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]I am going to admit that I don't really understand why Fritz was claiming that the CCs listed in their interrogatories were merely CCs that TAG had communicated with (which is the language the ROG originally used, "communicated with in any manner,") when this ROG was the subject of a motion to compel.

Baldoni wanted to limit the ROG to only CCs who had over 10K followers etc, but Lively refused.  https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.nysd.634304/gov.uscourts.nysd.634304.295.1.pdf (from docket entry 298).

The Judge's order at docket entry 355 required that they identify not just CCs "who can generate, create, or influence online content, but only the much smaller subset of those who do so on the behalf of or at the request of a given Wayfarer party."  https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.nysd.634304/gov.uscourts.nysd.634304.355.0.pdf

So I do not understand Fritz claiming that their ROGs only name CCs TAG communicated with:  "Without citation to any evidence, the Motion alleges that the individuals identified in the Interrogatory Responses “have spoken publicly about Ms. Lively and this lawsuit, [b]apparently at the behest of TAG and the other Wayfarer Defendants.[/b]” (Dkt. 449, p. 2) (emphasis added). However, the Motion ignores the broad scope of the Interrogatories, which seeks the names of those with whom TAG has merely “communicated” concerning (among other topics) Lively, her allegations, or this lawsuit, from May 2024 through the present. (Dkt. 451-1, p. 12 – 14). That is why the  Interrogatory Responses identify those to whom TAG has harmlessly provided quotes from the Wayfarer Parties’ counsel in response to media requests for formal statements in connection with legal developments herein, as Lively’s legal team has repeatedly done."  https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.nysd.634304/gov.uscourts.nysd.634304.460.0.pdf

I thought the "at the behest" of language was specifically related to what the judge required, re CCs who made content "directly or indirectly at the request of, or on behalf of, any Wayfarer Party."

Which is not to say any of the CCs Lively subpoenaed were in TAG's ROGs (or any except one), or that this wasn't a bad move by Hudson.  I just think Fritz is kind of ignoring the language he was ordered to answer the ROGs with.[/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