HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_011364

id.

ne)

life)

61 H3VOGIU1

the community out trying to find her, and she was known as such

in her community. So to say somehow that we can't talk about

her reputation for truth telling, her reputation for honesty at

the time she was a child when she claims that she was the

victim of sex abuse, is not supported by the law.

Plaintiff also cites to Sack on Defamation, and I

believe the cite is 10, Section 5. And your Honor, I think this helps clarify a lot of what our position is in this case. Sack believes, as we do, that it is entirely

appropriate under 405(b) to question a plaintiff who has

alleged defamation, whose reputation is an issue about all kinds of bad acts. They have said, just now, that there is just no reason we should be allowed to ask about all these

other bad acts.

Sack cites, your Honor, to an Eleventh CircuLt case,

Schafer vs. Time, Inc. In that case, your Honor, Sack says the

Eleventh Circuit found the district court had been correct when

it ruled that the defendant, which allegedly accused the plaintiff of being a traitor, "would be permitted to question the plaintiff about a felony conviction, a possible violation of his subsequent parole, convictions for driving under the influence, an arrest for writing a bad check, failure to file

tax returns, failure to pay alimony and child support, and

vidence concerning plaintiff's efforts to change his name and

social security number." In other words, once you put your

SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C. (212) 805-0300

HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_011364