. 35. On or before Tuesday, May 11, 2004, 2:42 p.m., EST, Defendant published the following entry in her web log: Oooh, RS just called me. He asked me out again tonight, but I have plans w/ MK @ 9pm. (We're watching the ANTM special together.) Two nights in a row. I like him, but WTF? Response The Plaintiff objects to Defendant's requests insofar as requests are unduly burdensome or are calculated or would otherwise operate to annoy, embarrass, oppress or cause undue expense to the Plaintiff or to any individual not a part to this action on the grounds that said requests exceed the scope of permissible discovery under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. The Plaintiff objects to Defendant's requests insofar as said requests would require the Plaintiff to respond by acquiring or supplying information which would be irrelevant and immaterial to the subject matter or issues of this action, and not reasonably calculated to lead to discovery of admissible evidence on the grounds that said requests exceed the scope of permissible discovery under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Subject to and without waiver of the foregoing objections, Plaintiff responds as follows: Defendant's blog is known as the Washingtonienne. Defendant's complete blog is set forth in the complaint. The Complete blog was available on May 18, 2004. Otherwise Plaintiff denies. 36. On or before Tuesday, May 11, 2004, 2:21 p.m., EST, Defendant published the following entry in her web log: By popular demand, I have finally created a key to keeping my sex life straight.

-17-

Case 1:05-cv-00970-PLF-JMF

Document 52

Filed 10/10/2006

Page 18 of 53

In alpha order: AJ=The intern in my office whom I want to fuck. F=Married man who pays me for sex. Chief of Staff at one of the gov agencies, appointed by Bush. J=Lost my virginity to him and fell in love. Dude who has been driving me crazy since 1999. Lives in Springfield, IL. Flies halfway across the country to fuck me, then I don't hear from him for weeks. MD=Dude from the Senate office I interned in Jan. thru Feb. Hired me as an intern. Broke up my relationship w/ MK (see below). MK=Serious, long-term boyfriend whom I lived with since 2001. Disastrous break up in March, but still seeing each other. R=AKA "Threesome Dude." Somebody I would rather forget about. RS=My new office bf with whom I am embroiled in an office sex scandal. The current favorite. W=A sugar daddy who wants nothing but anal. Keep trying to end it with him, but the money is too good. Shit. I'm fucking six guys. Ewww. Response The Plaintiff objects to Defendant's requests insofar as requests are unduly burdensome or are calculated or would otherwise operate to annoy, embarrass, oppress or cause undue expense to the Plaintiff or to any individual not a part to this action on the grounds that said requests exceed the scope of permissible discovery under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. The Plaintiff objects to Defendant's requests insofar as said requests would require the Plaintiff to respond by acquiring or supplying information which would be irrelevant and immaterial to the subject matter or issues of this action, and not reasonably calculated to lead to discovery of admissible evidence on the grounds that said requests exceed the scope of permissible discovery under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Subject to and without waiver of the foregoing objections, Plaintiff responds as follows: Defendant's blog is known as the Washingtonienne. Defendant's complete blog is set forth in the complaint. The Complete blog was available on May 18, 2004. Otherwise Plaintiff denies. 37. On or before Tuesday, May 11, 2004, 9:19 a.m., EST, Defendant published the following entry in her web log: I am so busted.

-18-

Case 1:05-cv-00970-PLF-JMF

Document 52

Filed 10/10/2006

Page 19 of 53

Went out w/ RS after work yesterday. He took me out for drinks, took me back to my place, and we fucked every which way. THEN he tells me that he heard I've been spreading the spanking rumor around the office! He's not mad, but I am so ashamed of my behavior: I have such a big mouth. It got around and now EVERYBODY knows. Even our LD (who is sleeping with somebody in our office, too, BTW.) But last night was fun. He's very up-front about sex. He likes talking dirty and stuff, and he told me that he likes submissive women. Good, now I can take it easy in bed. Just lay back and watch him do freaky shit. We went to Tune Inn and ate some shit there because it was the only place open at 1am. He walked me home and kissed me at my door. I was like, "Aww, this is so adorable!" He called me "jaded" and told me to call him tomorrow (i.e. today). Jaded? Moi? Response The Plaintiff objects to Defendant's requests insofar as requests are unduly burdensome or are calculated or would otherwise operate to annoy, embarrass, oppress or cause undue expense to the Plaintiff or to any individual not a part to this action on the grounds that said requests exceed the scope of permissible discovery under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. The Plaintiff objects to Defendant's requests insofar as said requests would require the Plaintiff to respond by acquiring or supplying information which would be irrelevant and immaterial to the subject matter or issues of this action, and not reasonably calculated to lead to discovery of admissible evidence on the grounds that said requests exceed the scope of permissible discovery under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Subject to and without waiver of the foregoing objections, Plaintiff responds as follows: Defendant's blog is known as the Washingtonienne. Defendant's complete blog is set forth in the complaint. The Complete blog was available on May 18, 2004. Otherwise Plaintiff denies. 38. On or before Monday, May 10, 2004, 6:25 p.m., EST, Defendant published the following entry in her web log: Must watch! America's Next Top Model: The Runway Ahead, Tuesday @ 9pm on UPN! http://www.upn.com/shows/top_model2/runway_ahead/index.shtml Response The Plaintiff objects to Defendant's requests insofar as requests are unduly burdensome or are calculated or would otherwise operate to annoy, embarrass, oppress or cause undue expense to the Plaintiff or to any individual not a part to this action on the grounds that said requests exceed the scope of permissible discovery under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. The Plaintiff objects to Defendant's requests insofar as said requests would require the Plaintiff to respond by acquiring or supplying information which would be irrelevant and immaterial to the subject matter or issues of this action, and not reasonably calculated to lead to discovery of admissible evidence on the grounds

-19-

Case 1:05-cv-00970-PLF-JMF

Document 52

Filed 10/10/2006

Page 20 of 53

that said requests exceed the scope of permissible discovery under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Subject to and without waiver of the foregoing objections, Plaintiff responds as follows: Defendant's blog is known as the Washingtonienne. Defendant's complete blog is set forth in the complaint. The Complete blog was available on May 18, 2004. Otherwise Plaintiff denies. 39. On or before Monday, May 10, 2004, 2:08 p.m., EST, Defendant published the following entry in her web log: Updates Went to "lunch" (i.e. iced coffee) and on the way back, bumped into both MD and RS! (But not at the same time, TG.) I told MD I had some news, so he sat down with me in the cafeteria and I told him about RS. (I left out the sex. Also, I tried to frame the story like, "Isn't this a totally fucked-up situation?", not like I'm trying to make him jealous.) He could not get back to work fast enough. I really don't care if he hates me or what. He isn't into me anymore anyway. If he was, he would call me more often. Also, he said he's trying to get a job off the Hill asap, so I can stop worrying about bumping into him everywhere I go. So I leave the cafeteria and start walking back to the office, and I see RS. We stopped and talked in the hall and he asked me out for a drink tonight. (Except he doesn't drink?) I look really good today, so I'm glad I hit two birds with one stone during my lunch hour. Response The Plaintiff objects to Defendant's requests insofar as requests are unduly burdensome or are calculated or would otherwise operate to annoy, embarrass, oppress or cause undue expense to the Plaintiff or to any individual not a part to this action on the grounds that said requests exceed the scope of permissible discovery under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. The Plaintiff objects to Defendant's requests insofar as said requests would require the Plaintiff to respond by acquiring or supplying information which would be irrelevant and immaterial to the subject matter or issues of this action, and not reasonably calculated to lead to discovery of admissible evidence on the grounds that said requests exceed the scope of permissible discovery under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Subject to and without waiver of the foregoing objections, Plaintiff responds as follows: Defendant's blog is known as the Washingtonienne. Defendant's complete blog is set forth in the complaint. The Complete blog was available on May 18, 2004. Otherwise Plaintiff denies. 40. On or before Monday, May 10, 2004, 12:35 p.m., EST, Defendant published the following entry in her web log: W just e-mailed me: How was your weekend? Thinking of you!

-20-

Case 1:05-cv-00970-PLF-JMF

Document 52

Filed 10/10/2006

Page 21 of 53

Ugh. I wrote back: From now on, we should go out drinking before we go back to your place. I think that would improve everything. I know I said it was "over," but it's not like it matters either way. What can I say, I like money. Response The Plaintiff objects to Defendant's requests insofar as requests are unduly burdensome or are calculated or would otherwise operate to annoy, embarrass, oppress or cause undue expense to the Plaintiff or to any individual not a part to this action on the grounds that said requests exceed the scope of permissible discovery under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. The Plaintiff objects to Defendant's requests insofar as said requests would require the Plaintiff to respond by acquiring or supplying information which would be irrelevant and immaterial to the subject matter or issues of this action, and not reasonably calculated to lead to discovery of admissible evidence on the grounds that said requests exceed the scope of permissible discovery under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Subject to and without waiver of the foregoing objections, Plaintiff responds as follows: Defendant's blog is known as the Washingtonienne. Defendant's complete blog is set forth in the complaint. The Complete blog was available on May 18, 2004. Otherwise Plaintiff denies. 41. On or before Monday, May 10, 2004, 11:47 a.m., EST, Defendant published the following entry in her web log: I am done with W, for real this time. A man who tries to fuck you in the ass when you are sober does not love you. He should at least take you out for a few drinks to spare you the pain. Now I know that W does not care about me, only my asshole. The whole situation depressed me so much, I turned down a free dinner and asked him to take me home. He peeled off a few hundred from that roll of cash he carries around, and put the hundreds in my hand as I was getting out of the car. I acted indignant, like I don't need his help, but I kept it: why punish myself? I should get something for putting up with his tired old ass. So that's the end of W. The intern did not show at the party on Saturday. I was disappointed, but it's probably for the best. I don't need anymore sex scandals at work. But I'm bummed that he is not as interested as I had imagined. Had a good time with AS and her friend G. We got wasted and I passed out on my floor Saturday night. Sunday, I laid out and got some good sun. Unf, I chose a popular tourist picture-taking spot on the Mall, and all these assholes kept trying to snap shots of me in my bikini. I know I'm hot and everything, but please: no pictures!

-21-

Case 1:05-cv-00970-PLF-JMF

Document 52

Filed 10/10/2006

Page 22 of 53

So I went home to take a nap. I opened the door and started walking towards my bedroom, past the kitchen. I noticed a new blender sitting on the counter. BUT I DON'T OWN A BLENDER! I started to call the police, but stopped to think. Who has a key to this place? F! But why a blender? More importantly, why didn't he call first? What if I was in bed with my intern and F popped in with a surprise blender? F e-mailed me this morning to ask if I liked his gift. I just told him that I don't like surprises. I can't afford to stop seeing him, so I didn't bitch him out as much as I should have. I mean, is he crazy or what? Maybe I told him I wanted a blender and don't remember. Even so, why not call? MK came home from his Iceland trip last night and we had another totally redundant and pointless argument about our relationship. We made up before The Sopranos started so I could watch w/o his pissy little distractions. Such a bitch sometimes. But I love him. Back to work now... Response The Plaintiff objects to Defendant's requests insofar as requests are unduly burdensome or are calculated or would otherwise operate to annoy, embarrass, oppress or cause undue expense to the Plaintiff or to any individual not a part to this action on the grounds that said requests exceed the scope of permissible discovery under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. The Plaintiff objects to Defendant's requests insofar as said requests would require the Plaintiff to respond by acquiring or supplying information which would be irrelevant and immaterial to the subject matter or issues of this action, and not reasonably calculated to lead to discovery of admissible evidence on the grounds that said requests exceed the scope of permissible discovery under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Subject to and without waiver of the foregoing objections, Plaintiff responds as follows: Defendant's blog is known as the Washingtonienne. Defendant's complete blog is set forth in the complaint. The Complete blog was available on May 18, 2004. Otherwise Plaintiff denies. 42. On or before Friday, May 7, 2004, 6:38 p.m., EST, Defendant published the following entry in her web log: I take weekends off from this blog. So before I go, this is the plan: Take cab over to W's place in Georgetown. Fuck. Get dinner someplace expensive. W drives me home to Cap Hill. Go to keg party at coworker's house. (RS will not be there. Maybe fuck somebody else?) Get 8 hours sleep.

-22-

Case 1:05-cv-00970-PLF-JMF

Document 52

Filed 10/10/2006

Page 23 of 53

Get crabcake Bennifer at Eastern Market before they stop serving breakfast. Run?? Call my friend AS. Will meet up w/ her before party. Hope intern will show. Response The Plaintiff objects to Defendant's requests insofar as requests are unduly burdensome or are calculated or would otherwise operate to annoy, embarrass, oppress or cause undue expense to the Plaintiff or to any individual not a part to this action on the grounds that said requests exceed the scope of permissible discovery under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. The Plaintiff objects to Defendant's requests insofar as said requests would require the Plaintiff to respond by acquiring or supplying information which would be irrelevant and immaterial to the subject matter or issues of this action, and not reasonably calculated to lead to discovery of admissible evidence on the grounds that said requests exceed the scope of permissible discovery under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Subject to and without waiver of the foregoing objections, Plaintiff responds as follows: Defendant's blog is known as the Washingtonienne. Defendant's complete blog is set forth in the complaint. The Complete blog was available on May 18, 2004. Otherwise Plaintiff denies. 43. On or before Friday, May 7, 2004, 5:24 p.m., EST, Defendant published the following entry in her web log: Three weeks. That's how long it took for J for start it up again. He's getting better at this long-distance thing. One month was the standard wait. Now it's down to three weeks. We must be getting serious! I got an e-mail from him this afternoon, and we had some back-and-forth. Still with his crazy girlfriend in Springfield, IL. But I shouldn't talk. This is the last thing I need in my life right now: another distraction at work! I am so behind... If it wasn't for e-mail, J and I would have forgotten about each other long ago. So effortless to stay in touch this way. Must wonder about those people who never e-mail you: they TRULY do not care. But I like knowing that J still wants me. What makes him decide to send an e-mail after all this time? And not just today, but all those times before? Talk about crazy!

-23-

Case 1:05-cv-00970-PLF-JMF

Document 52

Filed 10/10/2006

Page 24 of 53

Response The Plaintiff objects to Defendant's requests insofar as requests are unduly burdensome or are calculated or would otherwise operate to annoy, embarrass, oppress or cause undue expense to the Plaintiff or to any individual not a part to this action on the grounds that said requests exceed the scope of permissible discovery under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. The Plaintiff objects to Defendant's requests insofar as said requests would require the Plaintiff to respond by acquiring or supplying information which would be irrelevant and immaterial to the subject matter or issues of this action, and not reasonably calculated to lead to discovery of admissible evidence on the grounds that said requests exceed the scope of permissible discovery under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Subject to and without waiver of the foregoing objections, Plaintiff responds as follows: Defendant's blog is known as the Washingtonienne. Defendant's complete blog is set forth in the complaint. The Complete blog was available on May 18, 2004. Otherwise Plaintiff denies. 44. On or before Friday, May 7, 2004, 2:25 p.m., EST, Defendant published the following entry in her web log: RS just e-mailed me: Hey, had a nice time yesterday. going to NY tonight, but let's get some dinner or something next week. interested? I said yes. What am I getting myself into? Yes, I like him, but am I attracted to him or the impending drama?? I really don't get myself sometimes. Response The Plaintiff objects to Defendant's requests insofar as requests are unduly burdensome or are calculated or would otherwise operate to annoy, embarrass, oppress or cause undue expense to the Plaintiff or to any individual not a part to this action on the grounds that said requests exceed the scope of permissible discovery under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. The Plaintiff objects to Defendant's requests insofar as said requests would require the Plaintiff to respond by acquiring or supplying information which would be irrelevant and immaterial to the subject matter or issues of this action, and not reasonably calculated to lead to discovery of admissible evidence on the grounds that said requests exceed the scope of permissible discovery under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Subject to and without waiver of the foregoing objections, Plaintiff responds as follows: Defendant's blog is known as the Washingtonienne. Defendant's complete blog is set forth in the complaint. The Complete blog was available on May 18, 2004. Otherwise Plaintiff denies. 45. On or before Friday, May 7, 2004, 2:02 p.m., EST, Defendant published the following entry in her web log:

-24-

Case 1:05-cv-00970-PLF-JMF

Document 52

Filed 10/10/2006

Page 25 of 53

The boss who pimped me out to RS just stopped by. She asked me what happened after she left us at the bar. I tried to be as vague as possible, but I implied that she should ask RS himself. Then she mentioned that RS is very discrete, so I am taking that as a hint to keep quiet. Finally, she asked me if I would say yes if he asked me out again. I told her that I would. So it looks like I might have another boyfriend. I hope this does not end badly. Response The Plaintiff objects to Defendant's requests insofar as requests are unduly burdensome or are calculated or would otherwise operate to annoy, embarrass, oppress or cause undue expense to the Plaintiff or to any individual not a part to this action on the grounds that said requests exceed the scope of permissible discovery under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. The Plaintiff objects to Defendant's requests insofar as said requests would require the Plaintiff to respond by acquiring or supplying information which would be irrelevant and immaterial to the subject matter or issues of this action, and not reasonably calculated to lead to discovery of admissible evidence on the grounds that said requests exceed the scope of permissible discovery under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Subject to and without waiver of the foregoing objections, Plaintiff responds as follows: Defendant's blog is known as the Washingtonienne. Defendant's complete blog is set forth in the complaint. The Complete blog was available on May 18, 2004. Otherwise Plaintiff denies. 46. On or before Friday, May 7, 2004, 1:16 p.m., EST, Defendant published the following entry in her web log: I told my coworkers about the spanking over lunch, but left out the nasty parts. (We were eating.) So they were shocked. Not sure I should have told them. But they blame him for what happened: he is senior and should know better, esp since he was the sober one. One of them told me that RS wore a purple turtleneck with a bright blue fleece over it at a recent staff retreat. Now I wonder if he's crazy