Toggle navigation
Toggle navigation
Home
DCUM Forums
Nanny Forums
Events
About DCUM
Advertising
Search
Recent Topics
Hottest Topics
FAQs and Guidelines
Privacy Policy
Your current identity is: Anonymous
Login
Preview
Subject:
Forum Index
»
Entertainment and Pop Culture
Reply to "Blake Lively- Jason Baldoni and NYT - False Light claims "
Subject:
Emoticons
More smilies
Text Color:
Default
Dark Red
Red
Orange
Brown
Yellow
Green
Olive
Cyan
Blue
Dark Blue
Violet
White
Black
Font:
Very Small
Small
Normal
Big
Giant
Close Marks
[quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous]I was thinking maybe they asked Venable for communications between Lively/Gottlieb and Venable reaching out to coordinate plans in case Swift gets a subpoena, to find out if she even has documents. And then an actual subpoena to Swift came a week later which is referenced in the footnote. It's odd.[/quote] That would all be privileged communications though. It is not normal to request communications between a party and a lawyer or law firm, for this reason. I think Wayfarer clearly meant to subpoena Taylor with the original subpoena but they were sloppy with the wording and Venable can play dumb and say "why are you requesting info from us, Venable, we have nothing to do with this." It also makes Wayfarer look stupid, which is to Venable's (and Taylor's) benefit when they issue a more proper subpoena and then Taylor objects to that one.[/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
