Lively/Baldoni Lawsuit Part 2
![[Post New]](/jforum/templates/default/images/icon_minipost_new.gif){kind=icon}
Anonymous
A deposition does not mean she wouldn't have to testify. Most likely the opposite. But yeah, WP could summon her to testify without having deposed her. That would be dumb and risky because they would not know what she's going to say (unless you're into the Qanon style theories where she's been secretly passing info to Freedman all along), but I would not put anything past Freedman. |
Anonymous
Wayfarer is doing a great job helping Lively quietly build that case. New nonsense and obstruction almost every week. |
Anonymous
Depends what’s on the texts. They may have a very good idea of what she would say. |
Anonymous
Nah, this case has been pretty normal in terms of discovery disputes. The only real outlier is the fraud on the Court that was the Van Zan subpoena. |
Anonymous
| So what are the chances Liman grants this extension? I'm tired of listening to NAG and her pandering (I am pro-JB, but I don't want to be lied to.) |
Anonymous
I'm the PP who asked how much notice they need to give on a subpoena, because I think Liman is going to grant the extension to Lively and not to Wayfarer. These are the good cause criteria Lively cited from that Furry Puppet case everyone always cites because it's a Liman case: See Furry Puppet Studio Inc. v. Fall Out Boy, 2020 WL 4978080, at *1 (S.D.N.Y. Feb. 24, 2020) (Liman, J.) (“Good cause is likely to be found when the moving party has been generally diligent, the need for more time was neither foreseeable nor its fault, and refusing to grant the continuance would create a substantial risk of unfairness to that party.” For Lively, their side has certainly been diligent in requesting the Signal chats, filing motions to compel, etc. For the second prong, Wayfarer was court ordered to provide the chats by a certain day, essentially gave themselves an extension which they requested the day it was due, which was denied, and now claim they won't have it ready until the day Sarowitz is to be deposed. It creates a risk of unfairness because Lively's side has been clear they want to review documents before depos, and Sarowitz in particular has given very little discovery, so it's not fair to make a big production from him without time to review it. Lively is only asking for an extra week, which keeps things on schedule. Far Wayfarer it is difficult to make this showing regarding Swift. They have not been diligently trying to schedule Swift. They issued a subpoena in May and withdrew it, then, according to Venable, did not even contact them until 3 days ago. It was not realistic to assume that Swift, who fought the initial subpoena, would drop everything to accommodate Wayfarer's deposition while she's promoting her new album. There is no unforeseeable reason why they need an extra month for Swift. It's entirely foreseeable that she's busy and they were already on notice that she did not want to be deposed because of what happened in May. The poor planning is entirely Wayfarer's fault. They can argue substantial risk of unfairness, but that is undercut by their lack of diligence and Swift's claim that she has no material information. Now, maybe Wayfarer will surprise me and will submit detailed exhibits showing a) their diligence in attempting to schedule Swift these past few months and that the delays were not their fault, and b) excerpts from Swift's texts demonstrating why she is a critical witness. Based on the Venable letter I very much doubt this. I do think Liman is a bit biased toward Lively but her lawyers also give him justifications to work with and Wayfarer just says stuff without backing it up (remember the infamous Ferrer "we have reasons we picked those addresses but we're not telling the court what they are" - I actually would have still ruled in Wayfarer's favor on that one but they gave Liman enough reason to deny their motion). |
Anonymous
The ACLU of Nevada agreed to rep Perez this week and day after engaged, subpoena dropped. |
Anonymous
| Who knows what Liman will do but it is not correct they are asking for a 30 day extension. They are asking to schedule one deposition outside of the period for fact discovery. It shouldn’t affect expert discovery at all. |
Anonymous
Yes, only Popcorn Planet left. What a waste of time and money for all. |
Anonymous
Like any bully, they back down when someone their size stands up for the bullied |
Anonymous
This is a big deal. ACLU does not get involved in just any case - they obliviously felt his rights were being violated. |
Anonymous
| Wow impressed by the ACLU |
Anonymous
| Well that's that. Liman denied WF request. No Swift, |
Anonymous
It was quite obviously a PR stunt. It does crack me up that WF can drop Swift's name in a filing and it immediately sets off a million online comments, multiple stories in major publications, dozens of Reddit threads. And then it all goes away when it turns out it was just press bait, but they'll do it again and people will react the exact same way next time. I guess once Pavlov's dogs are trained, you can't undo it. |
Anonymous
I was amazed at the number of people who were still insisting Swift had agreed even when her lawyers wrote she didn't. It felt like paid shills but at this point I think it's mostly real people wed to a narrative. Once the judge's decision came through, you'd think the biggest news yesterday (on the lawsuits sub) was Perez having a big win. I went onto some of the Swift subs just to gage reaction. The big one must have banned the topic since there was nothing. The neutral and Swift snark subs generally thought Baldoni and his lawyers were lying. |