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]So what are the chances Liman grants this extension? I'm tired of listening to NAG and her pandering (I am pro-JB, but I don't want to be lied to.) [/quote]

I'm the PP who asked how much notice they need to give on a subpoena, because I think Liman is going to grant the extension to Lively and not to Wayfarer.

These are the good cause criteria Lively cited from that Furry Puppet case everyone always cites because it's a Liman case: See Furry Puppet Studio Inc. v. Fall Out Boy, 2020 WL 4978080, at *1 (S.D.N.Y. Feb. 24, 2020) (Liman, J.) (“Good cause is likely to be found when the moving party has been generally diligent, the need for more time was neither foreseeable nor its fault, and refusing to grant the continuance would create a substantial risk of unfairness to that party.”

For Lively, their side has certainly been diligent in requesting the Signal chats, filing motions to compel, etc. For the second prong, Wayfarer was court ordered to provide the chats by a certain day, essentially gave themselves an extension which they requested the day it was due, which was denied, and now claim they won't have it ready until the day Sarowitz is to be deposed. It creates a risk of unfairness because Lively's side has been clear they want to review documents before depos, and Sarowitz in particular has given very little discovery, so it's not fair to make a big production from him without time to review it. Lively is only asking for an extra week, which keeps things on schedule.

Far Wayfarer it is difficult to make this showing regarding Swift. They have not been diligently trying to schedule Swift. They issued a subpoena in May and withdrew it, then, according to Venable, did not even contact them until 3 days ago. It was not realistic to assume that Swift, who fought the initial subpoena, would drop everything to accommodate Wayfarer's deposition while she's promoting her new album. There is no unforeseeable reason why they need an extra month for Swift. It's entirely foreseeable that she's busy and they were already on notice that she did not want to be deposed because of what happened in May. The poor planning is entirely Wayfarer's fault. They can argue substantial risk of unfairness, but that is undercut by their lack of diligence and Swift's claim that she has no material information.

Now, maybe Wayfarer will surprise me and will submit detailed exhibits showing a) their diligence in attempting to schedule Swift these past few months and that the delays were not their fault, and b) excerpts from Swift's texts demonstrating why she is a critical witness. Based on the Venable letter I very much doubt this.

I do think Liman is a bit biased toward Lively but her lawyers also give him justifications to work with and Wayfarer just says stuff without backing it up (remember the infamous Ferrer "we have reasons we picked those addresses but we're not telling the court what they are" - I actually would have still ruled in Wayfarer's favor on that one but they gave Liman enough reason to deny their motion).[/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