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]Everybody gets a one day dep under the federal rules unless there is cause for additional time.

Liman caused this pile up inadvertently by releasing his Wallace decision today.

Am I correct that Fritz was not agreeing to reserve any portion of the 7 hours for Wallace if Wallace came back in to the case?  That was said on Reddit. If so, that was strategic from Fritz because he didn’t want to lose any of his time. Which he would have been losing as of yesterday, when Wallace was still in the case.

Likewise, Lively doesn’t want to be deposed any longer than necessary lol.

Wallace being in weird party/non party limbo caused the issue. Liman seemed to want to find a way for everyone to depose Lively tomorrow to stick to the schedule (THE SCHEDULE ABOVE ALL!!!) but couldn’t work out a way that was legally defensible.  Could he have ordered, under the rules, for the dep to proceed without Wallace, and Wallace to convene later if he was still in the case, in excess of seven hours?  That’s the only other solution I’m aware of besides what they did. Is the fact that he didn’t do that what others are saying is unfair?  Would you be okay with Baldoni’s or Heath’s deps being extended in the same way?[/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