Blake Lively- Jason Baldoni and NYT - False Light claims

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:There was no reason to delay the deposition other than the judge agreeing with Gottlieb that Wallace couldn’t get a bit more deposition time if Gottlieb added new claims to an amended complaint. Obviously any additional deposition questions would have to be connected to those new claims, if any and it would not have been lengthy.

Maybe Liman realized the schedule he ordered yesterday doesn’t allow Blake enough time for content producer discovery, and this is a reason to extend.

I agree. She lives in NY. It really is not a big deal if she had to sit again for an hour or so to be questioned by Babcock, especially since she already gets her choice of venue and everything she wants. Babcock is unlikely to question her about sexual harassment or anything intense. Relations between Babcock and Lively's counsel have been completely civil. This is nothing like Freedman with his MSG comments and saying he's ready to depose her anytime and Liman saying they only are going to get one shot, which I find fair enough.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Something needs to be done about Liman, but what? What can Wayfarer do?

There is technical a motion pending for recusal by Dogpool guy, lol.

There's nothing Wayfarer can do. He won't recuse and pursuing that will make him even more inclined against them. It's weird. I have thought Liman was pretty fair until the past week or so... like I fully agreed with him dismissing all of Wayfarer's complaints, but the last couple of decisions feel like he's putting the finger on the scale for Lively in odd ways.

Sure, it could have been that he was a hard ass that didnt want to give parties too much leeway. But he allowed an extra round of briefing on Wallace’s motion to dismiss after specifically telling Lively what the weakness was in her argument. Then he dismisses without prejudice after allowing her to get discovery from someone he had no jurisdiction over. Add in the crazy offers he was throwing out to Gottlieb today. Not remotely hard ass.

[Anonymous]

How does this actually help Lively? I thought Lively wanted to hold fast to tomorrow' dep so that Baldoni's team would have to scramble to get the dep together after they had barely two weeks to review all the docs. Garofalo wanted to postpone it and Gottlieb threatened sanctions so I don't think Gottlieb wanted this, honestly.

Is it purely that Wallace wouldn't be able to join the dep if he were no longer a party, and then if he were back to being a party two weeks from now, he'd get to depose her again briefly, for, like, an hour? I almost think it would have been better to proceed with the dep by Wayfarer and have Wallace do a separate add on later if needed, for an hour.

If this were me, I'd just want to get it over with, but ymmv.

[Anonymous]

Blake Lively doesn't want to be deposed, wake up.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Blake Lively doesn't want to be deposed, wake up.

It’s going to be a disaster, we have all seen her interviews. And that’s with friendly questioning.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:How does this actually help Lively? I thought Lively wanted to hold fast to tomorrow' dep so that Baldoni's team would have to scramble to get the dep together after they had barely two weeks to review all the docs. Garofalo wanted to postpone it and Gottlieb threatened sanctions so I don't think Gottlieb wanted this, honestly.

Is it purely that Wallace wouldn't be able to join the dep if he were no longer a party, and then if he were back to being a party two weeks from now, he'd get to depose her again briefly, for, like, an hour? I almost think it would have been better to proceed with the dep by Wayfarer and have Wallace do a separate add on later if needed, for an hour.

If this were me, I'd just want to get it over with, but ymmv.

This. I don't think Lively wanted to postpone. But if they did the depo tomorrow without Wallace, she'd have to be re-deposed later if they refile against Wallace. So they were looking for a way to get Wallace back in the case just to facilitate him coming to the depo (either filing a "dummy" complaint they would amend later or Liman temporarily vacating his dismissal just for the depo).

But they would need Wayfarer to agree to that, and they wouldn't, so the deposition is postponed because that was the only option they could get everyone to agree to.

The people who think this is a win for Lively or represents bias toward Lively by Liman don't actually understand what happened.

[Anonymous]

The people who think this is a win for Lively or represents bias toward Lively by Liman don't actually understand what happened.

Go back to Lively headquarters and demand better talking points, because no thinking person who has read this day’s transcript agrees with you.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:How does this actually help Lively? I thought Lively wanted to hold fast to tomorrow' dep so that Baldoni's team would have to scramble to get the dep together after they had barely two weeks to review all the docs. Garofalo wanted to postpone it and Gottlieb threatened sanctions so I don't think Gottlieb wanted this, honestly.

Is it purely that Wallace wouldn't be able to join the dep if he were no longer a party, and then if he were back to being a party two weeks from now, he'd get to depose her again briefly, for, like, an hour? I almost think it would have been better to proceed with the dep by Wayfarer and have Wallace do a separate add on later if needed, for an hour.

If this were me, I'd just want to get it over with, but ymmv.

I posted last week that I speculated that Lively actually did want additional time to review the video footage, but that neither Lively nor Wayfarer wanted to be the one to ask (we still don't know for sure if they ever provided the video with audio because the email chain that we saw went stale after that was brought up). My vibe was they're saying they're ready but kept throwing up roadblocks, like location.

From the twitter chain, it sounds like Gottlieb is the one that wanted this hearing, though oddly there is no motion requesting this. I agree with your second paragraph, I just don't see the big deal for her sitting for a short deposition by Babcock upon showing of "good cause" (which obviously being added back as a party would be).

The Wayfarer and Wallace sides certainly have the right to resent this after Lively's counsel whined last week that they had already made travel plans for Thursday, meanwhile Babcock said he was calling in from DFW airport and some of Baldoni's attorneys were mid-flight.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:
The people who think this is a win for Lively or represents bias toward Lively by Liman don't actually understand what happened.

Go back to Lively headquarters and demand better talking points, because no thinking person who has read this day’s transcript agrees with you.

How does it not represent bias?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:
The people who think this is a win for Lively or represents bias toward Lively by Liman don't actually understand what happened.

Go back to Lively headquarters and demand better talking points, because no thinking person who has read this day’s transcript agrees with you.

There are Lively supporters on Reddit claiming this without actually explaining why. Just like your plantation princess Blakey, every action is a tell. Did you coordinate this response at BaldoniFiles headquarters?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:
The people who think this is a win for Lively or represents bias toward Lively by Liman don't actually understand what happened.

Go back to Lively headquarters and demand better talking points, because no thinking person who has read this day’s transcript agrees with you.

Sorry any thinking person disagrees with you.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
The people who think this is a win for Lively or represents bias toward Lively by Liman don't actually understand what happened.

Go back to Lively headquarters and demand better talking points, because no thinking person who has read this day’s transcript agrees with you.

Sorry any thinking person disagrees with you.

So then how come it doesn't represent bias? That's what I thought.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
The people who think this is a win for Lively or represents bias toward Lively by Liman don't actually understand what happened.

Go back to Lively headquarters and demand better talking points, because no thinking person who has read this day’s transcript agrees with you.

Sorry any thinking person disagrees with you.

So then how come it doesn't represent bias? That's what I thought.

PP Sorry, quoted the wrong person. My comment was directed toward the Lively supporter.

[Anonymous]

Everybody gets a one day dep under the federal rules unless there is cause for additional time.

Liman caused this pile up inadvertently by releasing his Wallace decision today.

Am I correct that Fritz was not agreeing to reserve any portion of the 7 hours for Wallace if Wallace came back in to the case? That was said on Reddit. If so, that was strategic from Fritz because he didn’t want to lose any of his time. Which he would have been losing as of yesterday, when Wallace was still in the case.

Likewise, Lively doesn’t want to be deposed any longer than necessary lol.

Wallace being in weird party/non party limbo caused the issue. Liman seemed to want to find a way for everyone to depose Lively tomorrow to stick to the schedule (THE SCHEDULE ABOVE ALL!!!) but couldn’t work out a way that was legally defensible. Could he have ordered, under the rules, for the dep to proceed without Wallace, and Wallace to convene later if he was still in the case, in excess of seven hours? That’s the only other solution I’m aware of besides what they did. Is the fact that he didn’t do that what others are saying is unfair? Would you be okay with Baldoni’s or Heath’s deps being extended in the same way?

[Anonymous]

Serious question: what’s stopping Liman from doing whatever he wants? Like I could easily have seen him not dismissing Wallace