Blake Lively- Jason Baldoni and NYT - False Light claims

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Lively definitely wanted to postpone the deposition, don’t insult our intelligence. Gottlieb shut down every other option at the hearing. Babcock wanted to go ahead with it, was already in route.

Why? To what end? She will have been preparing for this deposition for some time now, she's probably quite nervous about it. There is no advantage for her to a sudden delay.

Well she mutually agreed to it so I guess she wanted it.

To avoid being deposed twice. A delay is better than being deposed twice. But holding the deposition as scheduled would have been preferable to both options, which is why Gottlieb scrambled to try and find a way have the depo happen as scheduled. This was obvious from the hearing. Gottlieb was advocating for ways in which Babcock could participate in the scheduled deposition, he was not advocating for a delay.

Yes he was, the judge asked if the parties were amenable to a two week delay and Gottlieb was the only one who said yes. Read the transcript and stop gaslighting.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

How can this "represent bias" in favor of Lively if she didn't even get what she wanted?

I don't think we can say that unless we know who approached the court and what relief was requested. The tweet threat makes it sound like it was Gottlieb who did. This hearing popped up randomly on the docket, so whatever request must have been made via email. Actually, the InnerCityPress guy who live tweeted also did the Diddy trial and actually noticed they kept discussing emails that weren't on the docket, and moved for the court to enter all the emails onto the docket, which they actually granted! Too bad that did not happen here.

It's really something that Lively was threatening sanctions and attorney's fees for costs on Friday because they might need to reschedule Thursday flights (at their insistence on changing the deposition location which had not yet been ruled on by the court or requested) but it's ok that Wallace and Wayfarer wasted time and money flying to New York for nothing.

We do know who approached the court, Lively’s attorneys filed a letter yesterday afternoon. The gaslighting from the Lively side today is quite something.

Yes, Lively's attorneys requested the emergency hearing. But not because they wanted to postpone the hearing. They wanted the hearing because they realized that Babcock (Wallace's attorney) could no longer take part in the hearing as scheduled due to the dismissal, and Babcock likely let them know he intended to depose Lively if/when they refile against Wallace. So they went to the court to see if there was a way to still have Babcock participate in the deposition and present Lively being re-deposed.

This is very typical. Any other attorney would also seek to prevent their client from being deposed twice. Double depositions are not only very burdensome (it takes weeks of prep before a deposition, both for the witness and the attorneys) but also put you at a serious disadvantage because it gives the other side time to adjust tactics based on the witness's first responses. While in this case the depositions would be done by different parties, there's every reason to assume Wayfarer's and Wallace's teams would collaborate to try and trip Lively up the second time. It is basically malpractice to let your client be deposed twice.

It has been said multiple times that Babcock was willing to limit any further deposition to any new claims in the amended complaint against Wallace. WF would not be participating and the scope of any further deposition would be extremely limited, if it happened at all. This is the normal procedure, the seven hour, one day is often overruled for good cause. Further, it is widely recognized that the plaintiff is expected to bear a greater burden in discovery than other parties. No so here.

That's only if Babcock participated in the scheduled deposition regarding the existing claims in the now-dismissed complaint though. If he wasn't there for the first deposition, he'd obviously need to depose Lively regarding all her claims against him during a rescheduled deposition. There was no indication that a second deposition would be particularly limited in scope, and no matter what, Babcock would have the benefit of her first deposition in conducting the second. It's a major strategic advantage.

But they couldn't find a way to include him in the scheduled deposition that everyone would agree to. Gottlieb did offer to file a dummy complaint to be amended later, but Babcock even pushed back against this because it was clear he preferred to depose only after they'd seen the SAC. Which I think is a totally reasonable request, but it necessitates either a delay or for Lively to be deposed twice.

The idea that "bearing the greater burden in discovery" means accepting a strategic disadvantage and being deposed multiple times is silly. Bearing the greater burden means footing more of the costs, accommodating timing for third party witness production, etc. Stuff like Lively having to foot the bill and provide certain tech for document production from certain parties. It doesn't mean agreeing to be deposed twice just because the judge issued a decision in an untimely way.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

How can this "represent bias" in favor of Lively if she didn't even get what she wanted?

I don't think we can say that unless we know who approached the court and what relief was requested. The tweet threat makes it sound like it was Gottlieb who did. This hearing popped up randomly on the docket, so whatever request must have been made via email. Actually, the InnerCityPress guy who live tweeted also did the Diddy trial and actually noticed they kept discussing emails that weren't on the docket, and moved for the court to enter all the emails onto the docket, which they actually granted! Too bad that did not happen here.

It's really something that Lively was threatening sanctions and attorney's fees for costs on Friday because they might need to reschedule Thursday flights (at their insistence on changing the deposition location which had not yet been ruled on by the court or requested) but it's ok that Wallace and Wayfarer wasted time and money flying to New York for nothing.

We do know who approached the court, Lively’s attorneys filed a letter yesterday afternoon. The gaslighting from the Lively side today is quite something.

Yes, Lively's attorneys requested the emergency hearing. But not because they wanted to postpone the hearing. They wanted the hearing because they realized that Babcock (Wallace's attorney) could no longer take part in the hearing as scheduled due to the dismissal, and Babcock likely let them know he intended to depose Lively if/when they refile against Wallace. So they went to the court to see if there was a way to still have Babcock participate in the deposition and present Lively being re-deposed.

This is very typical. Any other attorney would also seek to prevent their client from being deposed twice. Double depositions are not only very burdensome (it takes weeks of prep before a deposition, both for the witness and the attorneys) but also put you at a serious disadvantage because it gives the other side time to adjust tactics based on the witness's first responses. While in this case the depositions would be done by different parties, there's every reason to assume Wayfarer's and Wallace's teams would collaborate to try and trip Lively up the second time. It is basically malpractice to let your client be deposed twice.

It has been said multiple times that Babcock was willing to limit any further deposition to any new claims in the amended complaint against Wallace. WF would not be participating and the scope of any further deposition would be extremely limited, if it happened at all. This is the normal procedure, the seven hour, one day is often overruled for good cause. Further, it is widely recognized that the plaintiff is expected to bear a greater burden in discovery than other parties. No so here.

That's only if Babcock participated in the scheduled deposition regarding the existing claims in the now-dismissed complaint though. If he wasn't there for the first deposition, he'd obviously need to depose Lively regarding all her claims against him during a rescheduled deposition. There was no indication that a second deposition would be particularly limited in scope, and no matter what, Babcock would have the benefit of her first deposition in conducting the second. It's a major strategic advantage.

But they couldn't find a way to include him in the scheduled deposition that everyone would agree to. Gottlieb did offer to file a dummy complaint to be amended later, but Babcock even pushed back against this because it was clear he preferred to depose only after they'd seen the SAC. Which I think is a totally reasonable request, but it necessitates either a delay or for Lively to be deposed twice.

The idea that "bearing the greater burden in discovery" means accepting a strategic disadvantage and being deposed multiple times is silly. Bearing the greater burden means footing more of the costs, accommodating timing for third party witness production, etc. Stuff like Lively having to foot the bill and provide certain tech for document production from certain parties. It doesn't mean agreeing to be deposed twice just because the judge issued a decision in an untimely way.

Gottlieb was the holdout. The normal course of action would have been to hold the deposition today and Babcock could question her about any additional claims if there even were any in an amended complaint later. There might be none. Am additional hour of deposition at her own attorney’s office on very limited grounds would be far less burden on Lively than the other parties who were all mid route for a deposition that had already been scheduled to maximize Lively’s convenience.

In any case, no one on the internet other than Lively’s most strident defenders read the transcript and thought the judge treated all parties the same. The bias towards Lively was overwhelming and frankly shocking. The low point was the judge offering to vacate his dismissal order.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Lively definitely wanted to postpone the deposition, don’t insult our intelligence. Gottlieb shut down every other option at the hearing. Babcock wanted to go ahead with it, was already in route.

Why? To what end? She will have been preparing for this deposition for some time now, she's probably quite nervous about it. There is no advantage for her to a sudden delay.

Well she mutually agreed to it so I guess she wanted it.

To avoid being deposed twice. A delay is better than being deposed twice. But holding the deposition as scheduled would have been preferable to both options, which is why Gottlieb scrambled to try and find a way have the depo happen as scheduled. This was obvious from the hearing. Gottlieb was advocating for ways in which Babcock could participate in the scheduled deposition, he was not advocating for a delay.

Yes he was, the judge asked if the parties were amenable to a two week delay and Gottlieb was the only one who said yes. Read the transcript and stop gaslighting.

I have read it. Have you? Here it is: https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1945597973108260947.html

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

How can this "represent bias" in favor of Lively if she didn't even get what she wanted?

I don't think we can say that unless we know who approached the court and what relief was requested. The tweet threat makes it sound like it was Gottlieb who did. This hearing popped up randomly on the docket, so whatever request must have been made via email. Actually, the InnerCityPress guy who live tweeted also did the Diddy trial and actually noticed they kept discussing emails that weren't on the docket, and moved for the court to enter all the emails onto the docket, which they actually granted! Too bad that did not happen here.

It's really something that Lively was threatening sanctions and attorney's fees for costs on Friday because they might need to reschedule Thursday flights (at their insistence on changing the deposition location which had not yet been ruled on by the court or requested) but it's ok that Wallace and Wayfarer wasted time and money flying to New York for nothing.

We do know who approached the court, Lively’s attorneys filed a letter yesterday afternoon. The gaslighting from the Lively side today is quite something.

Yes, Lively's attorneys requested the emergency hearing. But not because they wanted to postpone the hearing. They wanted the hearing because they realized that Babcock (Wallace's attorney) could no longer take part in the hearing as scheduled due to the dismissal, and Babcock likely let them know he intended to depose Lively if/when they refile against Wallace. So they went to the court to see if there was a way to still have Babcock participate in the deposition and present Lively being re-deposed.

This is very typical. Any other attorney would also seek to prevent their client from being deposed twice. Double depositions are not only very burdensome (it takes weeks of prep before a deposition, both for the witness and the attorneys) but also put you at a serious disadvantage because it gives the other side time to adjust tactics based on the witness's first responses. While in this case the depositions would be done by different parties, there's every reason to assume Wayfarer's and Wallace's teams would collaborate to try and trip Lively up the second time. It is basically malpractice to let your client be deposed twice.

It has been said multiple times that Babcock was willing to limit any further deposition to any new claims in the amended complaint against Wallace. WF would not be participating and the scope of any further deposition would be extremely limited, if it happened at all. This is the normal procedure, the seven hour, one day is often overruled for good cause. Further, it is widely recognized that the plaintiff is expected to bear a greater burden in discovery than other parties. No so here.

That's only if Babcock participated in the scheduled deposition regarding the existing claims in the now-dismissed complaint though. If he wasn't there for the first deposition, he'd obviously need to depose Lively regarding all her claims against him during a rescheduled deposition. There was no indication that a second deposition would be particularly limited in scope, and no matter what, Babcock would have the benefit of her first deposition in conducting the second. It's a major strategic advantage.

But they couldn't find a way to include him in the scheduled deposition that everyone would agree to. Gottlieb did offer to file a dummy complaint to be amended later, but Babcock even pushed back against this because it was clear he preferred to depose only after they'd seen the SAC. Which I think is a totally reasonable request, but it necessitates either a delay or for Lively to be deposed twice.

The idea that "bearing the greater burden in discovery" means accepting a strategic disadvantage and being deposed multiple times is silly. Bearing the greater burden means footing more of the costs, accommodating timing for third party witness production, etc. Stuff like Lively having to foot the bill and provide certain tech for document production from certain parties. It doesn't mean agreeing to be deposed twice just because the judge issued a decision in an untimely way.

Gottlieb was the holdout. The normal course of action would have been to hold the deposition today and Babcock could question her about any additional claims if there even were any in an amended complaint later. There might be none. Am additional hour of deposition at her own attorney’s office on very limited grounds would be far less burden on Lively than the other parties who were all mid route for a deposition that had already been scheduled to maximize Lively’s convenience.

In any case, no one on the internet other than Lively’s most strident defenders read the transcript and thought the judge treated all parties the same. The bias towards Lively was overwhelming and frankly shocking. The low point was the judge offering to vacate his dismissal order.

The judge didn't even decide what they were going to do. Gottlieb asked for an order saying that the scheduled deposition would be the only one. He didn't get that. The judge listened to everyone's various complaints and then told them to confer and figure it out. The outcome was a two week delay that they all agreed to.

The judge didn't offer to vacate his order. Gottlieb suggested it after meeting privately with Babcock during a break, as a way to get Babcock to the scheduled depo. Liman then asks Babcock if he would be okay with the judge vacating his dismissal for 48 hours until after the deposition, and Babcock says no and it's not raised again.

Liman was just looking for a solution amenable to all parties. He wasn't proposing a solution and he didn't force a solution on anyone. Ultimately it was the parties who decided on the delay, collectively, presumably because it was the only option they could all agree to. We don't even know how that decision was made.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

How can this "represent bias" in favor of Lively if she didn't even get what she wanted?

I don't think we can say that unless we know who approached the court and what relief was requested. The tweet threat makes it sound like it was Gottlieb who did. This hearing popped up randomly on the docket, so whatever request must have been made via email. Actually, the InnerCityPress guy who live tweeted also did the Diddy trial and actually noticed they kept discussing emails that weren't on the docket, and moved for the court to enter all the emails onto the docket, which they actually granted! Too bad that did not happen here.

It's really something that Lively was threatening sanctions and attorney's fees for costs on Friday because they might need to reschedule Thursday flights (at their insistence on changing the deposition location which had not yet been ruled on by the court or requested) but it's ok that Wallace and Wayfarer wasted time and money flying to New York for nothing.

We do know who approached the court, Lively’s attorneys filed a letter yesterday afternoon. The gaslighting from the Lively side today is quite something.

Yes, Lively's attorneys requested the emergency hearing. But not because they wanted to postpone the hearing. They wanted the hearing because they realized that Babcock (Wallace's attorney) could no longer take part in the hearing as scheduled due to the dismissal, and Babcock likely let them know he intended to depose Lively if/when they refile against Wallace. So they went to the court to see if there was a way to still have Babcock participate in the deposition and present Lively being re-deposed.

This is very typical. Any other attorney would also seek to prevent their client from being deposed twice. Double depositions are not only very burdensome (it takes weeks of prep before a deposition, both for the witness and the attorneys) but also put you at a serious disadvantage because it gives the other side time to adjust tactics based on the witness's first responses. While in this case the depositions would be done by different parties, there's every reason to assume Wayfarer's and Wallace's teams would collaborate to try and trip Lively up the second time. It is basically malpractice to let your client be deposed twice.

It has been said multiple times that Babcock was willing to limit any further deposition to any new claims in the amended complaint against Wallace. WF would not be participating and the scope of any further deposition would be extremely limited, if it happened at all. This is the normal procedure, the seven hour, one day is often overruled for good cause. Further, it is widely recognized that the plaintiff is expected to bear a greater burden in discovery than other parties. No so here.

That's only if Babcock participated in the scheduled deposition regarding the existing claims in the now-dismissed complaint though. If he wasn't there for the first deposition, he'd obviously need to depose Lively regarding all her claims against him during a rescheduled deposition. There was no indication that a second deposition would be particularly limited in scope, and no matter what, Babcock would have the benefit of her first deposition in conducting the second. It's a major strategic advantage.

But they couldn't find a way to include him in the scheduled deposition that everyone would agree to. Gottlieb did offer to file a dummy complaint to be amended later, but Babcock even pushed back against this because it was clear he preferred to depose only after they'd seen the SAC. Which I think is a totally reasonable request, but it necessitates either a delay or for Lively to be deposed twice.

The idea that "bearing the greater burden in discovery" means accepting a strategic disadvantage and being deposed multiple times is silly. Bearing the greater burden means footing more of the costs, accommodating timing for third party witness production, etc. Stuff like Lively having to foot the bill and provide certain tech for document production from certain parties. It doesn't mean agreeing to be deposed twice just because the judge issued a decision in an untimely way.

Gottlieb was the holdout. The normal course of action would have been to hold the deposition today and Babcock could question her about any additional claims if there even were any in an amended complaint later. There might be none. Am additional hour of deposition at her own attorney’s office on very limited grounds would be far less burden on Lively than the other parties who were all mid route for a deposition that had already been scheduled to maximize Lively’s convenience.

In any case, no one on the internet other than Lively’s most strident defenders read the transcript and thought the judge treated all parties the same. The bias towards Lively was overwhelming and frankly shocking. The low point was the judge offering to vacate his dismissal order.

The judge didn't even decide what they were going to do. Gottlieb asked for an order saying that the scheduled deposition would be the only one. He didn't get that. The judge listened to everyone's various complaints and then told them to confer and figure it out. The outcome was a two week delay that they all agreed to.

The judge didn't offer to vacate his order. Gottlieb suggested it after meeting privately with Babcock during a break, as a way to get Babcock to the scheduled depo. Liman then asks Babcock if he would be okay with the judge vacating his dismissal for 48 hours until after the deposition, and Babcock says no and it's not raised again.

Liman was just looking for a solution amenable to all parties. He wasn't proposing a solution and he didn't force a solution on anyone. Ultimately it was the parties who decided on the delay, collectively, presumably because it was the only option they could all agree to. We don't even know how that decision was made.

They all agreed to it because it was clear the judge would do whatever Gottlieb wanted.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

How can this "represent bias" in favor of Lively if she didn't even get what she wanted?

I don't think we can say that unless we know who approached the court and what relief was requested. The tweet threat makes it sound like it was Gottlieb who did. This hearing popped up randomly on the docket, so whatever request must have been made via email. Actually, the InnerCityPress guy who live tweeted also did the Diddy trial and actually noticed they kept discussing emails that weren't on the docket, and moved for the court to enter all the emails onto the docket, which they actually granted! Too bad that did not happen here.

It's really something that Lively was threatening sanctions and attorney's fees for costs on Friday because they might need to reschedule Thursday flights (at their insistence on changing the deposition location which had not yet been ruled on by the court or requested) but it's ok that Wallace and Wayfarer wasted time and money flying to New York for nothing.

We do know who approached the court, Lively’s attorneys filed a letter yesterday afternoon. The gaslighting from the Lively side today is quite something.

Yes, Lively's attorneys requested the emergency hearing. But not because they wanted to postpone the hearing. They wanted the hearing because they realized that Babcock (Wallace's attorney) could no longer take part in the hearing as scheduled due to the dismissal, and Babcock likely let them know he intended to depose Lively if/when they refile against Wallace. So they went to the court to see if there was a way to still have Babcock participate in the deposition and present Lively being re-deposed.

This is very typical. Any other attorney would also seek to prevent their client from being deposed twice. Double depositions are not only very burdensome (it takes weeks of prep before a deposition, both for the witness and the attorneys) but also put you at a serious disadvantage because it gives the other side time to adjust tactics based on the witness's first responses. While in this case the depositions would be done by different parties, there's every reason to assume Wayfarer's and Wallace's teams would collaborate to try and trip Lively up the second time. It is basically malpractice to let your client be deposed twice.

It has been said multiple times that Babcock was willing to limit any further deposition to any new claims in the amended complaint against Wallace. WF would not be participating and the scope of any further deposition would be extremely limited, if it happened at all. This is the normal procedure, the seven hour, one day is often overruled for good cause. Further, it is widely recognized that the plaintiff is expected to bear a greater burden in discovery than other parties. No so here.

That's only if Babcock participated in the scheduled deposition regarding the existing claims in the now-dismissed complaint though. If he wasn't there for the first deposition, he'd obviously need to depose Lively regarding all her claims against him during a rescheduled deposition. There was no indication that a second deposition would be particularly limited in scope, and no matter what, Babcock would have the benefit of her first deposition in conducting the second. It's a major strategic advantage.

But they couldn't find a way to include him in the scheduled deposition that everyone would agree to. Gottlieb did offer to file a dummy complaint to be amended later, but Babcock even pushed back against this because it was clear he preferred to depose only after they'd seen the SAC. Which I think is a totally reasonable request, but it necessitates either a delay or for Lively to be deposed twice.

The idea that "bearing the greater burden in discovery" means accepting a strategic disadvantage and being deposed multiple times is silly. Bearing the greater burden means footing more of the costs, accommodating timing for third party witness production, etc. Stuff like Lively having to foot the bill and provide certain tech for document production from certain parties. It doesn't mean agreeing to be deposed twice just because the judge issued a decision in an untimely way.

Gottlieb was the holdout. The normal course of action would have been to hold the deposition today and Babcock could question her about any additional claims if there even were any in an amended complaint later. There might be none. Am additional hour of deposition at her own attorney’s office on very limited grounds would be far less burden on Lively than the other parties who were all mid route for a deposition that had already been scheduled to maximize Lively’s convenience.

In any case, no one on the internet other than Lively’s most strident defenders read the transcript and thought the judge treated all parties the same. The bias towards Lively was overwhelming and frankly shocking. The low point was the judge offering to vacate his dismissal order.

The judge didn't even decide what they were going to do. Gottlieb asked for an order saying that the scheduled deposition would be the only one. He didn't get that. The judge listened to everyone's various complaints and then told them to confer and figure it out. The outcome was a two week delay that they all agreed to.

The judge didn't offer to vacate his order. Gottlieb suggested it after meeting privately with Babcock during a break, as a way to get Babcock to the scheduled depo. Liman then asks Babcock if he would be okay with the judge vacating his dismissal for 48 hours until after the deposition, and Babcock says no and it's not raised again.

Liman was just looking for a solution amenable to all parties. He wasn't proposing a solution and he didn't force a solution on anyone. Ultimately it was the parties who decided on the delay, collectively, presumably because it was the only option they could all agree to. We don't even know how that decision was made.

That is Liman offering to vacate the order.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

How can this "represent bias" in favor of Lively if she didn't even get what she wanted?

I don't think we can say that unless we know who approached the court and what relief was requested. The tweet threat makes it sound like it was Gottlieb who did. This hearing popped up randomly on the docket, so whatever request must have been made via email. Actually, the InnerCityPress guy who live tweeted also did the Diddy trial and actually noticed they kept discussing emails that weren't on the docket, and moved for the court to enter all the emails onto the docket, which they actually granted! Too bad that did not happen here.

It's really something that Lively was threatening sanctions and attorney's fees for costs on Friday because they might need to reschedule Thursday flights (at their insistence on changing the deposition location which had not yet been ruled on by the court or requested) but it's ok that Wallace and Wayfarer wasted time and money flying to New York for nothing.

We do know who approached the court, Lively’s attorneys filed a letter yesterday afternoon. The gaslighting from the Lively side today is quite something.

Yes, Lively's attorneys requested the emergency hearing. But not because they wanted to postpone the hearing. They wanted the hearing because they realized that Babcock (Wallace's attorney) could no longer take part in the hearing as scheduled due to the dismissal, and Babcock likely let them know he intended to depose Lively if/when they refile against Wallace. So they went to the court to see if there was a way to still have Babcock participate in the deposition and present Lively being re-deposed.

This is very typical. Any other attorney would also seek to prevent their client from being deposed twice. Double depositions are not only very burdensome (it takes weeks of prep before a deposition, both for the witness and the attorneys) but also put you at a serious disadvantage because it gives the other side time to adjust tactics based on the witness's first responses. While in this case the depositions would be done by different parties, there's every reason to assume Wayfarer's and Wallace's teams would collaborate to try and trip Lively up the second time. It is basically malpractice to let your client be deposed twice.

It has been said multiple times that Babcock was willing to limit any further deposition to any new claims in the amended complaint against Wallace. WF would not be participating and the scope of any further deposition would be extremely limited, if it happened at all. This is the normal procedure, the seven hour, one day is often overruled for good cause. Further, it is widely recognized that the plaintiff is expected to bear a greater burden in discovery than other parties. No so here.

That's only if Babcock participated in the scheduled deposition regarding the existing claims in the now-dismissed complaint though. If he wasn't there for the first deposition, he'd obviously need to depose Lively regarding all her claims against him during a rescheduled deposition. There was no indication that a second deposition would be particularly limited in scope, and no matter what, Babcock would have the benefit of her first deposition in conducting the second. It's a major strategic advantage.

But they couldn't find a way to include him in the scheduled deposition that everyone would agree to. Gottlieb did offer to file a dummy complaint to be amended later, but Babcock even pushed back against this because it was clear he preferred to depose only after they'd seen the SAC. Which I think is a totally reasonable request, but it necessitates either a delay or for Lively to be deposed twice.

The idea that "bearing the greater burden in discovery" means accepting a strategic disadvantage and being deposed multiple times is silly. Bearing the greater burden means footing more of the costs, accommodating timing for third party witness production, etc. Stuff like Lively having to foot the bill and provide certain tech for document production from certain parties. It doesn't mean agreeing to be deposed twice just because the judge issued a decision in an untimely way.

Gottlieb was the holdout. The normal course of action would have been to hold the deposition today and Babcock could question her about any additional claims if there even were any in an amended complaint later. There might be none. Am additional hour of deposition at her own attorney’s office on very limited grounds would be far less burden on Lively than the other parties who were all mid route for a deposition that had already been scheduled to maximize Lively’s convenience.

In any case, no one on the internet other than Lively’s most strident defenders read the transcript and thought the judge treated all parties the same. The bias towards Lively was overwhelming and frankly shocking. The low point was the judge offering to vacate his dismissal order.

The judge didn't even decide what they were going to do. Gottlieb asked for an order saying that the scheduled deposition would be the only one. He didn't get that. The judge listened to everyone's various complaints and then told them to confer and figure it out. The outcome was a two week delay that they all agreed to.

The judge didn't offer to vacate his order. Gottlieb suggested it after meeting privately with Babcock during a break, as a way to get Babcock to the scheduled depo. Liman then asks Babcock if he would be okay with the judge vacating his dismissal for 48 hours until after the deposition, and Babcock says no and it's not raised again.

Liman was just looking for a solution amenable to all parties. He wasn't proposing a solution and he didn't force a solution on anyone. Ultimately it was the parties who decided on the delay, collectively, presumably because it was the only option they could all agree to. We don't even know how that decision was made.

That is Liman offering to vacate the order.

lmao, right? This level of gaslighting is insane. "Liman didn't offer to vacate his order, he just offered to vacate it after Gottlieb suggested it."

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

How can this "represent bias" in favor of Lively if she didn't even get what she wanted?

I don't think we can say that unless we know who approached the court and what relief was requested. The tweet threat makes it sound like it was Gottlieb who did. This hearing popped up randomly on the docket, so whatever request must have been made via email. Actually, the InnerCityPress guy who live tweeted also did the Diddy trial and actually noticed they kept discussing emails that weren't on the docket, and moved for the court to enter all the emails onto the docket, which they actually granted! Too bad that did not happen here.

It's really something that Lively was threatening sanctions and attorney's fees for costs on Friday because they might need to reschedule Thursday flights (at their insistence on changing the deposition location which had not yet been ruled on by the court or requested) but it's ok that Wallace and Wayfarer wasted time and money flying to New York for nothing.

We do know who approached the court, Lively’s attorneys filed a letter yesterday afternoon. The gaslighting from the Lively side today is quite something.

Yes, Lively's attorneys requested the emergency hearing. But not because they wanted to postpone the hearing. They wanted the hearing because they realized that Babcock (Wallace's attorney) could no longer take part in the hearing as scheduled due to the dismissal, and Babcock likely let them know he intended to depose Lively if/when they refile against Wallace. So they went to the court to see if there was a way to still have Babcock participate in the deposition and present Lively being re-deposed.

This is very typical. Any other attorney would also seek to prevent their client from being deposed twice. Double depositions are not only very burdensome (it takes weeks of prep before a deposition, both for the witness and the attorneys) but also put you at a serious disadvantage because it gives the other side time to adjust tactics based on the witness's first responses. While in this case the depositions would be done by different parties, there's every reason to assume Wayfarer's and Wallace's teams would collaborate to try and trip Lively up the second time. It is basically malpractice to let your client be deposed twice.

It has been said multiple times that Babcock was willing to limit any further deposition to any new claims in the amended complaint against Wallace. WF would not be participating and the scope of any further deposition would be extremely limited, if it happened at all. This is the normal procedure, the seven hour, one day is often overruled for good cause. Further, it is widely recognized that the plaintiff is expected to bear a greater burden in discovery than other parties. No so here.

That's only if Babcock participated in the scheduled deposition regarding the existing claims in the now-dismissed complaint though. If he wasn't there for the first deposition, he'd obviously need to depose Lively regarding all her claims against him during a rescheduled deposition. There was no indication that a second deposition would be particularly limited in scope, and no matter what, Babcock would have the benefit of her first deposition in conducting the second. It's a major strategic advantage.

But they couldn't find a way to include him in the scheduled deposition that everyone would agree to. Gottlieb did offer to file a dummy complaint to be amended later, but Babcock even pushed back against this because it was clear he preferred to depose only after they'd seen the SAC. Which I think is a totally reasonable request, but it necessitates either a delay or for Lively to be deposed twice.

The idea that "bearing the greater burden in discovery" means accepting a strategic disadvantage and being deposed multiple times is silly. Bearing the greater burden means footing more of the costs, accommodating timing for third party witness production, etc. Stuff like Lively having to foot the bill and provide certain tech for document production from certain parties. It doesn't mean agreeing to be deposed twice just because the judge issued a decision in an untimely way.

Gottlieb was the holdout. The normal course of action would have been to hold the deposition today and Babcock could question her about any additional claims if there even were any in an amended complaint later. There might be none. Am additional hour of deposition at her own attorney’s office on very limited grounds would be far less burden on Lively than the other parties who were all mid route for a deposition that had already been scheduled to maximize Lively’s convenience.

In any case, no one on the internet other than Lively’s most strident defenders read the transcript and thought the judge treated all parties the same. The bias towards Lively was overwhelming and frankly shocking. The low point was the judge offering to vacate his dismissal order.

The judge didn't even decide what they were going to do. Gottlieb asked for an order saying that the scheduled deposition would be the only one. He didn't get that. The judge listened to everyone's various complaints and then told them to confer and figure it out. The outcome was a two week delay that they all agreed to.

The judge didn't offer to vacate his order. Gottlieb suggested it after meeting privately with Babcock during a break, as a way to get Babcock to the scheduled depo. Liman then asks Babcock if he would be okay with the judge vacating his dismissal for 48 hours until after the deposition, and Babcock says no and it's not raised again.

Liman was just looking for a solution amenable to all parties. He wasn't proposing a solution and he didn't force a solution on anyone. Ultimately it was the parties who decided on the delay, collectively, presumably because it was the only option they could all agree to. We don't even know how that decision was made.

That is Liman offering to vacate the order.

Only if Babcock was fine with it, which he wasn't. And it would have been temporary. The only consequence for Wallace would have been that his attorney would have been able to participate in the deposition as scheduled. I have no idea why you would view this as some favor to Lively.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

How can this "represent bias" in favor of Lively if she didn't even get what she wanted?

I don't think we can say that unless we know who approached the court and what relief was requested. The tweet threat makes it sound like it was Gottlieb who did. This hearing popped up randomly on the docket, so whatever request must have been made via email. Actually, the InnerCityPress guy who live tweeted also did the Diddy trial and actually noticed they kept discussing emails that weren't on the docket, and moved for the court to enter all the emails onto the docket, which they actually granted! Too bad that did not happen here.

It's really something that Lively was threatening sanctions and attorney's fees for costs on Friday because they might need to reschedule Thursday flights (at their insistence on changing the deposition location which had not yet been ruled on by the court or requested) but it's ok that Wallace and Wayfarer wasted time and money flying to New York for nothing.

We do know who approached the court, Lively’s attorneys filed a letter yesterday afternoon. The gaslighting from the Lively side today is quite something.

Yes, Lively's attorneys requested the emergency hearing. But not because they wanted to postpone the hearing. They wanted the hearing because they realized that Babcock (Wallace's attorney) could no longer take part in the hearing as scheduled due to the dismissal, and Babcock likely let them know he intended to depose Lively if/when they refile against Wallace. So they went to the court to see if there was a way to still have Babcock participate in the deposition and present Lively being re-deposed.

This is very typical. Any other attorney would also seek to prevent their client from being deposed twice. Double depositions are not only very burdensome (it takes weeks of prep before a deposition, both for the witness and the attorneys) but also put you at a serious disadvantage because it gives the other side time to adjust tactics based on the witness's first responses. While in this case the depositions would be done by different parties, there's every reason to assume Wayfarer's and Wallace's teams would collaborate to try and trip Lively up the second time. It is basically malpractice to let your client be deposed twice.

It has been said multiple times that Babcock was willing to limit any further deposition to any new claims in the amended complaint against Wallace. WF would not be participating and the scope of any further deposition would be extremely limited, if it happened at all. This is the normal procedure, the seven hour, one day is often overruled for good cause. Further, it is widely recognized that the plaintiff is expected to bear a greater burden in discovery than other parties. No so here.

That's only if Babcock participated in the scheduled deposition regarding the existing claims in the now-dismissed complaint though. If he wasn't there for the first deposition, he'd obviously need to depose Lively regarding all her claims against him during a rescheduled deposition. There was no indication that a second deposition would be particularly limited in scope, and no matter what, Babcock would have the benefit of her first deposition in conducting the second. It's a major strategic advantage.

But they couldn't find a way to include him in the scheduled deposition that everyone would agree to. Gottlieb did offer to file a dummy complaint to be amended later, but Babcock even pushed back against this because it was clear he preferred to depose only after they'd seen the SAC. Which I think is a totally reasonable request, but it necessitates either a delay or for Lively to be deposed twice.

The idea that "bearing the greater burden in discovery" means accepting a strategic disadvantage and being deposed multiple times is silly. Bearing the greater burden means footing more of the costs, accommodating timing for third party witness production, etc. Stuff like Lively having to foot the bill and provide certain tech for document production from certain parties. It doesn't mean agreeing to be deposed twice just because the judge issued a decision in an untimely way.

Gottlieb was the holdout. The normal course of action would have been to hold the deposition today and Babcock could question her about any additional claims if there even were any in an amended complaint later. There might be none. Am additional hour of deposition at her own attorney’s office on very limited grounds would be far less burden on Lively than the other parties who were all mid route for a deposition that had already been scheduled to maximize Lively’s convenience.

In any case, no one on the internet other than Lively’s most strident defenders read the transcript and thought the judge treated all parties the same. The bias towards Lively was overwhelming and frankly shocking. The low point was the judge offering to vacate his dismissal order.

The judge didn't even decide what they were going to do. Gottlieb asked for an order saying that the scheduled deposition would be the only one. He didn't get that. The judge listened to everyone's various complaints and then told them to confer and figure it out. The outcome was a two week delay that they all agreed to.

The judge didn't offer to vacate his order. Gottlieb suggested it after meeting privately with Babcock during a break, as a way to get Babcock to the scheduled depo. Liman then asks Babcock if he would be okay with the judge vacating his dismissal for 48 hours until after the deposition, and Babcock says no and it's not raised again.

Liman was just looking for a solution amenable to all parties. He wasn't proposing a solution and he didn't force a solution on anyone. Ultimately it was the parties who decided on the delay, collectively, presumably because it was the only option they could all agree to. We don't even know how that decision was made.

That is Liman offering to vacate the order.

Only if Babcock was fine with it, which he wasn't. And it would have been temporary. The only consequence for Wallace would have been that his attorney would have been able to participate in the deposition as scheduled. I have no idea why you would view this as some favor to Lively.

That's what makes it an offer, not an order. Liman offered to vacate and Babcock objected.

Gottlieb is the one who suggested it so it's something being suggested and offered to Lively's benefit.

Anyhoo, on to something a bit more interesting. Reddit noted a few things were unsealed today. One of them is an email from TAG to Wallace with Blake's famous 17 point list. This would suggest Wallace was aware of that the PR campaign was related to the alleged SH, which is the first time that's been established. https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.nysd.634304/gov.uscourts.nysd.634304.300.1.pdf

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

How can this "represent bias" in favor of Lively if she didn't even get what she wanted?

I don't think we can say that unless we know who approached the court and what relief was requested. The tweet threat makes it sound like it was Gottlieb who did. This hearing popped up randomly on the docket, so whatever request must have been made via email. Actually, the InnerCityPress guy who live tweeted also did the Diddy trial and actually noticed they kept discussing emails that weren't on the docket, and moved for the court to enter all the emails onto the docket, which they actually granted! Too bad that did not happen here.

It's really something that Lively was threatening sanctions and attorney's fees for costs on Friday because they might need to reschedule Thursday flights (at their insistence on changing the deposition location which had not yet been ruled on by the court or requested) but it's ok that Wallace and Wayfarer wasted time and money flying to New York for nothing.

We do know who approached the court, Lively’s attorneys filed a letter yesterday afternoon. The gaslighting from the Lively side today is quite something.

Yes, Lively's attorneys requested the emergency hearing. But not because they wanted to postpone the hearing. They wanted the hearing because they realized that Babcock (Wallace's attorney) could no longer take part in the hearing as scheduled due to the dismissal, and Babcock likely let them know he intended to depose Lively if/when they refile against Wallace. So they went to the court to see if there was a way to still have Babcock participate in the deposition and present Lively being re-deposed.

This is very typical. Any other attorney would also seek to prevent their client from being deposed twice. Double depositions are not only very burdensome (it takes weeks of prep before a deposition, both for the witness and the attorneys) but also put you at a serious disadvantage because it gives the other side time to adjust tactics based on the witness's first responses. While in this case the depositions would be done by different parties, there's every reason to assume Wayfarer's and Wallace's teams would collaborate to try and trip Lively up the second time. It is basically malpractice to let your client be deposed twice.

It has been said multiple times that Babcock was willing to limit any further deposition to any new claims in the amended complaint against Wallace. WF would not be participating and the scope of any further deposition would be extremely limited, if it happened at all. This is the normal procedure, the seven hour, one day is often overruled for good cause. Further, it is widely recognized that the plaintiff is expected to bear a greater burden in discovery than other parties. No so here.

That's only if Babcock participated in the scheduled deposition regarding the existing claims in the now-dismissed complaint though. If he wasn't there for the first deposition, he'd obviously need to depose Lively regarding all her claims against him during a rescheduled deposition. There was no indication that a second deposition would be particularly limited in scope, and no matter what, Babcock would have the benefit of her first deposition in conducting the second. It's a major strategic advantage.

But they couldn't find a way to include him in the scheduled deposition that everyone would agree to. Gottlieb did offer to file a dummy complaint to be amended later, but Babcock even pushed back against this because it was clear he preferred to depose only after they'd seen the SAC. Which I think is a totally reasonable request, but it necessitates either a delay or for Lively to be deposed twice.

The idea that "bearing the greater burden in discovery" means accepting a strategic disadvantage and being deposed multiple times is silly. Bearing the greater burden means footing more of the costs, accommodating timing for third party witness production, etc. Stuff like Lively having to foot the bill and provide certain tech for document production from certain parties. It doesn't mean agreeing to be deposed twice just because the judge issued a decision in an untimely way.

Gottlieb was the holdout. The normal course of action would have been to hold the deposition today and Babcock could question her about any additional claims if there even were any in an amended complaint later. There might be none. Am additional hour of deposition at her own attorney’s office on very limited grounds would be far less burden on Lively than the other parties who were all mid route for a deposition that had already been scheduled to maximize Lively’s convenience.

In any case, no one on the internet other than Lively’s most strident defenders read the transcript and thought the judge treated all parties the same. The bias towards Lively was overwhelming and frankly shocking. The low point was the judge offering to vacate his dismissal order.

The judge didn't even decide what they were going to do. Gottlieb asked for an order saying that the scheduled deposition would be the only one. He didn't get that. The judge listened to everyone's various complaints and then told them to confer and figure it out. The outcome was a two week delay that they all agreed to.

The judge didn't offer to vacate his order. Gottlieb suggested it after meeting privately with Babcock during a break, as a way to get Babcock to the scheduled depo. Liman then asks Babcock if he would be okay with the judge vacating his dismissal for 48 hours until after the deposition, and Babcock says no and it's not raised again.

Liman was just looking for a solution amenable to all parties. He wasn't proposing a solution and he didn't force a solution on anyone. Ultimately it was the parties who decided on the delay, collectively, presumably because it was the only option they could all agree to. We don't even know how that decision was made.

That is Liman offering to vacate the order.

lmao, right? This level of gaslighting is insane. "Liman didn't offer to vacate his order, he just offered to vacate it after Gottlieb suggested it."

lol!!! Clear as day.

[Anonymous]

The judge granted most of WF’s motion to compel Blake’s damages documents. Not surprising as he granted a similar motion for Blake months ago ,but surprising as he actually ruled for WF.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

How can this "represent bias" in favor of Lively if she didn't even get what she wanted?

I don't think we can say that unless we know who approached the court and what relief was requested. The tweet threat makes it sound like it was Gottlieb who did. This hearing popped up randomly on the docket, so whatever request must have been made via email. Actually, the InnerCityPress guy who live tweeted also did the Diddy trial and actually noticed they kept discussing emails that weren't on the docket, and moved for the court to enter all the emails onto the docket, which they actually granted! Too bad that did not happen here.

It's really something that Lively was threatening sanctions and attorney's fees for costs on Friday because they might need to reschedule Thursday flights (at their insistence on changing the deposition location which had not yet been ruled on by the court or requested) but it's ok that Wallace and Wayfarer wasted time and money flying to New York for nothing.

We do know who approached the court, Lively’s attorneys filed a letter yesterday afternoon. The gaslighting from the Lively side today is quite something.

Yes, Lively's attorneys requested the emergency hearing. But not because they wanted to postpone the hearing. They wanted the hearing because they realized that Babcock (Wallace's attorney) could no longer take part in the hearing as scheduled due to the dismissal, and Babcock likely let them know he intended to depose Lively if/when they refile against Wallace. So they went to the court to see if there was a way to still have Babcock participate in the deposition and present Lively being re-deposed.

This is very typical. Any other attorney would also seek to prevent their client from being deposed twice. Double depositions are not only very burdensome (it takes weeks of prep before a deposition, both for the witness and the attorneys) but also put you at a serious disadvantage because it gives the other side time to adjust tactics based on the witness's first responses. While in this case the depositions would be done by different parties, there's every reason to assume Wayfarer's and Wallace's teams would collaborate to try and trip Lively up the second time. It is basically malpractice to let your client be deposed twice.

It has been said multiple times that Babcock was willing to limit any further deposition to any new claims in the amended complaint against Wallace. WF would not be participating and the scope of any further deposition would be extremely limited, if it happened at all. This is the normal procedure, the seven hour, one day is often overruled for good cause. Further, it is widely recognized that the plaintiff is expected to bear a greater burden in discovery than other parties. No so here.

That's only if Babcock participated in the scheduled deposition regarding the existing claims in the now-dismissed complaint though. If he wasn't there for the first deposition, he'd obviously need to depose Lively regarding all her claims against him during a rescheduled deposition. There was no indication that a second deposition would be particularly limited in scope, and no matter what, Babcock would have the benefit of her first deposition in conducting the second. It's a major strategic advantage.

But they couldn't find a way to include him in the scheduled deposition that everyone would agree to. Gottlieb did offer to file a dummy complaint to be amended later, but Babcock even pushed back against this because it was clear he preferred to depose only after they'd seen the SAC. Which I think is a totally reasonable request, but it necessitates either a delay or for Lively to be deposed twice.

The idea that "bearing the greater burden in discovery" means accepting a strategic disadvantage and being deposed multiple times is silly. Bearing the greater burden means footing more of the costs, accommodating timing for third party witness production, etc. Stuff like Lively having to foot the bill and provide certain tech for document production from certain parties. It doesn't mean agreeing to be deposed twice just because the judge issued a decision in an untimely way.

Gottlieb was the holdout. The normal course of action would have been to hold the deposition today and Babcock could question her about any additional claims if there even were any in an amended complaint later. There might be none. Am additional hour of deposition at her own attorney’s office on very limited grounds would be far less burden on Lively than the other parties who were all mid route for a deposition that had already been scheduled to maximize Lively’s convenience.

In any case, no one on the internet other than Lively’s most strident defenders read the transcript and thought the judge treated all parties the same. The bias towards Lively was overwhelming and frankly shocking. The low point was the judge offering to vacate his dismissal order.

The judge didn't even decide what they were going to do. Gottlieb asked for an order saying that the scheduled deposition would be the only one. He didn't get that. The judge listened to everyone's various complaints and then told them to confer and figure it out. The outcome was a two week delay that they all agreed to.

The judge didn't offer to vacate his order. Gottlieb suggested it after meeting privately with Babcock during a break, as a way to get Babcock to the scheduled depo. Liman then asks Babcock if he would be okay with the judge vacating his dismissal for 48 hours until after the deposition, and Babcock says no and it's not raised again.

Liman was just looking for a solution amenable to all parties. He wasn't proposing a solution and he didn't force a solution on anyone. Ultimately it was the parties who decided on the delay, collectively, presumably because it was the only option they could all agree to. We don't even know how that decision was made.

That is Liman offering to vacate the order.

Only if Babcock was fine with it, which he wasn't. And it would have been temporary. The only consequence for Wallace would have been that his attorney would have been able to participate in the deposition as scheduled. I have no idea why you would view this as some favor to Lively.

If you offer something, and someone says no, that means you didn't offer it? Can you please explain how Liman's behavior defies quantum physics?

[Anonymous]

I think a problem I'm having in discussing this case on any website is that absolutely nobody is neutral and absolutely nobody is going to be changing their minds. Everybody is dug in.

So discussing new developments in the case is largely just Team A saying the development fits their narrative and Team B doing same, plus mockery and baiting. This is true here and on the other sites, except maybe Courts, but that also involves the same people who hold the same opinions and are just expressing a lot of the same nonsense more politely lol.

Maybe this place is the best because at least there seem to be a better ratio of lawyers, but there is still so much stupid and also trolling. I do it, too. (It's me. Hi. I'm the problem it's me.) Though others are far worse.

I want a website with only lawyers and a clear set of rules for civility. That would seem to be Courts, so why isn't that hitting for me? oh well sorry to bother everyone.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

How can this "represent bias" in favor of Lively if she didn't even get what she wanted?

I don't think we can say that unless we know who approached the court and what relief was requested. The tweet threat makes it sound like it was Gottlieb who did. This hearing popped up randomly on the docket, so whatever request must have been made via email. Actually, the InnerCityPress guy who live tweeted also did the Diddy trial and actually noticed they kept discussing emails that weren't on the docket, and moved for the court to enter all the emails onto the docket, which they actually granted! Too bad that did not happen here.

It's really something that Lively was threatening sanctions and attorney's fees for costs on Friday because they might need to reschedule Thursday flights (at their insistence on changing the deposition location which had not yet been ruled on by the court or requested) but it's ok that Wallace and Wayfarer wasted time and money flying to New York for nothing.

We do know who approached the court, Lively’s attorneys filed a letter yesterday afternoon. The gaslighting from the Lively side today is quite something.

Yes, Lively's attorneys requested the emergency hearing. But not because they wanted to postpone the hearing. They wanted the hearing because they realized that Babcock (Wallace's attorney) could no longer take part in the hearing as scheduled due to the dismissal, and Babcock likely let them know he intended to depose Lively if/when they refile against Wallace. So they went to the court to see if there was a way to still have Babcock participate in the deposition and present Lively being re-deposed.

This is very typical. Any other attorney would also seek to prevent their client from being deposed twice. Double depositions are not only very burdensome (it takes weeks of prep before a deposition, both for the witness and the attorneys) but also put you at a serious disadvantage because it gives the other side time to adjust tactics based on the witness's first responses. While in this case the depositions would be done by different parties, there's every reason to assume Wayfarer's and Wallace's teams would collaborate to try and trip Lively up the second time. It is basically malpractice to let your client be deposed twice.

It has been said multiple times that Babcock was willing to limit any further deposition to any new claims in the amended complaint against Wallace. WF would not be participating and the scope of any further deposition would be extremely limited, if it happened at all. This is the normal procedure, the seven hour, one day is often overruled for good cause. Further, it is widely recognized that the plaintiff is expected to bear a greater burden in discovery than other parties. No so here.

That's only if Babcock participated in the scheduled deposition regarding the existing claims in the now-dismissed complaint though. If he wasn't there for the first deposition, he'd obviously need to depose Lively regarding all her claims against him during a rescheduled deposition. There was no indication that a second deposition would be particularly limited in scope, and no matter what, Babcock would have the benefit of her first deposition in conducting the second. It's a major strategic advantage.

But they couldn't find a way to include him in the scheduled deposition that everyone would agree to. Gottlieb did offer to file a dummy complaint to be amended later, but Babcock even pushed back against this because it was clear he preferred to depose only after they'd seen the SAC. Which I think is a totally reasonable request, but it necessitates either a delay or for Lively to be deposed twice.

The idea that "bearing the greater burden in discovery" means accepting a strategic disadvantage and being deposed multiple times is silly. Bearing the greater burden means footing more of the costs, accommodating timing for third party witness production, etc. Stuff like Lively having to foot the bill and provide certain tech for document production from certain parties. It doesn't mean agreeing to be deposed twice just because the judge issued a decision in an untimely way.

Gottlieb was the holdout. The normal course of action would have been to hold the deposition today and Babcock could question her about any additional claims if there even were any in an amended complaint later. There might be none. Am additional hour of deposition at her own attorney’s office on very limited grounds would be far less burden on Lively than the other parties who were all mid route for a deposition that had already been scheduled to maximize Lively’s convenience.

In any case, no one on the internet other than Lively’s most strident defenders read the transcript and thought the judge treated all parties the same. The bias towards Lively was overwhelming and frankly shocking. The low point was the judge offering to vacate his dismissal order.

The judge didn't even decide what they were going to do. Gottlieb asked for an order saying that the scheduled deposition would be the only one. He didn't get that. The judge listened to everyone's various complaints and then told them to confer and figure it out. The outcome was a two week delay that they all agreed to.

The judge didn't offer to vacate his order. Gottlieb suggested it after meeting privately with Babcock during a break, as a way to get Babcock to the scheduled depo. Liman then asks Babcock if he would be okay with the judge vacating his dismissal for 48 hours until after the deposition, and Babcock says no and it's not raised again.

Liman was just looking for a solution amenable to all parties. He wasn't proposing a solution and he didn't force a solution on anyone. Ultimately it was the parties who decided on the delay, collectively, presumably because it was the only option they could all agree to. We don't even know how that decision was made.

That is Liman offering to vacate the order.

Only if Babcock was fine with it, which he wasn't. And it would have been temporary. The only consequence for Wallace would have been that his attorney would have been able to participate in the deposition as scheduled. I have no idea why you would view this as some favor to Lively.

If you offer something, and someone says no, that means you didn't offer it? Can you please explain how Liman's behavior defies quantum physics?

He offered it to all parties as a solution. That hearing is just Liman saying "huh I see the issue. would this help? what about this? what are people comfortable with? should you guys meet to decide and then get back to me?"

Which is why it's weird that people are pointing to the hearing as evidence of Liman being biased. The only thing he said that was "biased" was when he got annoyed with Fritz for insinuating that Liman was trying to do Lively favors because she's a celebrity, and Liman pointed out Fritz's client is also a celebrity and that celebrity is fleeting. Everyone (with a brain) knows Fritz only said that to score points with the public who were listening in anyway, so I have no issue with that.

The outcome is kind of annoying to all parties because everyone was presumably ready to go for the depo today and now they have to wait. It's not really a big win for Lively, and it probably benefits Wallace most because it means that his lawyer won't have to depose at all until after they have the SAC, rather than having to bifurcate their questions for Lively and just go off the original complaint at first. It gives Lively more time to prepare but it also gives Wayfarer's lawyers more time to prepare so that seems like a wash to me.