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][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous]Oh hey suddenly Baldoni's attorneys have a problem with relying on double hearsay![/quote]

Here's the quote from the opposition about that:  "The crux of the Motion is that because a Daily Mail reporter quoted an unidentified “insider” as stating that the Wayfarer Parties obtained unspecified information from Ms. Swift, Ms. Lively should not be compelled to produce relevant communications with Ms. Swift in her own possession. (Dkt. 325, p. 2). Tellingly, Ms. Lively does not cite any legal authority for the proposition that such double-hearsay is a proper basis to preclude the Wayfarer Parties from obtaining relevant discovery from Ms. Lively, especially information which the Wayfarer Parties believe will further exculpate them."

Like, it's [i]fine[/i] to rely on double hearsay as the basis for your affidavit accusing opposing counsel of extortion, but when it's double hearsay citing to a [i]Daily Mail reporter[/i], sheesh, what are you thinking?

As a different Lively supporters than the others above (I posted the docket update), I also tend to think Liman will require Lively to produce the Swift communications - at least those relevant to the remaining claims.  I think this motion was designed to ferret out what communications Baldoni had received from Venable, and they are now being shown to say they have received no documents and are even calling the Daily Mail report saying they got what they wanted into question.  I don't think Baldoni's attorneys are quite admitting that they didn't receive any information from Venable (as opposed to docs), but it seems clear that they won't be able to come in to Lively's dep showing docs from Venable that Lively hasn't seen.  And if they do, these responses here seem to give Lively's attys reason to stop the dep imho. [/quote]

I'm personally "they got nothing, but want to leave the theory open that Swift's team decided to give her some phantom information not contained in a document instead of pursuing the motion to quash." I also noticed that Freedman was asked about this on Megyn Kelly and danced around it, without repeating his allegations of extortion by Lively and Gottlieb (recall Liman's comment that putting that letter into the court record protects it from defamation, 
and should not give it greater credibility, and note that he won't make those statements out of court).[/quote]

This doesn’t seem complicated, Venable likely showed Liman certain documents without giving him copies.  If Lively doesnt  produce them, he can then renew his subpoena or perhaps they agreed to another procedure by which he can obtain them.  [/quote]

As we've said before in this thread, that doesn't really make any sense as a reason to withdraw the subpoena, certainly against Venable, since Freedman has said he isn't going to depose Swift -- how else would he expect to get in evidence of Gottlieb's supposed extortion of her, since the only communications about it (per the rumors) involved Venable and not Swift herself?

Maybe if there was some text from Lively to Swift asking her to delete her texts, and Venable told Freedman that there was such a text, then requiring the Swift communications could be a trap to show this happened, and one that Lively's attorneys are trying to avoid to get this thrown out.

There is also always the possibility that there was nothing, and never was anything, and that Freedman is basically a liar and poseur, and that the only thing he got from the Venable encounter was the PR statement that Swift wasn't involved with IEWU and never was, to tend to show that Lively was a liar, and that's all he really mostly ever wanted except seeing his name in the headlines again.  [/quote]

As one of you pointed out of the time, there was little value in getting documents from Swift if she was unwilling to testify in support of them.   If I were Freedman and they were willing to make a deal to get the subpoena to go away as long as it didn't mandate further participation from Taylor, I would absolutely have asked if I could see any documents they thought I'd be interested in without requiring it to be produced.  Then, get the documents from Lively or raise a stink if she doesn't produce them.  I don't think Freedman gave up on the subpoena in exchange for nothing, he had good grounds for the subpoena.  And he can reissue it if necessary.  If its reissued because Blake withheld documents, Taylor might be more willing to comply.[/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