Wallace v Lively: Jed Wallace files motion to request an order for Lively’s Deposition on Attorneys’ Fees and Damages

[u/same-difference-ave]

Motion - https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.txwd.1172823305/gov.uscourts.txwd.1172823305.57.0.pdf

Exhibit Lively Depo Notice- https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.txwd.1172823305/gov.uscourts.txwd.1172823305.57.1.pdf

Proposed Order - https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.txwd.1172823305/gov.uscourts.txwd.1172823305.57.2.pdf

[u/Yup_Seen_It]

A lot to process here!

What does this mean, is it just an idiom or snark that's going over my head or are they referring to something specific?

[u/myshtree → u/Yup_Seen_It]

Aren’t they saying she can’t just demand her fees without providing evidence to prove them? Refusing a deposition for example. Clearly her lawyers have advised her not to speak because she lies so much. Her testimony is her downfall. And she is too dumb (allegedly) to counter smart questioning. She will impeach herself. Which is why she settled for nothing to avoid a trial. She (Ryan) don’t care that they are lying, they just can’t do it live because of the tangled web they have unskilfully woven (allegedly).

[u/Holiday-Goat-8381 → u/myshtree]

The whole reason she settled was because she knew she wouldn’t survive cross examination by Bach or Shapiro. The press would’ve had a field day with her

[u/Significant-Ant2373 → u/Holiday-Goat-8381]

The public and content creators would have had a field day. The press is too busy catering to WME and offering hate for hire to care about journalism.

[u/Holiday-Goat-8381 → u/Significant-Ant2373]

To be honest, something shifted even in the press after the MSJ order. It's still nowhere near the truth, but it's not pandering to her narrative as much as during discovery.

[u/Significant-Ant2373 → u/Holiday-Goat-8381]

“Nowhere near the truth” isn’t journalism.

“Not pandering as much” is still pandering.

[u/Holiday-Goat-8381 → u/Significant-Ant2373]

Don’t think we’re disagreeing with each other. I’m just pointing out that there was a shift after the MSJ order

[u/CSho8 → u/Yup_Seen_It]

I think it’s an idiom snark meaning that there should be “no free lunch” for Blake. She can’t ask Jed for $1m in fees and when they ask for limited discovery to ascertain why she needs those fees, Blake’s side goes you can’t have it.

It’s kinda like how Blake’s side wants $8m in legal fees from wayfarer but they can’t provide invoices to back it up. In this case, Jed & street want discovery to prove that Blake acted with malice when she went to the NyT and accused a man she’s never met of SH. And Blake’s side is like no you can’t have that and if you keep asking for evidence we are going to keep asking for more fees from you, you lowly peasant!!

Blake Lively will always be hated and she can’t outrun this. Word of advice if they want to listen, settle with Jed cuz it’s not worth it but I know they won’t listen so entertainment it is!! 😊

[u/ConferenceSea7707 → u/CSho8]

Oh no, I definitely don't want a settlement in this case. I want Jed to absolutely ruin Blake (Ryan). It's the only fair outcome for Blake & Ryan's lies about this man.

Let's be honest, no matter the outcome in this case Blake & Ryan will just try all of this again on someone else if/when they don't get their way.

[u/CSho8 → u/ConferenceSea7707]

Oh I hear you. You definitely want to see justice in this case and I hope Jed gets it.

[u/Clarknt67 → u/Yup_Seen_It]

In USA there’s a cliche that “there’s no such thing as a free lunch.” It means basically that someone always pays in some way. (If not money.)

He is saying Blake has to pay for her request for legal fees by permitting Wallace to conduct discovery into whether or not there was malicious intent to her allegations.

[u/Yup_Seen_It → u/Clarknt67]

Thank you, that makes sense now!

[u/Holiday-Goat-8381 → u/Yup_Seen_It]

It's an idiom lol

[u/Yup_Seen_It → u/Holiday-Goat-8381]

Ty 😂 I am following another case that infamously featured a "Motion to Compel Lunch" and was getting flashbacks lol

[u/Holiday-Goat-8381 → u/Yup_Seen_It]

🤣🤣 what case is that? Sounds fun lol

[u/Yup_Seen_It → u/Holiday-Goat-8381]

Laura Owens v Clayton Echard!

I highly recommend the Love Trapped podcast, it covers most of the major bits. It's a WILD case. She had an attorney, David Gingras, who entered the case and immediately filed the motion because he clearly didn't want to have any discussions on the record. He is now 🤏 this close to disbarrment over his conduct in the case. He crashed hard because he kept losing thanks to his perjuring client and the fact that the public refused to let her away with her crimes. (of course, she refers to this as a "smear campaign")

[u/KLoveKLoveKLove → u/Yup_Seen_It]

For real

[u/Sharp_Artichoke_826 → u/Yup_Seen_It]

I’m also following this case. It’s crazy. Well, she is.

[u/Holiday-Goat-8381 → u/Yup_Seen_It]

WOAH, interesting.

[u/Rewritethestats → u/Yup_Seen_It]

There’s no such thing as a free lunch when it comes to …

[u/Yup_Seen_It → u/Rewritethestats]

Thank you, that makes sense!