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][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous]BF just wrote a letter to judge Liman in response to all of the various motions to compel Blake has submitted to Liman regarding nonparties in other districts. BF basically says sorry judge but you don’t have jurisdiction over these subpoenas and lively should stop running and crying to you anyways because she hasn’t produced a single document either. He ends the short letter with his new favorite zinger, Van Sham, saying “all that is known, though not disclosed by Lively, is that she improperly obtained defendant Jennifer Abel’s documents from Joneswork LLC pursuant to a so-called ‘subpoena’ issued in a sham lawsuit filed without notice to any of the Wayfarer parties.”[/quote]

Completely wild. I need one of these judges to please rule on some of this stuff or hold a hearing or something, because the level of vitriol at what is still a fairly early stage of litigation, is insane. I don't even know who is right on the law at this point or who might be pissing the judge off more (truly, no idea), I just know things seem to be boiling over to crazy levels. I've been involved with some heated litigation in my day but this is next level.[/quote]

Why would you assume vitriol would not be present? Did you hear the words and context behind those MTD? Do you understand that no longer having TS in their orb/khalessi world is huge for Lively? Did the CIA hire not warn you enough that they would go scorched earth? Didn’t anything from the 17 point list, the berating at the apartment, the exaggerated porn, kissing, and breastfeeding lies leave you outraged like many of us?

Why would you think they’d get to litigation and play nice?  There is $400M on the line that RR does not want to pay, and lots of other downfall if they lose. Those two would burn Hollywood down if needed for a win in court.[/quote]

First: chill.

Second: I was talking about the lawyers. You are talking about the parties. Usually at this stage, there is more politeness and professionalism between the lawyers. And I wasn't saying it was wrong (or right), more that it's over the top and it is making me want either some court rulings or a hearing to clarify whose arguments are winning out because I no longer have a good sense of how the litigation is going for either side, what ch si much mudslinging happening on both sides  [/quote]

Gottlieb has yet to agree to an extension or a leave to reply, etc . . while Freedman consistently has.  As a litigator, I’d be annoyed by the lack of basic courtesy as well.[/quote]

+1 [b]Freedman also hasn’t filed any motions to compel even though BL’s side apparently hasn’t turned over any discovery either.[/b] BL’s lawyers are clogging up the court docket with nuisance motions and seemingly are trying to win this thing on technicalities instead of facts. They’re also racking up the billable hours for their clients.[/quote]

The bolded actually makes me suspicious of Freedman's claim that Lively's lawyers aren't producing documents. In their motion to compel, Lively said that they have documents ready to go and are ready to exchange, as early as I think May 16th, but that Freedman & Co. wouldn't agree to that. And therefore they filed the motion to compel.

So is Freedman saying this never happened, that Lively's attorneys didn't tell them they were ready to exchange documents and suggest a date to do so? He is not explicit about this and produces no emails between lawyers showing that the Lively parties are delaying or refusing requests. If they really weren't participating, why *doesn't* he file a motion to compel?

I just don't get why Freedman would say "oh they aren't doing discovery" but not file a MTC. To be nice? I don't think so.[/quote]

The ESI Protocol Stipulation wasn't filed until yesterday.  It's normal to agree on this protocol first re how the docs will be produced before you actually begin producing them.  Freedman had been the holdout in agreeing on the protocol.  That's why I said that yesterday that now that the protocol was filed, I suspect Lively's side will start producing, though I don't know.

I don't think Freedman was saying that the conversation about producing on May 16 had never happened.  I think it's true that Lively parties were probably ready to produce docs per the specs in the proposed ESI protocol but were waiting for agreement on those specs first.  Freedman may have his own complaints about what amount of info Lively parties are agreeing to produce.  The main complaint I've seen from Freedman re Lively's gathering of docs etc. so far was a statement that Lively would not share with him how their docs were collected.  I expect given some of the overbroad requests we are seeing from Freedman to other parties that Lively's attys will object to overbreath as well and limit their responses, but they would have to work hard to be as wholly non-responsive as we have seen Freedman being in the recent MTCs.

Different topic:  I thought the Venable motion to quash Freedman's subpoena in the DC court action was well done -- it basically said, why on earth are you doing this as a third party request when everybody knows you go to parties first for discovery and every single request you have made to us is something you could get from the lawyers of the party at issue here, Gottlieb, rather than us.  They then went on to note the overbroad/unduly burdensome issues with the request before finishing with the key relevance problems which I noted previously -- the [b]absolute lack of any connection[/b] between the doc requests to Venable and the underlying SH, retaliation, extortion, or defamation at issue in the underlying case, and citing cases quashing subpoenas seeking "documents which are of no conceivable relevance" to the underlying action.  Venable ended with a note that even if some potential relevance could be teased out, such a determination should be delayed until the MTDs were decided because no one should need to produce docs for claims that are falling out of the case.  I still think it's extremely unorthodox for a lawyer to subpoena another law firm for any communications they've had with your opposing counsel and I will be surprised if this isn't quashed in DC.   [url]https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.dcd.280496/gov.uscourts.dcd.280496.1.0.pdf [/url][/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