Blake Lively- Jason Baldoni and NYT - False Light claims

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.nysd.634304/gov.uscourts.nysd.634304.347.0.pdf

This is a fun little email exchange that cuts off right where Melissa Nathan is about to talk about other stuff she and Jed worked on! Could potentially be relevant if they mention wanting similar work done for you know who.

Some Lively supporters had speculated that Wallace is very underground and doesn't put things in writing or even gets paid in bitcoin or untraceable methods, but here he is using email and reference is made to a subcontract and a w9.

Well if Wayfarer would just have produced some docs like this (which confirms that Wayfarer purchased the second of the two options for $30,000 PM (per month) for three months), things might have been easier. But somehow old Jed was just monitoring communications I guess for a whopping $30K/month, even though he seems to have a whole team and he said “this is our wheelhouse and have it prioritized across all platform specialists working for me.”

Also, Jed does communicate via discord, which to me is suss.

Just repeating that according to this little old document, Wallace's firm was getting paid 90 thousand dollars for three months of just "monitoring." And I think Wallace's earlier affidavit claims that nobody worked on this project besides him, so this was $30K/month just for his own work from August through October? He must have a "very special set of skills."

Here, in paragraph 16, Wallace says he was the only one on at Street Relations working on this project for Baldoni, so that's $30K/month for Wallace's "monitoring" lol okay.

How much do you think Blake’s PR team is being paid now? Not only for regular PR but for crisis PR? Curious to hear your thoughts

Millions of dollars.

[b]

No wonder they scream whenever anyone mentions settlement!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:About Drake v UMG, I actually got turned on to it from NAG's TikTok and read the pleadings like a good little nerd. It's an interesting case but there's nothing like this. They are not as deep into discovery so they're not making motions to compel/quash. Perhaps it will get more combative then, but I can't imagine there were be some of the crazy stuff like the Taylor Swift letter or the MSG deposition quote. It's just a regular lawsuit about an interesting topic, nothing like Lively v Wayfarer. I don't like Freedman but will grant some of the Lively supporters are OTT about it, and I sometimes find Lively's attorneys' motions have a whiny/tattletale quality.

I'll actually be super impressed if Gottlieb can survive MTD on actual malice for Drake while getting Wayfarer's case dismissed.

Who are UMGs lawyers? Do you post about them constantly on other forums?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:About Drake v UMG, I actually got turned on to it from NAG's TikTok and read the pleadings like a good little nerd. It's an interesting case but there's nothing like this. They are not as deep into discovery so they're not making motions to compel/quash. Perhaps it will get more combative then, but I can't imagine there were be some of the crazy stuff like the Taylor Swift letter or the MSG deposition quote. It's just a regular lawsuit about an interesting topic, nothing like Lively v Wayfarer. I don't like Freedman but will grant some of the Lively supporters are OTT about it, and I sometimes find Lively's attorneys' motions have a whiny/tattletale quality.

I'll actually be super impressed if Gottlieb can survive MTD on actual malice for Drake while getting Wayfarer's case dismissed.

Who are UMGs lawyers? Do you post about them constantly on other forums?

I don't know, they apparently aren't publicity seeking like some others.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.nysd.634304/gov.uscourts.nysd.634304.347.0.pdf

This is a fun little email exchange that cuts off right where Melissa Nathan is about to talk about other stuff she and Jed worked on! Could potentially be relevant if they mention wanting similar work done for you know who.

Some Lively supporters had speculated that Wallace is very underground and doesn't put things in writing or even gets paid in bitcoin or untraceable methods, but here he is using email and reference is made to a subcontract and a w9.

Yes, that cut off exchange where Nathan starts to reference prior work with Wallace is pretty tantalizing. Depending on how that email ends, we really could see discovery and exploration of the Depp/Heard trial in this case. Would be directly relevant if Nathan was using TAG's work for Depp against Heard as a selling point with Baldoni and Wayfarer. Couple that with, for instance, Baldoni's text with the screen shot of a tweet calling Hailey Bieber a "mean girl" (which, btw, is a take that is really aging like milk!) and saying "we need this" and it just becomes increasingly hard to see how this wasn't a retaliatory campaign.

"Please destroy Blake Lively the same way you destroyed Amber Heard and the way Hailey Bieber is currently being ripped apart online, quickly before she tells anyone about her experiences with me on the set of this movie." It's not a good look!

Right? Agree.

This letter also hearkens back to Quote One (175K) and Quote 2 ($25K, which goes up to $30K) from the Melissa Nathan email, shows that Wayfarer chose Quote 2, which that email said "will be for creation of social fan engagement to go back and forth with any negative accounts helping to change narrative and stay on track." I don't understand how Wallace could have been performing this work for $30K/month (more than originally quoted), not have a team or be working with anyone, but also only be monitoring socials and not actually doing any of the work he said he would be doing in this description (like going back and forth with any negative accounts helping to change narrative). Something seems very wrong here. At the same time, Wallace must have known this would get produced, so how could he sign that declaration? It just makes no sense.

[Anonymous]

How much do you think Nick Shapiro charges a month for his psy ops skills for Lively crisis PR?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.nysd.634304/gov.uscourts.nysd.634304.347.0.pdf

This is a fun little email exchange that cuts off right where Melissa Nathan is about to talk about other stuff she and Jed worked on! Could potentially be relevant if they mention wanting similar work done for you know who.

Some Lively supporters had speculated that Wallace is very underground and doesn't put things in writing or even gets paid in bitcoin or untraceable methods, but here he is using email and reference is made to a subcontract and a w9.

Yes, that cut off exchange where Nathan starts to reference prior work with Wallace is pretty tantalizing. Depending on how that email ends, we really could see discovery and exploration of the Depp/Heard trial in this case. Would be directly relevant if Nathan was using TAG's work for Depp against Heard as a selling point with Baldoni and Wayfarer. Couple that with, for instance, Baldoni's text with the screen shot of a tweet calling Hailey Bieber a "mean girl" (which, btw, is a take that is really aging like milk!) and saying "we need this" and it just becomes increasingly hard to see how this wasn't a retaliatory campaign.

"Please destroy Blake Lively the same way you destroyed Amber Heard and the way Hailey Bieber is currently being ripped apart online, quickly before she tells anyone about her experiences with me on the set of this movie." It's not a good look!

Right? Agree.

This letter also hearkens back to Quote One (175K) and Quote 2 ($25K, which goes up to $30K) from the Melissa Nathan email, shows that Wayfarer chose Quote 2, which that email said "will be for creation of social fan engagement to go back and forth with any negative accounts helping to change narrative and stay on track." I don't understand how Wallace could have been performing this work for $30K/month (more than originally quoted), not have a team or be working with anyone, but also only be monitoring socials and not actually doing any of the work he said he would be doing in this description (like going back and forth with any negative accounts helping to change narrative). Something seems very wrong here. At the same time, Wallace must have known this would get produced, so how could he sign that declaration? It just makes no sense.

Ohhh, maybe Baldoni should sue TAG and Street Relations for breach of contract and breach of implied contract of good faith and fair dealing, since they lied about the services and never provided them! That would probably survive MTD. They have Melissa Nathan's texts outlining the services vs sworn declarations these services were never rendered.

[Anonymous]

Did anyone see the comments under the Vogue piece? Wow. Harsh. People don’t trust or like Blake

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Did anyone see the comments under the Vogue piece? Wow. Harsh. People don’t trust or like Blake

She needs to settle.

[Anonymous]

This is hilarious. This woman puts the drama to song

The Real Feelings of Blake Lively in a song
https://www.reddit.com/r/teamjustinbaldoni/s/dkJsWEHxpj

LOVE

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.nysd.634304/gov.uscourts.nysd.634304.347.0.pdf

This is a fun little email exchange that cuts off right where Melissa Nathan is about to talk about other stuff she and Jed worked on! Could potentially be relevant if they mention wanting similar work done for you know who.

Some Lively supporters had speculated that Wallace is very underground and doesn't put things in writing or even gets paid in bitcoin or untraceable methods, but here he is using email and reference is made to a subcontract and a w9.

Yes, that cut off exchange where Nathan starts to reference prior work with Wallace is pretty tantalizing. Depending on how that email ends, we really could see discovery and exploration of the Depp/Heard trial in this case. Would be directly relevant if Nathan was using TAG's work for Depp against Heard as a selling point with Baldoni and Wayfarer. Couple that with, for instance, Baldoni's text with the screen shot of a tweet calling Hailey Bieber a "mean girl" (which, btw, is a take that is really aging like milk!) and saying "we need this" and it just becomes increasingly hard to see how this wasn't a retaliatory campaign.

"Please destroy Blake Lively the same way you destroyed Amber Heard and the way Hailey Bieber is currently being ripped apart online, quickly before she tells anyone about her experiences with me on the set of this movie." It's not a good look!

Right? Agree.

This letter also hearkens back to Quote One (175K) and Quote 2 ($25K, which goes up to $30K) from the Melissa Nathan email, shows that Wayfarer chose Quote 2, which that email said "will be for creation of social fan engagement to go back and forth with any negative accounts helping to change narrative and stay on track." I don't understand how Wallace could have been performing this work for $30K/month (more than originally quoted), not have a team or be working with anyone, but also only be monitoring socials and not actually doing any of the work he said he would be doing in this description (like going back and forth with any negative accounts helping to change narrative). Something seems very wrong here. At the same time, Wallace must have known this would get produced, so how could he sign that declaration? It just makes no sense.

Ohhh, maybe Baldoni should sue TAG and Street Relations for breach of contract and breach of implied contract of good faith and fair dealing, since they lied about the services and never provided them! That would probably survive MTD. They have Melissa Nathan's texts outlining the services vs sworn declarations these services were never rendered.

Right? They could also sue for double and triple billing for the same non-performed services because lol Baldoni was already paying Melissa Nathan at TAG $15K/month for PR services that already included monitoring socials ("Work with Jonesworks and team to monitor relevant coverage and social conversations...") -- and I think he was paying/supposed to be paying Jonesworks $25K/month for basically the same. So I think this was about $70K/month for monitoring that Jed says he was doing all by himself, even though that work was supposed to be done by Nathan and Jones, and even though he was supposed to be using that money to go back and forth with any negative accounts helping to change the narrative!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Did anyone see the comments under the Vogue piece? Wow. Harsh. People don’t trust or like Blake

She needs to settle.

Do you think $400M would be enough?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Did anyone see the comments under the Vogue piece? Wow. Harsh. People don’t trust or like Blake

She needs to settle.

Do you think $400M would be enough?

1.2 billion.Treble damages.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Did anyone see the comments under the Vogue piece? Wow. Harsh. People don’t trust or like Blake

She needs to settle.

Do you think $400M would be enough?

1.2 billion.Treble damages.

Plus, part of the settlement should be that Freedman gets to depose Lively in Madison Square Gardens once a year until either of them dies. I'm not sure that would be enough for Baldoni stans though.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think Ellyn Garofalo has been subbed into the game and is moving to quash a new subpoena filed on Freedman's law firm, Liner Freedman Taitelman Cooley, having filed a new motion to Quash Subpoena in C.D. Cal. (so different case number than Liman's docket). They've filed a joint stip. laying out each side's version of the facts. Lively is asking the court to transfer the issue back to Liman (noting Liner Freedman has a NY office). Liner Freedman says the asks are way too intrusive, asking for the law firms contacts and communications with media outlets, digital providers, and even the law firm's financial and telephone records.

From the affidavit, it looks like this subpoena was served back on May 20.

Here is the docket for this CD Cal proceeding: https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/70536155/liner-freedman-taitelman-coolet-llp-v-lively/

I can't believe they both signed on to this document. Is this typical? This isn't the kind of stipulation where they only outline stuff they agree on (like Lively's withdrawal of her emotional distress claims). As PP said, they both lay out their arguments in what would typically be a motion and an opposition, but they're all together. Lively's lawyers say some pretty harsh stuff about BF, and then his law firm is signatory! Like, I'm trying to imagine the two firms going back and forth making edits to this document and then signing off, and I can't.

Wayfarer counsel seems to mostly recycle the same argument while Lively's are a bit more customized. There's two different tests they could use to permit discovery on attorneys. A 3-prong test used in California and a more flexible one from NY. I think Lively has a decent argument even on the harder California test. I sort of agree with Wayfarer's point about content creators because it could be literally anyone with a personal social media account, and yet I understand what Lively means and why they don't want to define it too narrowly. This is very interesting because the whole case is about seeding negative content as retaliation, and you shouldn't be able to "wash" it by doing it through an attorney, which is ordinarily not something you'd believe an attorney would do, but they present some articles about BF's style I think we're all familiar with and point out, by name, two of his clients who post a lot of content about Lively (Megyn Kelly and Perez Hilton). I think Lively's requests are broad, but not really overbroad for the most part (limited by date and limited to communications regarding Lively, Reynolds and the case, etc), not like the crazy subpoena where they wanted all of the phone records of all the Wayfarer people regardless of relevance to the case. Wayfarer's counsel keeps saying these communications are not crucial (one of the elements of the California test) to Lively's SH and emotional distress claims, and Lively's counsel answers the obvious (duh, it's the retaliation claim). The whole document is laid out as Lively's request, Wayfarer's response, and Lively's counterargument, which kind of biases the document towards Lively because they always get the last word (but I do also find their arguments generally better).

As for why they want to go back to Liman, not sure, but may be fodder for those who believe he is biased for Lively. Lively lays out a pretty good argument for communications that at heart I don't believe are privileged (ie, between the law firm and the media, not for the purpose of defending the case). It could go Wayfarer's way or he might want them to confer more. My prediction is to some extent Lively is going to get discovery on this, within these basic parameters but maybe narrower dates or categories (notice how I'm not saying this is definitely going to happen and anyone who doesn't agree is not a real lawyer, doesn't know what they're talking about, etc). One argument they make is that before the litigation, BF is more of a witness than opposing counsel, so I could see them getting only things from before the CRD was commenced, even though they argue the retaliation is ongoing and, really, the general Lively narrative is that the Wayfarer lawsuit itself and all the press surrounding it is part of the retaliatory campaign, and they've done a good job building to that narrative (see also the MTDs, sanctions motions) but I don't see Liman going that far.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think Ellyn Garofalo has been subbed into the game and is moving to quash a new subpoena filed on Freedman's law firm, Liner Freedman Taitelman Cooley, having filed a new motion to Quash Subpoena in C.D. Cal. (so different case number than Liman's docket). They've filed a joint stip. laying out each side's version of the facts. Lively is asking the court to transfer the issue back to Liman (noting Liner Freedman has a NY office). Liner Freedman says the asks are way too intrusive, asking for the law firms contacts and communications with media outlets, digital providers, and even the law firm's financial and telephone records.

From the affidavit, it looks like this subpoena was served back on May 20.

Here is the docket for this CD Cal proceeding: https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/70536155/liner-freedman-taitelman-coolet-llp-v-lively/

I can't believe they both signed on to this document. Is this typical? This isn't the kind of stipulation where they only outline stuff they agree on (like Lively's withdrawal of her emotional distress claims). As PP said, they both lay out their arguments in what would typically be a motion and an opposition, but they're all together. Lively's lawyers say some pretty harsh stuff about BF, and then his law firm is signatory! Like, I'm trying to imagine the two firms going back and forth making edits to this document and then signing off, and I can't.

Wayfarer counsel seems to mostly recycle the same argument while Lively's are a bit more customized. There's two different tests they could use to permit discovery on attorneys. A 3-prong test used in California and a more flexible one from NY. I think Lively has a decent argument even on the harder California test. I sort of agree with Wayfarer's point about content creators because it could be literally anyone with a personal social media account, and yet I understand what Lively means and why they don't want to define it too narrowly. This is very interesting because the whole case is about seeding negative content as retaliation, and you shouldn't be able to "wash" it by doing it through an attorney, which is ordinarily not something you'd believe an attorney would do, but they present some articles about BF's style I think we're all familiar with and point out, by name, two of his clients who post a lot of content about Lively (Megyn Kelly and Perez Hilton). I think Lively's requests are broad, but not really overbroad for the most part (limited by date and limited to communications regarding Lively, Reynolds and the case, etc), not like the crazy subpoena where they wanted all of the phone records of all the Wayfarer people regardless of relevance to the case. Wayfarer's counsel keeps saying these communications are not crucial (one of the elements of the California test) to Lively's SH and emotional distress claims, and Lively's counsel answers the obvious (duh, it's the retaliation claim). The whole document is laid out as Lively's request, Wayfarer's response, and Lively's counterargument, which kind of biases the document towards Lively because they always get the last word (but I do also find their arguments generally better).

As for why they want to go back to Liman, not sure, but may be fodder for those who believe he is biased for Lively. Lively lays out a pretty good argument for communications that at heart I don't believe are privileged (ie, between the law firm and the media, not for the purpose of defending the case). It could go Wayfarer's way or he might want them to confer more. My prediction is to some extent Lively is going to get discovery on this, within these basic parameters but maybe narrower dates or categories (notice how I'm not saying this is definitely going to happen and anyone who doesn't agree is not a real lawyer, doesn't know what they're talking about, etc). One argument they make is that before the litigation, BF is more of a witness than opposing counsel, so I could see them getting only things from before the CRD was commenced, even though they argue the retaliation is ongoing and, really, the general Lively narrative is that the Wayfarer lawsuit itself and all the press surrounding it is part of the retaliatory campaign, and they've done a good job building to that narrative (see also the MTDs, sanctions motions) but I don't see Liman going that far.

This all seems very silly. Every counsel will have had contact with media, including Hudson and Gottlieb in this case. It makes me think Blake really has nothing to support the retaliation case and is grasping at straws.