Blake Lively- Jason Baldoni and NYT - False Light claims
![[Post New]](/jforum/templates/default/images/icon_minipost_new.gif){kind=icon}
Anonymous
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
Huh? I reported posts twice for sock puppeting and they were removed . It’s not in my head. Nice try though. |
Anonymous
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. |
Anonymous
Yeah, I am the other person who is constantly accused of this. I just wrote the docket update below. I never sock puppet on dcum (why on earth??) but am constantly accused of that and being a paid shill, like PP above. It’s so stupid. I enjoy responding to PPs posts sometimes, just like Baldoni supporters enjoy talking about the case with people who agree with them. That shouldn’t be weird or a surprise to you guys. But whatevs. Forget it, Jake, it’s Baldonitown. |
Anonymous
Yep, and I'm the another person who dipped in the other day (not a lawyer) and was immediately attacked and accused of being a sock puppet or a bot. The pro-Baldoni people here are insane. |
Anonymous
| Baldoni had better not come back in July and say they need another deposition with Lively when they’ve only produced 750 docs collectively so far amongst all their parties. That’s astoundingly bad. |
Anonymous
Agree and I usually get accused of being a Lively shill. I think Liman will agree with Wayfarer here. There's nothing for Wayfarer to turn over because Venable confirmed no documents were given. Lively OTOH does have to turn over any texts with Swift regarding this case. Although extortion is out, Lively's words that Swift was with her the whole team are effectively being used against her, so she'd need to turn over anything she said to Swift regarding SH on the set, for example. |
Anonymous
It sounds like all Blake has done is turn over the Wayfarer texts she got from Jones. Given she’s the plaintiff, that’s not great. |
Anonymous
And anything regarding social events, like Swift concerts and dinners, during the period she is claiming “garden variety” emotional distress. |
Anonymous
| Ok, none of you are sock puppeting. There’s a mysterious stranger who dips in, posts pro Lively things, sounds like you, but is someone else. Got it. |
Anonymous
| Oh hey suddenly Baldoni's attorneys have a problem with relying on double hearsay! |
Anonymous
Here's the quote from the opposition about that: "The crux of the Motion is that because a Daily Mail reporter quoted an unidentified “insider” as stating that the Wayfarer Parties obtained unspecified information from Ms. Swift, Ms. Lively should not be compelled to produce relevant communications with Ms. Swift in her own possession. (Dkt. 325, p. 2). Tellingly, Ms. Lively does not cite any legal authority for the proposition that such double-hearsay is a proper basis to preclude the Wayfarer Parties from obtaining relevant discovery from Ms. Lively, especially information which the Wayfarer Parties believe will further exculpate them." Like, it's fine to rely on double hearsay as the basis for your affidavit accusing opposing counsel of extortion, but when it's double hearsay citing to a Daily Mail reporter, sheesh, what are you thinking? As a different Lively supporters than the others above (I posted the docket update), I also tend to think Liman will require Lively to produce the Swift communications - at least those relevant to the remaining claims. I think this motion was designed to ferret out what communications Baldoni had received from Venable, and they are now being shown to say they have received no documents and are even calling the Daily Mail report saying they got what they wanted into question. I don't think Baldoni's attorneys are quite admitting that they didn't receive any information from Venable (as opposed to docs), but it seems clear that they won't be able to come in to Lively's dep showing docs from Venable that Lively hasn't seen. And if they do, these responses here seem to give Lively's attys reason to stop the dep imho. |
Anonymous
Hey, ask Jeff if you need to. Do it publicly by linking to our posts in the Website Feedback channel. |