Blake Lively- Jason Baldoni and NYT - False Light claims

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I’d have to look at the sharing agreement but I think it may be the case that WF cannot get access to the Ferrer documents until she accepts service and provides a written response, which may explain these seemingly ridiculous actions by her attorney. I do think their are several categories of documents sought by WF that were not sought by Lively so once the subpoena is properly served, there would need to be a meet and confer between Ferrer and WF before further motions could be filed.

No, that's not how discovery works. You are required to turn over everything, and document discovery was drawing to a close by the time WF subpoenaed Ferrer. Someone on Reddit put them up side by side (the Lively and WF subpoenas) and they are identical. It makes no sense that they were subpoenaing Ferrer for docs they already received from Lively. And there's no allegation Lively was withholding them either, if that was the issue, WF could have filed a motion to force Lively to share.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I’d have to look at the sharing agreement but I think it may be the case that WF cannot get access to the Ferrer documents until she accepts service and provides a written response, which may explain these seemingly ridiculous actions by her attorney. I do think their are several categories of documents sought by WF that were not sought by Lively so once the subpoena is properly served, there would need to be a meet and confer between Ferrer and WF before further motions could be filed.

No, that's not how discovery works. You are required to turn over everything, and document discovery was drawing to a close by the time WF subpoenaed Ferrer. Someone on Reddit put them up side by side (the Lively and WF subpoenas) and they are identical. It makes no sense that they were subpoenaing Ferrer for docs they already received from Lively. And there's no allegation Lively was withholding them either, if that was the issue, WF could have filed a motion to force Lively to share.

They definitely aren’t identical. I can see that with my own eyes.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I’d have to look at the sharing agreement but I think it may be the case that WF cannot get access to the Ferrer documents until she accepts service and provides a written response, which may explain these seemingly ridiculous actions by her attorney. I do think their are several categories of documents sought by WF that were not sought by Lively so once the subpoena is properly served, there would need to be a meet and confer between Ferrer and WF before further motions could be filed.

No, that's not how discovery works. You are required to turn over everything, and document discovery was drawing to a close by the time WF subpoenaed Ferrer. Someone on Reddit put them up side by side (the Lively and WF subpoenas) and they are identical. It makes no sense that they were subpoenaing Ferrer for docs they already received from Lively. And there's no allegation Lively was withholding them either, if that was the issue, WF could have filed a motion to force Lively to share.

I am a lawyer, I know how discovery works. However, I don’t think you do.

[Anonymous]

Blake’s behavior toward the cast seems especially weird and manipulative because I don’t recall her ever trying to be this friendly with castmates on other sets

[Anonymous]

Fritz responds to Ferrer's motion: https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.nysd.634304/gov.uscourts.nysd.634304.677.0.pdf

More twists and turns. They point out it's unfair for Lively to get discovery from Ferrer while they cannot, and then put out an offer for all parties to stipulate that no one can use "any communication to, from or concerning Ms. Ferrer, or any testimony from her, in any manner in this action."

As far as the addresses for Ferrer, they say they didn't pull them out of thin air and would be happy to tell the court what due diligence they did. The point about her address was one of the only relevant topics in Ferrer's motion opposing alternative service so you would think they would address that directly.

They don't mention the AI hallucinated case. That's fair considering it's irrelevant and also Ferrer didn't identify the case or submit any exhibits on it, but still I thought they might address it and confirm it is false, just to save face.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Fritz responds to Ferrer's motion: https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.nysd.634304/gov.uscourts.nysd.634304.677.0.pdf

More twists and turns. They point out it's unfair for Lively to get discovery from Ferrer while they cannot, and then put out an offer for all parties to stipulate that no one can use "any communication to, from or concerning Ms. Ferrer, or any testimony from her, in any manner in this action."

As far as the addresses for Ferrer, they say they didn't pull them out of thin air and would be happy to tell the court what due diligence they did. The point about her address was one of the only relevant topics in Ferrer's motion opposing alternative service so you would think they would address that directly.

They don't mention the AI hallucinated case. That's fair considering it's irrelevant and also Ferrer didn't identify the case or submit any exhibits on it, but still I thought they might address it and confirm it is false, just to save face.

TBF they can’t say the Court Order prevents us from discussing non relevant topics like indemnification and then discuss the AI accusation (which doesn’t even cite a particular case as being AI).

I believe the redacted section points out of the addresses one of the addresses served was taken from the Lively disclosure. Obviously that one worked for lively.

I

[Anonymous]

Can’t wait for Liman to deny everything Fritz wants, right before he and Gottlieb spend a weekend afternoon scuba diving and enjoying some lobster rolls.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Can’t wait for Liman to deny everything Fritz wants, right before he and Gottlieb spend a weekend afternoon scuba diving and enjoying some lobster rolls.

If he does that then he's gone off the deep end. Fritz is asking to serve her through her attorney, an attorney who has already appeared on her behalf in this case and states she is ready to comply once served with the subpoena. There is literally no justification for Liman to not grant that and sidestep all of the other irrelevant nonsense in Ferrer's filing.

[Anonymous]

[twitter]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Can’t wait for Liman to deny everything Fritz wants, right before he and Gottlieb spend a weekend afternoon scuba diving and enjoying some lobster rolls.

If he does that then he's gone off the deep end. Fritz is asking to serve her through her attorney, an attorney who has already appeared on her behalf in this case and states she is ready to comply once served with the subpoena. There is literally no justification for Liman to not grant that and sidestep all of the other irrelevant nonsense in Ferrer's filing.

He will give them suggestions on how to avoid it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Can’t wait for Liman to deny everything Fritz wants, right before he and Gottlieb spend a weekend afternoon scuba diving and enjoying some lobster rolls.

If he does that then he's gone off the deep end. Fritz is asking to serve her through her attorney, an attorney who has already appeared on her behalf in this case and states she is ready to comply once served with the subpoena. There is literally no justification for Liman to not grant that and sidestep all of the other irrelevant nonsense in Ferrer's filing.

I don't think Ferrer is obligated to accept service through her attorney. Freedman refused to accept service for his WF clients when the wildfires were happening in LA, and actually forced Gottlieb to serve people while their homes were burning, purely for the purpose of Gottlieb do that and so that he could later complain about Gottlieb serving people in person during the wildfires. Which Freedman fully did, actually.

[Anonymous]

I hereby claim this thread and all its riches for the honor and glory of myself and my descendants.

/s/ Arlington mom

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I hereby claim this thread and all its riches for the honor and glory of myself and my descendants.

/s/ Arlington mom

Congratulations Arlington for the 1000th page entry! Since cannot give you fireworks or party, maybe break out your florals and have a signature drink to celebrate tonight.

Hear ye. Hear ye. The triple digits are dead, long live the quadruple digits of this thread!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Can’t wait for Liman to deny everything Fritz wants, right before he and Gottlieb spend a weekend afternoon scuba diving and enjoying some lobster rolls.

If he does that then he's gone off the deep end. Fritz is asking to serve her through her attorney, an attorney who has already appeared on her behalf in this case and states she is ready to comply once served with the subpoena. There is literally no justification for Liman to not grant that and sidestep all of the other irrelevant nonsense in Ferrer's filing.

I don't think Ferrer is obligated to accept service through her attorney. Freedman refused to accept service for his WF clients when the wildfires were happening in LA, and actually forced Gottlieb to serve people while their homes were burning, purely for the purpose of Gottlieb do that and so that he could later complain about Gottlieb serving people in person during the wildfires. Which Freedman fully did, actually.

Ferrer is a witness with relevant information who already replied to another subpoena. WF has made attempts to serve her in person. Lively was allowed to serve people via LinkedIn on similar facts. There's no reason for Liman to make WF hire investigators to serve Ferrer when her attorney is right there.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Can’t wait for Liman to deny everything Fritz wants, right before he and Gottlieb spend a weekend afternoon scuba diving and enjoying some lobster rolls.

If he does that then he's gone off the deep end. Fritz is asking to serve her through her attorney, an attorney who has already appeared on her behalf in this case and states she is ready to comply once served with the subpoena. There is literally no justification for Liman to not grant that and sidestep all of the other irrelevant nonsense in Ferrer's filing.

I don't think Ferrer is obligated to accept service through her attorney. Freedman refused to accept service for his WF clients when the wildfires were happening in LA, and actually forced Gottlieb to serve people while their homes were burning, purely for the purpose of Gottlieb do that and so that he could later complain about Gottlieb serving people in person during the wildfires. Which Freedman fully did, actually.

Ferrer is a witness with relevant information who already replied to another subpoena. WF has made attempts to serve her in person. Lively was allowed to serve people via LinkedIn on similar facts. There's no reason for Liman to make WF hire investigators to serve Ferrer when her attorney is right there.

Liman may love Gottlieb, but I think the total idiocy of filing an opposition to a motion for alternative service, while still refusing to accept service from one party while accepting from the other, will annoy him to no end. Add in the opposition brief wasn’t even on topic.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Can’t wait for Liman to deny everything Fritz wants, right before he and Gottlieb spend a weekend afternoon scuba diving and enjoying some lobster rolls.

If he does that then he's gone off the deep end. Fritz is asking to serve her through her attorney, an attorney who has already appeared on her behalf in this case and states she is ready to comply once served with the subpoena. There is literally no justification for Liman to not grant that and sidestep all of the other irrelevant nonsense in Ferrer's filing.

I don't think Ferrer is obligated to accept service through her attorney. Freedman refused to accept service for his WF clients when the wildfires were happening in LA, and actually forced Gottlieb to serve people while their homes were burning, purely for the purpose of Gottlieb do that and so that he could later complain about Gottlieb serving people in person during the wildfires. Which Freedman fully did, actually.

Ferrer is a witness with relevant information who already replied to another subpoena. WF has made attempts to serve her in person. Lively was allowed to serve people via LinkedIn on similar facts. There's no reason for Liman to make WF hire investigators to serve Ferrer when her attorney is right there.

Liman may love Gottlieb, but I think the total idiocy of filing an opposition to a motion for alternative service, while still refusing to accept service from one party while accepting from the other, will annoy him to no end. Add in the opposition brief wasn’t even on topic.

Yeah, her attorney, who is aware of the subpoena, can't argue that she's not on notice that she's due to be served, and not give a good address, and force WF to try to serve her in person, when her argument is she feels harassed... make it make sense.