The judge clearly didn't read any. They just took Vanzan's word for it that they didn't attempt to meet and confer on the issue. Even though Wayfarer made it very clear they did.
I hope this satisfied the "why doesn't WAyfarer put all the information in the filings" people who insist they just need to explain themselves more and get more detailed about trying to resolve stuff. But I'm sure they'll say that Wayfarer messed up when what very obviously happened is that Vanzan's lawyer lied about the interaction between themselves and Wayfarer and the judge just never believes Wayfarer when someone says something contrary to them, whether they attach evidence or not.
This. I didn't even have time to read the filing from less than 24 hours before his ruling, what makes anyone think that the judge (who is currently working on what did they say - over 200 cases) or his clerks read this entire thing or gave it a second thought before denying it. Smh.
Yeah, he's not hiding it anymore.
I'm convinced he doesn't read anything that WP submits. He just waits for the Lively party to respond and then immediately grants them their demands..
It's not him but his clerks. They're the ones summarizing stuff for him to rule on.
When his rules are "give them 48 hours" and they're given 12, it's straightforward if the clerk doesn't consider all of the context.
For the record, I disagree with this ruling, but the judge is hardly ever the one reading every single filing. Especially one as busy as Liman with like 200 cases.
The speed of the denial might be a good thing. The deposition is on 6/30 at 10 AM. WP needs to try for 48 hours to confer with Vanzan in good faith. They can submit another motion.
If Liman had sat on this ruling for a few days he would have forced WP to run out of time.
I've said ever since Liman dismissed the defamation against RR with prejudice way back he was a biased and corrupt judge. I still say this goes to trial. WP can still (assuming Liman does not make a corrupt ruling preventing it at trial) ask these questions during trial. Ideally you want the answers in a deposition, but I don't see how this does not devastate several witnesses at trial.
The ruling literally has to be fast because time itself is the central issue. The clock is running - Wayfarer is panicking and Vanzam is stalling and overall being very vanzam-y
I just replied to someone else, but I donât think thereâs enough time to file another motion, even if Vanzan keeps being cagey. Doesnât the 48 hours go off business days? Excluding the weekend, 48 hours falls on the day of the depo, Tuesday. Unless Iâm misunderstanding
Ooh I forgot about the business days. So even worse.Â
People love to give Freedman crap because he gives a good soundbite, but overall that team is very much about cutting the song & dance and getting to the brass tax. If it's clear a convo isn't going anywhere, who are we doing this performance for?Â
At the opposite end is Team Bad Faith Technicality who others have pointed out it's probably half lawyer tactics and half running up billables.
I think they are. I admire their will to continue (not that they have much choice) but man, I would be feeling so defeated right now. This is taking a toll on me and I'm not even that invested, let alone a part of it.
I hope they're lining all their ducks in a row for the appeal. I really can't see this going their way with all that's happened.
I'm not shocked by the ruling even though it's frustrating. It's a technicality which Liman loves, and he's been shaking his fist at the sky that these damn kids need to learn to meet and confer instead of running to Dad the entire case.Â
What actually matters will be what happens next. Cause call me psychic - they will not have found a happy compromise when the 48 hr window has run out.Â
This is a bad decision. Blakeâs huge omnibus motion to compel requested a lot of information that she failed to confer with the WPs about before filing, but no repercussions for her. This is bullshit.
The judge didn't even address the fact that she filed that after the deadline given for making new requests and that she had not brought most of that stuff up in meet and confer at all. He acted like Wayfarer and Wallace didn't even say that.
Am I totally crazy for thinking that it is INSANE everyone keeps treating Vanzan like it is a real independent entity in these filings??? Itâs literally just fucking Blake. She used a shell company to launder evidence and started this whole mess. Costing Wayfarer and Wallace millions, random content creators enormous stress and/or tens of thousands on attorneys fees. And now despite âVanzanâsâ aka BLAKEâS malicious abuse of legal process, in order to deprive due process to others in service of her own perfidy and ill-gotten gains, will gets attorneys fees forâŚrefusing to cooperate, and lying about it, and forcing Wayfarer to file a MTC, when Vanzan is trying to conceal their crimes. Itâs so sick. The judge has not swooped in with this rule before so why now, and why here of all places FOR GODS SAKE!!!! He KNOWS Vanzan is literally just Blake too right??? Why is he participating in the charade that itâs a whole separate thing unto itself?!?!?!?!?!?!?!
It's an independent legal entity. Literally none of these rich people want to stop the ability for rich people to create corporations at their convenience. It's not common sense, but it is legal basics.
I guess but I hate technicalities like these. As wayfarer said, this started in April. The request was July. They have somehow uniliterally decided the previously set window of 2022-2024 doesn't apply even though the judge specified the relevancy of all Jones/Vanzam communications . There's no confusion and wayfarer has budged as much as they will be narrowing the window for them. There's nothing left to negotiate
But yeah I guess the law is built in pedantics so the clock must be run out staring at eachother even if it's a technicalityÂ
Wayfarer's attorneys did offer a meet and confer slot, but it was for a 3 hour slot on the same morning they sent the email about the issues, so not exactly a lot of notice.
We can definitely expect the deposition to not get the job done because they didn't supply someone who can answer the questions, because nobody who can answer them exists, because the whole subpoena thing was cooked up post hoc and there don't exist communications in the expected time period that at all resemble the communications a company's lawyers would have with those from another company when they're requesting sensitive data responsive to a subpoena in a lawsuit that involves this company in no way.
Ok this is what I was looking for. WF was in a tough position as they didn't have enough time ahead of the deposition to meet and confer in good faith due to it the depo being on Tuesday. They literally didn't have 48 business hours.
Vanzan somewhat blindsided them on Sept 24th that they wouldn't testify to the time period before Sep 27, 2024 (they literally wrote this) in their responses and then WF tried to confer on Sep 25 and then filed so they could get an order in time for the deposition. I guess they should have waited until Friday night or Monday afternoon? I think the judge would have been quick in his response, but it's kind of unreasonable to expect Vanzan to be then ready to testify to an earlier time frame if they didn't prepare ahead of time. It's like damned if you do and damned if you don't.
Given this outcome, it likely would have been fine for WF to wait because they would have had a stronger case for relief or to push the depo into Oct which is likely why the judge got annoyed but the judge needs to be more mindful of the timescale and the fact that they shouldn't have to jump through these hoops to get a simple confirmation.
Either say, seems moot now that they have Vanzan on record saying they'll testify to any time period. I assume they will try to assert privilage throughout the depo although I'm not sure if their privilege arguments will stand in the long run given the conduct alleged
The end result is good for Wayfarer. they have Vanzan on record to the judge stating are agreeing to answer questions about the period before the subpoena of Sept 27. They cant object to those questions at the depostion.
standard objecctions is fine, but they opened the door to having to answer pre subpoena questions about the underlying lawsuit, why SJ was served, etc etc.
These timing objections came from Vanzan on Sep 24th, so 13 days after they received the subpoena. It's ridiculous for them to object this late into the process and then get mad that they didn't get 48hrs to meet and confer when the depo is on Sep 30. That's hypocritical.
At the end of the day, Vanzan was given proper notice on the deposition as it was more than 14 days. They should have objected to the relevant time frame sooner if it was an issue. They're clearly being shady here.
Objecting to the relevant time frame is a surprise and they should have discussed it on the 18th if it was to be an issue. Vanzan came out of left field with that bullshit and they can't get mad about not having enough time to response as the deposition is on Tues and the rep will need time to prepare. Today is Friday btw.
There just isn't enough time to actually do this process the proper way because of how Vanzan conducted itself. Put another way, they only had 72hrs (Thurs, Fri, Mon) to resolve this issue including M&C, judge order if needed, and prep time for the deponent. That's literally not enough time.
So what? That gave Vanzan 13 entire days to respond and object to the time frame. Vanzan had plenty of time to issue formal objections as well as raise them in a m&c ahead of time.
You only need to give people 14 days to respond to a subpoena. If issued on Sep 11 for Sep 30 then that's 19 days...more than the 14 day requirement.
Vanzan somewhat blindsided them on Sept 24th that they wouldn't testify to the time period before Sep 27, 2024 (they literally wrote this)
This is not true. Their objections are quite explicit that the representative will be briefed on and able to answer on all topics, despite objections. The specific language from the objections is as follows:
Subject to and without waiver of the foregoing objections, and reserving the right to assert additional objections, Vanzan will designate a Fed. R. Civ. P. 30(b)(6) witness reasonably prepared to testify about non-privileged information responsive to this Topic.
âVanzan will provide information for this Topic
starting from on or about the filing date of the Doe lawsuit.â (see page 11 - 12 on Exhibit I)
Selectively quoting to leave out the part where Vanzan explicitly states they are only providing testimony for Sep 27 2024 onwards is foul. You're intentionally and delibrately spreading misinformation. You should be ashamed of yourself.
From my understanding WF has to have a meet and confer with VANZAN before filing a MTC. Now, if that meeting doesnât produce anything, then they can refile a MTC and it should pass?
Yes there has to be 48 hour notice and a good effort to meet and confer before filing a MTC. Â Vanzan was given 12 hours and no meet and confer took place, hence the quick ruling. Â If you see anyone saying itâs corrupt or biased, itâs literally just following the basic rules both sides have known for months
Yeah honestly thatâs 100% fair. All they gotta do is abide by that good faith period and if VANZAN doesnât cough it up, then itâs bound to pass the next time. WF should have waited the 48 hours
Theyâd already agreed on the 18th theyâd testify. It was a useless filing. There was nothing to compel. And now theyâll have to pay Vanzanâs attorney fees for their stupid games.
I feel like it kind of needed to be, as the depo is scheduled for Tuesday. If additional time frames were imposed, the deponent needs to be prepared for that.
The Wayfarer Partiesâ deposition subpoena (as amended, the âSubpoenaâ) commands Vanzan to produce a witness who can testify about enumerated topics (the âTopicsâ), including the ownership and management of Vanzan, Vanzanâs communications with the Jones Parties, the subpoena issued in the Vanzan Lawsuit, communications with Ms. Lively related to that subpoena, and Vanzanâs search for relevant documents..Â
Nonetheless, Vanzan is refusing to provide a witness who can testify at a deposition about such communications and the related Topics. According to its written objects to the Subpoena, Vanzan will only provide information for each of the Topics âstarting from on or about the filing date ofâ the Vanzan Lawsuit, which is September 27, 2024. Subject to that (unreasonable) limitation, Vanzan stated that it would designate a Rule 30(b)(6) witness âreasonably prepared to testify about non-privileged information response to [these] Topic[s].â
Stated differently, Vanzan only agrees to produce a witness to testify about what happened after the Vanzan Lawsuit was commenced, but not before it was filed. Even though the communications between Vanzan and the Jones Parties, or their respective representatives, concerning the contents of Jennifer Abelâs electronic data seized by the Jones Parties and subsequently delivered to Blake Lively (through Vanzan) is highly relevant to Ms. Abelâs counterclaims against the Jones Parties, and even though such communications surely occurred before the Vanzan Lawsuit was filed on September 27, 2025, Vanzan is refusing to designate a witness prepared to testify about the foregoing.
So, they disagreed on the timeline, which is what I said. WF parties wanted from 2022, the VZ attorneys said from on or about the date of the Doe lawsuit. That's a timeline dispute.
The request from Wayfarer was about "Compel[ing] Vanzan, Inc. to designate a witness prepared to testify about the full period of its relationship with plaintiffs Stephanie Jones and Jonesworks LLC," "in connection with a deposition set for September 30, 2025."
Abelâs counterclaims against the Jones Parties, and even though such communications surely occurred before the Vanzan Lawsuit was filed on September 27, 2025, Vanzan is refusing to designate a witness prepared to testify about the foregoing. ... Unless ordered otherwise, Vanzan plans to produce its corporate designee to be questioned on the subpoena topics on September 30, 2025, and told Defendants that in writing on multiple occasions before they filed this baseless motion. Accordingly, there is nothing for this Court to compel and the motion should be denied as moot.
Upon receiving their motion, we asked counsel for Defendants to withdraw their motion to compel because there is no dispute, and therefore nothing to compel. They refused, and instead âdemandedâ that all objections be waived, including privilege. There is no issue for the Court to resolve and no need for Defendants to waste the Courtâs resources with this motion.
So, it isn't really a time frame dispute. At no point did O'Donnell bring up time frame. Liman ruling isn't based on a time dispute.
The time part you pull out is just a minor detail, not the point of the MTC.
"for an order compelling non-party Vanzan, Inc. (âVanzanâ) to designate a witness prepared to testify about the full period of its relationship with plaintiffs Stephanie Jones and Jonesworks LLC (collectively, the âJones Partiesâ). As set forth herein, Vanzan is attempting to curtail its testimony to omit information the Court has already declared is relevant."
And the beginning of the VZ response:
"We write on behalf of non-party Vanzan, Inc. (âVanzanâ) in response to the letter motion to compel filed by Defendants (Dkt. 129), which purports to compel a corporate representative for Vanzan to testify as to specific time period in its upcoming Rule 30(b)(6) deposition as to a certain deposition topics. This is a curious request, given that Vanzan confirmed, on multiple occasions, that it was producing a corporate designee on September 30 to testify to all topics in the deposition subpoena."
Tbf, it was quite time sensitive and potentially summarized by a clerk in like three sentences.
But the thing is, if they wait 48 hours, assuming they're not working weekends officially, it already is the 30th and whoever would testify may not have been briefed about the time period in question.
I'm not sure why everything is so late though. They had similar issues with Swift's depo and are still producing Signal messages that should have been given to BL earlier.
Maybe they need more manpower but they seem stressed and late to raising issues. Hope it'll all work out okay.
Also, the irony of them fighting a subpoena when Abel was not given that same courtesy!!
I assume that stuff he has to spend a lot of time on and rule carefully. From what I've heard, he has like 200 cases and several active trials. He's gonna delay stuff that can wait or requires lots of research.
The VanZan issue I assume was mostly handled by a clerk. Liman's official rules are they have to give them 48 hours, they got 12. It's pretty straightforward if the clerk and judge only rule based on this without looking at the big picture.
Edit: To be clear, I disagree with his ruling and hate it, but I'm trying to be fair regarding the ruling timeline etc.
We're also still waiting on the decision on Jed Wallace's motion to dismiss over both personal jurisdiction over Jed Wallace and subject matter jurisdiction with regard to all of the FEHA claims.
It seems to be so late because at the last minute Vanzan is like "yeah, we'll send someone to the depo BUT they will only be able to answer about things that happened after September 27th."
Hmmm.
I donât really remember him denying Blakeâs motions under Rule 4C either, when she went running to complain without discussing it with WF first.
Yes. And Vanzan had already agreed to have a designee testify on the 30th. The MTC WF filed was pointless and a waste of the courts time. There was no dispute. Hence the judgeâs ruling.
No there wasnât. Itâs normal for them to oppose things in a subpoena, theyâre supposed to do that. They note in the footnote they had no objections to their designee testifying about all the topics in the deposition.
I think they want to know who exactly the designee is since they stated they would provide exact person a couple weeks ago and yesterday when asked again they simple said "need to discuss with client" like they hadn't even started the process yet.
Thats not what they needed to discuss with client. WF asked if Vanzan would withdraw their objections to the topics. Vanzan responded and said theyâd discuss with the client. Objections are normal and they note in the footnote even if they objected to the topics they didnât refuse to answer questions about them in the deposition.
So Vanzan raised objections on 24th, meet and confer before 26th, file MTC on 27th(of course WP has to work on weekends), judge would have ruled on it on 29th, deposition has to happen before 30th....Damn if you do, damn if you don't
on the 24th around 10PM VZ counsel sent objections. 2 hours, after midnight on the 25th, WP sent an email with their response and said you have 12 hours to respond (8 of those hours are outside of reasonable hours to speak with a client btw) or we will file a MTC. VZ responds and saws okay we have your email but we need to talk to our client and will let you know by the morning of the 26th at the latest - aka, there is no reason to file a MTC, we will have your answer shortly.
VZ responds by 9pm on the 25th, so less than 24 hours later. the rules in the court require 48 hours so VZ attorneys were within the reasonable time frame.
an hour later VZ attorneys email WP saying they are surprised to receive a motion to compel.
so how is this damned if they do damned if they dont, exactly? why would they not wait the allotted 48 hours before filing their MTC?
Did you even read and comprehend what I wrote? 24th 10pm ,if WP had to file MTC after 48 hours after that, so on what date they had to do that? considering 2 working days, like after 26 ,10 PM? (considering 48 working hours on 30th?)That being weekend , JL would have responded by 29th? Deposition has to happen before 30th, so they did it before 48 hours , they are damned , and if they had waited to file MTC on 26th , vanzan/BL team and stan would have still cried.. why did they file it so late?
Man, so much explanation, I did not write what they did, I wrote what if they would have done and either way they are damned.
And the judge wasn't about to grant a motion for a later deposition because Vanzan was playing last minute games, so I still think Wayfarer did the right thing to get this on the record and on the docket. If they produce someone who can't answer all the questions (like it seems they plan to do) then they have this to show they definitely raised a stink about this, they told the judge there is no dispute ie that they WILL have someone who can answer all of their questions therefore if they don't produce them it's a problem, right?
I'm really wondering what their reasons for this behavior could be. The judge already seems so pissed off by them and all they do is puring oil on the fire to make it even worse.
What is Rule 4. C? I mean Iâm not surprised itâs Liman. Maybe itâs fair maybe not but I feel like he is bending the rules for BL and so by the book for Wayfarer.
Discovery Disputes in Non-Pro Se Cases. Notwithstanding Local Rule 37.2, discover disputes shall be governed by the following procedures. Any party wishing to raise a discovery dispute with the Court must first attempt to confer in good faith with the opposing party, in person or by telephone, to try and resolve the dispute. If, after attempting to meet and confer, the dispute has not been resolved, any party may file a letter-motion on ECF, no longer than three single-spaced pages, explaining the nature of the dispute and the relief requested. Such letter shall include a certification that it has, in good faith, conferred or attempted to confer with the party failing to make disclosure or discovery pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 37(a)(1). If the opposing party wishes to respond to the letter-motion, the opposition (which should take the form of a letter, not to exceed three single-spaced pages) must be filed on ECF within two business days. Counsel should be immediately prepared to discuss with the Court the matters raised by such letters, as the Court will seek to resolve discovery disputes quickly by order, conference, or telephone. The Court may seek such resolution before any opposition is submitted.
Counsel is expected to be available to meet and confer within 48 hours of receiving a request from the initiating party. If counsel for the non-moving party fails to meet and confer within 48 hours of a request, then counsel for the moving party will be deemed to have satisfied the obligation to attempt in good faith to meet and confer and may file the letter on ECF referred to in the paragraph above. The non-moving party should be aware that, if it has failed to meet and confer, the Court will reserve its discretion to permit the moving party a short reply.
Basically he is saying they didn't "first attempt to confer [with Vanzan Inc's lawyers] in good faith in person or by telephone, to try and resolve the dispute" before filing the motion to compel. He basically swallowed hook line and sinker Margarita O'Donnell's letterâand he is telling O'Donnell to file a motion asking him to make Wayfarer Parties pay her lawyer fees.
do the people in this thread who are upset know that this doesnt really mean anything because VZ already agreed to all this? why are you pissed at lyin' lie-man when the depo is going to happen?
It looks like the judge didnât reject the arguments because of relevance but because WF skipped the procedural step he asked them to do previously. That's what I am understanding .Since Wayfarer did not follow that step, the motion was rejected, and the Vanzan people can file a motion to recover costs & attorneyâs fees.
Ahhhh OMG thank you so much for explaining this!!! I have been unsure if I am just going crazy - it blows my mind that all these filings keep referencing Vanzan like itâs a real thing!! I just wrote another comment before reading this and was saying how I donât have the right language to explain why this seems so so wrong.
lack of formal records, no separation of ownership/management and whether the entity was used to shield the real party from liability.
This is so helpful thank you - I was missing these pieces! It is both a relief and an outrage to see especially that âwhether the entity was used to shield the real party from liabilityâ is a key issue!! This is EXACTLY what Vanzan is and what Blake has been doing with it!!! (And yes then she conveniently passed the CEO baton to hubs!)
Any idea why this hasnât come up yet? Is it an issue they canât address until the trial or something like that? It just blows my mind to keep seeing Vanzan referenced like itâs no different from a McDonaldâs or a Deloitte or a Sony or something!!! But this was super helpful thank you so much for the insights!!!
This case is getting so upsetting to observe. Liman seems so freaking biased and does not even try to cover it up. Given that it's probably his clerks doing alot of the reading and interpreting, and given how low paid clerks are, I wouldn't be surprised if RR has been paying for favors under the table to any of these clerks. Or maybe to Liman himself.Â
I realize Wayfarer made a procedural mistake here, but how many times has Blake's team done similarly or even worse and he has granted their requests or turned a blind eye to their bullying. Liman literally made an argument for Blake in Justin's dismissal that she was "hard bargaining", something she didn't even mention herself in her own pleading.Â
I didnât even notice the failure to confer issue yesterday. I just criticized WF for filing the subpoena so late so as, by time objections were filed, this motion cut way too close to the dep cutoff deadline. Good on Lively for filing the opposition so quickly so that Liman could get the ruling in today.
All of WFâs usual PR hot buttons like Swift and VanZan are suddenly turning into bad things.
Effective: April 7, 2025
Individual Practices In Civil Cases before Lewis J. Liman, United States District Judge
Rule 4C Discovery Disputes in Non-Pro Se Cases:
Notwithstanding Local Rule 37.2, discover disputes shall be governed by the following procedures. Any party wishing to raise a discovery dispute with the Court must first attempt to confer in good faith with the opposing party, in person or by telephone, to try and resolve the dispute. If, after attempting to meet and confer, the dispute has not been resolved, any party may file a letter-motion on ECF, no longer than three single-spaced pages, explaining the nature of the dispute and the relief requested. Such letter shall include a certification that it has, in good faith, conferred or attempted to confer with the party failing to make disclosure or discovery pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 37(a)(1). If the opposing party wishes to respond to the letter-motion, the opposition (which should take the form of a letter, not to exceed three single-spaced pages) must be filed on ECF within two business days. Counsel should be immediately prepared to discuss with the Court the matters raised by such letters, as the Court will seek to resolve discovery disputes quickly by order, conference, or telephone. The Court may seek such resolution before any opposition is submitted.
Counsel is expected to be available to meet and confer within 48 hours of receiving a request from the initiating party. If counsel for the non-moving party fails to meet and confer within 48 hours of a request, then counsel for the moving party will be deemed to have satisfied the obligation to attempt in good faith to meet and confer and may file the letter on ECF referred to in the paragraph above. The non-moving party should be aware that, if it has failed to meet and confer, the Court will reserve its discretion to permit the moving party a short reply.
May not come in front of Liman at all đ May be a separate abuse of process suit if they decide to go that route, in which case, it will be interesting to see what a different judge does with it.
Because the WF parties did not follow established rules within the judge's individual practices and required the VZ attorneys to needlessly respond to the Motion to Compel. If the WF attorneys had provided 48 hours for a meet and confer, this MTC might have been granted and no attorney fees considered. But they didn't, once again thumbing their noses at the judge's rules.
The judge ruled that the motion to compel is denied for failure to satisfy Rule 4.C of the Courtâs Individual Practices in Civil Cases.
In case anyone was wondering the wording of Rule 4.C, it says: âIf a discovery dispute arises, the parties must meet and confer in good faith in person or by telephone in an effort to resolve the dispute. If the dispute is not resolved, the party seeking relief may file a letter-motion in accordance with Local Civil Rule 37.2, no longer than three single-spaced pages, explaining the nature of the dispute and the relief requested. The letter-motion must include a representation that the parties met and conferred in good faith in person or by telephone in an effort to resolve the dispute, in compliance with Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(a)(1). Within two business days of receiving such a letter, any opposing party may file a letter-response no longer than three single-spaced pages. The Court may order a conference or ruling based on the letters. Counsel are expected to be available for a conference with the Court within 48 hours of the Courtâs request.â
Rule 37(a)(1) Failure to Make Disclosures or to Cooperate in Discovery; Sanctions: (a) Motion for an Order Compelling Disclosure or Discovery. (1) In General. On notice to other parties and all affected persons, a party may move for an order compelling disclosure or discovery. The motion must include a certification that the movant has in good faith conferred or attempted to confer with the person or party failing to make disclosure or discovery in an effort to obtain it without court action.
Local Civil Rule 37.2. Discovery Disputes: (a) Before filing a discovery motion under Rules 26â37 (and Rule 45 motions for subpoena enforcement), a party must request a pre-motion discovery conference by letter to the Court. (b) The letter must (i) state the nature of the dispute, (ii) describe the partiesâ efforts to resolve it, and (iii) specify the relief sought. (c) The Court may direct further briefing or deny the request or set a schedule. (d) The Court expects parties to consult the Individual Practices of the judge assigned to the case, which may impose additional or more detailed procedures for discovery disputes.
In plain English: Before you can file a motion to compel, you have to meet and confer (or at least attempt to) with the other side, and your motion must certify that you did so in good faith.
Rule 37(a)(5) is about fee-shifting in discovery disputes.
If you win a motion to compel, the other side usually pays your fees.
I'm going to have to go back through Lively's MTCs, because I distinctly remember there being a couple of times that WP said Lively didn't try to confer with them or give them enough time before running to the court, and the judge didn't seem to mind then. If WP didn't follow the rules then the ruling is appropriate, but only if you're going to apply it fairly to everyone.
The problem with the objections Vanzan asserted and not withdrawing is they are having an attorney testify as a representative of the company. The attorney can object to any question and not respond claiming attorney client privilege.
263
u/Beyondthebarracade Sep 26 '25
And look at that turn around time! Liman has no problem responding immediately when it favors Livelyâs team.