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][quote=Anonymous]Manatt says Wayfarer has had the VanZan subpoena since March. https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.nysd.635782/gov.uscourts.nysd.635782.71.0.pdf[/quote]

Sorry, meant May. May 16 2025.[/quote]

But nothing else they are seeking.  They sent over the subpoena in the same production that they sent Wayfarer their own texts back.[/quote]

Nothing else besides the subpoena?  WRONG!  Lively sent both the subpoena and [b][u]all of the documents Jones produced in response to the subpoena[/u][/b], in May, which was over 7,000 pages of documents.  When you say they just sent Wayfarer their own texts back, that is because that is part of what Freedman specifically asked for, and so they sent it.  They sent it to Liner Tatelmann, and so Abel had it too.  How many parties does she need to receive these documents from?  Do you not think the fact that Lively had already provided two of the five requested categories of documents to Liner Tatelmann was something that Garofalo perhaps should have mentioned in her motion?   ?????????[/quote]

DP, I'm kinda disappointed because I liked the idea of a new, competent female attorney coming in and setting things straight. I will reserve full judgment until we get Garafalo's response to Manatt, and Jones' response to Garafolo, and I still hope the judge calls a hearing too. But, yes, since Liner represents both Abel and Wayfarer she should have anticipated and addressed that in her motion, so that's not great.[/quote]

I just posted a response to this a few comments ago - Hudson is being clever with words. She states Lively turned over docs but Garofalo wants them from Vanzan. She also is asking for more info about who is associated with Vanzan. There’s also a letter from Freedman from May 16th noting the docs from Lively related to Vanzan are missing some data.

[/quote]

How on earth are the docs Lively turned over, which were all the docs received as a results of the subpoena served on Jonesworks, going to be in any way different from what VanZan would produce for the same doc set?  They are the same documents.  Hudson isn't being clever with words.  Garofalo is absolutely obscuring the fact that she already received these docs.  They were missing data because they were missing data when received, per Lively's letter included in the production.

Garofalo can ask for those other three categories of docs from VanZan, sure.  But if she's going to ask for exactly the same docs she already received from Lively, except with a "from" address from VanZan, she should let the court know so that the court understands what a ridiculous ask this is.[/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