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]I actually don't think this Shuster letter is helpful for them.  It does not address the Freedman issue head on, or the fact that the Vin Diesel dep location was moved precisely because of similar "security concerns."  Moreover, it's filled with hateful asides to Lively like "Perhaps Lively is merely trying to deflect from the paucity of her claims which will be highlighted by her deposition testimony" and "Lively’s foot-stomping and use of her celebrity status may have enabled her to seize control of the film, which is the crux of this dispute, her counsel’s tantrum has no place in this Court." (Oh the irony of this given the very large and muscular Mr. Vin Diesel's similar concerns which prevailed.)

None of this makes it sound like Shuster is taking the security concerns very seriously or making any attempt to avoid a dangerous spectacle or pileup of people outside.  They completely ignored the glaring Vin Diesel switch effectuated by their lead counsel, or the behavior of Freedman as explained in Exhibit 2.  They just ignore these like they're not there.

The Pakistan case that Lively cited actually states what Lively cited it for -- that multiple courts have found that security can be a factor and even the deciding factor in determining where the dep should occur.  Whereas at least some of the cases Shuster cites are entirely distinguishable.

And Shuster's seemingly main point that they need to host the dep because of their 20K documents is preposterous.  Everything is electronic these days and remotely accessible.  Liman was elected to the bench in 2019, so he's done deps recently enough to recognize that, as well.

I'm not saying Liman will definitely side with Lively. [b] But I find Shuster's unserious and insulting tone in here unhelpful for the proposition that their firm will treat Lively respectfully and watch out for her security.[/b]  So I tend to think he will, while still perhaps protecting the info from Shuster of exactly who will take the deposition etc.  
[/quote]

I agree with this. I think the decision to personally insult Lively throughout the letter was a very odd choice given the crux of the issue is whether they will take Lively's security concerns sufficiently seriously without Liman requiring it. I read this and, legal arguments aside, I come away with the impression that they would be pleased if the depo became a circus or something bad happened to Lively. That's not the image these lawyers should want to leave Liman with. Now, for what it's worth, I think Lively has made a credible case that the depo may be a circus if Baldoni's lawyers are left unattended, but I'm not sure she's really shown security concerns per se (being harassed by paps vs the alleged death threat in the VD case are very, very different). I think Baldoni's lawyers would have been better served by playing their response straight.[/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