Blake Lively- Jason Baldoni and NYT - False Light claims

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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.

Hey, ask Jeff if you need to. Do it publicly by linking to our posts in the Website Feedback channel.

I don’t need it, he would not have removed the posts if they weren’t sock puppeting. I have a very good idea of who's the liar.

Just FYI, I don't know to which posts you are referring but the most recent post I deleted for "sock puppeting" was not actually a case of sock puppeting. Rather, a poster reported a post for sock puppeting, but I determined the post was not sock puppeted. Then the same post was reported a second time for sock puppeting. That time, I was about half asleep and not fully cognizant of what I was doing and I deleted the post. I immediately realized that I should not have deleted it.

Since that incident, I have been receiving 10 or more reports per day about sock puppeting in this thread. I have been summarily deleting them and not even bothering to check. I really wish the reports would stop.

Also, if all posters in this thread are going to so is accuse each other of sock puppeting and then drive me crazy with reports, I don't really see a reason to keep this thread going. So either get back to discussing the topic of the thread or prepare for it to be locked.

THANK YOU JEFF! In Lively/Baldoni terms, this is like when Judge Liman dismissed all of Baldoni’s claims last week!!!

We will get back to it lol! Thank you!

DP

Interesting. The PR campaign is being noticed and commented on by Tik Tok as well.
https://www.reddit.com/r/teamjustinbaldoni/s/tWCY1gixCG

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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.

Hey, ask Jeff if you need to. Do it publicly by linking to our posts in the Website Feedback channel.

I don’t need it, he would not have removed the posts if they weren’t sock puppeting. I have a very good idea of who's the liar.

Just FYI, I don't know to which posts you are referring but the most recent post I deleted for "sock puppeting" was not actually a case of sock puppeting. Rather, a poster reported a post for sock puppeting, but I determined the post was not sock puppeted. Then the same post was reported a second time for sock puppeting. That time, I was about half asleep and not fully cognizant of what I was doing and I deleted the post. I immediately realized that I should not have deleted it.

Since that incident, I have been receiving 10 or more reports per day about sock puppeting in this thread. I have been summarily deleting them and not even bothering to check. I really wish the reports would stop.

Also, if all posters in this thread are going to so is accuse each other of sock puppeting and then drive me crazy with reports, I don't really see a reason to keep this thread going. So either get back to discussing the topic of the thread or prepare for it to be locked.

THANK YOU JEFF! In Lively/Baldoni terms, this is like when Judge Liman dismissed all of Baldoni’s claims last week!!!

We will get back to it lol! Thank you!

DP

Interesting. The PR campaign is being noticed and commented on by Tik Tok as well.
https://www.reddit.com/r/teamjustinbaldoni/s/tWCY1gixCG

This person is wearing bunny ears.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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.

Hey, ask Jeff if you need to. Do it publicly by linking to our posts in the Website Feedback channel.

I don’t need it, he would not have removed the posts if they weren’t sock puppeting. I have a very good idea of who's the liar.

Just FYI, I don't know to which posts you are referring but the most recent post I deleted for "sock puppeting" was not actually a case of sock puppeting. Rather, a poster reported a post for sock puppeting, but I determined the post was not sock puppeted. Then the same post was reported a second time for sock puppeting. That time, I was about half asleep and not fully cognizant of what I was doing and I deleted the post. I immediately realized that I should not have deleted it.

Since that incident, I have been receiving 10 or more reports per day about sock puppeting in this thread. I have been summarily deleting them and not even bothering to check. I really wish the reports would stop.

Also, if all posters in this thread are going to so is accuse each other of sock puppeting and then drive me crazy with reports, I don't really see a reason to keep this thread going. So either get back to discussing the topic of the thread or prepare for it to be locked.

THANK YOU JEFF! In Lively/Baldoni terms, this is like when Judge Liman dismissed all of Baldoni’s claims last week!!!

We will get back to it lol! Thank you!

DP

Interesting. The PR campaign is being noticed and commented on by Tik Tok as well.
https://www.reddit.com/r/teamjustinbaldoni/s/tWCY1gixCG

Lady, Jeff specifically came in here and told you there was not a sock puppetting problem and stop bugging him about it, and your counter to this is this bizarre TikTok person? She came on screen and I just noped out.

[Anonymous]

Attorney Maxwell Breed has filed a response on behalf on the two non-party TAG employees/former employees, here: https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.nysd.634304/gov.uscourts.nysd.634304.358.0.pdf

These are the TAG people who Lively offered to pay the costs of hosting and producing their docs to enable them to produce them, but later could not agree on terms and dates etc.

I thought a little fun thing about this is that his deadline is today, and he filed his letter after hours, at like 9:30 EST. His letter refers to a declaration and nine exhibits, which were not attached. So it was weird when nothing more got filed on the docket until about 15 minutes ago: The declaration!

So he and/or his paralegal have about 45 minutes to get those remaining 9 exhibits filed. Unless there is some lag between CourtListener and Pacer (I haven't noticed that before). Good luck Mr. Breed!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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.

Hey, ask Jeff if you need to. Do it publicly by linking to our posts in the Website Feedback channel.

I don’t need it, he would not have removed the posts if they weren’t sock puppeting. I have a very good idea of who's the liar.

Just FYI, I don't know to which posts you are referring but the most recent post I deleted for "sock puppeting" was not actually a case of sock puppeting. Rather, a poster reported a post for sock puppeting, but I determined the post was not sock puppeted. Then the same post was reported a second time for sock puppeting. That time, I was about half asleep and not fully cognizant of what I was doing and I deleted the post. I immediately realized that I should not have deleted it.

Since that incident, I have been receiving 10 or more reports per day about sock puppeting in this thread. I have been summarily deleting them and not even bothering to check. I really wish the reports would stop.

Also, if all posters in this thread are going to so is accuse each other of sock puppeting and then drive me crazy with reports, I don't really see a reason to keep this thread going. So either get back to discussing the topic of the thread or prepare for it to be locked.

THANK YOU JEFF! In Lively/Baldoni terms, this is like when Judge Liman dismissed all of Baldoni’s claims last week!!!

We will get back to it lol! Thank you!

DP

Interesting. The PR campaign is being noticed and commented on by Tik Tok as well.
https://www.reddit.com/r/teamjustinbaldoni/s/tWCY1gixCG

Lady, Jeff specifically came in here and told you there was not a sock puppetting problem and stop bugging him about it, and your counter to this is this bizarre TikTok person? She came on screen and I just noped out.

Stop being so defensive! People are allowed to comment on things. Relax

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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.

Hey, ask Jeff if you need to. Do it publicly by linking to our posts in the Website Feedback channel.

I don’t need it, he would not have removed the posts if they weren’t sock puppeting. I have a very good idea of who's the liar.

Just FYI, I don't know to which posts you are referring but the most recent post I deleted for "sock puppeting" was not actually a case of sock puppeting. Rather, a poster reported a post for sock puppeting, but I determined the post was not sock puppeted. Then the same post was reported a second time for sock puppeting. That time, I was about half asleep and not fully cognizant of what I was doing and I deleted the post. I immediately realized that I should not have deleted it.

Since that incident, I have been receiving 10 or more reports per day about sock puppeting in this thread. I have been summarily deleting them and not even bothering to check. I really wish the reports would stop.

Also, if all posters in this thread are going to so is accuse each other of sock puppeting and then drive me crazy with reports, I don't really see a reason to keep this thread going. So either get back to discussing the topic of the thread or prepare for it to be locked.

THANK YOU JEFF! In Lively/Baldoni terms, this is like when Judge Liman dismissed all of Baldoni’s claims last week!!!

We will get back to it lol! Thank you!

DP

Interesting. The PR campaign is being noticed and commented on by Tik Tok as well.
https://www.reddit.com/r/teamjustinbaldoni/s/tWCY1gixCG

Lady, Jeff specifically came in here and told you there was not a sock puppetting problem and stop bugging him about it, and your counter to this is this bizarre TikTok person? She came on screen and I just noped out.

Dp, but that wasn’t what Jeff said at all except for the stop bothering him point. But the rabid Blake supporters twist everything to mean only what they want it to mean.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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.

Hey, ask Jeff if you need to. Do it publicly by linking to our posts in the Website Feedback channel.

I don’t need it, he would not have removed the posts if they weren’t sock puppeting. I have a very good idea of who's the liar.

Just FYI, I don't know to which posts you are referring but the most recent post I deleted for "sock puppeting" was not actually a case of sock puppeting. Rather, a poster reported a post for sock puppeting, but I determined the post was not sock puppeted. Then the same post was reported a second time for sock puppeting. That time, I was about half asleep and not fully cognizant of what I was doing and I deleted the post. I immediately realized that I should not have deleted it.

Since that incident, I have been receiving 10 or more reports per day about sock puppeting in this thread. I have been summarily deleting them and not even bothering to check. I really wish the reports would stop.

Also, if all posters in this thread are going to so is accuse each other of sock puppeting and then drive me crazy with reports, I don't really see a reason to keep this thread going. So either get back to discussing the topic of the thread or prepare for it to be locked.

THANK YOU JEFF! In Lively/Baldoni terms, this is like when Judge Liman dismissed all of Baldoni’s claims last week!!!

We will get back to it lol! Thank you!

DP

Interesting. The PR campaign is being noticed and commented on by Tik Tok as well.
https://www.reddit.com/r/teamjustinbaldoni/s/tWCY1gixCG

Lady, Jeff specifically came in here and told you there was not a sock puppetting problem and stop bugging him about it, and your counter to this is this bizarre TikTok person? She came on screen and I just noped out.

Stop being so defensive! People are allowed to comment on things. Relax

Who's being defensive? You attached your post to Jeff's "there is no sockpuppeting here" comment and a follow up, so presumably this was a response suggesting there's sockpuppeting etc afoot (haha). It seems weird as a response to that.

Maybe Breed's 9 attachments are just part of his filed declaration, as follow ons. Can't tell because it's not available yet. I don't think so though because it's only 60 cents, where as it should be more than 9 pages if the exhibits are in there too.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Attorney Maxwell Breed has filed a response on behalf on the two non-party TAG employees/former employees, here: https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.nysd.634304/gov.uscourts.nysd.634304.358.0.pdf

These are the TAG people who Lively offered to pay the costs of hosting and producing their docs to enable them to produce them, but later could not agree on terms and dates etc.

I thought a little fun thing about this is that his deadline is today, and he filed his letter after hours, at like 9:30 EST. His letter refers to a declaration and nine exhibits, which were not attached. So it was weird when nothing more got filed on the docket until about 15 minutes ago: The declaration!

So he and/or his paralegal have about 45 minutes to get those remaining 9 exhibits filed. Unless there is some lag between CourtListener and Pacer (I haven't noticed that before). Good luck Mr. Breed!

His letter seems pretty reasonable TBH.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Order on the Swift docs: https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.nysd.634304/gov.uscourts.nysd.634304.357.0.pdf

Lively’s motion is denied and she must produce the relevant Swift docs. That’s what the PO was for.

Baldoni’s motion to compel is also denied. Lively under no obligation to produce on Baldoni’s timeline and Baldoni refused the timeline deal.

So I didn't get a chance to really read this today. I had commented last week when Lively made the motion that it felt like they were trying to drop some Taylor Swift stuff on a Friday and kind of pull a Freedman to make a point in the press (that Freedman got nothing from Swift), and were in territory her lawyers aren't that comfortable with.

The reasons given by Liman for Lively having to turn over the Swift texts include "Lively
herself has identified Swift as someone likely to have knowledge about complaints or
discussions regarding the working environment on the set of It Ends With Us. ... Given that Lively has represented that Swift had knowledge of complaints or discussions about the working
environment on the film, among other issues, the requests for messages with Swift regarding the
film and this action are reasonably tailored to discover information that would prove or disprove
Lively’s harassment and retaliation claims."

In Lively's reply motion from today https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.nysd.634304/gov.uscourts.nysd.634304.354.0.pdf it says Lively added Swift in after the articles about Wayfarer saying they got everything. The bolded part seems like a pretty big mistake from Lively's team? The judge's order reads like he may not have required them to turn over the texts if Swift hadn't been identified by *Lively* as a person with knowledge. Since she did identify Swift, then it's not unreasonable to ask for texts regarding IEWU and the lawsuit.

From the motion:
As to Ms. Lively’s motion for a protective order, the Wayfarer Parties argue that Ms. Lively is
“bound” by her amended initial disclosures to produce all non-privileged communications with
Ms. Swift. They provide no authority for that proposition.3 If including an individual on a party’s
initial disclosures binds a party to produce all “non-privileged communications” with that
individual, the Wayfarer Parties would have agreed to produce all communications as between
each of the Wayfarer Parties, on the one hand, and the 137 non-Wayfarer Parties identified on their
initial disclosures on the other. They have not. Instead, Rule 26 contemplates initial disclosures as
a mechanism to ensure timely disclosure of names and identifying information for “each individual
likely to have discoverable information….” Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(a)(1)(A)(i); Freeman v. Giuliani,
2025 WL 81370, at *4-5 (S.D.N.Y. Jan. 13, 2025) (Liman, J.). To be clear, Ms. Lively
supplemented her initial disclosures to include Ms. Swift after the public representations that the 2
Wayfarer Parties “got exactly what they were seeking,” were “provided … with everything that
they needed,” and “got exactly what they were hoping for and much more” in connection with Ms.
Swift4 —which suggested that they would be producing information in connection with the case.
This bait-and-switch cannot provide a basis for the Wayfarer Parties to obtain discovery on what
the Wayfarer Parties supposedly already had. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(e).

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Order on the Swift docs: https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.nysd.634304/gov.uscourts.nysd.634304.357.0.pdf

Lively’s motion is denied and she must produce the relevant Swift docs. That’s what the PO was for.

Baldoni’s motion to compel is also denied. Lively under no obligation to produce on Baldoni’s timeline and Baldoni refused the timeline deal.

So I didn't get a chance to really read this today. I had commented last week when Lively made the motion that it felt like they were trying to drop some Taylor Swift stuff on a Friday and kind of pull a Freedman to make a point in the press (that Freedman got nothing from Swift), and were in territory her lawyers aren't that comfortable with.

The reasons given by Liman for Lively having to turn over the Swift texts include "Lively
herself has identified Swift as someone likely to have knowledge about complaints or
discussions regarding the working environment on the set of It Ends With Us. ... Given that Lively has represented that Swift had knowledge of complaints or discussions about the working
environment on the film, among other issues, the requests for messages with Swift regarding the
film and this action are reasonably tailored to discover information that would prove or disprove
Lively’s harassment and retaliation claims."

In Lively's reply motion from today https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.nysd.634304/gov.uscourts.nysd.634304.354.0.pdf it says Lively added Swift in after the articles about Wayfarer saying they got everything. The bolded part seems like a pretty big mistake from Lively's team? The judge's order reads like he may not have required them to turn over the texts if Swift hadn't been identified by *Lively* as a person with knowledge. Since she did identify Swift, then it's not unreasonable to ask for texts regarding IEWU and the lawsuit.

From the motion:
As to Ms. Lively’s motion for a protective order, the Wayfarer Parties argue that Ms. Lively is
“bound” by her amended initial disclosures to produce all non-privileged communications with
Ms. Swift. They provide no authority for that proposition.3 If including an individual on a party’s
initial disclosures binds a party to produce all “non-privileged communications” with that
individual, the Wayfarer Parties would have agreed to produce all communications as between
each of the Wayfarer Parties, on the one hand, and the 137 non-Wayfarer Parties identified on their
initial disclosures on the other. They have not. Instead, Rule 26 contemplates initial disclosures as
a mechanism to ensure timely disclosure of names and identifying information for “each individual
likely to have discoverable information….” Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(a)(1)(A)(i); Freeman v. Giuliani,
2025 WL 81370, at *4-5 (S.D.N.Y. Jan. 13, 2025) (Liman, J.). To be clear, Ms. Lively
supplemented her initial disclosures to include Ms. Swift after the public representations that the 2
Wayfarer Parties “got exactly what they were seeking,” were “provided … with everything that
they needed,” and “got exactly what they were hoping for and much more” in connection with Ms.
Swift4 —which suggested that they would be producing information in connection with the case.
This bait-and-switch cannot provide a basis for the Wayfarer Parties to obtain discovery on what
the Wayfarer Parties supposedly already had. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(e).

Interesting point, did not realize that Swift wasn’t added to Lively’s initial disclosure relatively recently,

[Anonymous]

Way to misrepresent!! Lively’s request noted that an insider source had made the claims Wayfarer got all they needed and Lyman found that was not a basis for her claim of duplicative discovery.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Way to misrepresent!! Lively’s request noted that an insider source had made the claims Wayfarer got all they needed and Lyman found that was not a basis for her claim of duplicative discovery.

Liman's finding was that it wasn't duplicative because Wayfarer got no communications from swift. That's in the order. And further, that Lively needs to turn over what she has, because she identified Swift as a person with knowledge, and Wayfarer is asking for communiactions directly related to the case and the movie.

The argument from Lively really didn't make sense.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Way to misrepresent!! Lively’s request noted that an insider source had made the claims Wayfarer got all they needed and Lyman found that was not a basis for her claim of duplicative discovery.

Liman's finding was that it wasn't duplicative because Wayfarer got no communications from swift. That's in the order. And further, that Lively needs to turn over what she has, because she identified Swift as a person with knowledge, and Wayfarer is asking for communiactions directly related to the case and the movie.

The argument from Lively really didn't make sense.

I still don’t understand the purpose of the motion, it had no chance of success. I think it was an attempt to find out what Venable may have told or shown to Freedman but it wasn’t even framed well for that.

[Anonymous]

She tried a Hail Mary and it failed

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Attorney Maxwell Breed has filed a response on behalf on the two non-party TAG employees/former employees, here: https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.nysd.634304/gov.uscourts.nysd.634304.358.0.pdf

These are the TAG people who Lively offered to pay the costs of hosting and producing their docs to enable them to produce them, but later could not agree on terms and dates etc.

I thought a little fun thing about this is that his deadline is today, and he filed his letter after hours, at like 9:30 EST. His letter refers to a declaration and nine exhibits, which were not attached. So it was weird when nothing more got filed on the docket until about 15 minutes ago: The declaration!

So he and/or his paralegal have about 45 minutes to get those remaining 9 exhibits filed. Unless there is some lag between CourtListener and Pacer (I haven't noticed that before). Good luck Mr. Breed!

His letter seems pretty reasonable TBH.

I don’t think he’s correct that Lively’s offer to pay the costs of hosting and producing the docs for the production means that the requests as written were overbroad. I think it just means Lively wants a real production with metadata and not a bunch of screen shots of texts.

I do agree it’s overbroad to require texts on which parties are included, and thought Lively agreed not to include those. But then Breed also demanded nothing from after 12/2024 be produced! Liman has already agreed Lively should get communications from after the lawsuit was filed, from the party PR reps, anyway. So I think he’ll be required to produce the later tests.