Blake Lively- Jason Baldoni and NYT - False Light claims

[Anonymous]

“wouldn’t amend their complaint unless the motion to dismiss made it absolutely necessary” Lolol!!! Someone believes Baldoni is skating through this with all claims intact and no amendments I guess. !!! Oh that is good!!!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:“wouldn’t amend their complaint unless the motion to dismiss made it absolutely necessary” Lolol!!! Someone believes Baldoni is skating through this with all claims intact and no amendments I guess. !!! Oh that is good!!!

Why are you double posting? And why do you care so much about freedman?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:“wouldn’t amend their complaint unless the motion to dismiss made it absolutely necessary” Lolol!!! Someone believes Baldoni is skating through this with all claims intact and no amendments I guess. !!! Oh that is good!!!

Why are you double posting? And why do you care so much about freedman?

Whenever Freedman fans post breathless odes like this to their hero’s brilliant strategic moves lol, I will be sure to provide another perspective.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Interestingly, the subpoena still has not been produced. Get the popcorn, because this will be addressed by the Court.

Why would Freedman mention this in a letter rather than file a motion to compel?

DP - I think because he’s using it in his legal arguments now and citing it as needed. Most recently he cited it as the reason he shouldn’t have to answer questions about Baldoni’s neurodivergence and why the crime fraud exception should apply to the Jones case.

On the neurodivergence stuff, the argument is Blake’s lawyers only know Justin’s private medical information because of the sham lawsuit and subpoena so they shouldn’t be able to use it to establish the basis for further discovery on that topic. Additionally, the texts on Justin’s neurodivergence were outside of the scope of what the judge allowed when Blake’s lawyers filed that overbroad subpoena for phone records a few months ago asking for 2.5 years of data, so there’s no way they would’ve gotten that information through a subpoena in the current case.

On the crime fraud stuff, they’re arguing they should be able to pierce through Jones’ attorney client privilege and get documents from the security company that extracted the texts from Jen Abel’s phone. The basis for this is they’re arguing attorney client privilege doesn’t apply if your lawyer helps you commit a crime, which is what they’re alleging was the case with the phone. Sounds like the judge will almost certainly have to call an evidentiary hearing on this one, so I imagine Freedman is betting the judge will force them to produce the hearing at that time.

I find the neurodivergence interesting because I swear I'd read about it before, either in the complaints or one of the articles, about him considering using it to explain awkward behavior. So it is not completely random medical information that got mixed in, but actually relevant to the crisis PR. IIRC under the PO, there were some limitations in marking things AEO if they concerned parties and were relevant. But of course this is not under the PO because they got it in a shady way and that looks bad for them, but it is stuff they probably otherwise could have gotten in this case.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Interestingly, the subpoena still has not been produced. Get the popcorn, because this will be addressed by the Court.

Why would Freedman mention this in a letter rather than file a motion to compel?

DP - I think because he’s using it in his legal arguments now and citing it as needed. Most recently he cited it as the reason he shouldn’t have to answer questions about Baldoni’s neurodivergence and why the crime fraud exception should apply to the Jones case.

On the neurodivergence stuff, the argument is Blake’s lawyers only know Justin’s private medical information because of the sham lawsuit and subpoena so they shouldn’t be able to use it to establish the basis for further discovery on that topic. Additionally, the texts on Justin’s neurodivergence were outside of the scope of what the judge allowed when Blake’s lawyers filed that overbroad subpoena for phone records a few months ago asking for 2.5 years of data, so there’s no way they would’ve gotten that information through a subpoena in the current case.

On the crime fraud stuff, they’re arguing they should be able to pierce through Jones’ attorney client privilege and get documents from the security company that extracted the texts from Jen Abel’s phone. The basis for this is they’re arguing attorney client privilege doesn’t apply if your lawyer helps you commit a crime, which is what they’re alleging was the case with the phone. Sounds like the judge will almost certainly have to call an evidentiary hearing on this one, so I imagine Freedman is betting the judge will force them to produce the hearing at that time.

I find the neurodivergence interesting because I swear I'd read about it before, either in the complaints or one of the articles, about him considering using it to explain awkward behavior. So it is not completely random medical information that got mixed in, but actually relevant to the crisis PR. IIRC under the PO, there were some limitations in marking things AEO if they concerned parties and were relevant. But of course this is not under the PO because they got it in a shady way and that looks bad for them, but it is stuff they probably otherwise could have gotten in this case.

You have and it was, but Bryan freedman is saying it shouldn’t have been. Does that makes sense?

[Anonymous]

Baldoni’s neurodivergence/ADHD itself isn’t a secret fwiw. There was a People magazine article about it here: https://people.com/justin-baldoni-reveals-he-was-diagnosed-with-adhd-at-40-8756535

This says he was diagnosed when he was 40, and he was born in January 1984, so he was probably dealing with his diagnosis during the IEWU film actually.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Baldoni’s neurodivergence/ADHD itself isn’t a secret fwiw. There was a People magazine article about it here: https://people.com/justin-baldoni-reveals-he-was-diagnosed-with-adhd-at-40-8756535

This says he was diagnosed when he was 40, and he was born in January 1984, so he was probably dealing with his diagnosis during the IEWU film actually.

The legal argument BF is making is about relevance. The interrogatory asks for information on JB’s neurodivergence and BL’s team make the argument that it’s relevant b/c he’s communicated about it in connection with BL’s SH allegations. BF proceeded to ask, oh really, when did he do that? And Blake’s lawyers said “it’s in the discovery”, referring to Van Sham. So essentially they need to establish why JB having neurodivergence is relevant to their case and they can’t do that without the Vanzan text messages. I didn’t know about the People article, but it wouldn’t matter to BF’s argument.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Baldoni’s neurodivergence/ADHD itself isn’t a secret fwiw. There was a People magazine article about it here: https://people.com/justin-baldoni-reveals-he-was-diagnosed-with-adhd-at-40-8756535

This says he was diagnosed when he was 40, and he was born in January 1984, so he was probably dealing with his diagnosis during the IEWU film actually.

The legal argument BF is making is about relevance. The interrogatory asks for information on JB’s neurodivergence and BL’s team make the argument that it’s relevant b/c he’s communicated about it in connection with BL’s SH allegations. BF proceeded to ask, oh really, when did he do that? And Blake’s lawyers said “it’s in the discovery”, referring to Van Sham. So essentially they need to establish why JB having neurodivergence is relevant to their case and they can’t do that without the Vanzan text messages. I didn’t know about the People article, but it wouldn’t matter to BF’s argument.

They should have just referred to whatever complaint it was in. It's clear they had it, so that's not new information for BF if he read all the pleadings. Very dumb on the part of Blake's lawyer to say it was in the discovery.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Interestingly, the subpoena still has not been produced. Get the popcorn, because this will be addressed by the Court.

Why would Freedman mention this in a letter rather than file a motion to compel?

DP - I think because he’s using it in his legal arguments now and citing it as needed. Most recently he cited it as the reason he shouldn’t have to answer questions about Baldoni’s neurodivergence and why the crime fraud exception should apply to the Jones case.

On the neurodivergence stuff, the argument is Blake’s lawyers only know Justin’s private medical information because of the sham lawsuit and subpoena so they shouldn’t be able to use it to establish the basis for further discovery on that topic. Additionally, the texts on Justin’s neurodivergence were outside of the scope of what the judge allowed when Blake’s lawyers filed that overbroad subpoena for phone records a few months ago asking for 2.5 years of data, so there’s no way they would’ve gotten that information through a subpoena in the current case.

On the crime fraud stuff, they’re arguing they should be able to pierce through Jones’ attorney client privilege and get documents from the security company that extracted the texts from Jen Abel’s phone. The basis for this is they’re arguing attorney client privilege doesn’t apply if your lawyer helps you commit a crime, which is what they’re alleging was the case with the phone. Sounds like the judge will almost certainly have to call an evidentiary hearing on this one, so I imagine Freedman is betting the judge will force them to produce the hearing at that time.

I find the neurodivergence interesting because I swear I'd read about it before, either in the complaints or one of the articles, about him considering using it to explain awkward behavior. So it is not completely random medical information that got mixed in, but actually relevant to the crisis PR. IIRC under the PO, there were some limitations in marking things AEO if they concerned parties and were relevant. But of course this is not under the PO because they got it in a shady way and that looks bad for them, but it is stuff they probably otherwise could have gotten in this case.

You have and it was, but Bryan freedman is saying it shouldn’t have been. Does that makes sense?

Yes, but he shouldn't have it for the same reason Freedman thinks he shouldn't have any of the texts between Baldoni/Nathan/Abel, not because it's medical information, because medical information that's relevant to the case can come in... IF requested properly, which all the Vanzan stuff was not. The question is will Liman treated it any differently than the other Vanzan stuff, since it's medical.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Baldoni’s neurodivergence/ADHD itself isn’t a secret fwiw. There was a People magazine article about it here: https://people.com/justin-baldoni-reveals-he-was-diagnosed-with-adhd-at-40-8756535

This says he was diagnosed when he was 40, and he was born in January 1984, so he was probably dealing with his diagnosis during the IEWU film actually.

The legal argument BF is making is about relevance. The interrogatory asks for information on JB’s neurodivergence and BL’s team make the argument that it’s relevant b/c he’s communicated about it in connection with BL’s SH allegations. BF proceeded to ask, oh really, when did he do that? And Blake’s lawyers said “it’s in the discovery”, referring to Van Sham. So essentially they need to establish why JB having neurodivergence is relevant to their case and they can’t do that without the Vanzan text messages. I didn’t know about the People article, but it wouldn’t matter to BF’s argument.

They should have just referred to whatever complaint it was in. It's clear they had it, so that's not new information for BF if he read all the pleadings. Very dumb on the part of Blake's lawyer to say it was in the discovery.

They did try to clean it up and say actually it’s in the complaint, but BF wouldn’t let them and jumped on the admission. FWIW, I think the reason he decided to challenge the ADHD texts of everything was in part because of the slip but also because it’s health information. Health information is considered particularly sensitive, so it makes Blake’s team look worse than saying well you shouldn’t have those texts saying we can bury anyone.

[Anonymous]

The texts they got in the VanZan subpoena would be discoverable now even if they had not gotten them then. They are directly relevant to the case. Including the text about Baldoni's ADHD, which referred to his proposed PR strategy and a publicly-known diagnosis, not private health info. It's not a text with a doctor and it's revealing info that Baldoni has already publicized.

The idea that they are going to get these texts excluded is so weird to me. No crime was committed in obtaining them. At worst, Jones violated her NDA with Wayfarer -- a contract violation but not a criminal offense.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The texts they got in the VanZan subpoena would be discoverable now even if they had not gotten them then. They are directly relevant to the case. Including the text about Baldoni's ADHD, which referred to his proposed PR strategy and a publicly-known diagnosis, not private health info. It's not a text with a doctor and it's revealing info that Baldoni has already publicized.

The idea that they are going to get these texts excluded is so weird to me. No crime was committed in obtaining them. At worst, Jones violated her NDA with Wayfarer -- a contract violation but not a criminal offense.

They’re not trying to get them excluded. They’re saying they’re not going to answer any additional questions on this topic or produce any additional discovery on the topic b/c Blake’s team can’t show relevance (or in this case wouldn’t be able to show relevance without the Vanzan texts).

It’s also not necessarily true the adhd texts would be discoverable now. When Blake’s team asked for 2+ years of phone records, Liman said no, you can have Aug forward. The adhd texts are before that. Also unclear how they’d make the case that adhd is relevant to any of their claims. You may say they can, but the fact is they haven’t tried beyond pointing to the Vanzan texts, so they’d need to come up with another reason.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Interestingly, the subpoena still has not been produced. Get the popcorn, because this will be addressed by the Court.

Why would Freedman mention this in a letter rather than file a motion to compel?

He explicitly said there would be other motions related to this issue.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The texts they got in the VanZan subpoena would be discoverable now even if they had not gotten them then. They are directly relevant to the case. Including the text about Baldoni's ADHD, which referred to his proposed PR strategy and a publicly-known diagnosis, not private health info. It's not a text with a doctor and it's revealing info that Baldoni has already publicized.

The idea that they are going to get these texts excluded is so weird to me. No crime was committed in obtaining them. At worst, Jones violated her NDA with Wayfarer -- a contract violation but not a criminal offense.

BF is indeed alleging that Jones committed several crimes against Abel. He hasn’t accused Blake’s team of any crimes…yet

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The texts they got in the VanZan subpoena would be discoverable now even if they had not gotten them then. They are directly relevant to the case. Including the text about Baldoni's ADHD, which referred to his proposed PR strategy and a publicly-known diagnosis, not private health info. It's not a text with a doctor and it's revealing info that Baldoni has already publicized.

The idea that they are going to get these texts excluded is so weird to me. No crime was committed in obtaining them. At worst, Jones violated her NDA with Wayfarer -- a contract violation but not a criminal offense.

You can’t say that because you don’t know the scope of the texts they have.