Feature Article
High Steaks
By Steve Volk
ON JUNE 5, 2007, Craig LaBan showed up at the law offices of Dilworth Paxson wearing an exaggeratedly large, bushy gray and white wig with a matching beard. And, contends Plotkin, he spoke in a distorted baritone, trying to mask the sound of his voice.
The Inquirer’s attorneys argued that LaBan’s likeness and work methods comprise trade secrets and asked that he not be filmed or photographed during the deposition process. But Judge William Manfredi ruled against them, and also decreed that LaBan appear without costume. So this last-ditch effort to keep his identity a secret, in defiance of a court order, smacked of desperation and perhaps a certain self-seriousness of his own.
Plotkin says his attorney, Dion Rassias, of the Jim Beasley firm, quickly whisked LaBan and opposing counsel into another room: “I don’t know specifically what was said, but I know when they came out he wasn’t wearing his costume anymore.”
Plotkin says LaBan looked “spooked,” like Superman without his cape. His filmed deposition, sans disguises, is eligible to be shown at trial, which could occur in the first half of 2008. But in this case about nothing, even the furor over LaBan’s “right” to remain anonymous may prove a non-issue. In theory, such anonymity is important so that restaurant owners can’t single him out for special treatment. But I easily obtained two separate photos of LaBan, both of which circulate within the Philadelphia restaurant community, and one of which was previously reproduced in both the Chestnut Hill Local and Real Philly. Under such circumstances, is LaBan really anonymous?
In court papers, the defense argues he is, and that “disclosure of Mr. LaBan’s identity would be highly detrimental to his ability to review restaurants.”
Then again, it’s not like his job depends on it. Inquirer editor Bill Marimow understandably didn’t want to comment on the litigation itself, and declined to clear up whether or not the Inquirer ever considered running some kind of clarification. He did say, “Craig LaBan’s job security is by no means threatened, but to the extent that he can remain anonymous, he should, because it better serves the reader.”
Some think that after LaBan’s 10 years working in this marketplace, his cover is so blown among area restaurateurs that readers are the only ones in the dark. “I don’t know Craig,” says Zack Stalberg, president and CEO of the Committee of Seventy and former editor of the Daily News, “but he seems like a guy who takes himself too fucking seriously. It’s the disguises that I think are over-the-top, and I have to believe the people in that business know what that guy looks like, so I think it’s just a gimmick.”
The Inquirer’s attorneys argued that LaBan’s likeness and work methods comprise trade secrets and asked that he not be filmed or photographed during the deposition process. But Judge William Manfredi ruled against them, and also decreed that LaBan appear without costume. So this last-ditch effort to keep his identity a secret, in defiance of a court order, smacked of desperation and perhaps a certain self-seriousness of his own.
Plotkin says his attorney, Dion Rassias, of the Jim Beasley firm, quickly whisked LaBan and opposing counsel into another room: “I don’t know specifically what was said, but I know when they came out he wasn’t wearing his costume anymore.”
Plotkin says LaBan looked “spooked,” like Superman without his cape. His filmed deposition, sans disguises, is eligible to be shown at trial, which could occur in the first half of 2008. But in this case about nothing, even the furor over LaBan’s “right” to remain anonymous may prove a non-issue. In theory, such anonymity is important so that restaurant owners can’t single him out for special treatment. But I easily obtained two separate photos of LaBan, both of which circulate within the Philadelphia restaurant community, and one of which was previously reproduced in both the Chestnut Hill Local and Real Philly. Under such circumstances, is LaBan really anonymous?
In court papers, the defense argues he is, and that “disclosure of Mr. LaBan’s identity would be highly detrimental to his ability to review restaurants.”
Then again, it’s not like his job depends on it. Inquirer editor Bill Marimow understandably didn’t want to comment on the litigation itself, and declined to clear up whether or not the Inquirer ever considered running some kind of clarification. He did say, “Craig LaBan’s job security is by no means threatened, but to the extent that he can remain anonymous, he should, because it better serves the reader.”
Some think that after LaBan’s 10 years working in this marketplace, his cover is so blown among area restaurateurs that readers are the only ones in the dark. “I don’t know Craig,” says Zack Stalberg, president and CEO of the Committee of Seventy and former editor of the Daily News, “but he seems like a guy who takes himself too fucking seriously. It’s the disguises that I think are over-the-top, and I have to believe the people in that business know what that guy looks like, so I think it’s just a gimmick.”
Change text size |
Print |
Email |
Write a comment |








Posted by Pat J | Aug. 22, 2007 at 12:54 PM
Posted by Jake Drexel Hill | Aug. 22, 2007 at 8:16 PM
Posted by Rodney Davis | Aug. 22, 2007 at 9:01 PM
Posted by Sour Grapes | Aug. 23, 2007 at 9:46 AM
Posted by Josh Philly | Aug. 24, 2007 at 9:21 AM
Posted by Marole Leteber | Aug. 24, 2007 at 2:01 PM
Posted by Anonymous | Aug. 24, 2007 at 3:43 PM
Posted by Anonymous | Aug. 24, 2007 at 7:40 PM
Posted by Steven Diner | Aug. 25, 2007 at 9:22 AM
Posted by Anonymous | Aug. 25, 2007 at 4:00 PM
Posted by Anonymous | Aug. 26, 2007 at 12:43 PM
Posted by Anonymous | Aug. 26, 2007 at 1:43 PM
Posted by Amy LaBan | Aug. 26, 2007 at 6:26 PM
Posted by Anonymous | Aug. 26, 2007 at 6:48 PM
Posted by Anonymous | Aug. 26, 2007 at 10:04 PM
Posted by Anonymous | Aug. 28, 2007 at 12:49 PM
Posted by Anonymous | Aug. 28, 2007 at 1:59 PM
Posted by Isabelle Braude | Aug. 28, 2007 at 2:13 PM
Posted by Mark West | Aug. 29, 2007 at 11:15 AM
Posted by Rick Roma | Aug. 30, 2007 at 1:23 AM
Posted by Anonymous | Aug. 31, 2007 at 9:54 AM
Posted by ulterio epicure | Sep. 4, 2007 at 7:41 PM
Posted by Jim Oxenford | Sep. 5, 2007 at 7:52 AM
Posted by Ed Rendell | Sep. 5, 2007 at 8:56 PM
Posted by Anonymous | Sep. 6, 2007 at 1:17 AM
Posted by Anonymous | Sep. 6, 2007 at 5:29 PM
Posted by sean kane | Oct. 10, 2007 at 7:57 PM
Posted by Terry Callen | Oct. 17, 2007 at 12:05 PM