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][quote=Anonymous]I will never understand why Blake's attorneys amended Swift to add her. That seemed like a huge tactical mistake at the time. [/quote]

It's only a tactical error if Swift's testimony would somehow undermine Blake's case. But there's no indication it would. Swift has stated repeatedly that she has no "material" information related to this case.

I think they listed Taylor as a potential witness because, at the time, Baldoni was suggesting that Blake had tried to use Swift to intimidate him into letting Blake take over the movie. I think they added her because they felt that if she was called to testify to that meeting with Baldoni in Blake's apartment, Swift would say it was brief and an accident of timing, or provided some other exonerating evidence.

That incident is no longer a central issue because Baldoni's complaint was dismissed and he was the one who raised that incident as evidence of Blake extorting him and Wayfarer.

But in any case, I actually don't think Swift's testimony would hurt Blake at this point. She just likely knows nothing. She was touring and in the first year of her relationship with Kielce at the time, I just don't think she was involved at all. I sense Blake is opposing deposing Taylor not because she fears how that depo would impact her legally, but because their relationship is strained due to Blake getting Swift involved with this case, and Blake is hoping to undo or at least mitigate that problem by paying her lawyers to help ensure Taylor doesn't have to testify.[/quote]

I agree Taylor’s involvement in the case is a moot point. For all the reasons that you listed. But her involvement on the PR angle has really hurt Blake. It has shown how manipulative Blake is, and it has caught her in lies.

If Taylor truly has nothing to add to the case, which I think we all agree she does not, it shows that she was dragged into the meeting at the apartment to talk about the rooftop scene unaware and Blake and Ryan cooked up this interaction up so they could use it against Justin… “See Taylor loved it. We have to use it!” And then a veiled threat, and if you don’t use it, I’ll make you pay. The whole dragons text: you want my dragons on your side.

It was a manipulative move not just on Justin, but on Taylor too.

It also shows that she probably lied to Isabella to get on her good side when she needed to turn Isabella against Justin. Telling her Taylor cast you. When Taylor probably had nothing to do with it. She was fronting a billion dollar tour.  Not watching casting tapes.

She used Taylor to get what she wanted. And from what I understand Selena Gomez and other friends have been warning Swift about this side of Blake for years. It seems Taylor finally saw it with her own eyes, which is why she has cut ties so obviously with her.

But totally agree, deposing her, or having her involved in the legal dealings at this point is useless. [/quote]

I disagree that she has no relevant info.  Both parties thought she did and included her in their  Disclosures.  Who cares what Arlington mom thinks she knows, she doesn’t .[/quote]

What everyone is failing to understand is that a party is required to list a to e that may have information relevant to the case.  Taylor’s attendance at that meeting means that both sides have to list her.  You don’t get to choose to leave off people that have information.  The other side is entitled to that list.  So listing her was appropriate and not an option to leave off.

The idea that Liana is corrupt is insane.  What he is — is an old school imperial federal judge who is way smarter than most everyone in this case.  People like him rule the courtroom. Blake’s lawyers are NY big firm lawyers and they know how to act.  Frankly there are very few LA entertainment lawyers that can even function in the SDNY. The way you act and talk is different.  It was a mistake to use an LA lawyer.

Part of what is required is absolute candor.  Spin sure but not even the hint of a lie.

[/quote]

This exactly. It's embarrassing that so many of the influencer lawyers are missing these aspects of the case. It really betrays a lot of ignorance.

Another major difference between Blake attorneys and Baldonis is that Blake's lawyers are litigation specialists. It's all they do, primarily in federal court and mostly on fairly complex cases. Whereas Baldoni's lawyers specialize in a certain kind of client (famous, sometimes also wealthy, often in entertainment) but are much more general about the kinds of law they practice. They do contract disputes, employment issues, family law, even some criminal issues. Even much of the litigation they do is focused much more on settlement and managing the PR fallout than on the underlying legal issues, as we've seen.

I think bringing on Garafolo was an attempt to even this out a little but it's still not enough. Garafolo is still at Liner Freedman, and just doesn't have the resources or expertise around her that Gottlieb or the Manatt team do.

Baldoni really should bring in a proper SDNY litigator if this thing is really going to trial. Though at this point most probably won't want to touch it because they've made so many mistakes that are now coming back to bite them and they will go into trial very disadvantaged by the lack of proper discovery on their part, for instance.[/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