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]

Can't really imagine why they would have filed that motion, only for that, except maybe they though Wayfarer wouldn't dedesignate and they wouldn't win with Liman so this info would have stayed secret?  That just seems incredibly dumb.  Having a hard time understanding this tbh.

[/quote]

Yeah her lawyers aren't above PR filings, but gambling on not getting unsealed would have been extremely dumb. And whatever you think of them they're not dumb. The only thing that makes sense to me is this was the opposite of a PR filing, ie they were counting on WF not opposing because they can't resist a "she lied!!!" moment. (Hudson's letter wasn't a lie, but it was misleading to the public, if not the court, if most of the subpoenaed SM accounts aren't on the ROG list.) I guess they're willing to endure that as a sort of sacrifice bunt and then the de-designation benefits them in a broader way? Alternatively, they desperately need this one ROG de-designated right away for reasons unrelated to SM subpoenas.... maybe related to the Popcorn Planet guy's individual subpoena? [/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