Stewart

[Stewart @thestewman67]

@Supernatural979 😂

[Stewart @thestewman67]

@Supernatural979 It’s all in her head

[Congresswoman Ayanna Pressley @RepPressley]

Trump is continuing his racist, sexist, and baseless attack on Federal Reserve Governor Lisa Cook.

But it's as unlawful today as it was a year ago.

We must stop this brazen, anti-Black power grab and defend the Federal Reserve's independence.

[TEHRAN @TehranKnight]

Johnny Depp’s Ebenezer teaser now has over 86 million views across its official social media accounts alone, and over 120 million views when including Paramount’s official accounts.

[Stewart @thestewman67]

@schatow @blakelively So I’m gonna confuse because was Wallace ever named a defendant in her initial filing in federal court but then got removed?

[Stewart @thestewman67]

@hi_gaggy Can you tell me what you consider what the most egregious incident that Baldoni did your view.

[Stewart @thestewman67]

@hi_gaggy @TVMovieAddict Oh, her claims were dismissed due to technicality, but you’re only telling half of it.

[Stewart @thestewman67]

@hi_gaggy @TVMovieAddict The other thing that formed my opinion on 47.1 is an interview I saw from the actual person who conceived 47.1. she said that it only applies to when a court determines that the counter lawsuit was done as retaliation and had no basis.

[Stewart @thestewman67]

@hi_gaggy @TVMovieAddict What I understand at 47.1 is that a person seek more damages and so forth then you would normally get with a standard attorney’s fees like the NY times.

[Stewart @thestewman67]

@hi_gaggy @TVMovieAddict No, that’s what I know about 47.1. If I’m wrong about it, I’ll be more than happy to admit it. Understand I’m not someone that stamps my feet and never admits that I am wrong. If you could show and convince me then I’m fine with that

[Stewart @thestewman67]

@hi_gaggy @TVMovieAddict You’re correct. She did file against him and his firm, but was dismissed due technicality by the judge.

[Stewart @thestewman67]

@hi_gaggy @TVMovieAddict In other words, 47.1 is when someone can seek damages due when a court determines retaliation. However, since his lawsuit was thrown out due to technicality, it was never determined. That’s what Jed is arguing.

[Stewart @thestewman67]

@hi_gaggy @TVMovieAddict Wallace is trying to argue is how can she get attorney fees under 47.1 when when they never did discovery on his original claim
Since His lawsuit was thrown out due to technicality
and not the merits. It will be up to the court to decide.

[Stewart @thestewman67]

@hi_gaggy @TVMovieAddict I read the original filing last year. Do you want me to download and paste the entire document for you?

[Stewart @thestewman67]

@hi_gaggy @TVMovieAddict

[Stewart @thestewman67]

@Gail95926 April, subscribes to the George Costanza way of thinking

[Stewart @thestewman67]

@Supernatural979 She is certified wacko. You definitely have more patience than I do dealing with her.

[🇬🇧 🏴‍☠️ SupernaturalMum 🏴‍☠️ 🇬🇧 @Supernatural979]

I’m blocked by April, but you have got to love how she cuts off the important part

[Roman Schatow @schatow]

JW'S MOTION FOR ORDER REQUIRING BLAKE LIVELY TO GIVE DEPOSITION

#Lively has been sanctioning everyone left & right... but karma just filed its paperwork. Now it's Lively's turn to be sanctioned. 😂😂😂😂

Jed Wallace's (JW) motion argues that because @blakelively (BL) is seeking roughly $1,000,000 in fees, costs, and damages under California Civil Code § 47.1 after the case was dismissed for lack of personal jurisdiction, fairness and Rule 54's factfinding structure require allowing limited post-dismissal discovery—specifically, a narrowly tailored deposition of #Lively on the issue of malice, which #Lively claims JW must disprove to avoid fee-shifting.

1️⃣ What the motion is and what relief it seeks

Nature of the filing: JW's motion for an order requiring BL to give her deposition, expressly limited to issues related to her claim for attorneys' fees & damages.

Requested relief—JW asks the court to:
(1) Compel BL to appear for a deposition (at an agreed time/place, with a court-set "not later than" deadline).
(2) Defer ruling on BL's fee/damages motion until JW can develop an evidentiary record on malice.
(3) Award JW fees/sanctions associated with the missed deposition and this motion (invoking Rule 37 concepts).

2️⃣ Core arguments the motion relies on

Dismissal & what happened next:
The underlying defamation case was dismissed without prejudice solely for lack of personal jurisdiction over BL, with no merits rulings on other grounds.
After that, BL filed a Rule 54 motion seeking "approximately $800,000" in fees (plus fees for litigating the fee motion), plus costs and treble and punitive damages.

The "malice":
JW says BL is advancing a theory (supported, in her view, by a June 2026 decision) that JW must negate her privilege with admissible evidence of malice to avoid liability/fee-shifting.
JW argues that, if malice is the decisive issue, BL herself is the best (perhaps only) witness on her subjective intent.

Discovery history (why JW says they have no malice evidence yet):
JW asserts no discovery occurred because BL "blocked it," including refusing to participate in a Rule 26(f) conference.
JW noticed BL's deposition for Aug. 4, 2026 (in New York), and she did not appear.

3️⃣ Why discovery is permitted post-dismissal (Rule 54 framework)

Rule 54(d) as a factfinding vehicle: JW characterises Rule 54(d) fee litigation as not purely paper-based, but as allowing fact development when needed:
— Rule 54 requires factfinding (and can involve Rule 52(a) findings and evidentiary hearings).
— The 1993 Advisory Committee Notes contemplate that a court may find discovery under Rules 26–37 "useful" in fee disputes.

Reliance on the S.D.N.Y. "Wayfarer" order: JW invokes Judge Liman's June 12, 2026 order (which he acknowledges is not binding) to support the proposition that:
— Rule 54(d) permits courts to find facts necessary for fee determinations.
— Discovery may be justified "where a complaint contains well-pled allegations of malice but… has been dismissed prior to completion of discovery."
— They then argue this case fits that scenario because:
(1) Dismissal was jurisdictional and without prejudice.
(2) BL blocked discovery earlier.
(3) BL affirmatively put malice at issue by claiming JW must "prove malice" to avoid § 47.1 consequences.

4️⃣ Why JW says BL's deposition is relevant, proportional & narrowly tailored

Relevance—malice is subjective and central: JW defines the "central question" as BL’s state of mind—whether she:
— knew allegations were false,
— believed them in good faith,
— acted with reckless disregard, or
— acted with ill will.
JW argues BL's testimony is uniquely important because malice is "inherently subjective."

Scope limitations offered: JW claims the deposition would be limited to three core areas:
(1) BL's knowledge of JW’s actual role (if any) when she made statements.
(2) Her basis (if any) for including JW in the CRD and draft complaints.
(3) Her decision to disseminate accusations to the press before investigating.

Proportionality framing: JW portrays this as the "least burdensome" meaningful discovery—one witness, tied to issues BL put before the court by seeking substantial affirmative monetary relief.

5️⃣ JW's sanctions (Rule 37 leverage)
JW highlights two related points:
— Under Rule 37(d), a party can be sanctioned for failing to appear after proper notice, and a party generally can't refuse just because they claim discovery is objectionable unless they sought a protective order.
— JW stresses BL's counsel allegedly declared the notice "null and void" but did not move for a protective order in the weeks before the deposition.
This is meant to support both compelling the deposition and fee-shifting tied to the nonappearance.

URL (PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FOR ORDER REQUIRING BLAKE LIVELY TO GIVE HER DEPOSITION): ⬇️
https://t.co/xama8EbRzr

URL (PLAINTIFFS JED WALLACE AND STREET RELATIONS, INC.’S NOTICE OF VIDEOTAPED DEPOSITION OF DEFENDANT BLAKE LIVELY): ⬇️
https://t.co/J1UHvMXI48

URL (ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FOR ORDER REQUIRING BLAKE LIVELY TO GIVE HER DEPOSITION): ⬇️
https://t.co/sAXfCvxeNO

#blakelively #livelyvsbaldoni #jedwallace #wallacevslively

[Stewart @thestewman67]

@hi_gaggy @TVMovieAddict Lively, is seeking damages under 47.1 claiming retaliation but Wallace’s attorney is seeking take her deposition to show she had malice

[Stewart @thestewman67]

@hi_gaggy @TVMovieAddict He was actually in the CRD complaint but was left out of the lawsuit. Jed’s sued her in Texas because the NYT article claiming reputational harm but it was dismissed do to court saying it did not have jurisdiction.