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=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous]I think Ferrer is a spineless, obnoxious loser, but there is no way Ferrer was ever going to sympathize with Justin again after his supporters (and I'm a supporter) wrote all those comments on her Instagram. Of course she's going to associate him with that. Idiot probably thinks he launched a smear campaign against her too. She's an idiot, but I understand why at the same time.[/quote]

She doesn’t have to sympathize, just testify honestly, and provide the requested texts.  [/quote]

I don't get what her issue is with providing her texts. The Wayfarer subpoena is pretty reasonable and tailored. Presumably Lively asked for for the same documents (in fact her requests tend to be super broad so probably more). I can't imagine what WF is asking for that Lively didn't because her attorneys are extremely thorough. So there would be basically no burden on Ferrer to respond, so it seems like it could be Ferrer who is holding things hostage until she gets the invoices paid, idk? In that one email her lawyer really goes from 0 to 60 fast.

I totally get why she doesn't want to get dragged in and I suspect she told Lively and Baldoni what each wanted to hear and it's embarrassing and cringe, but if Lively already has the texts then that already happened. If there's something helpful to Lively in there its definitely getting exposed.

I don't assume her testimony will necessarily help either side.[/quote]

The Wayfarer subpoena is almost identical to the subpoena Lively served on Ferrer back in February, so Wayfarer should already have all this info since Lively will have been required to share anything she got from Ferrer. It is odd to me that they would have served a new subpoena on her in July duplicating what she produced in the spring. This does tend to back up Ferrer's argument that the subpoena and motion for alternative service are both frivolous filings intended to intimidate Ferrer, especially if it was happening during an ongoing dispute between Ferrer and Wayfarer over her attorney's fees.[/quote]

Its not odd. I've seen it happened in other cases too. Yes lively parties shares but that doesn't stop them from obtaining their own as well. There's no valid excuse for. Awful move on their part [/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