Philadelphia Weekly

Craig LaBan is caught in a high-stakes dispute over ... steaks. And the Philadelphia Inquirer restaurant critic stands to lose something even more important than a pending lawsuit. He could lose his anonymity.

A recent ruling in the libel case 401 Restaurant Associates v. LaBan determined that the longtime food reviewer would be forced to give a videotaped deposition.

Worse, the video would be admissible at trial.

The suit arose from a three- sentence review LaBan wrote dissing the "strip steak" at the Bala Cynwyd restaurant Chops.

The suit alleges that what LaBan ate wasn't strip steak, and that the reviewer should've known that. But what's really important here is whether the courtroom witnesses will get to see LaBan's face or hear his voice.

Like many restaurant critics, LaBan guards his identity closely. Attorneys for Philadelphia Media Holdings (PMH), which owns the Inquirer, argued in court that his appearance and working methods constitute trade secrets, and therefore LaBan shouldn't be forced to submit to videotaping or photography.

According to Judge William Manfredi's written ruling, they lost. The upshot? LaBan was forced to provide videotaped testimony as himself--without wigs, masks or fake voices.

"He gave his deposition on June 5," says Dion Rassias, an attorney with the Beasley Firm, which represents Chops owner Alex Plotkin. "And we would expect to use the video when the case comes to trial."

Both LaBan and Maura Fay, the attorney representing the critic and codefendant PMH, declined to comment.

But the importance of guarding his identity is evident throughout the brief filed on his behalf.

"Craig LaBan's photographic or video image, as well as the methods he uses while reviewing restaurants, meet the definition of trade secrets ... Keeping this information secret assists Mr. LaBan in performing his job and thus has economic value to him. His anonymity allows him to better assess what the average customer will be served because the restaurant does not know the meal is being reviewed by the Inquirer."

From that perspective, the public will be better off if LaBan's identity remains as secret as possible. It's an identity he's gone to great lengths over the years to protect.

Rassias is unaware if LaBan attended any court proceedings prior to giving his deposition. "I didn't see anyone dressed as Batman, Spider-Man or the Green Lantern," he says.

The superhero reference stems from LaBan's identity--or lack thereof--around town. Known largely for being unknown, LaBan wears elaborate disguises during public appearances. Given the history of food criticism, the costumes do make great theater, but they aren't just for show. The Association of Food Journalists lists 13 guidelines for food critics, and the second one, after ethics, is anonymity.

"Reviews should be conducted anonymously whenever possible," it reads. "Critics should experience the restaurant just as ordinary patrons do. Reservations should be made in a name other than that of the reviewer and meals should be paid for using cash or credit cards in a name other than the critic."

The list of suggested practices also includes calling for reservations from telephones outside work, so that caller ID doesn't give away the reviewer's identity. It also recommends that reviewers who are recognized during the course of the meal make note of that in their published review, especially if they notice they're receiving better treatment than those at other tables.

For his part, Rassias isn't pleased with all the attention being paid to LaBan's identity. "From my perspective and my client's, this case isn't about Craig LaBan's anonymity," he says. "That's his gimmick to sell papers. Our interest is in what he did wrong and in encouraging him not to do it again."

But ultimately testimony on cuts of beef may be just a sidelight. The current suit against LaBan has already received media coverage from no less than The New York Times, whose Adam Liptak surveyed the landscape of previous libel suits against food critics, and found it figuratively littered with the corpses of restaurant owners who lost at trial.

"American judges have apparently never punished even tough, mean and wrongheaded restaurant reviews," wrote Liptak in the March 7 Times. "As the Federal Appeals Court in Manhattan put it in 1985, 'reviews, although they may be unkind, are not normally a breeding ground for successful libel actions.'"