John Edwards to testify about relationship with mistress
Posted April 23, 2010 9:55 p.m. EDT
Updated April 24, 2010 6:58 p.m. EDT
Hillsborough, N.C. — Two-time Democratic presidential candidate John Edwards has been called to submit a sworn deposition on May 13 in his former mistress Rielle Hunter's invasion of privacy lawsuit against Andrew Young.
Edwards' attorney, Wade Smith, said Friday that his client had not received a subpoena. "If one comes, we have to decide how to deal with it," Smith said.
Hunter, a former campaign worker who had an affair with Edwards and later gave birth to his daughter, sued Young and his wife in January, claiming that they took a videotape that purportedly shows Edwards engaged in extramarital sex and photographs of him with his daughter.
Hunter says that the items were removed from a house Young rented for her in Chatham County, and she alleges that Young wanted the video and photos to generate publicity for "The Politician," his tell-all book about Edwards' affair.
Last month, Young, a former aide to Edwards, surrendered copies of the sex tape and CDs filled with photos to a Superior Court judge who had threatened to jail him on a contempt of court charge. The items will be kept under seal until the lawsuit is resolved.
On Tuesday, Hunter amended her lawsuit, alleging that the Youngs took other property belonging to her, still possess copies of the sex tape and are trying to sell the video. Her lawyers also filed a motion to seal all documents in the case to block Young from using them to boost his chances at selling the movie rights to "The Politician."
Young responded Wednesday by asking that the suit be dismissed, saying Hunter has repeatedly canceled depositions in the case.
His motion also asks that all proceedings remain open to the public, noting that he and his wife had to testify in court hearings before surrendering the sex tape. The motion also contends that, since Hunter has given several interviews about her affair and posed for photos "partially undressed," she cannot claim that anything in the case would violate her right to privacy.