Forum Index
»
Entertainment and Pop Culture
Blake Lively- Jason Baldoni and NYT - False Light claims
![[Post New]](/jforum/templates/default/images/icon_minipost_new.gif){kind=icon}
Anonymous
| Rooting for Blake. |
Anonymous
But the question is why, makes one think that there really is something quite bad for Blake in the Taylor texts. |
Anonymous
She was accused of deleting texts and asking TS to also delete. So maybe there is something there or maybe this is her attempt to show TS she is doing her best to protect her to win back her friendship. Maybe a bit of both. I’m inclined to think there’s something in the texts but nothing horrible - maybe embarrassing |
Anonymous
Most litigants don’t file a meritless motion for no good reason, but nice try. |
Anonymous
What do think she’s hiding? |
Anonymous
Yep. Done with #metoo and believing women. Glad someone had the ovaries to burn it to the ground. |
Anonymous
Something bad her for case. |
Anonymous
One thing the motion accomplished is confirm that there is no particular hurry to get Freedman any of the information he has been pressing for before Monday 6/23 when theoretically Lively’s first and only deposition is supposed to happen. So if they go forward with the super early dep timing that Freedman asked for, Lively won’t have seen any of the movie footage Badoni has, but Freedman will not have received a bunch of the docs he has asked for but including the Swift texts or docs involving harassment, damages, or the other specific categories he raised. |
Anonymous
I’m not totally convinced about every single one of the motions to compel that Gottlieb etc are filing to force the parties and third parties to produce what Gottlieb wants, but I’ll defend it generally because he knows that Liman is on a schedule and that he will not want to stray from that schedule without good reason. So if folks are delaying producing the docs Gottlieb needs, he needs to compel them to stay on schedule. Meanwhile, Freedman isn’t doing any of this (except in response to Gottlieb), and is not moving forward on making arguments to the court on any of his own supposedly very important issues like the VanZan subpoena or the Swift extortion/destruction, except through Lively’s super early deposition, which to me (if it happens) still seems very reckless since he will go to trial without having questioned her on most of the docs. Like another poster said earlier, it’s giving off those “I’ll just amend my complaint later” vibes. |
Anonymous
| I feel pretty comfortable predicting that if Freedman does Lively’s dep on Monday, then gets more docs from Lively and complains that he needs another deposition to ask her about them, Liman will say no, it was your choice to schedule the dep that early. |
Anonymous
Agree. If Lively is thinking of bailing, she shouldn't. |
Anonymous
Responding to self here to note that Breed’s 9 exhibits did get filed, you can see them here: https://www.reddit.com/r/ItEndsWithCourt/comments/1lfey19/all_of_the_exhibits_from_the_case_and_butler/ How is Breed a partner, though? He has filed 9 exhibits showing different parts of the same email string that are all contained, I believe, in the single exhibit that Lively filed. That’s why the attorneys use the one email string over and over in a discovery dispute, so you can just use that one email as your exhibit. Now the judge’s clerk needs to go through these additional 9 exhibits for no reason when Breed could have just cited the already existing filing. Silly and unnecessary. I also find Breed’s language about “We needn’t, any of us, play at saber rattling” etc to be a bit dramatic in here. Is he British or something? This is federal litigation and Liman has set hard discovery deadlines, with substantial completion due well before Breed’s 21 days would end. Less time on fancy language and more time on compliance would be helpful imho. |
Anonymous
| I think there is a high likelihood the date for Blake’s depo has already been changed. It was already the subject of a discovery conference meeting between the parties last week. |
Anonymous
I'm the PP who said his letter seemed reasonable. Lively's attorneys are acting like he's Wayfarer counsel, and just delaying endlessly without reason, but it appears that these parties did make good faith progress in narrowing the requests, and then Lively had suggested a compliance deadline of June 20th, but filed the MTC well before that. Granted, Maxwell said he wouldn't accept that date (because they hadn't assessed the volume of what was to be produced), but his last email also discusses plans to set a call with the vendor, so he seems to intend to comply. It seems aggressive on team Lively's part. |
Anonymous
I thought Brenden also rug pulled on the end date at the last minute too. If I’m wrong about that it’s probably infecting my take. It seemed to me from the email that the earliest delays were caused by Lively but almost all the later delays were his, plus Lively is footing the cost of the productions, too, so maybe he shouldn’t take that for granted. Mho |