Judge Rules Paula Jones Suit Will Have to Wait

In a split decision involving a potentially explosive sexual harassment lawsuit against the President, a federal judge in Little Rock, Ark., agreed Wednesday to delay a trial in the case until after Bill Clinton leaves office.

But the judge also gave lawyers permission to question Clinton and others under oath about Paula Corbin Jones’ claim that Clinton, while governor of Arkansas, made crude sexual advances to her in a Little Rock hotel room.

Those sworn statements about the case, if made public or leaked to the press, could embarrass and damage the already embattled President prior to the 1996 election.

Clinton’s high-profile lawyer, Robert S. Bennett, has sought to get the case thrown out of court, or at least to have it put on hold indefinitely.

Bennett’s office said he was out of the country Wednesday and was unavailable to comment.

But Carl S. Rauh, an attorney working with Bennett, said they would appeal the judge’s ruling that allows the discovery process to proceed.

“We are concerned about this being a distraction for the President,” Rauh said. Experts familiar with sexual harassment cases said that the depositions involving Clinton and others who witnessed his alleged actions could prove embarrassing.

They predicted that Bennett would probably seek a court order sealing all the depositions. They could also delay matters further by successivly appealing Wednesday’s ruling to a higher court.

A lawyer for Jones said that he was “gratified” by the 22-page opinion issued by U.S. District Judge Susan Webber Wright.

“The court has agreed with our position that the President does not enjoy immunity from these kinds of lawsuits,” said Joseph Cammarata of Fairfax, Va. “We have a lot of people to depose, and the court has said, ‘Let’s get the process going.’ ”

The ruling cuts a middle course in addressing the previously unresolved question of whether a sitting President can be dragged into court to fight a damage suit involving a private matter.

In 1982, the Supreme Court gave the President “absolute immunity” from being sued over his “official actions.”

But the justices have not spoken on claims involving the President’s private conduct or matters that took place before he was elected.

Jones, a low-level Arkansas state employee, said she was escorted to meet the governor in his hotel room on May 8, 1991, about 18 months before Clinton was elected President.

But she waited until May 6, 1994, to file a damage suit against him--in hopes, she said, of clearing her name over rumors that she had been intimately involved with Clinton.

Responding to the lawsuit, Bennett claimed the President was entitled to absolute immunity from such damage claims.

Judge Wright, an appointee of former President George Bush, disagreed.

“No one, be he a king or a President, is above the law,” she wrote in the opinion. However, the chief executive is due a “temporary or limited immunity” from undergoing a trial during his term of office, she added, because it would inevitably distract him from his official duties.

“Although President Clinton is not entitled to have this action dismissed on the basis of immunity, he should not have to devote his time and effort to the defense of this case at trial while in office,” she wrote.

The preparation for a trial can move forward, she said.

“There would seem to be no reason why the discovery and deposition process could not proceed as to all persons, including the President himself,” she wrote.

State trooper Danny Ferguson remains a key figure in the case. Jones also sued Ferguson because he allegedly escorted her to the hotel room. On Wednesday, Wright said the two suits are so intertwined that they must proceed together.

This clears the way for Ferguson to be questioned under oath about whether he indeed took the young woman to meet Clinton in his hotel room.

The trooper’s attorney, Bill Britsow of Jonesboro, Ark., did not return calls seeking comment on the ruling.

Zachary Fasman, a Washington lawyer who handles job discrimination cases, said the judge’s ruling allowing discovery to proceed is a big victory for Jones and poses a potential problem for the President.

“I would assume they (Clinton’s lawyers) will seek a protective order keeping these depositions under seal. This a sensitive case and judges usually grant those orders,” he said. “But the problem is that those orders are hard to enforce. You can try to seal it, but it doesn’t always work.”