Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Can’t wait for Liman to deny everything Fritz wants, right before he and Gottlieb spend a weekend afternoon scuba diving and enjoying some lobster rolls.

If he does that then he's gone off the deep end. Fritz is asking to serve her through her attorney, an attorney who has already appeared on her behalf in this case and states she is ready to comply once served with the subpoena. There is literally no justification for Liman to not grant that and sidestep all of the other irrelevant nonsense in Ferrer's filing.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Can’t wait for Liman to deny everything Fritz wants, right before he and Gottlieb spend a weekend afternoon scuba diving and enjoying some lobster rolls.

If he does that then he's gone off the deep end. Fritz is asking to serve her through her attorney, an attorney who has already appeared on her behalf in this case and states she is ready to comply once served with the subpoena. There is literally no justification for Liman to not grant that and sidestep all of the other irrelevant nonsense in Ferrer's filing.

Anonymous wrote:Can’t wait for Liman to deny everything Fritz wants, right before he and Gottlieb spend a weekend afternoon scuba diving and enjoying some lobster rolls.

Anonymous wrote:Fritz responds to Ferrer's motion: https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.nysd.634304/gov.uscourts.nysd.634304.677.0.pdf

More twists and turns. They point out it's unfair for Lively to get discovery from Ferrer while they cannot, and then put out an offer for all parties to stipulate that no one can use "any communication to, from or concerning Ms. Ferrer, or any testimony from her, in any manner in this action."

As far as the addresses for Ferrer, they say they didn't pull them out of thin air and would be happy to tell the court what due diligence they did. The point about her address was one of the only relevant topics in Ferrer's motion opposing alternative service so you would think they would address that directly.

They don't mention the AI hallucinated case. That's fair considering it's irrelevant and also Ferrer didn't identify the case or submit any exhibits on it, but still I thought they might address it and confirm it is false, just to save face.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I’d have to look at the sharing agreement but I think it may be the case that WF cannot get access to the Ferrer documents until she accepts service and provides a written response, which may explain these seemingly ridiculous actions by her attorney. I do think their are several categories of documents sought by WF that were not sought by Lively so once the subpoena is properly served, there would need to be a meet and confer between Ferrer and WF before further motions could be filed.

No, that's not how discovery works. You are required to turn over everything, and document discovery was drawing to a close by the time WF subpoenaed Ferrer. Someone on Reddit put them up side by side (the Lively and WF subpoenas) and they are identical. It makes no sense that they were subpoenaing Ferrer for docs they already received from Lively. And there's no allegation Lively was withholding them either, if that was the issue, WF could have filed a motion to force Lively to share.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I’d have to look at the sharing agreement but I think it may be the case that WF cannot get access to the Ferrer documents until she accepts service and provides a written response, which may explain these seemingly ridiculous actions by her attorney. I do think their are several categories of documents sought by WF that were not sought by Lively so once the subpoena is properly served, there would need to be a meet and confer between Ferrer and WF before further motions could be filed.

No, that's not how discovery works. You are required to turn over everything, and document discovery was drawing to a close by the time WF subpoenaed Ferrer. Someone on Reddit put them up side by side (the Lively and WF subpoenas) and they are identical. It makes no sense that they were subpoenaing Ferrer for docs they already received from Lively. And there's no allegation Lively was withholding them either, if that was the issue, WF could have filed a motion to force Lively to share.

Anonymous wrote:I’d have to look at the sharing agreement but I think it may be the case that WF cannot get access to the Ferrer documents until she accepts service and provides a written response, which may explain these seemingly ridiculous actions by her attorney. I do think their are several categories of documents sought by WF that were not sought by Lively so once the subpoena is properly served, there would need to be a meet and confer between Ferrer and WF before further motions could be filed.

Anonymous wrote:Does someone have a link to the WF subpoena?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think Ferrer is a spineless, obnoxious loser, but there is no way Ferrer was ever going to sympathize with Justin again after his supporters (and I'm a supporter) wrote all those comments on her Instagram. Of course she's going to associate him with that. Idiot probably thinks he launched a smear campaign against her too. She's an idiot, but I understand why at the same time.

She doesn’t have to sympathize, just testify honestly, and provide the requested texts.

I don't get what her issue is with providing her texts. The Wayfarer subpoena is pretty reasonable and tailored. Presumably Lively asked for for the same documents (in fact her requests tend to be super broad so probably more). I can't imagine what WF is asking for that Lively didn't because her attorneys are extremely thorough. So there would be basically no burden on Ferrer to respond, so it seems like it could be Ferrer who is holding things hostage until she gets the invoices paid, idk? In that one email her lawyer really goes from 0 to 60 fast.

I totally get why she doesn't want to get dragged in and I suspect she told Lively and Baldoni what each wanted to hear and it's embarrassing and cringe, but if Lively already has the texts then that already happened. If there's something helpful to Lively in there its definitely getting exposed.

I don't assume her testimony will necessarily help either side.

The Wayfarer subpoena is almost identical to the subpoena Lively served on Ferrer back in February, so Wayfarer should already have all this info since Lively will have been required to share anything she got from Ferrer. It is odd to me that they would have served a new subpoena on her in July duplicating what she produced in the spring. This does tend to back up Ferrer's argument that the subpoena and motion for alternative service are both frivolous filings intended to intimidate Ferrer, especially if it was happening during an ongoing dispute between Ferrer and Wayfarer over her attorney's fees.