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]DP.  So, wait, the Baldoni supporters don’t think any discovery will be allowed on whether Jed Wallace has astroturfed in the past, besides on Lively’s case?  No dep questions because “it isn’t relevant at all for these claims”?  I’m not sure they’ll get a bunch of RFPs about it like the other PP was suggesting but I think saying it isn’t relevant at all is wishful thinking. Another DP above explained more carefully how and why Wallace’s astroturfing info from other cases could come in.[/quote]

It’s pretty basic in the law of evidence that you don’t get to introduce evidence of a party’s past acts or “character” unless it has been put into play by the party himself or some other narrow exceptions. [/quote]

I don’t think Lively is going to get this discovery. But admissibility is not the standard for discovery. Discovery is broader. 
[/quote]

lol no not that broad. You don’t get to do discovery for inadmissible evidence. [/quote]

You actually can get discovery that is questionable on admissibility. Judges are not making determinations on admissibility during fact discovery/motions to compel.

I don’t think Lively is getting the PP’s fishing expedition, but the judges is looking at relevance, burden, etc not admissibility.[/quote]

The past tactics he uses would not be a fishing expedition. The way some users are saying it has zero relevance is actually incredibly suspicious. [/quote]

yes it would be. The 2nd Circuit is pretty clear on this.

“Au fond, a fishing expedition is indeed permissible and legitimate when the information sought pertains to the subject matter of the case and seems reasonably calculated that discovery would lead to permissible evidence as to claims or defenses. Oppenheimer Fund, Inc. v. Sanders, 437 U.S. 340, 351 (1978). Although this requirement “has been construed broadly,” the information sought must be relevant to an actual claim or defense. Id. at 351-54 (denying  discovery of the list of potential plaintiffs in a class action suit because the evidence was not reasonably calculated to be admissible to support any raised claim or defense).”

https://casetext.com/case/walsh-v-top-notch-home-designs-corp

they can ask Wallace what he did with respect to *Lively* in the engagement he had with Baldoni’s PR firm. Asking him all about his other clients is irrelevant and an obvious fishing expedition to get damaging/embarassing but inadmissible evidence. 
[/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