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]As much as I'm dying to relitigate the birth video issues, there's more on the Venable subpoena. First of all, Venable filed its motion to quash in DC federal court, not SDNY, because Venable is a DC firm and it was served in DC. Lively's motion to intervene was also served in DC, so this will be ruled on by another court, not Liman, unless it's removed. And Lively included a series of emails with her motion to intervene, showing that they had attempted to discuss the matter with Wayfarer's lawyers but Wayfarer refused to allow them to have input on the Venable subpoena because, Wayfarer contends in the emails, it's a third party subpoena that doesn't concern Lively. Thus the motion to intervene was filed. Here is the attachment with the emails, they are quite spicy IMO: https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.dcd.280496/gov.uscourts.dcd.280496.5.1.pdf[/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
