Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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.

A deposition does not mean she wouldn't have to testify. Most likely the opposite. But yeah, WP could summon her to testify without having deposed her. That would be dumb and risky because they would not know what she's going to say (unless you're into the Qanon style theories where she's been secretly passing info to Freedman all along), but I would not put anything past Freedman.

In a civil case you would not call anyone as a witness at trial that you did not depose unless you knew what they would say because they were working with you. It just does not happen.

Also Taylor does not live in NY. Good chance that she could not be forced to go to a trial in NY. Subpoena in a federal civil case is not nationwide. She can’t be forced to come from Kansas City. Even if she visits NY. That is another reason you take a depo.

The cope from NAG on the Swift situation is breathtaking. She's saying all these things that are technically theoretically possible but clearly are not what's happening given the letter from Venable.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Well that's that. Liman denied WF request. No Swift,

It was quite obviously a PR stunt. It does crack me up that WF can drop Swift's name in a filing and it immediately sets off a million online comments, multiple stories in major publications, dozens of Reddit threads. And then it all goes away when it turns out it was just press bait, but they'll do it again and people will react the exact same way next time.

I guess once Pavlov's dogs are trained, you can't undo it.

I was amazed at the number of people who were still insisting Swift had agreed even when her lawyers wrote she didn't. It felt like paid shills but at this point I think it's mostly real people wed to a narrative. Once the judge's decision came through, you'd think the biggest news yesterday (on the lawsuits sub) was Perez having a big win.

I went onto some of the Swift subs just to gage reaction. The big one must have banned the topic since there was nothing. The neutral and Swift snark subs generally thought Baldoni and his lawyers were lying.

I mean it seems self evident, based on Swift's lawyers' letter to the judge, and the judge's decision, that Baldoni's lawyers were lying. They said Swift had agreed to a deposition and indicated they were in the process of scheduling it for the week of October 20th, when this was clearly false and Swift had clearly said no. They had not even issued a subpoena for her deposition. It was just a ploy to get people talking about Taylor Swift and the idea that she's "turned" on Lively again.

I think they did it to get people to stop talking about the anonymous letter saying Baldoni verbally harassed someone else on another production and was possibly banned from that set, and this person is ready to testify. If they trotted out a fake Swift deposition to get people to stop focusing on that, it actually makes me think there's more to that story than I originally though (I originally assumed it was going to prove to be a much more minor deal, some creative differences on another set that led to nothing).

I guess we'll see. At this point I really do hope it goes to trial because I want to find out how much of the stuff they've accused each other of is real.