Blake Lively- Jason Baldoni and NYT - False Light claims

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Even some Baldoni fans aren’t quite sure about this pro-Baldoni amicus brief lol: https://www.reddit.com/r/teamjustinbaldoni/comments/1l57gxb/colonel_kurtz_youtuber_filed_an_amicus_brief_and/

Amicus author has apparently taken the side of other upstanding men accused of bad things including Marilyn Manson and Harvey Weinstein.

I think it's weird you frequent his sub. On the other hand, I would never trawl through r/BaldoniFiles.

DP but as a frequent Reddit user, I know that the algorithm will automatically suggest this stuff to you if you even just follow the neutral subs on the topic, I only follow r/ItEndsWithLawsuits and r/ItEndsWithCourts, but I regularly get content in my feed from both the pro-BL and pro-JB subs. So PP could have seen that without "trawling" the sub. I saw it and I don't think I've ever actually visited that sub except to click on a link to a post that popped up in my feed.

[Anonymous]

So some new stuff is starting to get posted in the docket. This MTC is juicy. Lively alleges Wayfarer set up email accounts to communicate with journalists but saved things as drafts to avoid sending discoverable emails and then just gave access to the accounts! Wayfarer wants to limit this to only emails they gave login credentials for, but Lively argues they could have used other methods, like screen sharing.

They also want communications with content creators which Wayfarer seems to limit to those with over 10k followers who create original content.

https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.nysd.634304/gov.uscourts.nysd.634304.295.0.pdf

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Even some Baldoni fans aren’t quite sure about this pro-Baldoni amicus brief lol: https://www.reddit.com/r/teamjustinbaldoni/comments/1l57gxb/colonel_kurtz_youtuber_filed_an_amicus_brief_and/

Amicus author has apparently taken the side of other upstanding men accused of bad things including Marilyn Manson and Harvey Weinstein.

Also, that sub is pro-Justin, not pro-ColonelKurtz, I'm not sure why you think it's some gotcha that "even some Baldoni" fans wouldn't like that amicus brief.

You guys have created this problem for yourselves. Freedman hyped up the Lively hate so that these are the types of amici Baldoni is attracting. Lively now has 4 amicus briefs from like 14 different women's rights organizations, and Baldoni may have one amicus brief from an anti-me-too supporter who is ... taking some interesting positions.

As we have seen from this very thread, and as even some Baldoni supporters will admit, some Baldoni supporters are perhaps a little nutso.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Even some Baldoni fans aren’t quite sure about this pro-Baldoni amicus brief lol: https://www.reddit.com/r/teamjustinbaldoni/comments/1l57gxb/colonel_kurtz_youtuber_filed_an_amicus_brief_and/

Amicus author has apparently taken the side of other upstanding men accused of bad things including Marilyn Manson and Harvey Weinstein.

Also, that sub is pro-Justin, not pro-ColonelKurtz, I'm not sure why you think it's some gotcha that "even some Baldoni" fans wouldn't like that amicus brief.

You guys have created this problem for yourselves. Freedman hyped up the Lively hate so that these are the types of amici Baldoni is attracting. Lively now has 4 amicus briefs from like 14 different women's rights organizations, and Baldoni may have one amicus brief from an anti-me-too supporter who is ... taking some interesting positions.

As we have seen from this very thread, and as even some Baldoni supporters will admit, some Baldoni supporters are perhaps a little nutso.

Elyse Dorsey is an organization now?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:So some new stuff is starting to get posted in the docket. This MTC is juicy. Lively alleges Wayfarer set up email accounts to communicate with journalists but saved things as drafts to avoid sending discoverable emails and then just gave access to the accounts! Wayfarer wants to limit this to only emails they gave login credentials for, but Lively argues they could have used other methods, like screen sharing.

They also want communications with content creators which Wayfarer seems to limit to those with over 10k followers who create original content.

https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.nysd.634304/gov.uscourts.nysd.634304.295.0.pdf

Right? Who would have suspected these underhanded methods of avoiding discovery? I also find it interesting to read the meet and confer and follow up correspondence (Attachment A). I've seen parties delay responses in this vein before: attempt to "negotiate" the requests down to something that would provide almost no useful information and meanwhile provide nothing.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So some new stuff is starting to get posted in the docket. This MTC is juicy. Lively alleges Wayfarer set up email accounts to communicate with journalists but saved things as drafts to avoid sending discoverable emails and then just gave access to the accounts! Wayfarer wants to limit this to only emails they gave login credentials for, but Lively argues they could have used other methods, like screen sharing.

They also want communications with content creators which Wayfarer seems to limit to those with over 10k followers who create original content.

https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.nysd.634304/gov.uscourts.nysd.634304.295.0.pdf

Right? Who would have suspected these underhanded methods of avoiding discovery? I also find it interesting to read the meet and confer and follow up correspondence (Attachment A). I've seen parties delay responses in this vein before: attempt to "negotiate" the requests down to something that would provide almost no useful information and meanwhile provide nothing.

I think the requests are over broad. There are likely many communications with the media about the film that are irrelevant to the allegations, i.e. just fluff pieces. Further, content creator is defined so broadly it would encompass anyone with a social media account. Curious to see Freedman’s response.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:More bad news for Ryan and Blake.

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/tvshowbiz/article-14787993/Blake-Lively-new-legal-battle-Justin-Baldoni.html

This is just normal trademark stuff.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:What’s interesting about the Vituscka declaration is that it shows that Freedman had reason to believe the charges he made about Sloane in Baldoni’s complaint were untrue, but he went on and made them anyway. Freedman had access to the same messages we do where Vituscka says that back in August, Sloane had never mentioned a single thing to him about Lively having been sexually harassed or assaulted by Baldoni. Vituscka’s statement later (after Lively’s) complaint was filed, refers to “now she’s claiming he sexually assaulted her” appears to be the entire basis of Baldoni’s claim that Sloane accused him of sexual assault.

That’s a terrible basis for a defamation claim. Sloane has been stating from the beginning that she never said Baldoni assaulted Lively, and she was right.

If Freedman was wrong about this, what else was he wrong about?

Other news: It seems like two more motions to compel and maybe a motion to seal were filed last night around midnight, but court listener doesn’t have them yet.

Also some Baldoni fan who is not a lawyer went on livestream last night discussing the amicus brief she claims to have filed on Baldoni’s behalf last night, which someone else reported was about how the me too movement is all wrong. Her comments say her amicus brief is filed but that it may not show up on the docket for days since it was filed through the letter option. I’m not sure that’s correct though so this may all be BS — when I have filed pleadings via Pacer they show up immediately. (Maybe I haven’t filed “letter” options myself though, but when I’ve filed answers and briefs they appear basically in real time.)

Vituscka is a lying idiot. He like most dailymail authors are just trying to stir drama to see what tea each side will spill in response. Freedman should've looked into looked into him more yes. He only apologized because he was threated with a lawsuit.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So some new stuff is starting to get posted in the docket. This MTC is juicy. Lively alleges Wayfarer set up email accounts to communicate with journalists but saved things as drafts to avoid sending discoverable emails and then just gave access to the accounts! Wayfarer wants to limit this to only emails they gave login credentials for, but Lively argues they could have used other methods, like screen sharing.

They also want communications with content creators which Wayfarer seems to limit to those with over 10k followers who create original content.

https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.nysd.634304/gov.uscourts.nysd.634304.295.0.pdf

Right? Who would have suspected these underhanded methods of avoiding discovery? I also find it interesting to read the meet and confer and follow up correspondence (Attachment A). I've seen parties delay responses in this vein before: attempt to "negotiate" the requests down to something that would provide almost no useful information and meanwhile provide nothing.

I think the requests are over broad. There are likely many communications with the media about the film that are irrelevant to the allegations, i.e. just fluff pieces. Further, content creator is defined so broadly it would encompass anyone with a social media account. Curious to see Freedman’s response.

I don't think it's normal at all to be avoiding discovery by sharing information via a drafts folder. Or trying to defeat discovery by screen sharing instead of sending an email. I guess this is how this kind of campaign becomes "untraceable."

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So some new stuff is starting to get posted in the docket. This MTC is juicy. Lively alleges Wayfarer set up email accounts to communicate with journalists but saved things as drafts to avoid sending discoverable emails and then just gave access to the accounts! Wayfarer wants to limit this to only emails they gave login credentials for, but Lively argues they could have used other methods, like screen sharing.

They also want communications with content creators which Wayfarer seems to limit to those with over 10k followers who create original content.

https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.nysd.634304/gov.uscourts.nysd.634304.295.0.pdf

Right? Who would have suspected these underhanded methods of avoiding discovery? I also find it interesting to read the meet and confer and follow up correspondence (Attachment A). I've seen parties delay responses in this vein before: attempt to "negotiate" the requests down to something that would provide almost no useful information and meanwhile provide nothing.

I think the requests are over broad. There are likely many communications with the media about the film that are irrelevant to the allegations, i.e. just fluff pieces. Further, content creator is defined so broadly it would encompass anyone with a social media account. Curious to see Freedman’s response.

I don't think it's normal at all to be avoiding discovery by sharing information via a drafts folder. Or trying to defeat discovery by screen sharing instead of sending an email. I guess this is how this kind of campaign becomes "untraceable."

What I find interesting is Wayfarer just wants to limit it to those who received login credentials. That appears to be tacitly admitting they did the draft thing, which I find wild, unless it's a game where they narrow the scope and then when it comes time to produce they respond by saying "oh, we don't have any."

In the emails they are also arguing about whether Jed's "team in Hawaii" exists.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So some new stuff is starting to get posted in the docket. This MTC is juicy. Lively alleges Wayfarer set up email accounts to communicate with journalists but saved things as drafts to avoid sending discoverable emails and then just gave access to the accounts! Wayfarer wants to limit this to only emails they gave login credentials for, but Lively argues they could have used other methods, like screen sharing.

They also want communications with content creators which Wayfarer seems to limit to those with over 10k followers who create original content.

https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.nysd.634304/gov.uscourts.nysd.634304.295.0.pdf

Right? Who would have suspected these underhanded methods of avoiding discovery? I also find it interesting to read the meet and confer and follow up correspondence (Attachment A). I've seen parties delay responses in this vein before: attempt to "negotiate" the requests down to something that would provide almost no useful information and meanwhile provide nothing.

I think the requests are over broad. There are likely many communications with the media about the film that are irrelevant to the allegations, i.e. just fluff pieces. Further, content creator is defined so broadly it would encompass anyone with a social media account. Curious to see Freedman’s response.

I don't think it's normal at all to be avoiding discovery by sharing information via a drafts folder. Or trying to defeat discovery by screen sharing instead of sending an email. I guess this is how this kind of campaign becomes "untraceable."

At this point, these are just allegations. Which is why I am interested in reading the response.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So some new stuff is starting to get posted in the docket. This MTC is juicy. Lively alleges Wayfarer set up email accounts to communicate with journalists but saved things as drafts to avoid sending discoverable emails and then just gave access to the accounts! Wayfarer wants to limit this to only emails they gave login credentials for, but Lively argues they could have used other methods, like screen sharing.

They also want communications with content creators which Wayfarer seems to limit to those with over 10k followers who create original content.

https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.nysd.634304/gov.uscourts.nysd.634304.295.0.pdf

Right? Who would have suspected these underhanded methods of avoiding discovery? I also find it interesting to read the meet and confer and follow up correspondence (Attachment A). I've seen parties delay responses in this vein before: attempt to "negotiate" the requests down to something that would provide almost no useful information and meanwhile provide nothing.

There are no such documents attached to the Exhibit A linked above.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So some new stuff is starting to get posted in the docket. This MTC is juicy. Lively alleges Wayfarer set up email accounts to communicate with journalists but saved things as drafts to avoid sending discoverable emails and then just gave access to the accounts! Wayfarer wants to limit this to only emails they gave login credentials for, but Lively argues they could have used other methods, like screen sharing.

They also want communications with content creators which Wayfarer seems to limit to those with over 10k followers who create original content.

https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.nysd.634304/gov.uscourts.nysd.634304.295.0.pdf

Right? Who would have suspected these underhanded methods of avoiding discovery? I also find it interesting to read the meet and confer and follow up correspondence (Attachment A). I've seen parties delay responses in this vein before: attempt to "negotiate" the requests down to something that would provide almost no useful information and meanwhile provide nothing.

There are no such documents attached to the Exhibit A linked above.

DP there's an attachment with an email thread between the attorneys.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So some new stuff is starting to get posted in the docket. This MTC is juicy. Lively alleges Wayfarer set up email accounts to communicate with journalists but saved things as drafts to avoid sending discoverable emails and then just gave access to the accounts! Wayfarer wants to limit this to only emails they gave login credentials for, but Lively argues they could have used other methods, like screen sharing.

They also want communications with content creators which Wayfarer seems to limit to those with over 10k followers who create original content.

https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.nysd.634304/gov.uscourts.nysd.634304.295.0.pdf

Right? Who would have suspected these underhanded methods of avoiding discovery? I also find it interesting to read the meet and confer and follow up correspondence (Attachment A). I've seen parties delay responses in this vein before: attempt to "negotiate" the requests down to something that would provide almost no useful information and meanwhile provide nothing.

I think the requests are over broad. There are likely many communications with the media about the film that are irrelevant to the allegations, i.e. just fluff pieces. Further, content creator is defined so broadly it would encompass anyone with a social media account. Curious to see Freedman’s response.

I don't think it's normal at all to be avoiding discovery by sharing information via a drafts folder. Or trying to defeat discovery by screen sharing instead of sending an email. I guess this is how this kind of campaign becomes "untraceable."

What I find interesting is Wayfarer just wants to limit it to those who received login credentials. That appears to be tacitly admitting they did the draft thing, which I find wild, unless it's a game where they narrow the scope and then when it comes time to produce they respond by saying "oh, we don't have any."

In the emails they are also arguing about whether Jed's "team in Hawaii" exists.

And Baldoni's attorney is arguing that they should be able to exclude providing contacts with people on Reddit, even though their own text messages talked about Reddit.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So some new stuff is starting to get posted in the docket. This MTC is juicy. Lively alleges Wayfarer set up email accounts to communicate with journalists but saved things as drafts to avoid sending discoverable emails and then just gave access to the accounts! Wayfarer wants to limit this to only emails they gave login credentials for, but Lively argues they could have used other methods, like screen sharing.

They also want communications with content creators which Wayfarer seems to limit to those with over 10k followers who create original content.

https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.nysd.634304/gov.uscourts.nysd.634304.295.0.pdf

Right? Who would have suspected these underhanded methods of avoiding discovery? I also find it interesting to read the meet and confer and follow up correspondence (Attachment A). I've seen parties delay responses in this vein before: attempt to "negotiate" the requests down to something that would provide almost no useful information and meanwhile provide nothing.

There are no such documents attached to the Exhibit A linked above.

DP there's an attachment with an email thread between the attorneys.

The document linked is only 7 pages and ends with a chart of the discovery requests. Is there another link for the emails?