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.

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!

The Bates numbers on here (begin with "SR") suggest that this doc was produced by Street Relations, Wallace's firm (and that this doc was part of it's first production). It looks like an electronically produced doc to me, not a hard copy. If so, I expect that the next page(s) of it must have been produced -- an email from an electronic dataset likely won't have been cut off mid-doc, like a hard copy doc might be. I expect the Lively parties do have the next page of this doc. It's interesting to me that this doc is cut off where it is because it was attached as an exhibit to an Esra Hudson motion by Manatt -- so I think the *Lively parties* and not Wallace made the decision to cut the doc short. I wonder why?

We all know why, it doesn’t help and likely puts the part the excerpted in context.

I guess. If it said something like jed has worked with us on some important cases, I wouldn't have thought twice about it. So it's annoying if they cut it off to let our imaginations run wild.

If it was actually exculpatory, Wallace could just insist on providing the whole document tbh, so I doubt it is.

I think this is going to trial, so we'll eventually know more either way, if we don't get it sooner via the docket.

[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.

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!

The Bates numbers on here (begin with "SR") suggest that this doc was produced by Street Relations, Wallace's firm (and that this doc was part of it's first production). It looks like an electronically produced doc to me, not a hard copy. If so, I expect that the next page(s) of it must have been produced -- an email from an electronic dataset likely won't have been cut off mid-doc, like a hard copy doc might be. I expect the Lively parties do have the next page of this doc. It's interesting to me that this doc is cut off where it is because it was attached as an exhibit to an Esra Hudson motion by Manatt -- so I think the *Lively parties* and not Wallace made the decision to cut the doc short. I wonder why?

We all know why, it doesn’t help and likely puts the part the excerpted in context.

I guess. If it said something like jed has worked with us on some important cases, I wouldn't have thought twice about it. So it's annoying if they cut it off to let our imaginations run wild.

If it was actually exculpatory, Wallace could just insist on providing the whole document tbh, so I doubt it is.

Agree with this. The most likely reason it cuts off is because they mention names of clients and they fall under the AEO protective order.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

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!

The Bates numbers on here (begin with "SR") suggest that this doc was produced by Street Relations, Wallace's firm (and that this doc was part of it's first production). It looks like an electronically produced doc to me, not a hard copy. If so, I expect that the next page(s) of it must have been produced -- an email from an electronic dataset likely won't have been cut off mid-doc, like a hard copy doc might be. I expect the Lively parties do have the next page of this doc. It's interesting to me that this doc is cut off where it is because it was attached as an exhibit to an Esra Hudson motion by Manatt -- so I think the *Lively parties* and not Wallace made the decision to cut the doc short. I wonder why?

We all know why, it doesn’t help and likely puts the part the excerpted in context.

I guess. If it said something like jed has worked with us on some important cases, I wouldn't have thought twice about it. So it's annoying if they cut it off to let our imaginations run wild.

If it was actually exculpatory, Wallace could just insist on providing the whole document tbh, so I doubt it is.

Agree with this. The most likely reason it cuts off is because they mention names of clients and they fall under the AEO protective order.

I often wonder if anyone here is actually a lawyer. That would not be a reason to cut off a document, o it would just be redacted.

[Anonymous]

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.

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!

The Bates numbers on here (begin with "SR") suggest that this doc was produced by Street Relations, Wallace's firm (and that this doc was part of it's first production). It looks like an electronically produced doc to me, not a hard copy. If so, I expect that the next page(s) of it must have been produced -- an email from an electronic dataset likely won't have been cut off mid-doc, like a hard copy doc might be. I expect the Lively parties do have the next page of this doc. It's interesting to me that this doc is cut off where it is because it was attached as an exhibit to an Esra Hudson motion by Manatt -- so I think the *Lively parties* and not Wallace made the decision to cut the doc short. I wonder why?

We all know why, it doesn’t help and likely puts the part the excerpted in context.

I mean, I understand why you want to see it that way. Maybe. Or, they might be saving it. We already know that Gottlieb knew since May 22 that Freedman got no docs from Venable through a production, but held that fact close to his chest. What other stuff is he sitting on?

For a whole two and a half weeks?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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

Which Vogue piece? She's in it all the time, it seems.

Vogue mistakenly left comments open on their Instagram when they posted a pic of Blake. Oops.

Can’t control everything, PR folks

https://www.reddit.com/r/teamjustinbaldoni/comments/1l89ytn/vogue_comments_are_lit_after_featuring_blake/

It’s only “two” when she remembers to post from a different IP address which is why she’s been caught sock puppeting by me twice.

From the vogue insta comments. Someone posted something along these lines…

‘Blake and Ryan have made a mockery of domestic violence and sexual harassment. They are an insult to REAL victims… we are watching’

Wow. They have really upset people!

Wait. "Someone" wrote that? Whoa. I always defer to the judgment of someone. And they have an Instagram account? Sounds very legit. Thanks for posting this important source.

I really hate it when I upset "someone." Oh noes!

Lol dynamic PR duo at it again!

Yes, a person wrote that. Unlike you two, I’m not interested in stalking or doxing people or asking them to meet up in DC area parking lots to ‘prove’ they’re real.

Wow, your billable hours must be really low this month!! Aren’t you worried about your bonus??

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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

Which Vogue piece? She's in it all the time, it seems.

Vogue mistakenly left comments open on their Instagram when they posted a pic of Blake. Oops.

Can’t control everything, PR folks

https://www.reddit.com/r/teamjustinbaldoni/comments/1l89ytn/vogue_comments_are_lit_after_featuring_blake/

It’s only “two” when she remembers to post from a different IP address which is why she’s been caught sock puppeting by me twice.

From the vogue insta comments. Someone posted something along these lines…

‘Blake and Ryan have made a mockery of domestic violence and sexual harassment. They are an insult to REAL victims… we are watching’

Wow. They have really upset people!

Wait. "Someone" wrote that? Whoa. I always defer to the judgment of someone. And they have an Instagram account? Sounds very legit. Thanks for posting this important source.

I really hate it when I upset "someone." Oh noes!

Lol dynamic PR duo at it again!

Yes, a person wrote that. Unlike you two, I’m not interested in stalking or doxing people or asking them to meet up in DC area parking lots to ‘prove’ they’re real.

Wow, your billable hours must be really low this month!! Aren’t you worried about your bonus??

It’s only “two” when she remembers to post from a different IP address which is why she’s been caught sock puppeting by me twice.

[Anonymous]

Did u forget how to post lol?

Someone has claimed they found sock purporting but Jeff has never said so, so this sounds to me like it’s in your head tbh. I am definitely not the only Lively supporter in this thread, I’m not sock puppeting, and when I’m responding to my own post (to follow up on a point), I say so.

It’s always so weird to me that some of the Baldoni stans are the way they are, because they excoriate Lively for being a supposed mean girl but that is absolutely their own identity. That’s why this thread always takes me back to high school.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

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!

The Bates numbers on here (begin with "SR") suggest that this doc was produced by Street Relations, Wallace's firm (and that this doc was part of it's first production). It looks like an electronically produced doc to me, not a hard copy. If so, I expect that the next page(s) of it must have been produced -- an email from an electronic dataset likely won't have been cut off mid-doc, like a hard copy doc might be. I expect the Lively parties do have the next page of this doc. It's interesting to me that this doc is cut off where it is because it was attached as an exhibit to an Esra Hudson motion by Manatt -- so I think the *Lively parties* and not Wallace made the decision to cut the doc short. I wonder why?

We all know why, it doesn’t help and likely puts the part the excerpted in context.

I guess. If it said something like jed has worked with us on some important cases, I wouldn't have thought twice about it. So it's annoying if they cut it off to let our imaginations run wild.

If it was actually exculpatory, Wallace could just insist on providing the whole document tbh, so I doubt it is.

Agree with this. The most likely reason it cuts off is because they mention names of clients and they fall under the AEO protective order.

I often wonder if anyone here is actually a lawyer. That would not be a reason to cut off a document, o it would just be redacted.

PP could have meant that this info was redacted for AEO on this “confidential” level doc so producing it would reveal no further info, but kudos for once again insulting first rather than giving the benefit of the doubt.

Anyway, even if redacted in this confidential doc as AEO, this info should exist on a lawyers only version somewhere with Lively’s lawyers (so *they* will know what it says), though I haven’t read the PO closely enough and could be wrong.

[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

Which Vogue piece? She's in it all the time, it seems.

Speaking of Vogue, they report her wedding dress was Marchesa?!

https://www.vogue.co.uk/gallery/blake-lively-wedding-dress-marchesa-bridal-gown-married-ryan-reynolds

Yet, if you go to Marchesa's wikipedia, no mention of Blake Lively as one of the famous actresses who wore Harvey's wife's fashion label. Weird!

I guess shes just toxic right now. Do you think her current campaign is helping or hurting her? I think it’s only hurting her because it comes across as so phony and people notice and it only makes them madder

Wondering what you guys would make of it if Lively supporters started leaving negative comments on Baldoni’s or his wife’s posts talking about his harassment and smear campaign? I don’t ever and wouldn’t ever, but it sounds like you guys delight in this kind of “truth-telling” online meanness.

Also wonder at what point you feel a celebrity has an obligation to step in and asking their fans NOT to leave negative online comments? I would think with Baldoni’s feminist schtick, he would be against fans doing this sort of thing. But I guess he is okay with it. I suspect it feeds his ego tbh. I believe other celebs have done this like Swift.

I’m not sure negative comments like these are really hurting Lively at this point tbh. Her people can investigate whether they’re actually organic, for one. And two, if they are, I think Lively could point at them to show how her rep has been damaged by Baldoni’s earlier smear (assuming she can prove that). So it could help prove damages.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Did u forget how to post lol?

Someone has claimed they found sock purporting but Jeff has never said so, so this sounds to me like it’s in your head tbh. I am definitely not the only Lively supporter in this thread, I’m not sock puppeting, and when I’m responding to my own post (to follow up on a point), I say so.

It’s always so weird to me that some of the Baldoni stans are the way they are, because they excoriate Lively for being a supposed mean girl but that is absolutely their own identity. That’s why this thread always takes me back to high school.

It’s not in my head, the pro Lively posts I reported for sock puppeting were removed. And they were “in the style” of “two”prolific Lively posters here.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Did u forget how to post lol?

Someone has claimed they found sock purporting but Jeff has never said so, so this sounds to me like it’s in your head tbh. I am definitely not the only Lively supporter in this thread, I’m not sock puppeting, and when I’m responding to my own post (to follow up on a point), I say so.

It’s always so weird to me that some of the Baldoni stans are the way they are, because they excoriate Lively for being a supposed mean girl but that is absolutely their own identity. That’s why this thread always takes me back to high school.

It’s not in my head, the pro Lively posts I reported for sock puppeting were removed. And they were “in the style” of “two”prolific Lively posters here.

I've been accused of being one of these two "prolific" Lively posters here, and I've never sock puppeted or had my posts deleted. I've also seen other posters who are not me accused of this.

Basically anyone who posts comments supporting Lively on this thread is accused of being a bot, and if anyone agrees with a Lively post, they are accused of sock puppeting and/or being a "paid shill."

I honestly don't get why it's so hard for you to accept that some people just think Lively's in the right in this situation. I don't struggle to accept that some people disagree with me -- obviously they do.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Did u forget how to post lol?

Someone has claimed they found sock purporting but Jeff has never said so, so this sounds to me like it’s in your head tbh. I am definitely not the only Lively supporter in this thread, I’m not sock puppeting, and when I’m responding to my own post (to follow up on a point), I say so.

It’s always so weird to me that some of the Baldoni stans are the way they are, because they excoriate Lively for being a supposed mean girl but that is absolutely their own identity. That’s why this thread always takes me back to high school.

It’s not in my head, the pro Lively posts I reported for sock puppeting were removed. And they were “in the style” of “two”prolific Lively posters here.

I've been accused of being one of these two "prolific" Lively posters here, and I've never sock puppeted or had my posts deleted. I've also seen other posters who are not me accused of this.

Basically anyone who posts comments supporting Lively on this thread is accused of being a bot, and if anyone agrees with a Lively post, they are accused of sock puppeting and/or being a "paid shill."

I honestly don't get why it's so hard for you to accept that some people just think Lively's in the right in this situation. I don't struggle to accept that some people disagree with me -- obviously they do.

Huh? I reported posts twice for sock puppeting and they were removed . It’s not in my head. Nice try though.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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

Which Vogue piece? She's in it all the time, it seems.

Speaking of Vogue, they report her wedding dress was Marchesa?!

https://www.vogue.co.uk/gallery/blake-lively-wedding-dress-marchesa-bridal-gown-married-ryan-reynolds

Yet, if you go to Marchesa's wikipedia, no mention of Blake Lively as one of the famous actresses who wore Harvey's wife's fashion label. Weird!

I guess shes just toxic right now. Do you think her current campaign is helping or hurting her? I think it’s only hurting her because it comes across as so phony and people notice and it only makes them madder

Wondering what you guys would make of it if Lively supporters started leaving negative comments on Baldoni’s or his wife’s posts talking about his harassment and smear campaign? I don’t ever and wouldn’t ever, but it sounds like you guys delight in this kind of “truth-telling” online meanness.

Also wonder at what point you feel a celebrity has an obligation to step in and asking their fans NOT to leave negative online comments? I would think with Baldoni’s feminist schtick, he would be against fans doing this sort of thing. But I guess he is okay with it. I suspect it feeds his ego tbh. I believe other celebs have done this like Swift.

I’m not sure negative comments like these are really hurting Lively at this point tbh. Her people can investigate whether they’re actually organic, for one. And two, if they are, I think Lively could point at them to show how her rep has been damaged by Baldoni’s earlier smear (assuming she can prove that). So it could help prove damages.

They are there, just fewer of them.

[Anonymous]

Baldoni has filed a response to Lively's motion for a protective order against the Swift subpoena requesting documents, saying basically Lively is required to submit these docs and they're still responsive re her garden variety emotional distress claims. Letter also notes that no "communications between Ms. Lively and Ms. Swift" have been provided to the Wayfarer parties. Baldoni is narrowing down the to/from parties here to focus on the fact that the communications required by the subpoena involve Swift and Lively only (not the attorneys, etc). Baldoni is saying these communications are still relevant because Lively claimed Swift was with her through the project the whole way and because communications after various incidents occurred could reflect Lively's level of distress/non-distress.

Attached declaration also claims Lively refused to properly meet and confer before filing its motion for protective order. The declaration also says Lively's attorneys haven't responded to some other doc requests from the first set of RFPs, and has just promised to provide those docs (besides the Swift docs) before the substantial completion date of July 1.

The email chain with the parties correspondence is revealing as always and notes the following:
* Lively's deposition is scheduled for Monday, June 23 - less than a week away!
* Doc production status: Baldoni's attorney Fritz complained that as of 6/12, Lively had produced only documents obtained through her company VanZan, to which Lively responded they are making rolling productions and have already produced docs from Sony and WME). Then Lively's attorneys recounted doc production history so far reflecting that Lively had produced 3 or 4 times as many docs as Baldoni has so far: "This is the first time that you have raised a concern with the pace of Ms. Lively’s productions, and the Wayfarer Parties have only made two voluntarily productions, or three including the compelled production. Ms. Lively has also produced 2,832 documents, and all of the Wayfarer Parties collectively have produced only 754 documents (including those that were compelled). In any event, Ms. Lively intends to make her next production tomorrow (6/13), and to make regular rolling productions thereafter that will satisfy substantial completion obligations by July 1."

Baldoni Opposition: https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.nysd.634304/gov.uscourts.nysd.634304.351.0.pdf

Declaration: https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.nysd.634304/gov.uscourts.nysd.634304.352.0.pdf

Email chain: https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.nysd.634304/gov.uscourts.nysd.634304.352.4.pdf

Fritz for Baldoni also filed an Opposition to Lively's motion to compel interrogatory responses involving the content providers and etc. they share information with:

https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.nysd.634304/gov.uscourts.nysd.634304.353.0.pdf

[Anonymous]

The Baldoni response to the protective order is quite good, I don’t think Lively gets it.