Another interesting analysis on the Lively v Wayfarer case from celebchai - looking at the settlement and 47.1 motion and why the lawyers from both sides are making the statements they are. So interested to hear folks thoughts about this!
Another great breakdown on threads from MJ Morley here. It clearly explains the background, why Lively's lawyers chose this path, and why they are quite certain they will win the 47.1 motion.
Gonna add a post here about this that is not linked to another sub so that folks can feel free to discuss more neutrally...
Really fascinating theories from celebchai particularly around how this motion is designed to play out in the media. Am interested to hear others thoughts on this!
Maple is feeling the need for some courage and hope! (Anyone else?) And we have been taking inspiration from stories that help us stay optimistic and remind us that there is so much magic in the world and that even small brave steps can lead to incredible change.
May the fourth be with you all!
"The Wayfarer Defendants agree that for purposes of trial only and with respect to the
FEHA retaliation claim, the jury will be instructed to presume that Ms. Lively engaged in
protected activity by complaining about or opposing a hostile work environment."
IMO, this reporter has been very unbiased in past hearings and just reports what he hears. thought others might be interested!
ETA: Great reminder from u/minorpoint that this is not a merits hearing. No one is deciding what actually happened. Today, the Court was dealing with expert admissibility (Daubert), evidentiary boundaries, and trial structure.
WP is trying to exclude experts and collapse causation and damages. BL is trying to establish a temporal pattern, validate methodology, and preserve both economic and reputational damages theories. Judge Liman is probing both sides, testing weaknesses and alternative explanations, and has not resolved the key issues yet.
So, what's being quoted (at least, most of it) are - or should be - arguments about admissibility rather than conclusions of fact. The poster doesn't include the legal framing and without that context, it tilts how the hearing comes across. Live tweeting rewards the side making simple attacks and kind of punishes the side making technical admissibility arguments.
I have been looking for well-reasoned analysis of the current motions being considered in the Lively v. Wayfarer case and this post from Celebchai is very detailed and breaks down the case law. Thought others might be interested. And I'm curious what other lawyers on this thread think of this analysis...