Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Man, Taylor's lawyers just came out and said that Wayfarer LIED that Taylor had agreed to a deposition, and it's not even the headline.

Just a heads up, telling a lie in a court filing is bad. Judges do not like it. Especially lies like "this third party has agreed to sit for a deposition" when the truth is the opposite.

Hope the three hours of positive headlines were worth it? Idiots.

It is worse than that and it does not even have to be a lie. The lack of candor is enough for Liman to deny the request and sanction the lawyer. It could lead to even more and impact the case although Liman would not do that most likely. He would make a bar referral for an ethical violation though.

Sure Blake should ask for sanctions and a bijlion in legal fees. She does it every week anyway and thus far, Liman had ignored every single one.

Keep in mind that Justin could also call Taylor to testify at trial. Frankly makes sense for her to just do a deposition and get it over with.

Anonymous wrote:Man, Taylor's lawyers just came out and said that Wayfarer LIED that Taylor had agreed to a deposition, and it's not even the headline.

Just a heads up, telling a lie in a court filing is bad. Judges do not like it. Especially lies like "this third party has agreed to sit for a deposition" when the truth is the opposite.

Hope the three hours of positive headlines were worth it? Idiots.

It is worse than that and it does not even have to be a lie. The lack of candor is enough for Liman to deny the request and sanction the lawyer. It could lead to even more and impact the case although Liman would not do that most likely. He would make a bar referral for an ethical violation though.

Blake boy continues to spin out, I think she has more than a half dozen hysterical posts on this. Luckily for her, there is a 50 percent chance Liman is in the hot tub with Gottlieb this afternoon after a round of 9.

How much notice is required for a deposition in federal court If Liman denied Wayfarer's extension, is there still time to subpoena her, and then play out the motion to quash and/or compel?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Taylor is basically agreeing to the week of October 20, she just doesn’t want to be seen as agreeing. But her letter is not the letter of someone who is opposed to testifying by deposition.

This is the text of the letter. "As counsel for the parties know,
since the inception of this matter we have consistently maintained that my client has no material
role in this action. Further, my client did not agree to a deposition, but if she is forced into a
deposition, we advised (after first hearing about the deposition just three days ago) that her
schedule would accommodate the time required during the week of October 20 if the parties were
able to work out their disputes. We take no role in those disputes."

Yes exactly as I thought it was. She isn’t fighting it. I don’t want to do but I’ll be there October 20.

Anonymous wrote:Man, Taylor's lawyers just came out and said that Wayfarer LIED that Taylor had agreed to a deposition, and it's not even the headline.

Just a heads up, telling a lie in a court filing is bad. Judges do not like it. Especially lies like "this third party has agreed to sit for a deposition" when the truth is the opposite.

Hope the three hours of positive headlines were worth it? Idiots.

I mean the reddit headlines are hilarious.

Very dramatic headlines when it was looking bad for Lively:
Blake Lively REALLY Does Not Want Taylor Swift Deposed
BLAKE LIVELY HAS AN EPIC MELTDOWN OVER TAYLOR SWIFT AGREEING TO BE DEPOSED

But then a very meek one when the tables are turned:
Taylor Swift’s attorney from Venable just filed a letter to the court

Anonymous wrote:Taylor is basically agreeing to the week of October 20, she just doesn’t want to be seen as agreeing. But her letter is not the letter of someone who is opposed to testifying by deposition.

This is the text of the letter. "As counsel for the parties know,
since the inception of this matter we have consistently maintained that my client has no material
role in this action. Further, my client did not agree to a deposition, but if she is forced into a
deposition, we advised (after first hearing about the deposition just three days ago) that her
schedule would accommodate the time required during the week of October 20 if the parties were
able to work out their disputes. We take no role in those disputes."

In other news, Lively has withdrawn the Perez Hilton subpoena, as apparently those communications were included in the document drop they just got - I'm kind of surprised they're not pursuing it anyway just to verify that what Wayfarer sent is all of it (Lively's side doesn't seem concerned about wasting money on legal fees) - but anyway, looks like all they did was hand Perez lots of fodder for his content creation.

Taylor is basically agreeing to the week of October 20, she just doesn’t want to be seen as agreeing. But her letter is not the letter of someone who is opposed to testifying by deposition.

Wow, Blake bot is really worked about this, she’s taken to her serial posting again. Guess Taylor is super sore point for Blake.

Man, Taylor's lawyers just came out and said that Wayfarer LIED that Taylor had agreed to a deposition, and it's not even the headline.

Just a heads up, telling a lie in a court filing is bad. Judges do not like it. Especially lies like "this third party has agreed to sit for a deposition" when the truth is the opposite.

Hope the three hours of positive headlines were worth it? Idiots.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Lively requested a shorter extension, and it was for a clear reason -- she is deposing actual parties, and they only just produced a bunch of documents Lively's team now has to review, but are actually still withholding the Signal documents (or were at the time the request for extension was filed).

Meanwhile Wayfarer is requesting a 30 day extension so that they can depose someone who is not a party, has stated multiple times that she has no material evidence to share, and who they previously attempted to depose and then withdrew the subpoena, making it look like they just trot Swift's name out when they need a PR advantage, and not like there is actual evidence they need to obtain from her.

I think Liman is going to see through it and grant the one-week extension, and say hey if you want to depose Swift go for it, but you've had many months and only contacted her a few days ago so if it doesn't fit in this deadline, tough.

Agree on Liman (I'm the one who just posted that WP pulled this out of their ass, I'm sure we will be accused of being the same poster though).

Look, if WP wanted to depose Swift, that's fine. They have the right to request that and she has the right to make a motion to quash if she gets a subpoena. She may have information relevant to what Blake confided about the SH or the retaliation, to the extortion/stealing the movie stuff (no longer a live claim, but maybe a defense), or to the allegations of spoliation (I'm skeptical but... maybe?). But WP hasn't shown any good cause why they need an extension. They could have noticed her months ago, and in fact they did, and she filed a motion to quash, and they withdrew it, and now suddenly just before discovery closes, they need her again? Yes, Lively included her as a personal with relevant information, but WP has known that for months, so what new reason or information do they have to show that suddenly, they need an extension to accomodate Swift?

So, yes, I expect Liman to tell WP "a lack of planning on your part does not constitute an emergency on my part" and grant the extension only for Lively, who articulated relevant reasons.

Anonymous wrote: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.

Yeah, Wayfarer is full of ****. They wanted a PR stunt so they emailed Swift's lawyers and asked for Taylor's availability for a deposition that Taylor has never agreed to do, and her lawyers said "yeah she doesn't want to be deposed and your deadline is in a few days anyway, but if you try to force the issue her soonest availability is the week of October 20th." And then Wayfarer tried to spin that into "we have a deposition with Swift scheduled for late October."

I expect nothing less from people with an extremely loose relationship with the truth, but I suspect Judge Liman is not amused. What a dumb circus, and on a Friday!

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Lively requested a shorter extension, and it was for a clear reason -- she is deposing actual parties, and they only just produced a bunch of documents Lively's team now has to review, but are actually still withholding the Signal documents (or were at the time the request for extension was filed).

Meanwhile Wayfarer is requesting a 30 day extension so that they can depose someone who is not a party, has stated multiple times that she has no material evidence to share, and who they previously attempted to depose and then withdrew the subpoena, making it look like they just trot Swift's name out when they need a PR advantage, and not like there is actual evidence they need to obtain from her.

I think Liman is going to see through it and grant the one-week extension, and say hey if you want to depose Swift go for it, but you've had many months and only contacted her a few days ago so if it doesn't fit in this deadline, tough.