https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.nysd.634304/gov.uscourts.nysd.634304.763.0_1.pdf

Hah, taylor is not cooperating and the WP just pulled this out of their ass a couple of days ago.

I don't see how Blake inviting Taylor to one (short!) meeting with Baldoni or name dropping her in a few conversations means that Taylor is important to a case about whether or not Baldoni SHed Blake or retaliated against her later.

There are likely hundreds of people who had that level of involvement with this production, including friends of Baldoni and Heath. Baldoni is friends with Rainn Wilson and we know for a fact texted Rainn (and others) about his conflict with Lively. Yet Rainn is not being subpoenaed or called to testify, because his involvement is very minimal. The same is true of Taylor.

It just has nothing to do with the actual facts of the case. It's just exciting to people because it's Taylor Swift, the same reason people like the idea of that anonymous statement Lively filed the other day being by Scarlett Johansson. She's a big star so it's juicy gossip. But it really has no relevance to the case.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Swift's lawyers just filed a letter saying that (1) she has "no material role" in this dispute, (2) that she didn't agree to be deposed and doesn't want to be, but (3) that she'd told Wayfarer that if she is *forced* into a deposition, she is available for that week in October.

This is very much looking like a PR trick by Freedman to get everyone talking about Swift again by claiming she is set to be deposed, when in fact she is not and has repeatedly told them she has nothing to contribute.

And yet she didn’t move to quash the deposition as one would if they really didn’t want to be deposed.

There's not point in a motion to quash because she hasn't actually been called for a deposition yet. Wayfarer can't depose her under the current scheduling order, and only reached out to her 3 days ago (well after when it would have been necessary to contact her in order to depose her by the deadline). You don't have to quash a request for deposition that presently isn't even valid due to the current discovery schedule. If Liman doesn't grant the extension, their request is moot and Taylor will be done without paying her very expensive lawyers to draft and prosecute a motion with the court.

The letter clearly states she does not want to be deposed. She's not playing three dimensional chess here. She does not want to be deposed and is clearly indicating to all parties that if she is deposed she will state what she has already stated: she has nothing material to contribute to the matter.

Given that Blake has a request pending to extend the schedule for her to take three depositions that she chose to postpone, I think everyone gets what they are asking for. The judge has already ruled that Taylor is relevant because Blake named her in her disclosures.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I still don't believe Taylor will be deposed, and if she is, I think it will be short and pretty inconsequential. She met Baldoni one time. She wasn't on set. I know people think she's going to give evidence like "Blake told me this was all a ruse to steal the movie" but... sorry, it just sounds farfetched. Taylor was touring Eras and in a new relationship at the time. I think she was being honest in her public statement that her involvement extended to letting them use her song for the trailer and credits and otherwise she knows nothing.

That apparently didn't stop her from willingly handing over evidence to Baldoni's team. Clearly she has more involvement than what is known.

Freedman testified under oath that he has evidence Lively threatened Taylor with blackmail. That'll be interesting to see the evidence at trial along with the alleged text messages from Blake urging Taylor to delete her all her former text messages that incriminated her.

Not exactly. Freedman proved sworn testimony that a person came to him and claimed to have evidence that Lively threatened Taylor with blackmail. Freedman does not, himself, have personal knowledge of this happening. Which is why the judge immediately struck the testimony and bench slapped Freedman.

And the whole thing is hearsay. Also likely made up. But sure, go depose Taylor about it. Parties are limited to only 10 depositions in federal civil litigation, so it makes sense that Baldoni wants to use one of his on someone who was not present for any of the alleged SH or retaliation and who has publicly stated, multiple times, that she is uninvolved. Rather than, say, members of the movie's cast or crew who could presumably testify to his innocence.

It's all a distraction. And it worked, for now.

You can’t have it both ways. Blake made sure Taylor was present for a meeting with Justin, when part of the script was discussed. She later used that meeting to urge justin to use the rewrite discussed, in part because Taylor loved it.

She used Taylor to get on young Lily’s good side by saying Taylor totally was integral in casting you in the film.

Now all of a sudden, she’s saying Taylor had no involvement? She shouldn’t have gone around on video on the red carpet blabbering about how much Taylor was involved and she shouldn’t have sent a text to Justin that threatened backlash from Taylor, her dragon, if he didn’t comply.

Blake F-ed around and found out.

Or named her in her disclosures.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I still don't believe Taylor will be deposed, and if she is, I think it will be short and pretty inconsequential. She met Baldoni one time. She wasn't on set. I know people think she's going to give evidence like "Blake told me this was all a ruse to steal the movie" but... sorry, it just sounds farfetched. Taylor was touring Eras and in a new relationship at the time. I think she was being honest in her public statement that her involvement extended to letting them use her song for the trailer and credits and otherwise she knows nothing.

That apparently didn't stop her from willingly handing over evidence to Baldoni's team. Clearly she has more involvement than what is known.

Freedman testified under oath that he has evidence Lively threatened Taylor with blackmail. That'll be interesting to see the evidence at trial along with the alleged text messages from Blake urging Taylor to delete her all her former text messages that incriminated her.

Not exactly. Freedman proved sworn testimony that a person came to him and claimed to have evidence that Lively threatened Taylor with blackmail. Freedman does not, himself, have personal knowledge of this happening. Which is why the judge immediately struck the testimony and bench slapped Freedman.

And the whole thing is hearsay. Also likely made up. But sure, go depose Taylor about it. Parties are limited to only 10 depositions in federal civil litigation, so it makes sense that Baldoni wants to use one of his on someone who was not present for any of the alleged SH or retaliation and who has publicly stated, multiple times, that she is uninvolved. Rather than, say, members of the movie's cast or crew who could presumably testify to his innocence.

It's all a distraction. And it worked, for now.

As the Judge has already pointed out once, Blake identified Taylor in her disclosures as a person with relevant knowledge. If nothing else, she has relevant info on the emotional distress damages as Blake attended events with her.

Blake directly involved, Taylor. What is this if nothing else emotional distress nonsense?

Are you people not paying attention to the case? Blake made sure Taylor was at a meeting to discuss the film. Apparently during that meeting, the rewrite of the roof testing was discussed. Then later, Blake blatantly threatened Justin with the dragon text.

Are people forgetting that?

Why do people think their friendship ended? Just a coincidence? Blake did something that really really pissed Taylor off that had to do with this movie. Who knows if we will ever find out if she threatened to disclose texts if she didnt show support, but to say Taylor was not involved in this is delusional. She is involved and Blake involved her.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I still don't believe Taylor will be deposed, and if she is, I think it will be short and pretty inconsequential. She met Baldoni one time. She wasn't on set. I know people think she's going to give evidence like "Blake told me this was all a ruse to steal the movie" but... sorry, it just sounds farfetched. Taylor was touring Eras and in a new relationship at the time. I think she was being honest in her public statement that her involvement extended to letting them use her song for the trailer and credits and otherwise she knows nothing.

That apparently didn't stop her from willingly handing over evidence to Baldoni's team. Clearly she has more involvement than what is known.

Freedman testified under oath that he has evidence Lively threatened Taylor with blackmail. That'll be interesting to see the evidence at trial along with the alleged text messages from Blake urging Taylor to delete her all her former text messages that incriminated her.

Not exactly. Freedman proved sworn testimony that a person came to him and claimed to have evidence that Lively threatened Taylor with blackmail. Freedman does not, himself, have personal knowledge of this happening. Which is why the judge immediately struck the testimony and bench slapped Freedman.

And the whole thing is hearsay. Also likely made up. But sure, go depose Taylor about it. Parties are limited to only 10 depositions in federal civil litigation, so it makes sense that Baldoni wants to use one of his on someone who was not present for any of the alleged SH or retaliation and who has publicly stated, multiple times, that she is uninvolved. Rather than, say, members of the movie's cast or crew who could presumably testify to his innocence.

It's all a distraction. And it worked, for now.

You can’t have it both ways. Blake made sure Taylor was present for a meeting with Justin, when part of the script was discussed. She later used that meeting to urge justin to use the rewrite discussed, in part because Taylor loved it.

She used Taylor to get on young Lily’s good side by saying Taylor totally was integral in casting you in the film.

Now all of a sudden, she’s saying Taylor had no involvement? She shouldn’t have gone around on video on the red carpet blabbering about how much Taylor was involved and she shouldn’t have sent a text to Justin that threatened backlash from Taylor, her dragon, if he didn’t comply.

Blake F-ed around and found out.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Swift's lawyers just filed a letter saying that (1) she has "no material role" in this dispute, (2) that she didn't agree to be deposed and doesn't want to be, but (3) that she'd told Wayfarer that if she is *forced* into a deposition, she is available for that week in October.

This is very much looking like a PR trick by Freedman to get everyone talking about Swift again by claiming she is set to be deposed, when in fact she is not and has repeatedly told them she has nothing to contribute.

And yet she didn’t move to quash the deposition as one would if they really didn’t want to be deposed.

There's not point in a motion to quash because she hasn't actually been called for a deposition yet. Wayfarer can't depose her under the current scheduling order, and only reached out to her 3 days ago (well after when it would have been necessary to contact her in order to depose her by the deadline). You don't have to quash a request for deposition that presently isn't even valid due to the current discovery schedule. If Liman doesn't grant the extension, their request is moot and Taylor will be done without paying her very expensive lawyers to draft and prosecute a motion with the court.

The letter clearly states she does not want to be deposed. She's not playing three dimensional chess here. She does not want to be deposed and is clearly indicating to all parties that if she is deposed she will state what she has already stated: she has nothing material to contribute to the matter.

Anonymous wrote:I still don't believe Taylor will be deposed, and if she is, I think it will be short and pretty inconsequential. She met Baldoni one time. She wasn't on set. I know people think she's going to give evidence like "Blake told me this was all a ruse to steal the movie" but... sorry, it just sounds farfetched. Taylor was touring Eras and in a new relationship at the time. I think she was being honest in her public statement that her involvement extended to letting them use her song for the trailer and credits and otherwise she knows nothing.

If this were true, I don’t think Blake would fight over both turning over texts to Taylor and this deposition.

Anonymous wrote:Swift's lawyers just filed a letter saying that (1) she has "no material role" in this dispute, (2) that she didn't agree to be deposed and doesn't want to be, but (3) that she'd told Wayfarer that if she is *forced* into a deposition, she is available for that week in October.

This is very much looking like a PR trick by Freedman to get everyone talking about Swift again by claiming she is set to be deposed, when in fact she is not and has repeatedly told them she has nothing to contribute.

And yet she didn’t move to quash the deposition as one would if they really didn’t want to be deposed.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I still don't believe Taylor will be deposed, and if she is, I think it will be short and pretty inconsequential. She met Baldoni one time. She wasn't on set. I know people think she's going to give evidence like "Blake told me this was all a ruse to steal the movie" but... sorry, it just sounds farfetched. Taylor was touring Eras and in a new relationship at the time. I think she was being honest in her public statement that her involvement extended to letting them use her song for the trailer and credits and otherwise she knows nothing.

That apparently didn't stop her from willingly handing over evidence to Baldoni's team. Clearly she has more involvement than what is known.

Freedman testified under oath that he has evidence Lively threatened Taylor with blackmail. That'll be interesting to see the evidence at trial along with the alleged text messages from Blake urging Taylor to delete her all her former text messages that incriminated her.

Not exactly. Freedman proved sworn testimony that a person came to him and claimed to have evidence that Lively threatened Taylor with blackmail. Freedman does not, himself, have personal knowledge of this happening. Which is why the judge immediately struck the testimony and bench slapped Freedman.

And the whole thing is hearsay. Also likely made up. But sure, go depose Taylor about it. Parties are limited to only 10 depositions in federal civil litigation, so it makes sense that Baldoni wants to use one of his on someone who was not present for any of the alleged SH or retaliation and who has publicly stated, multiple times, that she is uninvolved. Rather than, say, members of the movie's cast or crew who could presumably testify to his innocence.

It's all a distraction. And it worked, for now.

As the Judge has already pointed out once, Blake identified Taylor in her disclosures as a person with relevant knowledge. If nothing else, she has relevant info on the emotional distress damages as Blake attended events with her.

Swift's lawyers just filed a letter saying that (1) she has "no material role" in this dispute, (2) that she didn't agree to be deposed and doesn't want to be, but (3) that she'd told Wayfarer that if she is *forced* into a deposition, she is available for that week in October.

This is very much looking like a PR trick by Freedman to get everyone talking about Swift again by claiming she is set to be deposed, when in fact she is not and has repeatedly told them she has nothing to contribute.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I still don't believe Taylor will be deposed, and if she is, I think it will be short and pretty inconsequential. She met Baldoni one time. She wasn't on set. I know people think she's going to give evidence like "Blake told me this was all a ruse to steal the movie" but... sorry, it just sounds farfetched. Taylor was touring Eras and in a new relationship at the time. I think she was being honest in her public statement that her involvement extended to letting them use her song for the trailer and credits and otherwise she knows nothing.

That apparently didn't stop her from willingly handing over evidence to Baldoni's team. Clearly she has more involvement than what is known.

Freedman testified under oath that he has evidence Lively threatened Taylor with blackmail. That'll be interesting to see the evidence at trial along with the alleged text messages from Blake urging Taylor to delete her all her former text messages that incriminated her.

Not exactly. Freedman proved sworn testimony that a person came to him and claimed to have evidence that Lively threatened Taylor with blackmail. Freedman does not, himself, have personal knowledge of this happening. Which is why the judge immediately struck the testimony and bench slapped Freedman.

And the whole thing is hearsay. Also likely made up. But sure, go depose Taylor about it. Parties are limited to only 10 depositions in federal civil litigation, so it makes sense that Baldoni wants to use one of his on someone who was not present for any of the alleged SH or retaliation and who has publicly stated, multiple times, that she is uninvolved. Rather than, say, members of the movie's cast or crew who could presumably testify to his innocence.

It's all a distraction. And it worked, for now.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I still don't believe Taylor will be deposed, and if she is, I think it will be short and pretty inconsequential. She met Baldoni one time. She wasn't on set. I know people think she's going to give evidence like "Blake told me this was all a ruse to steal the movie" but... sorry, it just sounds farfetched. Taylor was touring Eras and in a new relationship at the time. I think she was being honest in her public statement that her involvement extended to letting them use her song for the trailer and credits and otherwise she knows nothing.

That apparently didn't stop her from willingly handing over evidence to Baldoni's team. Clearly she has more involvement than what is known.

Freedman testified under oath that he has evidence Lively threatened Taylor with blackmail. That'll be interesting to see the evidence at trial along with the alleged text messages from Blake urging Taylor to delete her all her former text messages that incriminated her.

Anonymous wrote:I still don't believe Taylor will be deposed, and if she is, I think it will be short and pretty inconsequential. She met Baldoni one time. She wasn't on set. I know people think she's going to give evidence like "Blake told me this was all a ruse to steal the movie" but... sorry, it just sounds farfetched. Taylor was touring Eras and in a new relationship at the time. I think she was being honest in her public statement that her involvement extended to letting them use her song for the trailer and credits and otherwise she knows nothing.

That apparently didn't stop her from willingly handing over evidence to Baldoni's team. Clearly she has more involvement than what is known.

I still don't believe Taylor will be deposed, and if she is, I think it will be short and pretty inconsequential. She met Baldoni one time. She wasn't on set. I know people think she's going to give evidence like "Blake told me this was all a ruse to steal the movie" but... sorry, it just sounds farfetched. Taylor was touring Eras and in a new relationship at the time. I think she was being honest in her public statement that her involvement extended to letting them use her song for the trailer and credits and otherwise she knows nothing.