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]Van Zan and Lively are not the same entity and they were not responding to the same request for documents.  The judge told Wayfarer to get more evidence from/about Van Zan if they want to make the subpoena an issue.  In which case, what Van Zan the entity has compared to what Lively has is relevant.  And if it is the exact same thing, they will want a record of that for future motions.  Liman doesn’t want any parties submitting motions  assuming things about Van Zan, he wants evidence.  [/quote]

Agree with this, but wish Garafalo had explained it that way, because her letter did give the impression they didn't have it at all. She's asking for it from 3 different sources (Lively, Vanzan, and Jones) and I think there's a legitimate argument to be made for it, but obviously the response was going to be "you have it already from Lively" so that should have been explained in her letter, that she only has it from Lively, who isn't a party in either Vanzan v. Doe or Jones v. Abel.[/quote]

Replying to myself to say it's also not a great look for Hudson to jump in there before either Vanzan's attorney even responds to be like "oh we totally sent it you, but we're not actually the attorneys of record, we're totally the attorney for Lively who isn't Vanzan and didn't completely use Vanzan as a front just because she wanted to hide this lawsuit." IIRC Vanzan is a shipping company or something and has nothing to do with Abel or Jones.[/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