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][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous]Can’t wait for Liman to deny everything Fritz wants, right before he and Gottlieb spend a weekend afternoon scuba diving and enjoying some lobster rolls.[/quote]

If he does that then he's gone off the deep end. Fritz is asking to serve her through her attorney, an attorney who has already appeared on her behalf in this case and states she is ready to comply once served with the subpoena. There is literally no justification for Liman to not grant that and sidestep all of the other irrelevant nonsense in Ferrer's filing.  [/quote]

I don't think Ferrer is obligated to accept service through her attorney.  Freedman refused to accept service for his WF clients when the wildfires were happening in LA, and actually forced Gottlieb to serve people while their homes were burning, purely for the purpose of Gottlieb do that and so that he could later complain about Gottlieb serving people in person during the wildfires.  Which Freedman fully did, actually.  [/quote]

Ferrer is a witness with relevant information who already replied to another subpoena. WF has made attempts to serve her in person. Lively was allowed to serve people via LinkedIn on similar facts. There's no reason for Liman to make WF hire investigators to serve Ferrer when her attorney is right there.[/quote]

Liman may love Gottlieb, but I think the total idiocy of filing an opposition to a motion for alternative service, while still refusing to accept service from one party while accepting from the other, will annoy him to no end.  Add in the opposition brief wasn’t even on topic. [/quote]

I could be wrong, but I don't think Liman will be extra hard on someone for their first filing in this case tbh.  It's literally her first filing.  And I would argue that Fritz is up to his old PR business again in his response here by quoting Ferrer's text language about Baldoni in the letter (really there is no legal purpose for that in this letter, it's pure PR to feed the content creators grifting off this case).  The offer to let Ferrer out of the case altogether and testify/produce for neither WF nor Lively seems to have a legal purpose I guess but also really is PR - WF can't really offer this and it's extremely self-interested of them to do so given the obviously negative tone of Ferrer's letter.

I'm not saying Ferrer's letter is good.  Just saying WF's response is still playing PR games which Fritz has been strictly warned about and yet still persists.  Fritz has had loads of chances at filing pleadings here and Ferrer is on attempt #1, so I'm not sure Fritz is "winning" here.[/quote]

Personally, I don't think Fritz's letter was very good (and considering how bad Ferrer's opposition was, that should have been a slam dunk response, but they go off on weird tangents instead), but Ferrer's argument is still so terrible that it would be unreasonable for Liman not to grant the motion for alternative service. Like, even if Wayfarer didn't respond at all to Ferrer, Ferrer's opposition is so bad (I'm for attorney, she's willing to comply with the subpoena, but haha you have the wrong address so you have to find her in person even though he feels harassed) that he should grant alternative service through her attorney. The purpose of service is for her to be notified of the subpoena. She's now notified. Done.
[/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