Lively/Baldoni Lawsuit Part 2
![[Post New]](/jforum/templates/default/images/icon_minipost_new.gif){kind=icon}
Anonymous
| How unusual is it for a judge to grant a request like this? |
Anonymous
I think the circumstances are too unusual to predict that! |
Anonymous
| Did NAG predict Liman wouldn't do this? lol |
Anonymous
Except that, despite Blake’s request to the contrary, Heath can still testify that he gave Blake the clip on his phone. It was a mixed ruling for her. |
Anonymous
I can't see the value in the footage. Virtually any birth video will include a moment where a woman's legs are open and she's screaming. Without the video, Lively can testify to what she saw, as can her assistant (though, interestingly, her testimony did not appear to have been cited in Lively's motion). Heath can deny it and show the family friendly version and claim that's what he showed. Lively can disagree, and her lawyers can get Heath to testify that he does have a longer video which encompasses the actual birth. Heath can say that video was never on his phone, and he's sure that he did not show that part to Lively because that's not the one he shows people. It all goes to the credibility. With the video, it's basically the same, except Lively can also show a short clip to the jury of Heath giving birth, screaming with her legs open. And Heath can say the same thing, that particular video was never on his phone and he's sure it's not what he showed, and Lively can say she's sure it is. Others in the vicinity, such as Baldoni and the assistant, can also testify, and it all goes to credibility. There is very little value in having the jury see it vs leaving it to their imagination. |
Anonymous
What? I'm no lawyer, but wouldn't he have always been able to testify whatever he wants? How can Liman force him to testify that something isn't what he says it is? |
Anonymous
Is this framing a sleight of hand like the time the pro-BL poster tried to say Liman was being generous to Charles Babcock, even though that "generosity" entailed completely reversing his ruling in favor of Gottlieb? |
Anonymous
Further, no one disputes it was a birthing video as opposed to porn. |
Anonymous
That was one of the sanctions that she requested: Heath failed to turn over the evidence and therefore cannot use that argument. The judge did not grant that part, but did grant her access to the video. The judge can't tell him what to say but he could preclude them from making certain arguments. |
Anonymous
Lively requested that Heath not be able to testify at all about the clip on his phone. That was denied. That would indeed have been bad for WF if granted. The fact that you can’t follow that now it is just a credibility issue for the jury worries me that your reasoning skills aren’t the best. But you are a Blake supporter, so I guess that tracks. |
Anonymous
But no one said that Judge Liman gave Lively everything she requested, just that he gave all the birth footage. |
Anonymous
|
It's also important to note that just because Liman is granting discovery of all the birth footage doesn't mean it will be admissible in court. He's just allowing Lively to get the rest of the footage as part of their fact finding.
I think it's the correct decision because it takes a neutral position on what actually happened, which is what the judge should be doing. The PP saying it's a credibility issue is correct, and the judge CANNOT make a decision on credibility. He can't decide he believes Heath or that he believes Lively as to what was shown. So now both sides will have all the footage and then they can testify as to what each believe Heath showed Lively. That's the right outcome. Denying Lively access to the other footage based only on Heath's assurance that it's not what he showed her would choosing Heath's version of events over Lively's, which the judge cannot do. But refusing to let Heath testify as to what part of the video was on his phone or what he believes he showed Lively would be choosing Lively's version over Heath's, which he also cannot do. Only the jury can decided whose version is correct. |
Anonymous
I'm a JB supporter, chill. I thought the post was trying to say Liman wasn't ruling anything that bad in favor of JB to absolve the bias he has. Sounds like you don't have the best of reasoning skills and you have poor impulse control if you're jumping to attack people like this. |
Anonymous
Is my side not clear by the fact that I said "the time the pro-BL poster tried to say..." which is clearly critical of pro-BLers? You really don't sound very bright. |
Anonymous
The judge can prohibit him from testifying on a topic as a sanction. |