Reply to Lively/Baldoni Lawsuit Part 2

Forum Index » Entertainment and Pop Culture

Reply to "Lively/Baldoni Lawsuit Part 2"

Subject:

Emoticons





More smilies

Text Color: Font: Close Marks

[quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous]Wayfarer got BTFO on the big motion to compel. They got the February 2025 cutoff and some limitations on no SH discrimination but Lively got basically everything else and Liman methodically pointed out lots of deficiencies in WF production and legal reasoning, in a well reasoned decision. [/quote]

It's so beautiful.  The schadenfreude whenever this legal team bites it is glorious.  WF's arguments throughout most of this were so, so stupid.  The Signal communications request was untimely because the request was new?  Dudes.  Those docs were first requested months ago and you just deliberately misread the request so as to exclude Signal docs even though they clearly are "communications" lol.  That's absolutely on you.

Hard to imagine what WF's overall plan here is.  Did anyone see my earlier comment about Freedman not even introducing any exhibits or videos during the Lively deposition?  Honestly this is bordering on malpractice at this point imho.  Good luck, Jason.[/quote]

PP. My favorite argument was the WF kindergarten whine that " if we have to do it, Lively does too!!!" And the judge was like but you didn't file an MTC nor identify any deficiencies whatsoever in her production, whereas you all didn't even include evidence cited in your own complaint. It is truly embarrassing lawyering. I posted a few days ago that while I could understand hiring that team initially for the PR, I can't understand why they haven't changed by now. Sarowitz is probably going to have to use his own money now instead of their insurance.[/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