Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Interview with Perez (in florals!) at 1:31. He considers this a big loss and bashes Liman and predicts Liman will assert jurisdiction. The lady with Popcorned Planet tells him to be pos

Tells him to be positive. But Perez is very defeated and annoyed, and his prediction on Liman turns out wrong.

Perez is already a POS so no need to remind him of that.

He should just get a lawyer. Doing this pro SE is dumb.

Anonymous wrote:Is there any live tweet from the Perez hearing in Nevada?

Anonymous wrote:

Interview with Perez (in florals!) at 1:31. He considers this a big loss and bashes Liman and predicts Liman will assert jurisdiction. The lady with Popcorned Planet tells him to be pos

Tells him to be positive. But Perez is very defeated and annoyed, and his prediction on Liman turns out wrong.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Not a sign of Blake on Ryan’s instagram anymore. Wiped clear of all of last years mothers day and birthdays etc.

But they are winning! Destroying their careers and marriage was totally the plan. They are playing chess while we are playing checkers.

how do you guys even catch these things?

Interview with Perez (in florals!) at 1:31. He considers this a big loss and bashes Liman and predicts Liman will assert jurisdiction. The lady with Popcorned Planet tells him to be pos

Anonymous wrote:Is there any live tweet from the Perez hearing in Nevada?

Anonymous wrote:Blake subpoenaed Megan Kelly, getting more desperate by the week.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Auto deleting messages before litigation is filed can still lead to a spoliation finding: https://www.gtlaw-ediscoverywatch.com/2024/11/text-message-spoliation-auto-delete-setting-may-lead-to-legal-sanctions/

I do think Wallace may open himself up to a ruling like this, if they are able to keep him in the NY court.

One factor in all of this is whether Wallace "should have known" that the matter could be subject to litigation. That's one reason why it's relevant that Wallace was sent things like a copy of Lively's 17-point list. Having that context means Wallace knew his engagement was related to an underlying employment issue.

Also Wallace was not actually added as a defendant until February, but Lively was trying to depose him even before that, in Texas. If he deleted messages after the NYT article (which would obviously have put him on notice that litigation against him was likely), that is an even more straightforward spoliation argument.

So just a note to anyone reading: setting hour comms to auto delete is actually not a good way to get out of being sued! The best way to avoid being sued is to not engage in activity someone could sue you for.

The issue here was auto deletion AFTER the defendant received a cease and desist letter from the plaintiff. Not a similar fact pattern at all.

Again, that's why it's relevant that Wallace appears to have been told that the campaign against Lively stemmed from an underlying employment conflict. Had he been hired without being informed of the nature of the conflict between Wayfarer and Lively, he could plead ignorance if the litigation risk. But he appears to have known.

If you look at the standard the court applied in that case and how they applied it, it's not that hard to see how this court could make a similar finding as to Wallace.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Auto deleting messages before litigation is filed can still lead to a spoliation finding: https://www.gtlaw-ediscoverywatch.com/2024/11/text-message-spoliation-auto-delete-setting-may-lead-to-legal-sanctions/

I do think Wallace may open himself up to a ruling like this, if they are able to keep him in the NY court.

One factor in all of this is whether Wallace "should have known" that the matter could be subject to litigation. That's one reason why it's relevant that Wallace was sent things like a copy of Lively's 17-point list. Having that context means Wallace knew his engagement was related to an underlying employment issue.

Also Wallace was not actually added as a defendant until February, but Lively was trying to depose him even before that, in Texas. If he deleted messages after the NYT article (which would obviously have put him on notice that litigation against him was likely), that is an even more straightforward spoliation argument.

So just a note to anyone reading: setting hour comms to auto delete is actually not a good way to get out of being sued! The best way to avoid being sued is to not engage in activity someone could sue you for.

The issue here was auto deletion AFTER the defendant received a cease and desist letter from the plaintiff. Not a similar fact pattern at all.

Anonymous wrote:Auto deleting messages before litigation is filed can still lead to a spoliation finding: https://www.gtlaw-ediscoverywatch.com/2024/11/text-message-spoliation-auto-delete-setting-may-lead-to-legal-sanctions/

I do think Wallace may open himself up to a ruling like this, if they are able to keep him in the NY court.

One factor in all of this is whether Wallace "should have known" that the matter could be subject to litigation. That's one reason why it's relevant that Wallace was sent things like a copy of Lively's 17-point list. Having that context means Wallace knew his engagement was related to an underlying employment issue.

Also Wallace was not actually added as a defendant until February, but Lively was trying to depose him even before that, in Texas. If he deleted messages after the NYT article (which would obviously have put him on notice that litigation against him was likely), that is an even more straightforward spoliation argument.

So just a note to anyone reading: setting hour comms to auto delete is actually not a good way to get out of being sued! The best way to avoid being sued is to not engage in activity someone could sue you for.

Anonymous wrote:Not a sign of Blake on Ryan’s instagram anymore. Wiped clear of all of last years mothers day and birthdays etc.

But they are winning! Destroying their careers and marriage was totally the plan. They are playing chess while we are playing checkers.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Huh? Are Ryan’s and Blake getting divorced?

Probably not any time soon. Would look bad for both of them. But dumb of him to scrub all of the past Blake posts. There is speculation that he’s just trying to distract from the Robert Downey Jr. press. His whole brand is nice, funny guy, and when a huge star is beefing with him, it pokes holes in that.

what did he do to Robert? Or Robert do to him? I know dead pool is insanely popular but iron man is the sun in marvel.

I am not good with the comic book scene, but I believe they are both part of the marvel universe. Or at least Deadpool intersects with marvel sometimes. And there’s this new avengers movie that Ryan was going to have a role in. It’s not a Deadpool movie. I think his character is going to be in the movie and Robert Downey Jr. is of course a big marvel guy and was also going to be in it. Apparently they were both on set at the same time and ryan has a very dry and crass sense of humor. But it just did not go over well with RDJ and I think there was some like, if he’s going to be on set I’m not going to be on set type of drama.

And the speculation that I saw was that Ryan has such a big ego he thinks everyone is gonna be on board with his brand of humor. But Robert was not having it.