Reply to Blake Lively- Jason Baldoni and NYT

Forum Index » Entertainment and Pop Culture

Reply to "Blake Lively- Jason Baldoni and NYT - False Light claims "

Subject:

Emoticons





More smilies

Text Color: Font: Close Marks

[quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous]Judge Liman signed Lively's dismissal of the emotional distress claims with prejudice.  (Not available yet on court listener but won't be any different than the proposed order circulated earlier, except signed.)

Liman denied Lively's Motion to Compel third party responses to Lively's subpoenas, stating those subpoenas were filed in California and Georgia and thus would need to be brought in those courts, rather than in NY.  Loss for Lively, here.   https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.nysd.634304/gov.uscourts.nysd.634304.339.0.pdf

Sarah Nathan withdraws the motion to quash the subpoena filed against her because of the dismissal order, having been informed by Sloane that the issue was now moot since no claims against her remained.  https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.nysd.634304/gov.uscourts.nysd.634304.338.0.pdf

I wonder if this means Lively also won't get the texts etc. that Freedman sent to Vituscka - had they not been produced yet when the dismissal order came down.

[/quote]

As to your last point, the answer is  almost certainly yes.  A number of parties are now out of the case.[/quote]

Now that they are known to exist, can Lively subpoena them herself as relevant to the smear campaign? [/quote]

I don't know, but I doubt Liman would enforce their production since he has said early on that this isn’t a trial against the lawyers. So mho is that if Lively doesn’t already have this stuff they won’t get it without some greater showing of wrongdoing, and I say this as a Lively supporter. [/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