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]How can this "represent bias" in favor of Lively if she didn't even get what she wanted? [/quote]

I don't think we can say that unless we know who approached the court and what relief was requested. The tweet threat makes it sound like it was Gottlieb who did. This hearing popped up randomly on the docket, so whatever request must have been made via email. Actually, the InnerCityPress guy who live tweeted also did the Diddy trial and actually noticed they kept discussing emails that weren't on the docket, and moved for the court to enter all the emails onto the docket, which they actually granted! Too bad that did not happen here.

It's really something that Lively was threatening sanctions and attorney's fees for costs on Friday because they might need to reschedule Thursday flights (at their insistence on changing the deposition location which had not yet been ruled on by the court or requested) but it's ok that Wallace and Wayfarer wasted time and money flying to New York for nothing. [/quote]

We do know who approached the court, Lively’s  attorneys filed a letter yesterday afternoon.  The gaslighting from the Lively side today is quite something.[/quote]

Yes, Lively's attorneys requested the emergency hearing. But not because they wanted to postpone the hearing. They wanted the hearing because they realized that Babcock (Wallace's attorney) could no longer take part in the hearing as scheduled due to the dismissal, and Babcock likely let them know he intended to depose Lively if/when they refile against Wallace. So they went to the court to see if there was a way to still have Babcock participate in the deposition and present Lively being re-deposed.

This is very typical. Any other attorney would also seek to prevent their client from being deposed twice. Double depositions are not only very burdensome (it takes weeks of prep before a deposition, both for the witness and the attorneys) but also put you at a serious disadvantage because it gives the other side time to adjust tactics based on the witness's first responses. While in this case the depositions would be done by different parties, there's every reason to assume Wayfarer's and Wallace's teams would collaborate to try and trip Lively up the second time. It is basically malpractice to let your client be deposed twice.[/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