Toggle navigation
Toggle navigation
Home
DCUM Forums
Nanny Forums
Events
About DCUM
Advertising
Search
Recent Topics
Hottest Topics
FAQs and Guidelines
Privacy Policy
Your current identity is: Anonymous
Login
Preview
Subject:
Forum Index
»
Entertainment and Pop Culture
Reply to "Blake Lively- Jason Baldoni and NYT - False Light claims "
Subject:
Emoticons
More smilies
Text Color:
Default
Dark Red
Red
Orange
Brown
Yellow
Green
Olive
Cyan
Blue
Dark Blue
Violet
White
Black
Font:
Very Small
Small
Normal
Big
Giant
Close Marks
[quote=Anonymous][quote]I think part of the strategy here is to make a showy motion for sanctions against Freedman in part to beg the question: if the VanZan lawsuit was such a miscarriage of justice, why haven't they filed for sanctions against Lively and Manatt? By filing this motion, they can now respond to accusations of wrongdoing on VanZan with "so file for sanctions."[/quote] Maybe. It's complicated by the fact that it's a different court. IMO, they likely made misrepresentations in that court to get the subpoena, which ultimately formed the basis of the federal lawsuit, but not sure that gives Liman the right to sanction them for what was done in another court. But certainly, it's weird that Freedman brings Vanzan up in all of these sideways arguments (including crime-fraud to rebut a motion to compel) without really addressing it directly. At least, he could stop complaining that it hasn't been turned over, and file a motion to compel (unless he's being shifty and never even asked for it just so he could continue to complain that he never got it). I don't think there will be a satisfactory conclusion to this for either side. [/quote]
Options
Disable HTML in this message
Disable BB Code in this message
Disable smilies in this message
Review message
Search
Recent Topics
Hottest Topics