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]Here's what Freedman's letter to Liman about the Venable subpeona says (it is juicy, emphasis mine to help people who skim):

[I]The Wayfarer Parties anticipate that Venable’s motion to quash will be mooted in short order, as their counsel and Venable are conferring in good faith. However, the Lively Defendants’ insistence that the Subpoena seeks irrelevant information is wrong. The Subpoena aims to obtain discovery relating to witness tampering and evidence spoliation. Specifically, the Wayfarer Parties’ counsel are informed and believe, [b]based on information from a source who is highly likely to have reliable information, that (i) Ms. Lively requested that Taylor Swift delete their text messages; (ii) Michael Gottlieb of Willkie Farr, counsel for the Lively Defendants, contacted a Venable attorney who represents Ms. Swift and demanded that Ms. Swift release a statement of support for Ms. Lively, intimating that, if Ms. Swift refused to do so, private text messages of a personal nature in Ms. Lively’s possession would be released.[/b] The Wayfarer Parties’ counsel are further informed and believe that a representative of Ms. Swift addressed these inappropriate and apparently extortionate threats in at least one written communication transmitted to Mr. Gottlieb. It is those communications that the Wayfarer Parties seek to obtain by way of subpoena, as they would evidence an attempt to intimidate and coerce a percipient witness in this litigation.[/I]

That is a huge accusation, like really really huge, and would be devastating for Lively's case here, both in court and out of it. I am personally choosing to wait and see because the allegation is so explosive that I think it's dangerous to even let myself think one way or the other about it until more info is available.

I of course want to know who the source is![/quote]

One reason I am reserving judgment on this is the allegation against Gottlieb. It's explosive. It's one thing to believe Blake Lively would ask Taylor to  delete messages or come out with a public statement of support (I buy both). It's something else to believe that Gottlieb would issue a threat on Lively's behalf. Gottlieb doesn't have some long history with Lively or Reynolds (this is his first representation of either of them) and the rest of his career is pretty impressive. He also works with other people in the industry extensively, including his current work for Drake and previous representation of Sony. He's not an idiot and there's no evidence that he has a history of shady behavior like this. I am struggling with he idea that he would do something like this.

And Freedman has a history of being pretty bombastic in his filings and allegations, and not always being 100% truthful. He's really good at stretching the truth in ways that benefit him while giving himself legal cover when he needs to. Like in this case, he could allege this super explosive thing based on a "source" just to control a narrative here, but if it turns out that discovery doesn't turn up anything like this, or the communications it uncovers are much more sedate or even innocent, he can just blame the source and say "whatever, we thought there was something on information or belief." This is not totally outside the realm of how he has operated previously so I am taking a wait and see approach before I jump on this bandwagon, even though obviously if this is true, it's really, really bad for Lively.

So I would urge a bit of caution here.[/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