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][quote=Anonymous]Swift's lawyers just filed a letter saying that (1) she has "no material role" in this dispute, (2) that she didn't agree to be deposed and doesn't want to be, but (3) that she'd told Wayfarer that if she is *forced* into a deposition, she is available for that week in October.

This is very much looking like a PR trick by Freedman to get everyone talking about Swift again by claiming she is set to be deposed, when in fact she is not and has repeatedly told them she has nothing to contribute.[/quote]

And yet she didn’t move to quash the deposition as one would if they really didn’t want to be deposed.[/quote]

There's not point in a motion to quash because she hasn't actually been called for a deposition yet. Wayfarer can't depose her under the current scheduling order, and only reached out to her 3 days ago (well after when it would have been necessary to contact her in order to depose her by the deadline). You don't have to quash a request for deposition that presently isn't even valid due to the current discovery schedule. If Liman doesn't grant the extension, their request is moot and Taylor will be done without paying her very expensive lawyers to draft and prosecute a motion with the court.

The letter clearly states she does not want to be deposed. She's not playing three dimensional chess here. She does not want to be deposed and is clearly indicating to all parties that if she is deposed she will state what she has already stated: she has nothing material to contribute to the matter.[/quote]

Given that Blake has a request pending to extend the schedule for her to take three depositions that she chose to postpone, I think everyone gets what they are asking for.  The judge has already ruled that Taylor is relevant because Blake named her in her disclosures.[/quote]

Lively requested a shorter extension, and it was for a clear reason -- she is deposing actual parties, and they only just produced a bunch of documents Lively's team now has to review, but are actually still withholding the Signal documents (or were at the time the request for extension was filed).

Meanwhile Wayfarer is requesting a 30 day extension so that they can depose someone who is not a party, has stated multiple times that she has no material evidence to share, and who they previously attempted to depose and then withdrew the subpoena, making it look like they just trot Swift's name out when they need a PR advantage, and not like there is actual evidence they need to obtain from her.

I think Liman is going to see through it and grant the one-week extension, and say hey if you want to depose Swift go for it, but you've had many months and only contacted her a few days ago so if it doesn't fit in this deadline, tough.[/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