Reply to Blake Lively- Jason Baldoni and NYT

Forum Index » Entertainment and Pop Culture

Reply to "Blake Lively- Jason Baldoni and NYT - False Light claims "

Subject:

Emoticons





More smilies

Text Color: Font: Close Marks

[quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous]Taylor filed a motion to quash her subpoena, as expected.[/quote]

People on reddit are saying this is it?
https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.dcd.280496/gov.uscourts.dcd.280496.1.0.pdf[/quote]

If so, that's weird. This is a motion by Venable seeking to quash a subpoena in Venable and one of its partners, Baldridge, for communications between Lively/Reynolds and Venable, and between Venable/Baldridge and Michael Gottlieb (Lively's attorney). Taylor Swift's name does not appear at all, nor do they reference any client of Venable.

But also it's weird because the motion to quash is largely based on the arguments that the subpoena overly burdens a non-party and that they are requesting documents that the could obtain from a party (Lively/Reynolds can produce any documents requested).These are the arguments I would expect Swift to make regarding a subpoena for documents. They do not make an objections referencing attorney work product, which I would expect a law firm to make.

Also it makes no sense to me that Wayfarer would subpoena Venable.

So all I can think is that Wayfarer served Taylor's law firm with the intention of serving Taylor, but Venable is playing dumb because the subpoena was poorly worded/framed (just saying "you must produce" and not specifying who "you" is in the document itself. Swift wants to keep her name out of this litigation so this might be a tongue in cheek way of doing so.

I do think that if Wayfarer is just requesting Swift's (or Venable's!) communications with Lively/Reynolds, Liman will grant this because of course they can get that from Lively/Reynolds.[/quote]

PP again. Footnote!

It appears the subpoena they are responding to here was served on Venable in April (coincidentally, or not, the day Travis purportedly unfollowed Ryan).

But a footnote references another subpoena for "one of Venable's clients" and a communication on May 8th asking Venable if they can accept service on that client.

It is confirmed that Venable/Baldridge rep Taylor.

So yes it appears that Wayfarer (sloppily IMO) served a subpoena on Venable in April but perhaps the subpoena was addressed to Taylor but only said "you" in the document (lazy!). And Venable decided to eff with them by treating it as a subpoena on the firm and Baldridge, and now Wayfarer is trying to fix it with another subpoena. Lol.[/quote]

FWIW I think they were just trying to protect Taylor’s privacy. I don’t think the leaks about the Taylor subpoena have been coming from JB’s camp, as you can see freedman didn’t even give a statement, which is unusual for him. They don’t want to poke the dragon and enrage swifties imo.[/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