State News

Judge wants Edwards' testimony in sex tape dispute kept private

Posted October 21, 2010

— A Superior Court judge on Thursday ordered that depositions by former Democratic presidential candidate John Edwards and his mistress over a purported sex tape be kept confidential.

Rielle Hunter, a former campaign worker who gave birth to Edwards' daughter, has sued one-time Edwards aide Andrew Young and his wife, alleging that they took the sex tape and photographs of Edwards with his daughter from her.

Judge Carl Fox ordered that depositions of Edwards and Hunter in the case be used only for court proceedings, and he warned the Youngs that he would jail them on contempt of court charges if they discussed the contents of the depositions outside of court.

Edwards' attorney, Jim Cooney, asked that questioning of Edwards be limited to his knowledge of the tape's ownership and physical possession and his knowledge of the ownership of the home where the tape was stored and of Young's right to inspect the premises.

"This is a lawsuit, at its essence, about property rights," Cooney said. "This was a deposition that was intended to go very far afield of the ownership of those tapes."

Young's attorney, Hoppy Elliott, argued that restrictions shouldn't be placed on the questioning.

"This is a discovery process, and he will be a witness in this case," Elliott said. "We need the right to use the discovery procedures."

Fox declined to restrict the questioning of Edwards but did limit the documents he needed to provide.

Hunter alleges in court documents that the Youngs used the video and photos to wrangle book and movie deals for "The Politician," Young's tell-all book about Edwards.

Young surrendered copies of the sex tape and CDs filled with photos to the court in March. The items will be kept under seal until the lawsuit is resolved.

Young, who pretended to be the father of Hunter's child during the 2008 presidential campaign, has said that he kept the video and photos solely to corroborate his story and never used them for publicity or profit. He also contends that Hunter abandoned the property in a rented house in Chatham County.


This story is closed for comments.

Oldest First
View all
  • Eduardo1 Oct 21, 2010

    Your (no) Honor, it is not yet Halloween YET, but you get a big BOO for this decision. Let everything be known about this case.

    It appears that the Edwards millions are starting to take hold in the courtroom

  • jarhed28 Oct 21, 2010

    Former President Bill Clintons dirty laundry (no pun intended) was broadcast all over the world. John Edwards must think he has control over everything, so this is just another attempt at damage control and to manipulate the system. When you do something wrong, every aspect of the case against you should be made available to the public regardless of who you are or who you think you are.

  • Desiderata Oct 21, 2010

    My mom always warned me to be careful of the photos taken,,,,guess these people are too stupid to understand such a concept...

  • dlentz2 Oct 21, 2010

    I don't know how anything in this case hasn't been told. They both have done tell all ,say all interviews. There are no secrets.

  • Baybee Doll Oct 21, 2010

    Hmm, that is a nice picture of him....

  • mulecitybabe Oct 21, 2010

    I couldn't possibly care less about any of this crowd. They're getting what they deserve.

    What bothers me is the fact that these people are getting favorable treatment in a court of law by a judge that is also, believe it or not, assigned to preside over trials that involve the unwashed (also known as common taxpayers). If the judge is this confident that he can circumvent the law in a case that is this high profile, how can we have any faith at all that he won't do it to us common folks when we wind up in court and nobody cares?

  • Slip Kid Oct 21, 2010

    Not really a big deal. This is a civil case between 2 private parties. There is no obligation to make any of the material public. If you want it, hang out in court and get it first hand.

  • ncguy Oct 21, 2010

    just adding more chapters to a soon to be "tell all" book or B rated movie that ends up on lifetime channel.

  • Sherlock Oct 21, 2010

    Of course he will get special treatment.

  • GroupOfPricklyPears Oct 21, 2010

    Sounds like special treatment. So much for judicial ethics, huh?