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][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous]I do wonder why WF highly paid counsel couldn't or wouldn't get basic things right like not asserting contract claims against the right parties. [/quote]

Do you wonder why Blake brought the Van Zann complaint as a breach of contract claim or does it just go one way?

I’ll take the side that gets sloppy with group pleading over the side that fabricates a doe complaint in an effort to deprive its opponents of their right to oppose a subpoena.[/quote]

The motivation for Vanzan is pretty clear. It was to get the evidence to Lively under color of law so Jones wouldn't violate her confidentially agreement* with Wayfarer, without giving Wayfarer notice and an opportunity to object to the scope. It was unethical and I don't support it, but I don't wonder why they did it. I guess they chose breach of contract because Vanzan is just a shell company so there weren't many options.

I don't see why highly paid firms like Wayfarer is using couldn't get the defendants right. I don't see what was to be gained since they had plenty of other causes of action. I do understand why they wouldn't withdraw the claims once Lively filed the Rule 11 motion because it would be bad PR. If I were Wayfarer, I would be pissed. That was a self-own, they're sanctioned and reprimanded now and gained nothing from it.

*It's kind of interesting how Liman completely sidestepped Vanzan by just ruling that it wasn't confidential information as defined in the Jonesworks/Wayfarer contract. I'd have to reread the decision but this implies that she wouldn't have needed a subpoena at all, because the information wasn't given by Wayfarer to Jonesworks (that might be true of the Abel/Nathan texts but I'm not sure I agree to the extent some of the texts IIRC were from Wayfarer parties to Abel).[/quote]

I’ve been a litigator for a couple of decades and never have seen a plaintiff withdraw claims with a motion to dismiss pending.  The overwhelming majority of judges would have given them the opportunity to replead even if they granted the motion to dismiss.  Liman is a different kind of judge.

Pretty sure WF said, in their state case, they intend to appeal the MTD with respect to the NYT. That will be interesting if it happens.
[/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