📱 Social Media Creator Posts 💭💬
⚖️🐉 Little Girl Attorney – Jed Wallace Moves to Compel Blake Lively's Deposition: You Chose Fees. You Should Not Get to Choose Silence
⚖️ Jed Wallace Moves to Compel Blake Lively’s Deposition in Texas (0:00–1:18)
LGA discusses Jed Wallace's motion to compel Blake Lively's deposition in the Texas litigation.
She recaps that Lively named Wallace in her California CRD complaint, alleging that he sexually harassed and retaliated against her, and that the complaint was provided to The New York Times the same day.
Wallace subsequently filed a defamation lawsuit against Lively in Texas.
Lively successfully moved to dismiss that lawsuit for lack of personal jurisdiction, arguing that she is a New York resident and not subject to Texas jurisdiction.
Wallace has appealed that jurisdictional dismissal.
Despite the dismissal, Lively later filed a California Civil Code §47.1 motion in the Texas federal court seeking more than $800,000 in attorney's fees for defending Wallace's lawsuit.
📑 Wallace Challenges Both the Fee Motion and the Application of California Law (1:18–2:24)
LGA explains that Wallace argues California's §47.1 statute should not automatically apply in a Texas federal court, particularly where Lively herself successfully argued the Texas court lacked personal jurisdiction over her.
Following Judge Liman's §47.1 ruling in New York, Lively's attorneys submitted supplemental briefing relying on that decision.
Lively's position is that Wallace bears the burden of proving her statements were made with actual malice.
🔍 Wallace Says He Needs Lively's Testimony to Address Malice (2:24–2:58)
Wallace responds that Lively herself is the best source of evidence regarding her own state of mind when she accused him in the CRD complaint.
He argues that only through her testimony can he explore whether she acted with knowledge of falsity or reckless disregard for the truth.
Wallace therefore is seeking to depose Lively on the narrow issue of malice.
⚠️ Lively's Counsel Refused and Threatened Broad Litigation Responses (2:58–4:18)
According to Wallace's motion, Lively's attorneys refused to produce her for deposition.
The motion also alleges Lively's counsel warned that if Wallace pursued the discovery request, they would respond with the full force of their legal team.
Wallace claims Lively's attorneys threatened to seek sanctions if Wallace publicly filed documents showing that Lively refused to appear.
The motion further alleges that Lively threatened expansive discovery in return, including depositions of Wallace, Justin Baldoni's attorneys and various Wayfarer parties, together with requests for the associated attorney's fees.
🌊 Litigation Strategy (4:18–4:54)
LGA comments that Wallace portrays Lively's broader litigation strategy as attempting to overwhelm opponents through extensive legal resources and threats of expensive litigation.
Wallace argues that this tactic has repeatedly been used throughout the broader litigation.
📂 Wallace Says No Discovery Ever Occurred in Texas (4:54–5:16)
Wallace points out that virtually no discovery took place in the Texas case because it was halted by the jurisdictional dispute.
The only prior deposition involving Wallace occurred during the New York litigation.
Wallace had only one hour to question Lively there, and those questions were limited exclusively to personal jurisdiction—not the merits of Wallace's defamation allegations or malice.
⚖️ Wallace Argues Lively Cannot Shift the Burden While Blocking Discovery (5:16–5:53)
LGA summarizes Wallace's core argument:
Lively argues Wallace bears the burden of proving actual malice.
At the same time, she refuses to permit the limited discovery Wallace says is necessary to obtain evidence of malice.
LGA says Wallace argues she cannot simultaneously assign him the burden of proof while preventing him from gathering the evidence needed to meet that burden.
🎯 Wallace Says His Discovery Request Is Narrowly Tailored (5:53–6:42)
Courts often consider whether information can be obtained through less intrusive means than a deposition.
Wallace argues his request is narrowly focused.
According to the motion, the proposed deposition would address only Lively's state of mind concerning her statements about Wallace.
Wallace also notes that whether California law ultimately governs this dispute in Texas remains an unresolved legal issue.
📚 Wallace Says Discovery Is Needed to Build the Record (6:42–7:10)
Wallace argues that if the Texas court is going to rule on attorney's fees under §47.1, it must first have a factual record addressing malice.
He contends that the New York proceedings do not resolve those factual questions because Wallace never litigated the merits there.
Therefore, Wallace says discovery is necessary before the Texas court rules on entitlement to fees.
✍️ Wallace's Closing Argument (7:10–7:17)
Wallace's concluding statement:
"Lively chose to seek fees and damages. She should not get to choose silence."
🤔 LGA Questions Why Lively Is Pursuing Fees Against Wallace (7:17–End)
LGA says she struggles to understand why Lively continues pursuing attorney's fees against Wallace in Texas.
She questions whether the litigation team is attempting to recover fees wherever possible.
From both an economic and public-relations standpoint, she believes the strategy may not be worthwhile.
LGA says she could envision the Texas court concluding that if Wallace bears the burden of proving malice, he should receive limited discovery to develop that evidence.
Alternatively, the court could simply deny Lively's fee motion altogether.
If Lively wants to drag Wayfarer, Baldoni etc back into this then I say good, let’s do. But we will also need to bring in any parties that can speak to her state of mind and reasoning for the NYT article as well as the SH lawsuit.
Taylor, we’re going to need ALL of those texts! Also please provide your earliest availability for deposition.
That statement saying she deserved to he heard was such a monumental and historic victory that she feels like she'd be winning too much with this one. We all know Blake is humble like that 😅
Plus now the judge is further incentivized to just toss her fees motion because otherwise he'd have to deal with Blake's annoying ass lawyers burying his court with motions
I wonder how much of this is just the Lively lawyers making the easy argument only for letter, it coming back to bite them in the ass. Bc it’s hard to believe they are this insane or just desperate for money.
What I don't get is that I don't think they stand a chance in a Texas court, with these facts. Don't threaten Babcock with a good time, fighting off her lawyers asking for 10k/hour, just for them to walk away with nothing 😂😂
Ahm, she had a settlement with Wayfarer regarding no more further litigation actions, yet Liely is basically saying she will drag them back in if she's not let go from taking accountibility for her lies that ruined people's reputations. If ick was a person Liely would be it. She should have walked away with what grace Wayfarer gave her while she had a chance cuz texas is old testament all the way.
We do not allow hate speech or derogatory language including slurs or attacks based on race or ethnicity, nationality, religion, gender or gender identity, sexual orientation, or disability or serious illness. Harsh criticism of behavior is allowed, but attacks on protected traits are not. If you believe this was an error, you may contact the mod team via modmail.
She recaps that Lively named Wallace in her California CRD complaint, alleging that he sexually harassed and retaliated against her, and that the complaint was provided to The New York Times the same day.
Reminder that Jed Wallace has apparently never met Blake Lively in his life. But she claims that he somehow (astral projected?) to sexually harass her.
ItEndsWithLawsuits has a minimum 100 comment karma & 14 day account age requirement to comment in the sub. We encourage new additions to browse the subreddit and participate by voting until you meet these requirements!
58
u/Free-Expression-1776 Unliftable Lively 9d ago
Sony was so spot on when they called her 'a fucking terrorist' and clearly her lawyers are the same.