Reply to Lively/Baldoni Lawsuit Part 2

Forum Index » Entertainment and Pop Culture

Reply to "Lively/Baldoni Lawsuit Part 2"

Subject:

Emoticons





More smilies

Text Color: Font: Close Marks

[quote=Anonymous]I think it's not his testimony that matters, but the texts. He submitted a text, dated prior to Wayfarer's defamation suit against Sloane, where Vituscka told Freedman and Nathan that Sloane never said SA, yet they included that in their complaint. Wayfarer needs to explain that because it makes the suit against Sloane appear frivolous as that was their main claim of an actual defamatory statement from her. Also, Lively's side noted these texts were not included in production responsive to her RFPs because Wayfarer decided not to give them anything after December 20. I don't think there's any type of privilege to those texts because a journalist and lawyer communicating with each other will end up waiving both privileges. Liman will order them to turn them over, and with the actual full texts in hand Vituscka's credibility won't matter that much as to what Freedman knew. I looked again and the text where Vituscka says it was never SA is actually not dated, so Lively is going to need to get the full chain to confirm that information because Vituscka is indeed untrustworthy.
https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.nysd.634304/gov.uscourts.nysd.634304.684.1.pdf

Actually, it was probably a mistake for Sloane to make a deal with Vituscka to get that statement from him and withdraw the subpoeana. She should have pushed to get all these communications back then. [/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