Blake Lively- Jason Baldoni and NYT - False Light claims

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The more I think about it, the more I'm getting worried for JB over the retaliation claim, and like people here have been saying forever, I get that's why BL's lawyers want to focus on it. I genuinely think most of the negative press toward Blake was organic, and I'm not pro-BL, but I think it's worrisome if they can find even a handful of posts disparaging her that they can trace back to JB.

I don't think he hired Nathan because she spoke up against sexual harassment, I think he hired Nathan because Blake was running to the press first (see that Daily Mail article in early August about him being a chaunivist) and he needed to protect himself and the company. But I just don't see a jury making a distinction between "retaliating" against SH and "retaliating" to protect himself. Her lawyers are going to get them to ask: Did JB launch any counterattack on her for whatever reason? I don't think the jury is going to believe her on the SH claims, but I think BL's lawyers are going to try their hardest to make the argument that retaliation is their focus, SH is subjective and so don't focus on that, etc.

I think Baldoni is going to have a hard time explaining why he was paying Wallace $90K to just keep track of socials and not affirmatively add commentary to the conversations when keeping track of socials is specifically work that his other 2 PR firms were getting paid $30K/month and $15K/month to do as per their written contracts.

Unless Wallace was promoting positive commentary about Justin. There is actually a fair amount he could be doing that wouldn’t involve Lively at all. Same for all the pr folks, positive stories about their clients is their business.

Agree that if Wayfarer/TAG/Wallace can show that they were just promoting positive stories about Justin and Wayfarer and staying neutral on Blake, they will beat the retaliation claims.

There are a few messages from the Jen Abel phone that indicate they did go after Blake though, including with Wallace's team, and that some of what they did was seeding negative stories online. There could be some explanations for those messages that are exculpating -- maybe they wanted to go after Blake but didn't because cooler head prevailed, or because they discovered they didn't need to. It's also possible that TAG or Wallace essentially lied to Wayfarer about what they were doing, that they said said they would see negative stories about Blake and then those popped up on their own without any effort, so TAG and Wallace claimed to have caused it (in order to justify their large fees).

One legal question I have is what if the facts show that Baldoni and Wayfarer absolutely wanted to go after Blake and hired TAG and Wallace specifically to spread negative content about her online, but then they didn't? Would Baldoni/Wayfarer still potentially be liable for trying to retaliate? Would just hiring these people and giving them the directive to trash Blake in the press be enough for a jury to find them guilty of retaliation? I truly have no idea.

The cause of action requires actual acts of retaliation. I thought about it, but didn’t actually do it isn’t enough.

I think the question would be if hiring someone itself counts as a retaliatory act. Hiring is easily distinguished from "thinking about" retaliation, so your straw man fails. That said, I don't know if you framed it as paying for a bad act that didn't occur if that would be sufficient or not (on the other hand, you might be able to frame it more favorably as paying to ensure negative stories came out; it might depend on the contract wording).

She is going to need to show the hiring was retaliation to her claims of sexual harassment and not due to her threats and efforts to freeze him out of the movie. He has a right to seek help when being defamed. And yes, he can still use her behavior as a defense even if he can’t collect damages on it as a cause of action.

He wasn't defamed.

You keep framing everything in the best possible way for Baldoni, and I understand it because I do the same with Lively. That's what lawyers do. But recognize that not everyone has drunk the Baldoni Kool Aid, and regular people may not be so eager to share your take on who is the good guy here. I will grant that Baldoni's got a shot though because of the old adage, someone famous said this I think, I can't quite remember who: "It's actually sad because it just shows you have people really want to hate on women."

I understand that you don’t think that, but much of the social media universe does. If a jury feels the same, she loses. It’s perfectly legal to hire a pr firm when some one has launched an all out war on you.

Baldoni paid Jed Wallace $30K per month -- minimum of three months "as it needs to seed" for the purpose of "creation of social fan engagement to go back and forth with any negative accounts, helping to change [the] narrative and stay on track."

That makes Jed Wallace look like a liar for the info he included in his declaration saying he didn't interact with anyone, and I sure don't think a jury will like that at all. This contract makes it clear that someone was certainly interacting with people on social media to change the story, so between this and the other conversations between Abel and Nathan it sure sounds like a smear. Who knows what else will come out?

NAG with a video about Jed Wallace, putting his affidavit up against those parts of the email that seem to contradict his email, noting the possibility that he hired subcontractors, and questioning whether he would really get paid $90K over 3 months to just monitor socials: https://www.tiktok.com/@notactuallygolden/video/7518047871824858382

NAG followed up on this video that she posted about how Jed Wallace may seemingly have lied in his declaration here: https://www.tiktok.com/@notactuallygolden/video/7518458313420311822

Commentary on Jed Wallace starts at about the 2 minute mark.

Noting that the comments she has received to this video on youtube by Baldoni supporters are off the charts wild and she posted back some "nastygrams" to those people.

I don’t find her compelling on this point. $30,000/mth is just not much money for pr.

$30K per month to Wallace to be (as his declaration suggests) the single Street Relations person just "monitoring socials" which was work that both of Baldoni's PR companies was already being paid $45/month to do ($15K to Abel and $30K to Jones) will seem rather excessive to most normal people fwiw.

Let me rephrase, to Livwly supporters who either aren’t familiar with the industry or just looking for their next talking point.

Got it, it's totes normal for a B list celebrity to be paying $75K/month for PR assistance that doesn't include any active interference and engagement (or smearing!!! definitely no smearing!!!) but just "monitoring" of media like socials and press. Yup.

(FYI for normal people, across 12 months that would translate into nearly a million dollars per year at $900K.)

I see the purposelessly misleading pro Lively folks are back to working weekends, and scouring the world for anti Wayfarer Baldoni talking points to throw around.

I had to look into crisis PR (no ‘smear’) for my fairly small company and it was about 70k a month. Obviously it’s rare to need crisis PR for an entire year so your 900k reference seems purposefully irrelevant.

And this was some years back, and a small company. baldoni’s was PR related to a film that had cost some people a bunch of money. That number is not weird at all, and doesn’t indicate there was a smear campaign.

Stop being so shameless.

What small company needs 70k/mo in crisis pr? That's absurd. Unless your "small company" is a hedge fund that is accused of stealing client money, I don't buy it.

The company was well under 750 people so yes, small in the corporate world. And companies often hire crisis PR for brand reputations issues, and it’s expensive. It’s also short term so when I looked into it, we were looking at 6 months or less. Really not that much overall. You’re acting like some random person off the street hired PR for 70k a month. No, it was a decent sized film with a healthy budget and they wanted to safeguard their investment. This is not ‘totes’ abnormal behavior as you put it in such a juvenile way.

I think you are confusing me with someone else. I'm the immediate PP but I don't use phrases like "totes".

I work in the corporate world (in consulting) and 70k/mo in crisis PR is a lot and indicates a major issue. If that's just for crisis PR, we're talking on top of normal PR budget for branding, press relations, etc., which can also be expensive but is a typical overhead cost. 70k/mo for 6 months would be the equivalent of 3 or more full time assistants, for instance -- not a minor expense. And for something unexpected and not previously budgeted for.

Lol oh right, now you’re a corporate consultant and you’re involved in crisis PR. got it. I thought you were a litigator?

Look, you don’t know what you’re talking about other than googling stuff and then trying to make things sound legit. 70k a month for a short period of crisis PR is not unusual for a company, or in this case to protect a film franchise that investors had spent millions on. You’re obsessed with your narrative and attempts to spin.

If you think people across various media don’t see all of this fake posting, and feel even more disdain for Blake than they did before, you’re mistaken.

DP to who you are responding to, but lady, you would be less constantly confused and angry if you would stop insisting in your own head that there is exactly one Lively supporter in this thread posing as different people, and accept, as we do, that there are multiple people coming in and out of the thread arguing with us. Chill tf out.

DP I think you're spiraling a little here. Blake was not sexually harassed. I’m sorry, she just wasn’t. And she may have captured a few people here and there who believe her because they’re projecting their own trauma onto the case, but most people see this for what it is.

I’m feeling pretty secure over here on the side of the plaintiff who won almost everything on her motion to dismiss and who has 15+ women’s orgs on her side. Projecting my own trauma? Lady, calm down. I’m just glad someone is standing up to this dude and his billionaire benefactor.

These women's organizations didn't want that California law turned over and blindly believe Blake given that they are women's organizations. Nothing to do with the validity of Blake's claims. I for one am thankful that Justin is standing up to billionaire liars like Blake and Ryan who have minimal talent.

Oh wow, vague "women's orgs"?! In other words, 501(c)(3) rackets reliant on donors if not also large sums of public dollars? Please post links to the Form 990s of all 15+ orgs "on her side."

Here was the list I posted here in early June of all the organizations involved in the various amicus briefs, so please feel free to knock yourself out "proving" how these filings from respected women's, children's, and victims' rights groups are really just some "racket" to target male feminist hero Justin Baldoni.

Seems like the amicus brief from that oddball Baldoni supporter never did get filed, which tbh is probably better for Baldoni:

LIST OF 19 INDIVIDUALS AND ORGANIZATIONS INVOLVED IN FILING AMICUS BRIEFS SUPPORTING BLAKE LIVELY:

Brief #1:
Elyse Dorsey: A former federal employee who previously sued former George Mason School of Law professor Joshua Wright for sexual harassment and who was sued by him for defamation. Dorsey filed an amicus brief describing being sued for defamation by Wright in VA (which does not have strong laws protecting victims as CA) after speaking out and emphasizing the importance of California's new law.
PURPOSE OF AMICUS BRIEF (per language of brief): "Ms. Dorsey provides a unique perspective on retaliatory lawsuits as a victim of one herself, and she also speaks to how Virginia’s anti-SLAPP statute failed to protect her from such retaliation. As part of her advocacy, Ms. Dorsey can also speak to how state legislatures can protect a survivor’s right to come forward and tell her story without facing the chilling effects of retaliatory litigation from their harasser. Ms. Dorsey’s proposed brief thus offers valuable additional perspective, beyond that submitted by the parties, on the importance of protecting survivors from abuses of the legal process for retaliation. Further, Ms. Dorsey’s proposed brief describes how this case is not unique, but a common retaliation tactic used by harassers to chill speech and silence their victims. Therefore, Ms. Dorsey’s proposed brief provides a unique perspective from a survivor who was not afforded the same protection against retaliatory lawsuits that Ms. Lively seeks to invoke in this lawsuit, thereby supplying “unique information” which may further assist the Court."

Brief #2:
Equal Rights Advocates: A San Francisco-based legal nonprofit focused on gender equity and workplace protections. They have supported Lively's invocation of California's new law (Assembly Bill 933), designed to protect individuals who speak out about sexual harassment and misconduct from retaliatory defamation suits.
California Employment Lawyers Association: An organization that advocates for workers' rights in California, including protections against workplace harassment and discrimination.
California Women's Law Center: An organization dedicated to advancing the rights of women and girls in California through various legal and advocacy efforts.
PURPOSE OF THE AMICUS BRIEF (per language of brief): "Consistent with their work to champion the passage of AB 933 and the rights of California workers, including victims of sexual harassment and assault, Amici are invested in the interpretation and enforcement of California Civil Code § 47.1 in this case. Amici share a special interest in ensuring that courts apply the intended legal approach to this new statute, to ensure that all Californians—particularly low- and middle-income individuals who cannot afford legal defense for speaking out about harassment and abuse—enjoy the full and robust protection that state lawmakers intended."

Brief #3:
Child USA: A nonprofit organization focused on preventing child abuse.
PURPOSE OF THE AMICUS BRIEF (per language of brief): "CHILD USA offers this brief to demonstrate that California Civil Code §47.1 is both constitutionally sound and essential to protect the rights of survivors of sexual violence, safeguard public discourse, and ensure equitable access to justice. CHILD USA’s proposed brief offers a distinct perspective beyond that of the parties, highlighting the broader implications this case holds for shaping the legal landscape for survivors nationwide. It also addresses how the outcome may advance—or undermine—compelling state interests in deterring abuse, preventing future harm, and protecting public safety."

Brief #4:
Sanctuary for Families: An organization dedicated to assisting survivors of domestic violence and related forms of gender violence.
National Organization for Women (NOW): A prominent women's rights organization that has consistently advocated for policies and practices that promote equality and combat discrimination.
National Organization for Women - NYC Chapter: NYC chapter of above national NOW organization.
Women's Justice NOW: An organization that champions women's rights and equality.
New York Cyber Abuse Task Force: A volunteer coalition of advocates, attorneys, and survivors, fighting for better safety outcomes for victims of tech abuse at the intersection of intimate partner and gender-based violence.
Herunivercity Inc.: A survivor-led group focused on empowering young women through holistic development and which is especially concerned about the negative impact of retaliatory DARVO tactic used to disempower and silence young survivors of sexual violence.
Women’s Equal Justice: Provides direct advocacy services to sexual assault survivors as they navigate the criminal justice process, partnering with survivors to reform the justice system’s response to sexual assault.
New York City Alliance Against Sexual Assault (The Alliance): An organization working to prevent sexual violence and reduce the harm it causes through education, prevention programming, advocacy for survivors, and the pursuit of legal and policy changes. The Alliance was founded in 1999 by rape crisis centers in New York City in order to advocate for the needs of survivors and the organizations that serve them.
Coalition Against Trafficking in Women: An international non-governmental organization working to eliminate sex trafficking and all forms of sexual exploitation.
National Network to End Domestic Violence: Organization for survivors of domestic violence focused on working to create a social, political, and economic environment to end violence against women.
Esperanza United: A group mobilizing Latinas and Latin@ communities to end genderbased violence.
New York State Anti-Trafficking Coalition: A group of New York State individuals and organizations joining forces to increase public awareness of human trafficking in New York communities, enact anti-trafficking laws, improve law enforcement response and increase social services to help victims escape trafficking and rebuild their lives.
Her Justice: Organization dedicated to helping women living in poverty in New York City, many of whom are survivors of gender-based violence, by offering them legal services designed to foster equal access to justice.
Urban Resource Institute: Group focused on transforming the lives of domestic violence survivors and homeless families, with a focus on communities of color and other vulnerable populations. Currently the largest provider of domestic violence shelter services in the United States.
PURPOSE OF THE AMICUS BRIEF (per language of brief): "Amici wish to advise this Court of the manner in which highly-publicized defamation lawsuits brought in response to a plaintiff’s allegations of sexual harassment or other sexual violence creates a chilling effect on other victims of sexual violence seeking to protect themselves, report abusers, and raise awareness with the public. Amici also wish to provide helpful background to the Court on how Section 47.1 of the California Civil Code was meant to protect victims speaking out about sexual violence from retaliatory defamation claims," particularly (as described in detail in the brief) those using DARVO tactics.

LIST OF ONE INDIVIDUAL OR ORGANIZATION INVOLVED IN FILING AMICUS BRIEF SUPPORTING JUSTIN BALDONI etc:

[Name Withheld for now, though she published this in her Youtube content]: Former Lecturer of English at Texas Christian University and current podcaster who has "taken graduate courses in relevant fields."
PURPOSE OF THE AMICUS BRIEF (per language of brief): Proponent submits the brief to inform the Court that "Amicus hosts a podcast and has a strong social media presence by which she has been able to speak with and [sic] many ordinary women, gauging their reactions to the various MeToo cases over the years." Amicus explains that "[n]ever in her many years of monitoring public sentiment has amicus seen such outrage from so many everyday women at what they perceive as a miscarriage of justice; that is to say that women from all backgrounds and walks of life do not believe Blake Lively's allegations against Justin Baldoni and Wayfarer and moreover believe that her defamatory actions hurt real victims of abuse, similarly to what the vast majority of women felt about how Amber Heard defamed Johnny Depp and hurt real assault victims and so many other women." Among the points raised in this brief are: "[I]s it not reasonable to assume that the type of man accused of harassment who is most likely to file a defamation claims would be one who is in fact innocent and for that reason he is willing to take drastic steps to remedy the injustice? There is some research and anecdotal information to back up this hypothesis. (See cited studies in notes.)"

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Responding to self here to note that Breed’s 9 exhibits did get filed, you can see them here: https://www.reddit.com/r/ItEndsWithCourt/comments/1lfey19/all_of_the_exhibits_from_the_case_and_butler/

How is Breed a partner, though? He has filed 9 exhibits showing different parts of the same email string that are all contained, I believe, in the single exhibit that Lively filed. That’s why the attorneys use the one email string over and over in a discovery dispute, so you can just use that one email as your exhibit. Now the judge’s clerk needs to go through these additional 9 exhibits for no reason when Breed could have just cited the already existing filing. Silly and unnecessary.

I also find Breed’s language about “We needn’t, any of us, play at saber rattling” etc to be a bit dramatic in here. Is he British or something? This is federal litigation and Liman has set hard discovery deadlines, with substantial completion due well before Breed’s 21 days would end. Less time on fancy language and more time on compliance would be helpful imho.

Home from end of school pool day with a special present from Judge Liman:

First of all, Lively filed a Reply to Breed's letter, saying hey just because we negotiated down what you might owe (for two months) and you kept asking for more at the last minute doesn't mean the initial subpoena was overburdensome and that having wasted our time for two months you shouldn't be made to comply in full with the subpoena as originally written, now. He notes that the Wayfarer parties (and in fact no parties) have yet produced any materials that provide either of these two people's communications, and the time that Lively might have had one or two months ago to piece together what had been provided by the third parties vs provided by Wayfarer etc. is now passed.

Gottlieb also mentions some juicy sounding emails in here on which these two were copied. The first footnote also side-eyes all nine attachments that Breed attached to his opposition as I noted above, explaining that they were just all the same document that Gottlieb et al had attached to their motion in the first place. He says: "evidence their participation in the retaliatory digital effort: in an email from Abel to Case, Koslow, Heath, and Nathan discussing whether TAG’s fee includes “social media mitigation and proactive fan posting to counter the narrative” (ECF No. 84 ¶ 225), in a text from Case to Matthew Mitchell, Nathan, and Abel regarding contents of “HR complaints” from set (id. ¶ 263), in a text from Abel to Mitchell, Nathan, Case, and Koslow discussing the need to “position” reported-upon HR complaints (id. ¶ 264), and in a text from Abel to Mitchell, Nathan, Case, and Koslow discussing an allegation that Baldoni “invited [a woman] up to his hotel room years ago,” and a text from Koslow in response suggesting to “chat to Jed as well on this” (id. ¶ 256). See Exhibit A (here: https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.nysd.634304/gov.uscourts.nysd.634304.363.1.pdf).

Lively Reply: https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.nysd.634304/gov.uscourts.nysd.634304.363.0.pdf

Liman issued a memo endorsement saying there will be a hearing on this issue -- with just the Lively attorneys and Breed & co (i.e., no Freedman) on Tuesday June 24 (day after new complaint and potentially Lively's deposition if it goes as originally scheduled) via Teams: https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.nysd.634304/gov.uscourts.nysd.634304.364.0.pdf

Following up on my post above to note:

A big part of why the communications broke down on this document collection and production for these two third party TAG employees is because kind of at the last minute, Breen objected to producing docs "to the present" and insisted on stopping when the lawsuit was filed in December 2024. Breen says in the lawyer email chain that they objected to the date in their original objections, but if you look, they really did not. The paragraph with the date specification is "Instructions" paragraph 3, and Breen made no objection to that paragraph. Breen said from the very beginning that paragraphs 11 through 13 of the subpoena seemed reasonable and they could produce those documents, and paragraphs 11-13 even specifically state in the doc request itself that they'll require docs from May 2024 "to the present." Breen made no specific objection to the date range, and said in his email these requests were okay! It's only in the lawyer email communications in late-May/early-June that Breen suddenly objects to producing docs after the lawsuit was filed. In briefing this issue to Judge Liman, Breen doesn't really even try to argue that they objected to the date issue in their Responses and Objections, so while he tried that out on Bender he really didn't test it on the judge.

I think that NAG gets this wrong again to be honest in discussing why this plan fell through at 4:40 in this video: https://www.tiktok.com/@notactuallygolden/video/7518888021555531022

NAG is suggesting the prior production plan fell through because another Lively lawyer got on the email and rug pulled against the prior terms that had been worked out by Lively attorneys with Breed. This is just incorrect, because Kristen Bender is the Lively attorney who did most of the negotiating, and is on the last several email communications in this string working out the details. The reason communications broke down is in large part because Breed suddenly objected to producing anything after December 2024, out of the blue (and in fact also objects to producing anything between May and July 2024 as well), and that was not acceptable to Lively's attorneys. There is another issue in here about Breed also objecting to producing texts involving group communications involving any of the Baldoni parties, where Bender may have been willing to agree to this at first but after two months had passed with no docs from anyone, they determined they needed everything.

NAG is blaming the communication breakdown on Lively attorneys. While she's saying that's normal in litigation and isn't really a big deal, she's putting the blame for the sudden change on the wrong party. Breed wanted to limit the productions in two new ways at the last minute and Lively/Bender wasn't willing to move. But NAG puts the blame on Bender/Lively instead, which her fans will like more, but which isn't really correct imo.

The judge has already said that on the issue involving the smear, communications after December 2024 are relevant because Lively's complaint states that the smear is ongoing. So unless the judge decided a non-party shouldn't bear the burden here (and except to the extent that any of the third parties are no longer employed by TAG and wouldn't have communications from them to the present), the judge has already said those later docs would be relevant to the case. Order: https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.nysd.634304/gov.uscourts.nysd.634304.355.0.pdf

This hearing is scheduled for Tuesday 6/24.

Email chain (Bender/Breed): https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.nysd.634304/gov.uscourts.nysd.634304.322.3.pdf
Subpoena where date range is spelled out in Instructions paragraph 3: https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.nysd.634304/gov.uscourts.nysd.634304.322.1.pdf
Breed's Objections and Responses to the subpoena where he doesn't specifically object to Instructions paragraph 3 or make other specific objections to the date range requested besides general overbreadth of the requests: https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.nysd.634304/gov.uscourts.nysd.634304.322.4_1.pdf

Breen's opposition letter brief (where he doesn't really make the claim that their responses and objections included a date objection -- because he really didn't): https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.nysd.634304/gov.uscourts.nysd.634304.358.0.pdf

Oh wow. Gottlieb is so brilliant, amirite?? You could tell he ‘side eyed’ someone in his footnotes?! Wow. Brilliant analysis. Thank god we have you to explain all this minutiae to us!!

What a great attorney. He encouraged, or at least didn’t discourage, his client who depends on her image for her living and her sense of being, to file a weak weak sexual harassment claim that would surely be put under a microscope and attacked as frivolous, put it in a California complaint so she could leak it to the NYT (risking a huge defamation claim, which she fortunately escaped) and then start engaging in a 2 + year litigation which will drag her name through the press constantly, and cost her millions and millions of dollars in legal fees and PR costs trying to rehabilitate her image. Plus she lost her prized relationship in Taylor Swift and is now isolated.

Wow! So awesome! What a great lawyer!!!! Let’s review how he side eyed someone in a footnote some more. Or focus on how she’s ‘winning’ because she escaped a defamation claim on a legal technicality.

Brilliant!!

Are you all right? I'm just talking about the filings that relate to the hearing coming up tomorrow. I guess you're saying that overall this lawsuit was bad for Lively, and I understand how you feel that way. On the other hand, your boy (I think he's surfing in Florida now?) just got all of his own claims dismissed. *poof* My favorite part of your point above is where you say his defamation claim was dismissed "on a legal technicality" lol. If that is how you need to cope, okay.

You seem to be dismissing all of the little back and forth letters and motions that go into litigation like this as unimportant given the larger picture. The day-to-day activity of the legal filings is mostly what interests me in this thread, so that's mostly what I post about. Coincidentally, I also think that's the part of litigation that Freedman is pretty terrible at. Freedman isn't involved in these Breen filings, but Breen is an appropriate stand in for him here ha. Freedman may be good at bullying and PR and maybe even depositions (let's see if that happens today), but he doesn't seem to be very good at motions practice or pleadings -- to me it's almost getting close to looking like malpractice at this point given his choice to file a worthless defamation claim that subjects his clients to treble damages, punitives, and attorneys fees as well as multiple various outstanding Rule 11 sanctions motions. I'm not sure Lively's attorneys will win on all of these, but I bet they will win some, and that's more cash Baldoni's rich benefactor will wind up paying out to Lively in this case.

Look, we all get it. The actual case for lively is such a train wreck and money pit that you need to focus on all the little filings here and there, and then of course the defamation claim. Baldoni doesn’t want money out of this, he wanted his reputation cleared and he has done that in spades. And yes, most people believe lively and the NYT won their cases because of fair report privilege, not because livelys claims were valid.

You’re acting like Baldoni started this and lost. Whereas, NO, Lively started this and although she seems to have avoided huge direct personal financial liability, she has decimated her reputation and is absolutely bleeding money. All for a pointless law suit that has done nothing but make her look like a manipulative liar. You can’t actually think that’s ‘winning’ can you?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Responding to self here to note that Breed’s 9 exhibits did get filed, you can see them here: https://www.reddit.com/r/ItEndsWithCourt/comments/1lfey19/all_of_the_exhibits_from_the_case_and_butler/

How is Breed a partner, though? He has filed 9 exhibits showing different parts of the same email string that are all contained, I believe, in the single exhibit that Lively filed. That’s why the attorneys use the one email string over and over in a discovery dispute, so you can just use that one email as your exhibit. Now the judge’s clerk needs to go through these additional 9 exhibits for no reason when Breed could have just cited the already existing filing. Silly and unnecessary.

I also find Breed’s language about “We needn’t, any of us, play at saber rattling” etc to be a bit dramatic in here. Is he British or something? This is federal litigation and Liman has set hard discovery deadlines, with substantial completion due well before Breed’s 21 days would end. Less time on fancy language and more time on compliance would be helpful imho.

Home from end of school pool day with a special present from Judge Liman:

First of all, Lively filed a Reply to Breed's letter, saying hey just because we negotiated down what you might owe (for two months) and you kept asking for more at the last minute doesn't mean the initial subpoena was overburdensome and that having wasted our time for two months you shouldn't be made to comply in full with the subpoena as originally written, now. He notes that the Wayfarer parties (and in fact no parties) have yet produced any materials that provide either of these two people's communications, and the time that Lively might have had one or two months ago to piece together what had been provided by the third parties vs provided by Wayfarer etc. is now passed.

Gottlieb also mentions some juicy sounding emails in here on which these two were copied. The first footnote also side-eyes all nine attachments that Breed attached to his opposition as I noted above, explaining that they were just all the same document that Gottlieb et al had attached to their motion in the first place. He says: "evidence their participation in the retaliatory digital effort: in an email from Abel to Case, Koslow, Heath, and Nathan discussing whether TAG’s fee includes “social media mitigation and proactive fan posting to counter the narrative” (ECF No. 84 ¶ 225), in a text from Case to Matthew Mitchell, Nathan, and Abel regarding contents of “HR complaints” from set (id. ¶ 263), in a text from Abel to Mitchell, Nathan, Case, and Koslow discussing the need to “position” reported-upon HR complaints (id. ¶ 264), and in a text from Abel to Mitchell, Nathan, Case, and Koslow discussing an allegation that Baldoni “invited [a woman] up to his hotel room years ago,” and a text from Koslow in response suggesting to “chat to Jed as well on this” (id. ¶ 256). See Exhibit A (here: https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.nysd.634304/gov.uscourts.nysd.634304.363.1.pdf).

Lively Reply: https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.nysd.634304/gov.uscourts.nysd.634304.363.0.pdf

Liman issued a memo endorsement saying there will be a hearing on this issue -- with just the Lively attorneys and Breed & co (i.e., no Freedman) on Tuesday June 24 (day after new complaint and potentially Lively's deposition if it goes as originally scheduled) via Teams: https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.nysd.634304/gov.uscourts.nysd.634304.364.0.pdf

Following up on my post above to note:

A big part of why the communications broke down on this document collection and production for these two third party TAG employees is because kind of at the last minute, Breen objected to producing docs "to the present" and insisted on stopping when the lawsuit was filed in December 2024. Breen says in the lawyer email chain that they objected to the date in their original objections, but if you look, they really did not. The paragraph with the date specification is "Instructions" paragraph 3, and Breen made no objection to that paragraph. Breen said from the very beginning that paragraphs 11 through 13 of the subpoena seemed reasonable and they could produce those documents, and paragraphs 11-13 even specifically state in the doc request itself that they'll require docs from May 2024 "to the present." Breen made no specific objection to the date range, and said in his email these requests were okay! It's only in the lawyer email communications in late-May/early-June that Breen suddenly objects to producing docs after the lawsuit was filed. In briefing this issue to Judge Liman, Breen doesn't really even try to argue that they objected to the date issue in their Responses and Objections, so while he tried that out on Bender he really didn't test it on the judge.

I think that NAG gets this wrong again to be honest in discussing why this plan fell through at 4:40 in this video: https://www.tiktok.com/@notactuallygolden/video/7518888021555531022

NAG is suggesting the prior production plan fell through because another Lively lawyer got on the email and rug pulled against the prior terms that had been worked out by Lively attorneys with Breed. This is just incorrect, because Kristen Bender is the Lively attorney who did most of the negotiating, and is on the last several email communications in this string working out the details. The reason communications broke down is in large part because Breed suddenly objected to producing anything after December 2024, out of the blue (and in fact also objects to producing anything between May and July 2024 as well), and that was not acceptable to Lively's attorneys. There is another issue in here about Breed also objecting to producing texts involving group communications involving any of the Baldoni parties, where Bender may have been willing to agree to this at first but after two months had passed with no docs from anyone, they determined they needed everything.

NAG is blaming the communication breakdown on Lively attorneys. While she's saying that's normal in litigation and isn't really a big deal, she's putting the blame for the sudden change on the wrong party. Breed wanted to limit the productions in two new ways at the last minute and Lively/Bender wasn't willing to move. But NAG puts the blame on Bender/Lively instead, which her fans will like more, but which isn't really correct imo.

The judge has already said that on the issue involving the smear, communications after December 2024 are relevant because Lively's complaint states that the smear is ongoing. So unless the judge decided a non-party shouldn't bear the burden here (and except to the extent that any of the third parties are no longer employed by TAG and wouldn't have communications from them to the present), the judge has already said those later docs would be relevant to the case. Order: https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.nysd.634304/gov.uscourts.nysd.634304.355.0.pdf

This hearing is scheduled for Tuesday 6/24.

Email chain (Bender/Breed): https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.nysd.634304/gov.uscourts.nysd.634304.322.3.pdf
Subpoena where date range is spelled out in Instructions paragraph 3: https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.nysd.634304/gov.uscourts.nysd.634304.322.1.pdf
Breed's Objections and Responses to the subpoena where he doesn't specifically object to Instructions paragraph 3 or make other specific objections to the date range requested besides general overbreadth of the requests: https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.nysd.634304/gov.uscourts.nysd.634304.322.4_1.pdf

Breen's opposition letter brief (where he doesn't really make the claim that their responses and objections included a date objection -- because he really didn't): https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.nysd.634304/gov.uscourts.nysd.634304.358.0.pdf

Oh wow. Gottlieb is so brilliant, amirite?? You could tell he ‘side eyed’ someone in his footnotes?! Wow. Brilliant analysis. Thank god we have you to explain all this minutiae to us!!

What a great attorney. He encouraged, or at least didn’t discourage, his client who depends on her image for her living and her sense of being, to file a weak weak sexual harassment claim that would surely be put under a microscope and attacked as frivolous, put it in a California complaint so she could leak it to the NYT (risking a huge defamation claim, which she fortunately escaped) and then start engaging in a 2 + year litigation which will drag her name through the press constantly, and cost her millions and millions of dollars in legal fees and PR costs trying to rehabilitate her image. Plus she lost her prized relationship in Taylor Swift and is now isolated.

Wow! So awesome! What a great lawyer!!!! Let’s review how he side eyed someone in a footnote some more. Or focus on how she’s ‘winning’ because she escaped a defamation claim on a legal technicality.

Brilliant!!

Are you all right? I'm just talking about the filings that relate to the hearing coming up tomorrow. I guess you're saying that overall this lawsuit was bad for Lively, and I understand how you feel that way. On the other hand, your boy (I think he's surfing in Florida now?) just got all of his own claims dismissed. *poof* My favorite part of your point above is where you say his defamation claim was dismissed "on a legal technicality" lol. If that is how you need to cope, okay.

You seem to be dismissing all of the little back and forth letters and motions that go into litigation like this as unimportant given the larger picture. The day-to-day activity of the legal filings is mostly what interests me in this thread, so that's mostly what I post about. Coincidentally, I also think that's the part of litigation that Freedman is pretty terrible at. Freedman isn't involved in these Breen filings, but Breen is an appropriate stand in for him here ha. Freedman may be good at bullying and PR and maybe even depositions (let's see if that happens today), but he doesn't seem to be very good at motions practice or pleadings -- to me it's almost getting close to looking like malpractice at this point given his choice to file a worthless defamation claim that subjects his clients to treble damages, punitives, and attorneys fees as well as multiple various outstanding Rule 11 sanctions motions. I'm not sure Lively's attorneys will win on all of these, but I bet they will win some, and that's more cash Baldoni's rich benefactor will wind up paying out to Lively in this case.

Look, we all get it. The actual case for lively is such a train wreck and money pit that you need to focus on all the little filings here and there, and then of course the defamation claim. Baldoni doesn’t want money out of this, he wanted his reputation cleared and he has done that in spades. And yes, most people believe lively and the NYT won their cases because of fair report privilege, not because livelys claims were valid.

You’re acting like Baldoni started this and lost. Whereas, NO, Lively started this and although she seems to have avoided huge direct personal financial liability, she has decimated her reputation and is absolutely bleeding money. All for a pointless law suit that has done nothing but make her look like a manipulative liar. You can’t actually think that’s ‘winning’ can you?

How you can continuously come in here and claim the court case is going GREAT for Baldoni when he keeps losing motion after motion is bizarre to me. I guess since Freedman keeps going on TV saying he didn’t really lose at all or lost less then he really did keeps confusing people like you.

Let’s see how many claims are in the amended complaint Freedman files today as a starting point lol.

It had seemed to me that Baldoni had actually wanted quite a large sum of money out of this lawsuit since he filed a $400M defamation claim. But since those claims were dismissed as baseless I guess you’re rewriting history again.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Responding to self here to note that Breed’s 9 exhibits did get filed, you can see them here: https://www.reddit.com/r/ItEndsWithCourt/comments/1lfey19/all_of_the_exhibits_from_the_case_and_butler/

How is Breed a partner, though? He has filed 9 exhibits showing different parts of the same email string that are all contained, I believe, in the single exhibit that Lively filed. That’s why the attorneys use the one email string over and over in a discovery dispute, so you can just use that one email as your exhibit. Now the judge’s clerk needs to go through these additional 9 exhibits for no reason when Breed could have just cited the already existing filing. Silly and unnecessary.

I also find Breed’s language about “We needn’t, any of us, play at saber rattling” etc to be a bit dramatic in here. Is he British or something? This is federal litigation and Liman has set hard discovery deadlines, with substantial completion due well before Breed’s 21 days would end. Less time on fancy language and more time on compliance would be helpful imho.

Home from end of school pool day with a special present from Judge Liman:

First of all, Lively filed a Reply to Breed's letter, saying hey just because we negotiated down what you might owe (for two months) and you kept asking for more at the last minute doesn't mean the initial subpoena was overburdensome and that having wasted our time for two months you shouldn't be made to comply in full with the subpoena as originally written, now. He notes that the Wayfarer parties (and in fact no parties) have yet produced any materials that provide either of these two people's communications, and the time that Lively might have had one or two months ago to piece together what had been provided by the third parties vs provided by Wayfarer etc. is now passed.

Gottlieb also mentions some juicy sounding emails in here on which these two were copied. The first footnote also side-eyes all nine attachments that Breed attached to his opposition as I noted above, explaining that they were just all the same document that Gottlieb et al had attached to their motion in the first place. He says: "evidence their participation in the retaliatory digital effort: in an email from Abel to Case, Koslow, Heath, and Nathan discussing whether TAG’s fee includes “social media mitigation and proactive fan posting to counter the narrative” (ECF No. 84 ¶ 225), in a text from Case to Matthew Mitchell, Nathan, and Abel regarding contents of “HR complaints” from set (id. ¶ 263), in a text from Abel to Mitchell, Nathan, Case, and Koslow discussing the need to “position” reported-upon HR complaints (id. ¶ 264), and in a text from Abel to Mitchell, Nathan, Case, and Koslow discussing an allegation that Baldoni “invited [a woman] up to his hotel room years ago,” and a text from Koslow in response suggesting to “chat to Jed as well on this” (id. ¶ 256). See Exhibit A (here: https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.nysd.634304/gov.uscourts.nysd.634304.363.1.pdf).

Lively Reply: https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.nysd.634304/gov.uscourts.nysd.634304.363.0.pdf

Liman issued a memo endorsement saying there will be a hearing on this issue -- with just the Lively attorneys and Breed & co (i.e., no Freedman) on Tuesday June 24 (day after new complaint and potentially Lively's deposition if it goes as originally scheduled) via Teams: https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.nysd.634304/gov.uscourts.nysd.634304.364.0.pdf

Following up on my post above to note:

A big part of why the communications broke down on this document collection and production for these two third party TAG employees is because kind of at the last minute, Breen objected to producing docs "to the present" and insisted on stopping when the lawsuit was filed in December 2024. Breen says in the lawyer email chain that they objected to the date in their original objections, but if you look, they really did not. The paragraph with the date specification is "Instructions" paragraph 3, and Breen made no objection to that paragraph. Breen said from the very beginning that paragraphs 11 through 13 of the subpoena seemed reasonable and they could produce those documents, and paragraphs 11-13 even specifically state in the doc request itself that they'll require docs from May 2024 "to the present." Breen made no specific objection to the date range, and said in his email these requests were okay! It's only in the lawyer email communications in late-May/early-June that Breen suddenly objects to producing docs after the lawsuit was filed. In briefing this issue to Judge Liman, Breen doesn't really even try to argue that they objected to the date issue in their Responses and Objections, so while he tried that out on Bender he really didn't test it on the judge.

I think that NAG gets this wrong again to be honest in discussing why this plan fell through at 4:40 in this video: https://www.tiktok.com/@notactuallygolden/video/7518888021555531022

NAG is suggesting the prior production plan fell through because another Lively lawyer got on the email and rug pulled against the prior terms that had been worked out by Lively attorneys with Breed. This is just incorrect, because Kristen Bender is the Lively attorney who did most of the negotiating, and is on the last several email communications in this string working out the details. The reason communications broke down is in large part because Breed suddenly objected to producing anything after December 2024, out of the blue (and in fact also objects to producing anything between May and July 2024 as well), and that was not acceptable to Lively's attorneys. There is another issue in here about Breed also objecting to producing texts involving group communications involving any of the Baldoni parties, where Bender may have been willing to agree to this at first but after two months had passed with no docs from anyone, they determined they needed everything.

NAG is blaming the communication breakdown on Lively attorneys. While she's saying that's normal in litigation and isn't really a big deal, she's putting the blame for the sudden change on the wrong party. Breed wanted to limit the productions in two new ways at the last minute and Lively/Bender wasn't willing to move. But NAG puts the blame on Bender/Lively instead, which her fans will like more, but which isn't really correct imo.

The judge has already said that on the issue involving the smear, communications after December 2024 are relevant because Lively's complaint states that the smear is ongoing. So unless the judge decided a non-party shouldn't bear the burden here (and except to the extent that any of the third parties are no longer employed by TAG and wouldn't have communications from them to the present), the judge has already said those later docs would be relevant to the case. Order: https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.nysd.634304/gov.uscourts.nysd.634304.355.0.pdf

This hearing is scheduled for Tuesday 6/24.

Email chain (Bender/Breed): https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.nysd.634304/gov.uscourts.nysd.634304.322.3.pdf
Subpoena where date range is spelled out in Instructions paragraph 3: https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.nysd.634304/gov.uscourts.nysd.634304.322.1.pdf
Breed's Objections and Responses to the subpoena where he doesn't specifically object to Instructions paragraph 3 or make other specific objections to the date range requested besides general overbreadth of the requests: https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.nysd.634304/gov.uscourts.nysd.634304.322.4_1.pdf

Breen's opposition letter brief (where he doesn't really make the claim that their responses and objections included a date objection -- because he really didn't): https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.nysd.634304/gov.uscourts.nysd.634304.358.0.pdf

Oh wow. Gottlieb is so brilliant, amirite?? You could tell he ‘side eyed’ someone in his footnotes?! Wow. Brilliant analysis. Thank god we have you to explain all this minutiae to us!!

What a great attorney. He encouraged, or at least didn’t discourage, his client who depends on her image for her living and her sense of being, to file a weak weak sexual harassment claim that would surely be put under a microscope and attacked as frivolous, put it in a California complaint so she could leak it to the NYT (risking a huge defamation claim, which she fortunately escaped) and then start engaging in a 2 + year litigation which will drag her name through the press constantly, and cost her millions and millions of dollars in legal fees and PR costs trying to rehabilitate her image. Plus she lost her prized relationship in Taylor Swift and is now isolated.

Wow! So awesome! What a great lawyer!!!! Let’s review how he side eyed someone in a footnote some more. Or focus on how she’s ‘winning’ because she escaped a defamation claim on a legal technicality.

Brilliant!!

Are you all right? I'm just talking about the filings that relate to the hearing coming up tomorrow. I guess you're saying that overall this lawsuit was bad for Lively, and I understand how you feel that way. On the other hand, your boy (I think he's surfing in Florida now?) just got all of his own claims dismissed. *poof* My favorite part of your point above is where you say his defamation claim was dismissed "on a legal technicality" lol. If that is how you need to cope, okay.

You seem to be dismissing all of the little back and forth letters and motions that go into litigation like this as unimportant given the larger picture. The day-to-day activity of the legal filings is mostly what interests me in this thread, so that's mostly what I post about. Coincidentally, I also think that's the part of litigation that Freedman is pretty terrible at. Freedman isn't involved in these Breen filings, but Breen is an appropriate stand in for him here ha. Freedman may be good at bullying and PR and maybe even depositions (let's see if that happens today), but he doesn't seem to be very good at motions practice or pleadings -- to me it's almost getting close to looking like malpractice at this point given his choice to file a worthless defamation claim that subjects his clients to treble damages, punitives, and attorneys fees as well as multiple various outstanding Rule 11 sanctions motions. I'm not sure Lively's attorneys will win on all of these, but I bet they will win some, and that's more cash Baldoni's rich benefactor will wind up paying out to Lively in this case.

Look, we all get it. The actual case for lively is such a train wreck and money pit that you need to focus on all the little filings here and there, and then of course the defamation claim. Baldoni doesn’t want money out of this, he wanted his reputation cleared and he has done that in spades. And yes, most people believe lively and the NYT won their cases because of fair report privilege, not because livelys claims were valid.

You’re acting like Baldoni started this and lost. Whereas, NO, Lively started this and although she seems to have avoided huge direct personal financial liability, she has decimated her reputation and is absolutely bleeding money. All for a pointless law suit that has done nothing but make her look like a manipulative liar. You can’t actually think that’s ‘winning’ can you?

Going back to the Breen filing at issue in tomorrow's hearing, I think Liman will give Lively some of what they want but not everything. I suspect Liman will require Breen to produce the full date range (except to the extent someone no longer worked at TAG). I suspect he might not make these two non-parties produce group texts that include parties, but might say to Lively (as he has done with Lively's other similar MTCs) "come back to me later if needed" if you think info is missing and you think you need this full set from them etc. Though it's not specifically at issue, I don't think Liman would require Breen to run search terms after a full electronic upload and produce with full metadata etc. (as Lively prefers), but I do think Liman might order production within 21-30 days to keep this train moving (making the eyeball searches that Breen was suggested impractical). Given that I think the fault for the delay here is more Breen's than Lively's, I think there may be some allowance to Lively if a full production isn't made on time with docs Lively expects. I also don't think the judge will REQUIRE Lively to stick to all their prior concessions like footing the cost of the two non-parties' productions etc, though he might attempt to encourage it in the hearing in order to get the docs produced quickly.

I think the judge will have a little sympathy for these non-parties, but will also recognize the non-parties have been wasting time here.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Responding to self here to note that Breed’s 9 exhibits did get filed, you can see them here: https://www.reddit.com/r/ItEndsWithCourt/comments/1lfey19/all_of_the_exhibits_from_the_case_and_butler/

How is Breed a partner, though? He has filed 9 exhibits showing different parts of the same email string that are all contained, I believe, in the single exhibit that Lively filed. That’s why the attorneys use the one email string over and over in a discovery dispute, so you can just use that one email as your exhibit. Now the judge’s clerk needs to go through these additional 9 exhibits for no reason when Breed could have just cited the already existing filing. Silly and unnecessary.

I also find Breed’s language about “We needn’t, any of us, play at saber rattling” etc to be a bit dramatic in here. Is he British or something? This is federal litigation and Liman has set hard discovery deadlines, with substantial completion due well before Breed’s 21 days would end. Less time on fancy language and more time on compliance would be helpful imho.

Home from end of school pool day with a special present from Judge Liman:

First of all, Lively filed a Reply to Breed's letter, saying hey just because we negotiated down what you might owe (for two months) and you kept asking for more at the last minute doesn't mean the initial subpoena was overburdensome and that having wasted our time for two months you shouldn't be made to comply in full with the subpoena as originally written, now. He notes that the Wayfarer parties (and in fact no parties) have yet produced any materials that provide either of these two people's communications, and the time that Lively might have had one or two months ago to piece together what had been provided by the third parties vs provided by Wayfarer etc. is now passed.

Gottlieb also mentions some juicy sounding emails in here on which these two were copied. The first footnote also side-eyes all nine attachments that Breed attached to his opposition as I noted above, explaining that they were just all the same document that Gottlieb et al had attached to their motion in the first place. He says: "evidence their participation in the retaliatory digital effort: in an email from Abel to Case, Koslow, Heath, and Nathan discussing whether TAG’s fee includes “social media mitigation and proactive fan posting to counter the narrative” (ECF No. 84 ¶ 225), in a text from Case to Matthew Mitchell, Nathan, and Abel regarding contents of “HR complaints” from set (id. ¶ 263), in a text from Abel to Mitchell, Nathan, Case, and Koslow discussing the need to “position” reported-upon HR complaints (id. ¶ 264), and in a text from Abel to Mitchell, Nathan, Case, and Koslow discussing an allegation that Baldoni “invited [a woman] up to his hotel room years ago,” and a text from Koslow in response suggesting to “chat to Jed as well on this” (id. ¶ 256). See Exhibit A (here: https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.nysd.634304/gov.uscourts.nysd.634304.363.1.pdf).

Lively Reply: https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.nysd.634304/gov.uscourts.nysd.634304.363.0.pdf

Liman issued a memo endorsement saying there will be a hearing on this issue -- with just the Lively attorneys and Breed & co (i.e., no Freedman) on Tuesday June 24 (day after new complaint and potentially Lively's deposition if it goes as originally scheduled) via Teams: https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.nysd.634304/gov.uscourts.nysd.634304.364.0.pdf

Following up on my post above to note:

A big part of why the communications broke down on this document collection and production for these two third party TAG employees is because kind of at the last minute, Breen objected to producing docs "to the present" and insisted on stopping when the lawsuit was filed in December 2024. Breen says in the lawyer email chain that they objected to the date in their original objections, but if you look, they really did not. The paragraph with the date specification is "Instructions" paragraph 3, and Breen made no objection to that paragraph. Breen said from the very beginning that paragraphs 11 through 13 of the subpoena seemed reasonable and they could produce those documents, and paragraphs 11-13 even specifically state in the doc request itself that they'll require docs from May 2024 "to the present." Breen made no specific objection to the date range, and said in his email these requests were okay! It's only in the lawyer email communications in late-May/early-June that Breen suddenly objects to producing docs after the lawsuit was filed. In briefing this issue to Judge Liman, Breen doesn't really even try to argue that they objected to the date issue in their Responses and Objections, so while he tried that out on Bender he really didn't test it on the judge.

I think that NAG gets this wrong again to be honest in discussing why this plan fell through at 4:40 in this video: https://www.tiktok.com/@notactuallygolden/video/7518888021555531022

NAG is suggesting the prior production plan fell through because another Lively lawyer got on the email and rug pulled against the prior terms that had been worked out by Lively attorneys with Breed. This is just incorrect, because Kristen Bender is the Lively attorney who did most of the negotiating, and is on the last several email communications in this string working out the details. The reason communications broke down is in large part because Breed suddenly objected to producing anything after December 2024, out of the blue (and in fact also objects to producing anything between May and July 2024 as well), and that was not acceptable to Lively's attorneys. There is another issue in here about Breed also objecting to producing texts involving group communications involving any of the Baldoni parties, where Bender may have been willing to agree to this at first but after two months had passed with no docs from anyone, they determined they needed everything.

NAG is blaming the communication breakdown on Lively attorneys. While she's saying that's normal in litigation and isn't really a big deal, she's putting the blame for the sudden change on the wrong party. Breed wanted to limit the productions in two new ways at the last minute and Lively/Bender wasn't willing to move. But NAG puts the blame on Bender/Lively instead, which her fans will like more, but which isn't really correct imo.

The judge has already said that on the issue involving the smear, communications after December 2024 are relevant because Lively's complaint states that the smear is ongoing. So unless the judge decided a non-party shouldn't bear the burden here (and except to the extent that any of the third parties are no longer employed by TAG and wouldn't have communications from them to the present), the judge has already said those later docs would be relevant to the case. Order: https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.nysd.634304/gov.uscourts.nysd.634304.355.0.pdf

This hearing is scheduled for Tuesday 6/24.

Email chain (Bender/Breed): https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.nysd.634304/gov.uscourts.nysd.634304.322.3.pdf
Subpoena where date range is spelled out in Instructions paragraph 3: https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.nysd.634304/gov.uscourts.nysd.634304.322.1.pdf
Breed's Objections and Responses to the subpoena where he doesn't specifically object to Instructions paragraph 3 or make other specific objections to the date range requested besides general overbreadth of the requests: https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.nysd.634304/gov.uscourts.nysd.634304.322.4_1.pdf

Breen's opposition letter brief (where he doesn't really make the claim that their responses and objections included a date objection -- because he really didn't): https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.nysd.634304/gov.uscourts.nysd.634304.358.0.pdf

Oh wow. Gottlieb is so brilliant, amirite?? You could tell he ‘side eyed’ someone in his footnotes?! Wow. Brilliant analysis. Thank god we have you to explain all this minutiae to us!!

What a great attorney. He encouraged, or at least didn’t discourage, his client who depends on her image for her living and her sense of being, to file a weak weak sexual harassment claim that would surely be put under a microscope and attacked as frivolous, put it in a California complaint so she could leak it to the NYT (risking a huge defamation claim, which she fortunately escaped) and then start engaging in a 2 + year litigation which will drag her name through the press constantly, and cost her millions and millions of dollars in legal fees and PR costs trying to rehabilitate her image. Plus she lost her prized relationship in Taylor Swift and is now isolated.

Wow! So awesome! What a great lawyer!!!! Let’s review how he side eyed someone in a footnote some more. Or focus on how she’s ‘winning’ because she escaped a defamation claim on a legal technicality.

Brilliant!!

Are you all right? I'm just talking about the filings that relate to the hearing coming up tomorrow. I guess you're saying that overall this lawsuit was bad for Lively, and I understand how you feel that way. On the other hand, your boy (I think he's surfing in Florida now?) just got all of his own claims dismissed. *poof* My favorite part of your point above is where you say his defamation claim was dismissed "on a legal technicality" lol. If that is how you need to cope, okay.

You seem to be dismissing all of the little back and forth letters and motions that go into litigation like this as unimportant given the larger picture. The day-to-day activity of the legal filings is mostly what interests me in this thread, so that's mostly what I post about. Coincidentally, I also think that's the part of litigation that Freedman is pretty terrible at. Freedman isn't involved in these Breen filings, but Breen is an appropriate stand in for him here ha. Freedman may be good at bullying and PR and maybe even depositions (let's see if that happens today), but he doesn't seem to be very good at motions practice or pleadings -- to me it's almost getting close to looking like malpractice at this point given his choice to file a worthless defamation claim that subjects his clients to treble damages, punitives, and attorneys fees as well as multiple various outstanding Rule 11 sanctions motions. I'm not sure Lively's attorneys will win on all of these, but I bet they will win some, and that's more cash Baldoni's rich benefactor will wind up paying out to Lively in this case.

Look, we all get it. The actual case for lively is such a train wreck and money pit that you need to focus on all the little filings here and there, and then of course the defamation claim. Baldoni doesn’t want money out of this, he wanted his reputation cleared and he has done that in spades. And yes, most people believe lively and the NYT won their cases because of fair report privilege, not because livelys claims were valid.

You’re acting like Baldoni started this and lost. Whereas, NO, Lively started this and although she seems to have avoided huge direct personal financial liability, she has decimated her reputation and is absolutely bleeding money. All for a pointless law suit that has done nothing but make her look like a manipulative liar. You can’t actually think that’s ‘winning’ can you?

How you can continuously come in here and claim the court case is going GREAT for Baldoni when he keeps losing motion after motion is bizarre to me. I guess since Freedman keeps going on TV saying he didn’t really lose at all or lost less then he really did keeps confusing people like you.

Let’s see how many claims are in the amended complaint Freedman files today as a starting point lol.

It had seemed to me that Baldoni had actually wanted quite a large sum of money out of this lawsuit since he filed a $400M defamation claim. But since those claims were dismissed as baseless I guess you’re rewriting history again.

Dp, but the recent discovery motions have been a mixed bag for Lively, she was forced to give up her claims for intentional I flictionof emotional distress and outright lost the Swift motion. She had some success in ipushing out the end dare on the other discovery and getting some responses to interrogatories.

[Anonymous]

Well weirdo Brett Douglas McDowell, the most "pick-me" non-party in this case trying desperately to remain relevant and involved here, has filed ... something? ... challenging Judge Liman's impartiality in the case, here: chrome-extension://efaidnbmnnnibpcajpcglclefindmkaj/https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.nysd.634304/gov.uscourts.nysd.634304.367.0.pdf

I guess he is also complaining that Court Listener doesn't have all the most recent Judge Liman financial filings, as though that might be Judge Liman's fault??? Exhibit A: chrome-extension://efaidnbmnnnibpcajpcglclefindmkaj/https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.nysd.634304/gov.uscourts.nysd.634304.367.1.pdf

Another clarification from McDowell saying his 6/18 filing was incorrect: chrome-extension://efaidnbmnnnibpcajpcglclefindmkaj/https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.nysd.634304/gov.uscourts.nysd.634304.368.0.pdf

Godspeed to you, Mr. McDowell. This does not seem like it will get much traction.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Responding to self here to note that Breed’s 9 exhibits did get filed, you can see them here: https://www.reddit.com/r/ItEndsWithCourt/comments/1lfey19/all_of_the_exhibits_from_the_case_and_butler/

How is Breed a partner, though? He has filed 9 exhibits showing different parts of the same email string that are all contained, I believe, in the single exhibit that Lively filed. That’s why the attorneys use the one email string over and over in a discovery dispute, so you can just use that one email as your exhibit. Now the judge’s clerk needs to go through these additional 9 exhibits for no reason when Breed could have just cited the already existing filing. Silly and unnecessary.

I also find Breed’s language about “We needn’t, any of us, play at saber rattling” etc to be a bit dramatic in here. Is he British or something? This is federal litigation and Liman has set hard discovery deadlines, with substantial completion due well before Breed’s 21 days would end. Less time on fancy language and more time on compliance would be helpful imho.

Home from end of school pool day with a special present from Judge Liman:

First of all, Lively filed a Reply to Breed's letter, saying hey just because we negotiated down what you might owe (for two months) and you kept asking for more at the last minute doesn't mean the initial subpoena was overburdensome and that having wasted our time for two months you shouldn't be made to comply in full with the subpoena as originally written, now. He notes that the Wayfarer parties (and in fact no parties) have yet produced any materials that provide either of these two people's communications, and the time that Lively might have had one or two months ago to piece together what had been provided by the third parties vs provided by Wayfarer etc. is now passed.

Gottlieb also mentions some juicy sounding emails in here on which these two were copied. The first footnote also side-eyes all nine attachments that Breed attached to his opposition as I noted above, explaining that they were just all the same document that Gottlieb et al had attached to their motion in the first place. He says: "evidence their participation in the retaliatory digital effort: in an email from Abel to Case, Koslow, Heath, and Nathan discussing whether TAG’s fee includes “social media mitigation and proactive fan posting to counter the narrative” (ECF No. 84 ¶ 225), in a text from Case to Matthew Mitchell, Nathan, and Abel regarding contents of “HR complaints” from set (id. ¶ 263), in a text from Abel to Mitchell, Nathan, Case, and Koslow discussing the need to “position” reported-upon HR complaints (id. ¶ 264), and in a text from Abel to Mitchell, Nathan, Case, and Koslow discussing an allegation that Baldoni “invited [a woman] up to his hotel room years ago,” and a text from Koslow in response suggesting to “chat to Jed as well on this” (id. ¶ 256). See Exhibit A (here: https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.nysd.634304/gov.uscourts.nysd.634304.363.1.pdf).

Lively Reply: https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.nysd.634304/gov.uscourts.nysd.634304.363.0.pdf

Liman issued a memo endorsement saying there will be a hearing on this issue -- with just the Lively attorneys and Breed & co (i.e., no Freedman) on Tuesday June 24 (day after new complaint and potentially Lively's deposition if it goes as originally scheduled) via Teams: https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.nysd.634304/gov.uscourts.nysd.634304.364.0.pdf

Following up on my post above to note:

A big part of why the communications broke down on this document collection and production for these two third party TAG employees is because kind of at the last minute, Breen objected to producing docs "to the present" and insisted on stopping when the lawsuit was filed in December 2024. Breen says in the lawyer email chain that they objected to the date in their original objections, but if you look, they really did not. The paragraph with the date specification is "Instructions" paragraph 3, and Breen made no objection to that paragraph. Breen said from the very beginning that paragraphs 11 through 13 of the subpoena seemed reasonable and they could produce those documents, and paragraphs 11-13 even specifically state in the doc request itself that they'll require docs from May 2024 "to the present." Breen made no specific objection to the date range, and said in his email these requests were okay! It's only in the lawyer email communications in late-May/early-June that Breen suddenly objects to producing docs after the lawsuit was filed. In briefing this issue to Judge Liman, Breen doesn't really even try to argue that they objected to the date issue in their Responses and Objections, so while he tried that out on Bender he really didn't test it on the judge.

I think that NAG gets this wrong again to be honest in discussing why this plan fell through at 4:40 in this video: https://www.tiktok.com/@notactuallygolden/video/7518888021555531022

NAG is suggesting the prior production plan fell through because another Lively lawyer got on the email and rug pulled against the prior terms that had been worked out by Lively attorneys with Breed. This is just incorrect, because Kristen Bender is the Lively attorney who did most of the negotiating, and is on the last several email communications in this string working out the details. The reason communications broke down is in large part because Breed suddenly objected to producing anything after December 2024, out of the blue (and in fact also objects to producing anything between May and July 2024 as well), and that was not acceptable to Lively's attorneys. There is another issue in here about Breed also objecting to producing texts involving group communications involving any of the Baldoni parties, where Bender may have been willing to agree to this at first but after two months had passed with no docs from anyone, they determined they needed everything.

NAG is blaming the communication breakdown on Lively attorneys. While she's saying that's normal in litigation and isn't really a big deal, she's putting the blame for the sudden change on the wrong party. Breed wanted to limit the productions in two new ways at the last minute and Lively/Bender wasn't willing to move. But NAG puts the blame on Bender/Lively instead, which her fans will like more, but which isn't really correct imo.

The judge has already said that on the issue involving the smear, communications after December 2024 are relevant because Lively's complaint states that the smear is ongoing. So unless the judge decided a non-party shouldn't bear the burden here (and except to the extent that any of the third parties are no longer employed by TAG and wouldn't have communications from them to the present), the judge has already said those later docs would be relevant to the case. Order: https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.nysd.634304/gov.uscourts.nysd.634304.355.0.pdf

This hearing is scheduled for Tuesday 6/24.

Email chain (Bender/Breed): https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.nysd.634304/gov.uscourts.nysd.634304.322.3.pdf
Subpoena where date range is spelled out in Instructions paragraph 3: https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.nysd.634304/gov.uscourts.nysd.634304.322.1.pdf
Breed's Objections and Responses to the subpoena where he doesn't specifically object to Instructions paragraph 3 or make other specific objections to the date range requested besides general overbreadth of the requests: https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.nysd.634304/gov.uscourts.nysd.634304.322.4_1.pdf

Breen's opposition letter brief (where he doesn't really make the claim that their responses and objections included a date objection -- because he really didn't): https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.nysd.634304/gov.uscourts.nysd.634304.358.0.pdf

Oh wow. Gottlieb is so brilliant, amirite?? You could tell he ‘side eyed’ someone in his footnotes?! Wow. Brilliant analysis. Thank god we have you to explain all this minutiae to us!!

What a great attorney. He encouraged, or at least didn’t discourage, his client who depends on her image for her living and her sense of being, to file a weak weak sexual harassment claim that would surely be put under a microscope and attacked as frivolous, put it in a California complaint so she could leak it to the NYT (risking a huge defamation claim, which she fortunately escaped) and then start engaging in a 2 + year litigation which will drag her name through the press constantly, and cost her millions and millions of dollars in legal fees and PR costs trying to rehabilitate her image. Plus she lost her prized relationship in Taylor Swift and is now isolated.

Wow! So awesome! What a great lawyer!!!! Let’s review how he side eyed someone in a footnote some more. Or focus on how she’s ‘winning’ because she escaped a defamation claim on a legal technicality.

Brilliant!!

Are you all right? I'm just talking about the filings that relate to the hearing coming up tomorrow. I guess you're saying that overall this lawsuit was bad for Lively, and I understand how you feel that way. On the other hand, your boy (I think he's surfing in Florida now?) just got all of his own claims dismissed. *poof* My favorite part of your point above is where you say his defamation claim was dismissed "on a legal technicality" lol. If that is how you need to cope, okay.

You seem to be dismissing all of the little back and forth letters and motions that go into litigation like this as unimportant given the larger picture. The day-to-day activity of the legal filings is mostly what interests me in this thread, so that's mostly what I post about. Coincidentally, I also think that's the part of litigation that Freedman is pretty terrible at. Freedman isn't involved in these Breen filings, but Breen is an appropriate stand in for him here ha. Freedman may be good at bullying and PR and maybe even depositions (let's see if that happens today), but he doesn't seem to be very good at motions practice or pleadings -- to me it's almost getting close to looking like malpractice at this point given his choice to file a worthless defamation claim that subjects his clients to treble damages, punitives, and attorneys fees as well as multiple various outstanding Rule 11 sanctions motions. I'm not sure Lively's attorneys will win on all of these, but I bet they will win some, and that's more cash Baldoni's rich benefactor will wind up paying out to Lively in this case.

Look, we all get it. The actual case for lively is such a train wreck and money pit that you need to focus on all the little filings here and there, and then of course the defamation claim. Baldoni doesn’t want money out of this, he wanted his reputation cleared and he has done that in spades. And yes, most people believe lively and the NYT won their cases because of fair report privilege, not because livelys claims were valid.

You’re acting like Baldoni started this and lost. Whereas, NO, Lively started this and although she seems to have avoided huge direct personal financial liability, she has decimated her reputation and is absolutely bleeding money. All for a pointless law suit that has done nothing but make her look like a manipulative liar. You can’t actually think that’s ‘winning’ can you?

How you can continuously come in here and claim the court case is going GREAT for Baldoni when he keeps losing motion after motion is bizarre to me. I guess since Freedman keeps going on TV saying he didn’t really lose at all or lost less then he really did keeps confusing people like you.

Let’s see how many claims are in the amended complaint Freedman files today as a starting point lol.

It had seemed to me that Baldoni had actually wanted quite a large sum of money out of this lawsuit since he filed a $400M defamation claim. But since those claims were dismissed as baseless I guess you’re rewriting history again.

Dp, but the recent discovery motions have been a mixed bag for Lively, she was forced to give up her claims for intentional I flictionof emotional distress and outright lost the Swift motion. She had some success in ipushing out the end dare on the other discovery and getting some responses to interrogatories.

Just a little reminder that another recent thing that happened in the case was Judge Liman dismissing every single one of Baldoni's claims, mostly with prejudice, on this day only two weeks ago. *pours out a forty for those $400M defamation and extortion claims RIP*

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Responding to self here to note that Breed’s 9 exhibits did get filed, you can see them here: https://www.reddit.com/r/ItEndsWithCourt/comments/1lfey19/all_of_the_exhibits_from_the_case_and_butler/

How is Breed a partner, though? He has filed 9 exhibits showing different parts of the same email string that are all contained, I believe, in the single exhibit that Lively filed. That’s why the attorneys use the one email string over and over in a discovery dispute, so you can just use that one email as your exhibit. Now the judge’s clerk needs to go through these additional 9 exhibits for no reason when Breed could have just cited the already existing filing. Silly and unnecessary.

I also find Breed’s language about “We needn’t, any of us, play at saber rattling” etc to be a bit dramatic in here. Is he British or something? This is federal litigation and Liman has set hard discovery deadlines, with substantial completion due well before Breed’s 21 days would end. Less time on fancy language and more time on compliance would be helpful imho.

Home from end of school pool day with a special present from Judge Liman:

First of all, Lively filed a Reply to Breed's letter, saying hey just because we negotiated down what you might owe (for two months) and you kept asking for more at the last minute doesn't mean the initial subpoena was overburdensome and that having wasted our time for two months you shouldn't be made to comply in full with the subpoena as originally written, now. He notes that the Wayfarer parties (and in fact no parties) have yet produced any materials that provide either of these two people's communications, and the time that Lively might have had one or two months ago to piece together what had been provided by the third parties vs provided by Wayfarer etc. is now passed.

Gottlieb also mentions some juicy sounding emails in here on which these two were copied. The first footnote also side-eyes all nine attachments that Breed attached to his opposition as I noted above, explaining that they were just all the same document that Gottlieb et al had attached to their motion in the first place. He says: "evidence their participation in the retaliatory digital effort: in an email from Abel to Case, Koslow, Heath, and Nathan discussing whether TAG’s fee includes “social media mitigation and proactive fan posting to counter the narrative” (ECF No. 84 ¶ 225), in a text from Case to Matthew Mitchell, Nathan, and Abel regarding contents of “HR complaints” from set (id. ¶ 263), in a text from Abel to Mitchell, Nathan, Case, and Koslow discussing the need to “position” reported-upon HR complaints (id. ¶ 264), and in a text from Abel to Mitchell, Nathan, Case, and Koslow discussing an allegation that Baldoni “invited [a woman] up to his hotel room years ago,” and a text from Koslow in response suggesting to “chat to Jed as well on this” (id. ¶ 256). See Exhibit A (here: https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.nysd.634304/gov.uscourts.nysd.634304.363.1.pdf).

Lively Reply: https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.nysd.634304/gov.uscourts.nysd.634304.363.0.pdf

Liman issued a memo endorsement saying there will be a hearing on this issue -- with just the Lively attorneys and Breed & co (i.e., no Freedman) on Tuesday June 24 (day after new complaint and potentially Lively's deposition if it goes as originally scheduled) via Teams: https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.nysd.634304/gov.uscourts.nysd.634304.364.0.pdf

Following up on my post above to note:

A big part of why the communications broke down on this document collection and production for these two third party TAG employees is because kind of at the last minute, Breen objected to producing docs "to the present" and insisted on stopping when the lawsuit was filed in December 2024. Breen says in the lawyer email chain that they objected to the date in their original objections, but if you look, they really did not. The paragraph with the date specification is "Instructions" paragraph 3, and Breen made no objection to that paragraph. Breen said from the very beginning that paragraphs 11 through 13 of the subpoena seemed reasonable and they could produce those documents, and paragraphs 11-13 even specifically state in the doc request itself that they'll require docs from May 2024 "to the present." Breen made no specific objection to the date range, and said in his email these requests were okay! It's only in the lawyer email communications in late-May/early-June that Breen suddenly objects to producing docs after the lawsuit was filed. In briefing this issue to Judge Liman, Breen doesn't really even try to argue that they objected to the date issue in their Responses and Objections, so while he tried that out on Bender he really didn't test it on the judge.

I think that NAG gets this wrong again to be honest in discussing why this plan fell through at 4:40 in this video: https://www.tiktok.com/@notactuallygolden/video/7518888021555531022

NAG is suggesting the prior production plan fell through because another Lively lawyer got on the email and rug pulled against the prior terms that had been worked out by Lively attorneys with Breed. This is just incorrect, because Kristen Bender is the Lively attorney who did most of the negotiating, and is on the last several email communications in this string working out the details. The reason communications broke down is in large part because Breed suddenly objected to producing anything after December 2024, out of the blue (and in fact also objects to producing anything between May and July 2024 as well), and that was not acceptable to Lively's attorneys. There is another issue in here about Breed also objecting to producing texts involving group communications involving any of the Baldoni parties, where Bender may have been willing to agree to this at first but after two months had passed with no docs from anyone, they determined they needed everything.

NAG is blaming the communication breakdown on Lively attorneys. While she's saying that's normal in litigation and isn't really a big deal, she's putting the blame for the sudden change on the wrong party. Breed wanted to limit the productions in two new ways at the last minute and Lively/Bender wasn't willing to move. But NAG puts the blame on Bender/Lively instead, which her fans will like more, but which isn't really correct imo.

The judge has already said that on the issue involving the smear, communications after December 2024 are relevant because Lively's complaint states that the smear is ongoing. So unless the judge decided a non-party shouldn't bear the burden here (and except to the extent that any of the third parties are no longer employed by TAG and wouldn't have communications from them to the present), the judge has already said those later docs would be relevant to the case. Order: https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.nysd.634304/gov.uscourts.nysd.634304.355.0.pdf

This hearing is scheduled for Tuesday 6/24.

Email chain (Bender/Breed): https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.nysd.634304/gov.uscourts.nysd.634304.322.3.pdf
Subpoena where date range is spelled out in Instructions paragraph 3: https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.nysd.634304/gov.uscourts.nysd.634304.322.1.pdf
Breed's Objections and Responses to the subpoena where he doesn't specifically object to Instructions paragraph 3 or make other specific objections to the date range requested besides general overbreadth of the requests: https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.nysd.634304/gov.uscourts.nysd.634304.322.4_1.pdf

Breen's opposition letter brief (where he doesn't really make the claim that their responses and objections included a date objection -- because he really didn't): https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.nysd.634304/gov.uscourts.nysd.634304.358.0.pdf

Oh wow. Gottlieb is so brilliant, amirite?? You could tell he ‘side eyed’ someone in his footnotes?! Wow. Brilliant analysis. Thank god we have you to explain all this minutiae to us!!

What a great attorney. He encouraged, or at least didn’t discourage, his client who depends on her image for her living and her sense of being, to file a weak weak sexual harassment claim that would surely be put under a microscope and attacked as frivolous, put it in a California complaint so she could leak it to the NYT (risking a huge defamation claim, which she fortunately escaped) and then start engaging in a 2 + year litigation which will drag her name through the press constantly, and cost her millions and millions of dollars in legal fees and PR costs trying to rehabilitate her image. Plus she lost her prized relationship in Taylor Swift and is now isolated.

Wow! So awesome! What a great lawyer!!!! Let’s review how he side eyed someone in a footnote some more. Or focus on how she’s ‘winning’ because she escaped a defamation claim on a legal technicality.

Brilliant!!

Are you all right? I'm just talking about the filings that relate to the hearing coming up tomorrow. I guess you're saying that overall this lawsuit was bad for Lively, and I understand how you feel that way. On the other hand, your boy (I think he's surfing in Florida now?) just got all of his own claims dismissed. *poof* My favorite part of your point above is where you say his defamation claim was dismissed "on a legal technicality" lol. If that is how you need to cope, okay.

You seem to be dismissing all of the little back and forth letters and motions that go into litigation like this as unimportant given the larger picture. The day-to-day activity of the legal filings is mostly what interests me in this thread, so that's mostly what I post about. Coincidentally, I also think that's the part of litigation that Freedman is pretty terrible at. Freedman isn't involved in these Breen filings, but Breen is an appropriate stand in for him here ha. Freedman may be good at bullying and PR and maybe even depositions (let's see if that happens today), but he doesn't seem to be very good at motions practice or pleadings -- to me it's almost getting close to looking like malpractice at this point given his choice to file a worthless defamation claim that subjects his clients to treble damages, punitives, and attorneys fees as well as multiple various outstanding Rule 11 sanctions motions. I'm not sure Lively's attorneys will win on all of these, but I bet they will win some, and that's more cash Baldoni's rich benefactor will wind up paying out to Lively in this case.

Look, we all get it. The actual case for lively is such a train wreck and money pit that you need to focus on all the little filings here and there, and then of course the defamation claim. Baldoni doesn’t want money out of this, he wanted his reputation cleared and he has done that in spades. And yes, most people believe lively and the NYT won their cases because of fair report privilege, not because livelys claims were valid.

You’re acting like Baldoni started this and lost. Whereas, NO, Lively started this and although she seems to have avoided huge direct personal financial liability, she has decimated her reputation and is absolutely bleeding money. All for a pointless law suit that has done nothing but make her look like a manipulative liar. You can’t actually think that’s ‘winning’ can you?

How you can continuously come in here and claim the court case is going GREAT for Baldoni when he keeps losing motion after motion is bizarre to me. I guess since Freedman keeps going on TV saying he didn’t really lose at all or lost less then he really did keeps confusing people like you.

Let’s see how many claims are in the amended complaint Freedman files today as a starting point lol.

It had seemed to me that Baldoni had actually wanted quite a large sum of money out of this lawsuit since he filed a $400M defamation claim. But since those claims were dismissed as baseless I guess you’re rewriting history again.

Dp, but the recent discovery motions have been a mixed bag for Lively, she was forced to give up her claims for intentional I flictionof emotional distress and outright lost the Swift motion. She had some success in ipushing out the end dare on the other discovery and getting some responses to interrogatories.

Just a little reminder that another recent thing that happened in the case was Judge Liman dismissing every single one of Baldoni's claims, mostly with prejudice, on this day only two weeks ago. *pours out a forty for those $400M defamation and extortion claims RIP*

Well yes, but Lively has also lost some claims.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Responding to self here to note that Breed’s 9 exhibits did get filed, you can see them here: https://www.reddit.com/r/ItEndsWithCourt/comments/1lfey19/all_of_the_exhibits_from_the_case_and_butler/

How is Breed a partner, though? He has filed 9 exhibits showing different parts of the same email string that are all contained, I believe, in the single exhibit that Lively filed. That’s why the attorneys use the one email string over and over in a discovery dispute, so you can just use that one email as your exhibit. Now the judge’s clerk needs to go through these additional 9 exhibits for no reason when Breed could have just cited the already existing filing. Silly and unnecessary.

I also find Breed’s language about “We needn’t, any of us, play at saber rattling” etc to be a bit dramatic in here. Is he British or something? This is federal litigation and Liman has set hard discovery deadlines, with substantial completion due well before Breed’s 21 days would end. Less time on fancy language and more time on compliance would be helpful imho.

Home from end of school pool day with a special present from Judge Liman:

First of all, Lively filed a Reply to Breed's letter, saying hey just because we negotiated down what you might owe (for two months) and you kept asking for more at the last minute doesn't mean the initial subpoena was overburdensome and that having wasted our time for two months you shouldn't be made to comply in full with the subpoena as originally written, now. He notes that the Wayfarer parties (and in fact no parties) have yet produced any materials that provide either of these two people's communications, and the time that Lively might have had one or two months ago to piece together what had been provided by the third parties vs provided by Wayfarer etc. is now passed.

Gottlieb also mentions some juicy sounding emails in here on which these two were copied. The first footnote also side-eyes all nine attachments that Breed attached to his opposition as I noted above, explaining that they were just all the same document that Gottlieb et al had attached to their motion in the first place. He says: "evidence their participation in the retaliatory digital effort: in an email from Abel to Case, Koslow, Heath, and Nathan discussing whether TAG’s fee includes “social media mitigation and proactive fan posting to counter the narrative” (ECF No. 84 ¶ 225), in a text from Case to Matthew Mitchell, Nathan, and Abel regarding contents of “HR complaints” from set (id. ¶ 263), in a text from Abel to Mitchell, Nathan, Case, and Koslow discussing the need to “position” reported-upon HR complaints (id. ¶ 264), and in a text from Abel to Mitchell, Nathan, Case, and Koslow discussing an allegation that Baldoni “invited [a woman] up to his hotel room years ago,” and a text from Koslow in response suggesting to “chat to Jed as well on this” (id. ¶ 256). See Exhibit A (here: https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.nysd.634304/gov.uscourts.nysd.634304.363.1.pdf).

Lively Reply: https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.nysd.634304/gov.uscourts.nysd.634304.363.0.pdf

Liman issued a memo endorsement saying there will be a hearing on this issue -- with just the Lively attorneys and Breed & co (i.e., no Freedman) on Tuesday June 24 (day after new complaint and potentially Lively's deposition if it goes as originally scheduled) via Teams: https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.nysd.634304/gov.uscourts.nysd.634304.364.0.pdf

Following up on my post above to note:

A big part of why the communications broke down on this document collection and production for these two third party TAG employees is because kind of at the last minute, Breen objected to producing docs "to the present" and insisted on stopping when the lawsuit was filed in December 2024. Breen says in the lawyer email chain that they objected to the date in their original objections, but if you look, they really did not. The paragraph with the date specification is "Instructions" paragraph 3, and Breen made no objection to that paragraph. Breen said from the very beginning that paragraphs 11 through 13 of the subpoena seemed reasonable and they could produce those documents, and paragraphs 11-13 even specifically state in the doc request itself that they'll require docs from May 2024 "to the present." Breen made no specific objection to the date range, and said in his email these requests were okay! It's only in the lawyer email communications in late-May/early-June that Breen suddenly objects to producing docs after the lawsuit was filed. In briefing this issue to Judge Liman, Breen doesn't really even try to argue that they objected to the date issue in their Responses and Objections, so while he tried that out on Bender he really didn't test it on the judge.

I think that NAG gets this wrong again to be honest in discussing why this plan fell through at 4:40 in this video: https://www.tiktok.com/@notactuallygolden/video/7518888021555531022

NAG is suggesting the prior production plan fell through because another Lively lawyer got on the email and rug pulled against the prior terms that had been worked out by Lively attorneys with Breed. This is just incorrect, because Kristen Bender is the Lively attorney who did most of the negotiating, and is on the last several email communications in this string working out the details. The reason communications broke down is in large part because Breed suddenly objected to producing anything after December 2024, out of the blue (and in fact also objects to producing anything between May and July 2024 as well), and that was not acceptable to Lively's attorneys. There is another issue in here about Breed also objecting to producing texts involving group communications involving any of the Baldoni parties, where Bender may have been willing to agree to this at first but after two months had passed with no docs from anyone, they determined they needed everything.

NAG is blaming the communication breakdown on Lively attorneys. While she's saying that's normal in litigation and isn't really a big deal, she's putting the blame for the sudden change on the wrong party. Breed wanted to limit the productions in two new ways at the last minute and Lively/Bender wasn't willing to move. But NAG puts the blame on Bender/Lively instead, which her fans will like more, but which isn't really correct imo.

The judge has already said that on the issue involving the smear, communications after December 2024 are relevant because Lively's complaint states that the smear is ongoing. So unless the judge decided a non-party shouldn't bear the burden here (and except to the extent that any of the third parties are no longer employed by TAG and wouldn't have communications from them to the present), the judge has already said those later docs would be relevant to the case. Order: https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.nysd.634304/gov.uscourts.nysd.634304.355.0.pdf

This hearing is scheduled for Tuesday 6/24.

Email chain (Bender/Breed): https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.nysd.634304/gov.uscourts.nysd.634304.322.3.pdf
Subpoena where date range is spelled out in Instructions paragraph 3: https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.nysd.634304/gov.uscourts.nysd.634304.322.1.pdf
Breed's Objections and Responses to the subpoena where he doesn't specifically object to Instructions paragraph 3 or make other specific objections to the date range requested besides general overbreadth of the requests: https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.nysd.634304/gov.uscourts.nysd.634304.322.4_1.pdf

Breen's opposition letter brief (where he doesn't really make the claim that their responses and objections included a date objection -- because he really didn't): https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.nysd.634304/gov.uscourts.nysd.634304.358.0.pdf

Oh wow. Gottlieb is so brilliant, amirite?? You could tell he ‘side eyed’ someone in his footnotes?! Wow. Brilliant analysis. Thank god we have you to explain all this minutiae to us!!

What a great attorney. He encouraged, or at least didn’t discourage, his client who depends on her image for her living and her sense of being, to file a weak weak sexual harassment claim that would surely be put under a microscope and attacked as frivolous, put it in a California complaint so she could leak it to the NYT (risking a huge defamation claim, which she fortunately escaped) and then start engaging in a 2 + year litigation which will drag her name through the press constantly, and cost her millions and millions of dollars in legal fees and PR costs trying to rehabilitate her image. Plus she lost her prized relationship in Taylor Swift and is now isolated.

Wow! So awesome! What a great lawyer!!!! Let’s review how he side eyed someone in a footnote some more. Or focus on how she’s ‘winning’ because she escaped a defamation claim on a legal technicality.

Brilliant!!

Are you all right? I'm just talking about the filings that relate to the hearing coming up tomorrow. I guess you're saying that overall this lawsuit was bad for Lively, and I understand how you feel that way. On the other hand, your boy (I think he's surfing in Florida now?) just got all of his own claims dismissed. *poof* My favorite part of your point above is where you say his defamation claim was dismissed "on a legal technicality" lol. If that is how you need to cope, okay.

You seem to be dismissing all of the little back and forth letters and motions that go into litigation like this as unimportant given the larger picture. The day-to-day activity of the legal filings is mostly what interests me in this thread, so that's mostly what I post about. Coincidentally, I also think that's the part of litigation that Freedman is pretty terrible at. Freedman isn't involved in these Breen filings, but Breen is an appropriate stand in for him here ha. Freedman may be good at bullying and PR and maybe even depositions (let's see if that happens today), but he doesn't seem to be very good at motions practice or pleadings -- to me it's almost getting close to looking like malpractice at this point given his choice to file a worthless defamation claim that subjects his clients to treble damages, punitives, and attorneys fees as well as multiple various outstanding Rule 11 sanctions motions. I'm not sure Lively's attorneys will win on all of these, but I bet they will win some, and that's more cash Baldoni's rich benefactor will wind up paying out to Lively in this case.

Look, we all get it. The actual case for lively is such a train wreck and money pit that you need to focus on all the little filings here and there, and then of course the defamation claim. Baldoni doesn’t want money out of this, he wanted his reputation cleared and he has done that in spades. And yes, most people believe lively and the NYT won their cases because of fair report privilege, not because livelys claims were valid.

You’re acting like Baldoni started this and lost. Whereas, NO, Lively started this and although she seems to have avoided huge direct personal financial liability, she has decimated her reputation and is absolutely bleeding money. All for a pointless law suit that has done nothing but make her look like a manipulative liar. You can’t actually think that’s ‘winning’ can you?

How you can continuously come in here and claim the court case is going GREAT for Baldoni when he keeps losing motion after motion is bizarre to me. I guess since Freedman keeps going on TV saying he didn’t really lose at all or lost less then he really did keeps confusing people like you.

Let’s see how many claims are in the amended complaint Freedman files today as a starting point lol.

It had seemed to me that Baldoni had actually wanted quite a large sum of money out of this lawsuit since he filed a $400M defamation claim. But since those claims were dismissed as baseless I guess you’re rewriting history again.

Dp, but the recent discovery motions have been a mixed bag for Lively, she was forced to give up her claims for intentional I flictionof emotional distress and outright lost the Swift motion. She had some success in ipushing out the end dare on the other discovery and getting some responses to interrogatories.

Just a little reminder that another recent thing that happened in the case was Judge Liman dismissing every single one of Baldoni's claims, mostly with prejudice, on this day only two weeks ago. *pours out a forty for those $400M defamation and extortion claims RIP*

Well yes, but Lively has also lost some claims.

lol!! Voluntarily. Because she didn't want to give her alleged harasser her medical records. Not because her claims were legally insufficient. As all of Baldoni's claims were found to be. Baldoni was told none of his claims passed the smell test, whereas on the ED claim Lively just said "nah I'm good, you can have these back."

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Responding to self here to note that Breed’s 9 exhibits did get filed, you can see them here: https://www.reddit.com/r/ItEndsWithCourt/comments/1lfey19/all_of_the_exhibits_from_the_case_and_butler/

How is Breed a partner, though? He has filed 9 exhibits showing different parts of the same email string that are all contained, I believe, in the single exhibit that Lively filed. That’s why the attorneys use the one email string over and over in a discovery dispute, so you can just use that one email as your exhibit. Now the judge’s clerk needs to go through these additional 9 exhibits for no reason when Breed could have just cited the already existing filing. Silly and unnecessary.

I also find Breed’s language about “We needn’t, any of us, play at saber rattling” etc to be a bit dramatic in here. Is he British or something? This is federal litigation and Liman has set hard discovery deadlines, with substantial completion due well before Breed’s 21 days would end. Less time on fancy language and more time on compliance would be helpful imho.

Home from end of school pool day with a special present from Judge Liman:

First of all, Lively filed a Reply to Breed's letter, saying hey just because we negotiated down what you might owe (for two months) and you kept asking for more at the last minute doesn't mean the initial subpoena was overburdensome and that having wasted our time for two months you shouldn't be made to comply in full with the subpoena as originally written, now. He notes that the Wayfarer parties (and in fact no parties) have yet produced any materials that provide either of these two people's communications, and the time that Lively might have had one or two months ago to piece together what had been provided by the third parties vs provided by Wayfarer etc. is now passed.

Gottlieb also mentions some juicy sounding emails in here on which these two were copied. The first footnote also side-eyes all nine attachments that Breed attached to his opposition as I noted above, explaining that they were just all the same document that Gottlieb et al had attached to their motion in the first place. He says: "evidence their participation in the retaliatory digital effort: in an email from Abel to Case, Koslow, Heath, and Nathan discussing whether TAG’s fee includes “social media mitigation and proactive fan posting to counter the narrative” (ECF No. 84 ¶ 225), in a text from Case to Matthew Mitchell, Nathan, and Abel regarding contents of “HR complaints” from set (id. ¶ 263), in a text from Abel to Mitchell, Nathan, Case, and Koslow discussing the need to “position” reported-upon HR complaints (id. ¶ 264), and in a text from Abel to Mitchell, Nathan, Case, and Koslow discussing an allegation that Baldoni “invited [a woman] up to his hotel room years ago,” and a text from Koslow in response suggesting to “chat to Jed as well on this” (id. ¶ 256). See Exhibit A (here: https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.nysd.634304/gov.uscourts.nysd.634304.363.1.pdf).

Lively Reply: https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.nysd.634304/gov.uscourts.nysd.634304.363.0.pdf

Liman issued a memo endorsement saying there will be a hearing on this issue -- with just the Lively attorneys and Breed & co (i.e., no Freedman) on Tuesday June 24 (day after new complaint and potentially Lively's deposition if it goes as originally scheduled) via Teams: https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.nysd.634304/gov.uscourts.nysd.634304.364.0.pdf

Following up on my post above to note:

A big part of why the communications broke down on this document collection and production for these two third party TAG employees is because kind of at the last minute, Breen objected to producing docs "to the present" and insisted on stopping when the lawsuit was filed in December 2024. Breen says in the lawyer email chain that they objected to the date in their original objections, but if you look, they really did not. The paragraph with the date specification is "Instructions" paragraph 3, and Breen made no objection to that paragraph. Breen said from the very beginning that paragraphs 11 through 13 of the subpoena seemed reasonable and they could produce those documents, and paragraphs 11-13 even specifically state in the doc request itself that they'll require docs from May 2024 "to the present." Breen made no specific objection to the date range, and said in his email these requests were okay! It's only in the lawyer email communications in late-May/early-June that Breen suddenly objects to producing docs after the lawsuit was filed. In briefing this issue to Judge Liman, Breen doesn't really even try to argue that they objected to the date issue in their Responses and Objections, so while he tried that out on Bender he really didn't test it on the judge.

I think that NAG gets this wrong again to be honest in discussing why this plan fell through at 4:40 in this video: https://www.tiktok.com/@notactuallygolden/video/7518888021555531022

NAG is suggesting the prior production plan fell through because another Lively lawyer got on the email and rug pulled against the prior terms that had been worked out by Lively attorneys with Breed. This is just incorrect, because Kristen Bender is the Lively attorney who did most of the negotiating, and is on the last several email communications in this string working out the details. The reason communications broke down is in large part because Breed suddenly objected to producing anything after December 2024, out of the blue (and in fact also objects to producing anything between May and July 2024 as well), and that was not acceptable to Lively's attorneys. There is another issue in here about Breed also objecting to producing texts involving group communications involving any of the Baldoni parties, where Bender may have been willing to agree to this at first but after two months had passed with no docs from anyone, they determined they needed everything.

NAG is blaming the communication breakdown on Lively attorneys. While she's saying that's normal in litigation and isn't really a big deal, she's putting the blame for the sudden change on the wrong party. Breed wanted to limit the productions in two new ways at the last minute and Lively/Bender wasn't willing to move. But NAG puts the blame on Bender/Lively instead, which her fans will like more, but which isn't really correct imo.

The judge has already said that on the issue involving the smear, communications after December 2024 are relevant because Lively's complaint states that the smear is ongoing. So unless the judge decided a non-party shouldn't bear the burden here (and except to the extent that any of the third parties are no longer employed by TAG and wouldn't have communications from them to the present), the judge has already said those later docs would be relevant to the case. Order: https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.nysd.634304/gov.uscourts.nysd.634304.355.0.pdf

This hearing is scheduled for Tuesday 6/24.

Email chain (Bender/Breed): https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.nysd.634304/gov.uscourts.nysd.634304.322.3.pdf
Subpoena where date range is spelled out in Instructions paragraph 3: https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.nysd.634304/gov.uscourts.nysd.634304.322.1.pdf
Breed's Objections and Responses to the subpoena where he doesn't specifically object to Instructions paragraph 3 or make other specific objections to the date range requested besides general overbreadth of the requests: https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.nysd.634304/gov.uscourts.nysd.634304.322.4_1.pdf

Breen's opposition letter brief (where he doesn't really make the claim that their responses and objections included a date objection -- because he really didn't): https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.nysd.634304/gov.uscourts.nysd.634304.358.0.pdf

Oh wow. Gottlieb is so brilliant, amirite?? You could tell he ‘side eyed’ someone in his footnotes?! Wow. Brilliant analysis. Thank god we have you to explain all this minutiae to us!!

What a great attorney. He encouraged, or at least didn’t discourage, his client who depends on her image for her living and her sense of being, to file a weak weak sexual harassment claim that would surely be put under a microscope and attacked as frivolous, put it in a California complaint so she could leak it to the NYT (risking a huge defamation claim, which she fortunately escaped) and then start engaging in a 2 + year litigation which will drag her name through the press constantly, and cost her millions and millions of dollars in legal fees and PR costs trying to rehabilitate her image. Plus she lost her prized relationship in Taylor Swift and is now isolated.

Wow! So awesome! What a great lawyer!!!! Let’s review how he side eyed someone in a footnote some more. Or focus on how she’s ‘winning’ because she escaped a defamation claim on a legal technicality.

Brilliant!!

Are you all right? I'm just talking about the filings that relate to the hearing coming up tomorrow. I guess you're saying that overall this lawsuit was bad for Lively, and I understand how you feel that way. On the other hand, your boy (I think he's surfing in Florida now?) just got all of his own claims dismissed. *poof* My favorite part of your point above is where you say his defamation claim was dismissed "on a legal technicality" lol. If that is how you need to cope, okay.

You seem to be dismissing all of the little back and forth letters and motions that go into litigation like this as unimportant given the larger picture. The day-to-day activity of the legal filings is mostly what interests me in this thread, so that's mostly what I post about. Coincidentally, I also think that's the part of litigation that Freedman is pretty terrible at. Freedman isn't involved in these Breen filings, but Breen is an appropriate stand in for him here ha. Freedman may be good at bullying and PR and maybe even depositions (let's see if that happens today), but he doesn't seem to be very good at motions practice or pleadings -- to me it's almost getting close to looking like malpractice at this point given his choice to file a worthless defamation claim that subjects his clients to treble damages, punitives, and attorneys fees as well as multiple various outstanding Rule 11 sanctions motions. I'm not sure Lively's attorneys will win on all of these, but I bet they will win some, and that's more cash Baldoni's rich benefactor will wind up paying out to Lively in this case.

Look, we all get it. The actual case for lively is such a train wreck and money pit that you need to focus on all the little filings here and there, and then of course the defamation claim. Baldoni doesn’t want money out of this, he wanted his reputation cleared and he has done that in spades. And yes, most people believe lively and the NYT won their cases because of fair report privilege, not because livelys claims were valid.

You’re acting like Baldoni started this and lost. Whereas, NO, Lively started this and although she seems to have avoided huge direct personal financial liability, she has decimated her reputation and is absolutely bleeding money. All for a pointless law suit that has done nothing but make her look like a manipulative liar. You can’t actually think that’s ‘winning’ can you?

+1

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Responding to self here to note that Breed’s 9 exhibits did get filed, you can see them here: https://www.reddit.com/r/ItEndsWithCourt/comments/1lfey19/all_of_the_exhibits_from_the_case_and_butler/

How is Breed a partner, though? He has filed 9 exhibits showing different parts of the same email string that are all contained, I believe, in the single exhibit that Lively filed. That’s why the attorneys use the one email string over and over in a discovery dispute, so you can just use that one email as your exhibit. Now the judge’s clerk needs to go through these additional 9 exhibits for no reason when Breed could have just cited the already existing filing. Silly and unnecessary.

I also find Breed’s language about “We needn’t, any of us, play at saber rattling” etc to be a bit dramatic in here. Is he British or something? This is federal litigation and Liman has set hard discovery deadlines, with substantial completion due well before Breed’s 21 days would end. Less time on fancy language and more time on compliance would be helpful imho.

Home from end of school pool day with a special present from Judge Liman:

First of all, Lively filed a Reply to Breed's letter, saying hey just because we negotiated down what you might owe (for two months) and you kept asking for more at the last minute doesn't mean the initial subpoena was overburdensome and that having wasted our time for two months you shouldn't be made to comply in full with the subpoena as originally written, now. He notes that the Wayfarer parties (and in fact no parties) have yet produced any materials that provide either of these two people's communications, and the time that Lively might have had one or two months ago to piece together what had been provided by the third parties vs provided by Wayfarer etc. is now passed.

Gottlieb also mentions some juicy sounding emails in here on which these two were copied. The first footnote also side-eyes all nine attachments that Breed attached to his opposition as I noted above, explaining that they were just all the same document that Gottlieb et al had attached to their motion in the first place. He says: "evidence their participation in the retaliatory digital effort: in an email from Abel to Case, Koslow, Heath, and Nathan discussing whether TAG’s fee includes “social media mitigation and proactive fan posting to counter the narrative” (ECF No. 84 ¶ 225), in a text from Case to Matthew Mitchell, Nathan, and Abel regarding contents of “HR complaints” from set (id. ¶ 263), in a text from Abel to Mitchell, Nathan, Case, and Koslow discussing the need to “position” reported-upon HR complaints (id. ¶ 264), and in a text from Abel to Mitchell, Nathan, Case, and Koslow discussing an allegation that Baldoni “invited [a woman] up to his hotel room years ago,” and a text from Koslow in response suggesting to “chat to Jed as well on this” (id. ¶ 256). See Exhibit A (here: https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.nysd.634304/gov.uscourts.nysd.634304.363.1.pdf).

Lively Reply: https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.nysd.634304/gov.uscourts.nysd.634304.363.0.pdf

Liman issued a memo endorsement saying there will be a hearing on this issue -- with just the Lively attorneys and Breed & co (i.e., no Freedman) on Tuesday June 24 (day after new complaint and potentially Lively's deposition if it goes as originally scheduled) via Teams: https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.nysd.634304/gov.uscourts.nysd.634304.364.0.pdf

Following up on my post above to note:

A big part of why the communications broke down on this document collection and production for these two third party TAG employees is because kind of at the last minute, Breen objected to producing docs "to the present" and insisted on stopping when the lawsuit was filed in December 2024. Breen says in the lawyer email chain that they objected to the date in their original objections, but if you look, they really did not. The paragraph with the date specification is "Instructions" paragraph 3, and Breen made no objection to that paragraph. Breen said from the very beginning that paragraphs 11 through 13 of the subpoena seemed reasonable and they could produce those documents, and paragraphs 11-13 even specifically state in the doc request itself that they'll require docs from May 2024 "to the present." Breen made no specific objection to the date range, and said in his email these requests were okay! It's only in the lawyer email communications in late-May/early-June that Breen suddenly objects to producing docs after the lawsuit was filed. In briefing this issue to Judge Liman, Breen doesn't really even try to argue that they objected to the date issue in their Responses and Objections, so while he tried that out on Bender he really didn't test it on the judge.

I think that NAG gets this wrong again to be honest in discussing why this plan fell through at 4:40 in this video: https://www.tiktok.com/@notactuallygolden/video/7518888021555531022

NAG is suggesting the prior production plan fell through because another Lively lawyer got on the email and rug pulled against the prior terms that had been worked out by Lively attorneys with Breed. This is just incorrect, because Kristen Bender is the Lively attorney who did most of the negotiating, and is on the last several email communications in this string working out the details. The reason communications broke down is in large part because Breed suddenly objected to producing anything after December 2024, out of the blue (and in fact also objects to producing anything between May and July 2024 as well), and that was not acceptable to Lively's attorneys. There is another issue in here about Breed also objecting to producing texts involving group communications involving any of the Baldoni parties, where Bender may have been willing to agree to this at first but after two months had passed with no docs from anyone, they determined they needed everything.

NAG is blaming the communication breakdown on Lively attorneys. While she's saying that's normal in litigation and isn't really a big deal, she's putting the blame for the sudden change on the wrong party. Breed wanted to limit the productions in two new ways at the last minute and Lively/Bender wasn't willing to move. But NAG puts the blame on Bender/Lively instead, which her fans will like more, but which isn't really correct imo.

The judge has already said that on the issue involving the smear, communications after December 2024 are relevant because Lively's complaint states that the smear is ongoing. So unless the judge decided a non-party shouldn't bear the burden here (and except to the extent that any of the third parties are no longer employed by TAG and wouldn't have communications from them to the present), the judge has already said those later docs would be relevant to the case. Order: https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.nysd.634304/gov.uscourts.nysd.634304.355.0.pdf

This hearing is scheduled for Tuesday 6/24.

Email chain (Bender/Breed): https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.nysd.634304/gov.uscourts.nysd.634304.322.3.pdf
Subpoena where date range is spelled out in Instructions paragraph 3: https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.nysd.634304/gov.uscourts.nysd.634304.322.1.pdf
Breed's Objections and Responses to the subpoena where he doesn't specifically object to Instructions paragraph 3 or make other specific objections to the date range requested besides general overbreadth of the requests: https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.nysd.634304/gov.uscourts.nysd.634304.322.4_1.pdf

Breen's opposition letter brief (where he doesn't really make the claim that their responses and objections included a date objection -- because he really didn't): https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.nysd.634304/gov.uscourts.nysd.634304.358.0.pdf

Oh wow. Gottlieb is so brilliant, amirite?? You could tell he ‘side eyed’ someone in his footnotes?! Wow. Brilliant analysis. Thank god we have you to explain all this minutiae to us!!

What a great attorney. He encouraged, or at least didn’t discourage, his client who depends on her image for her living and her sense of being, to file a weak weak sexual harassment claim that would surely be put under a microscope and attacked as frivolous, put it in a California complaint so she could leak it to the NYT (risking a huge defamation claim, which she fortunately escaped) and then start engaging in a 2 + year litigation which will drag her name through the press constantly, and cost her millions and millions of dollars in legal fees and PR costs trying to rehabilitate her image. Plus she lost her prized relationship in Taylor Swift and is now isolated.

Wow! So awesome! What a great lawyer!!!! Let’s review how he side eyed someone in a footnote some more. Or focus on how she’s ‘winning’ because she escaped a defamation claim on a legal technicality.

Brilliant!!

Are you all right? I'm just talking about the filings that relate to the hearing coming up tomorrow. I guess you're saying that overall this lawsuit was bad for Lively, and I understand how you feel that way. On the other hand, your boy (I think he's surfing in Florida now?) just got all of his own claims dismissed. *poof* My favorite part of your point above is where you say his defamation claim was dismissed "on a legal technicality" lol. If that is how you need to cope, okay.

You seem to be dismissing all of the little back and forth letters and motions that go into litigation like this as unimportant given the larger picture. The day-to-day activity of the legal filings is mostly what interests me in this thread, so that's mostly what I post about. Coincidentally, I also think that's the part of litigation that Freedman is pretty terrible at. Freedman isn't involved in these Breen filings, but Breen is an appropriate stand in for him here ha. Freedman may be good at bullying and PR and maybe even depositions (let's see if that happens today), but he doesn't seem to be very good at motions practice or pleadings -- to me it's almost getting close to looking like malpractice at this point given his choice to file a worthless defamation claim that subjects his clients to treble damages, punitives, and attorneys fees as well as multiple various outstanding Rule 11 sanctions motions. I'm not sure Lively's attorneys will win on all of these, but I bet they will win some, and that's more cash Baldoni's rich benefactor will wind up paying out to Lively in this case.

Look, we all get it. The actual case for lively is such a train wreck and money pit that you need to focus on all the little filings here and there, and then of course the defamation claim. Baldoni doesn’t want money out of this, he wanted his reputation cleared and he has done that in spades. And yes, most people believe lively and the NYT won their cases because of fair report privilege, not because livelys claims were valid.

You’re acting like Baldoni started this and lost. Whereas, NO, Lively started this and although she seems to have avoided huge direct personal financial liability, she has decimated her reputation and is absolutely bleeding money. All for a pointless law suit that has done nothing but make her look like a manipulative liar. You can’t actually think that’s ‘winning’ can you?

+1

Will you give us a guess on how many claims you think will be in Baldoni's amended complaint due today (if he files one)?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Responding to self here to note that Breed’s 9 exhibits did get filed, you can see them here: https://www.reddit.com/r/ItEndsWithCourt/comments/1lfey19/all_of_the_exhibits_from_the_case_and_butler/

How is Breed a partner, though? He has filed 9 exhibits showing different parts of the same email string that are all contained, I believe, in the single exhibit that Lively filed. That’s why the attorneys use the one email string over and over in a discovery dispute, so you can just use that one email as your exhibit. Now the judge’s clerk needs to go through these additional 9 exhibits for no reason when Breed could have just cited the already existing filing. Silly and unnecessary.

I also find Breed’s language about “We needn’t, any of us, play at saber rattling” etc to be a bit dramatic in here. Is he British or something? This is federal litigation and Liman has set hard discovery deadlines, with substantial completion due well before Breed’s 21 days would end. Less time on fancy language and more time on compliance would be helpful imho.

Home from end of school pool day with a special present from Judge Liman:

First of all, Lively filed a Reply to Breed's letter, saying hey just because we negotiated down what you might owe (for two months) and you kept asking for more at the last minute doesn't mean the initial subpoena was overburdensome and that having wasted our time for two months you shouldn't be made to comply in full with the subpoena as originally written, now. He notes that the Wayfarer parties (and in fact no parties) have yet produced any materials that provide either of these two people's communications, and the time that Lively might have had one or two months ago to piece together what had been provided by the third parties vs provided by Wayfarer etc. is now passed.

Gottlieb also mentions some juicy sounding emails in here on which these two were copied. The first footnote also side-eyes all nine attachments that Breed attached to his opposition as I noted above, explaining that they were just all the same document that Gottlieb et al had attached to their motion in the first place. He says: "evidence their participation in the retaliatory digital effort: in an email from Abel to Case, Koslow, Heath, and Nathan discussing whether TAG’s fee includes “social media mitigation and proactive fan posting to counter the narrative” (ECF No. 84 ¶ 225), in a text from Case to Matthew Mitchell, Nathan, and Abel regarding contents of “HR complaints” from set (id. ¶ 263), in a text from Abel to Mitchell, Nathan, Case, and Koslow discussing the need to “position” reported-upon HR complaints (id. ¶ 264), and in a text from Abel to Mitchell, Nathan, Case, and Koslow discussing an allegation that Baldoni “invited [a woman] up to his hotel room years ago,” and a text from Koslow in response suggesting to “chat to Jed as well on this” (id. ¶ 256). See Exhibit A (here: https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.nysd.634304/gov.uscourts.nysd.634304.363.1.pdf).

Lively Reply: https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.nysd.634304/gov.uscourts.nysd.634304.363.0.pdf

Liman issued a memo endorsement saying there will be a hearing on this issue -- with just the Lively attorneys and Breed & co (i.e., no Freedman) on Tuesday June 24 (day after new complaint and potentially Lively's deposition if it goes as originally scheduled) via Teams: https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.nysd.634304/gov.uscourts.nysd.634304.364.0.pdf

Following up on my post above to note:

A big part of why the communications broke down on this document collection and production for these two third party TAG employees is because kind of at the last minute, Breen objected to producing docs "to the present" and insisted on stopping when the lawsuit was filed in December 2024. Breen says in the lawyer email chain that they objected to the date in their original objections, but if you look, they really did not. The paragraph with the date specification is "Instructions" paragraph 3, and Breen made no objection to that paragraph. Breen said from the very beginning that paragraphs 11 through 13 of the subpoena seemed reasonable and they could produce those documents, and paragraphs 11-13 even specifically state in the doc request itself that they'll require docs from May 2024 "to the present." Breen made no specific objection to the date range, and said in his email these requests were okay! It's only in the lawyer email communications in late-May/early-June that Breen suddenly objects to producing docs after the lawsuit was filed. In briefing this issue to Judge Liman, Breen doesn't really even try to argue that they objected to the date issue in their Responses and Objections, so while he tried that out on Bender he really didn't test it on the judge.

I think that NAG gets this wrong again to be honest in discussing why this plan fell through at 4:40 in this video: https://www.tiktok.com/@notactuallygolden/video/7518888021555531022

NAG is suggesting the prior production plan fell through because another Lively lawyer got on the email and rug pulled against the prior terms that had been worked out by Lively attorneys with Breed. This is just incorrect, because Kristen Bender is the Lively attorney who did most of the negotiating, and is on the last several email communications in this string working out the details. The reason communications broke down is in large part because Breed suddenly objected to producing anything after December 2024, out of the blue (and in fact also objects to producing anything between May and July 2024 as well), and that was not acceptable to Lively's attorneys. There is another issue in here about Breed also objecting to producing texts involving group communications involving any of the Baldoni parties, where Bender may have been willing to agree to this at first but after two months had passed with no docs from anyone, they determined they needed everything.

NAG is blaming the communication breakdown on Lively attorneys. While she's saying that's normal in litigation and isn't really a big deal, she's putting the blame for the sudden change on the wrong party. Breed wanted to limit the productions in two new ways at the last minute and Lively/Bender wasn't willing to move. But NAG puts the blame on Bender/Lively instead, which her fans will like more, but which isn't really correct imo.

The judge has already said that on the issue involving the smear, communications after December 2024 are relevant because Lively's complaint states that the smear is ongoing. So unless the judge decided a non-party shouldn't bear the burden here (and except to the extent that any of the third parties are no longer employed by TAG and wouldn't have communications from them to the present), the judge has already said those later docs would be relevant to the case. Order: https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.nysd.634304/gov.uscourts.nysd.634304.355.0.pdf

This hearing is scheduled for Tuesday 6/24.

Email chain (Bender/Breed): https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.nysd.634304/gov.uscourts.nysd.634304.322.3.pdf
Subpoena where date range is spelled out in Instructions paragraph 3: https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.nysd.634304/gov.uscourts.nysd.634304.322.1.pdf
Breed's Objections and Responses to the subpoena where he doesn't specifically object to Instructions paragraph 3 or make other specific objections to the date range requested besides general overbreadth of the requests: https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.nysd.634304/gov.uscourts.nysd.634304.322.4_1.pdf

Breen's opposition letter brief (where he doesn't really make the claim that their responses and objections included a date objection -- because he really didn't): https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.nysd.634304/gov.uscourts.nysd.634304.358.0.pdf

Oh wow. Gottlieb is so brilliant, amirite?? You could tell he ‘side eyed’ someone in his footnotes?! Wow. Brilliant analysis. Thank god we have you to explain all this minutiae to us!!

What a great attorney. He encouraged, or at least didn’t discourage, his client who depends on her image for her living and her sense of being, to file a weak weak sexual harassment claim that would surely be put under a microscope and attacked as frivolous, put it in a California complaint so she could leak it to the NYT (risking a huge defamation claim, which she fortunately escaped) and then start engaging in a 2 + year litigation which will drag her name through the press constantly, and cost her millions and millions of dollars in legal fees and PR costs trying to rehabilitate her image. Plus she lost her prized relationship in Taylor Swift and is now isolated.

Wow! So awesome! What a great lawyer!!!! Let’s review how he side eyed someone in a footnote some more. Or focus on how she’s ‘winning’ because she escaped a defamation claim on a legal technicality.

Brilliant!!

Are you all right? I'm just talking about the filings that relate to the hearing coming up tomorrow. I guess you're saying that overall this lawsuit was bad for Lively, and I understand how you feel that way. On the other hand, your boy (I think he's surfing in Florida now?) just got all of his own claims dismissed. *poof* My favorite part of your point above is where you say his defamation claim was dismissed "on a legal technicality" lol. If that is how you need to cope, okay.

You seem to be dismissing all of the little back and forth letters and motions that go into litigation like this as unimportant given the larger picture. The day-to-day activity of the legal filings is mostly what interests me in this thread, so that's mostly what I post about. Coincidentally, I also think that's the part of litigation that Freedman is pretty terrible at. Freedman isn't involved in these Breen filings, but Breen is an appropriate stand in for him here ha. Freedman may be good at bullying and PR and maybe even depositions (let's see if that happens today), but he doesn't seem to be very good at motions practice or pleadings -- to me it's almost getting close to looking like malpractice at this point given his choice to file a worthless defamation claim that subjects his clients to treble damages, punitives, and attorneys fees as well as multiple various outstanding Rule 11 sanctions motions. I'm not sure Lively's attorneys will win on all of these, but I bet they will win some, and that's more cash Baldoni's rich benefactor will wind up paying out to Lively in this case.

Look, we all get it. The actual case for lively is such a train wreck and money pit that you need to focus on all the little filings here and there, and then of course the defamation claim. Baldoni doesn’t want money out of this, he wanted his reputation cleared and he has done that in spades. And yes, most people believe lively and the NYT won their cases because of fair report privilege, not because livelys claims were valid.

You’re acting like Baldoni started this and lost. Whereas, NO, Lively started this and although she seems to have avoided huge direct personal financial liability, she has decimated her reputation and is absolutely bleeding money. All for a pointless law suit that has done nothing but make her look like a manipulative liar. You can’t actually think that’s ‘winning’ can you?

How you can continuously come in here and claim the court case is going GREAT for Baldoni when he keeps losing motion after motion is bizarre to me. I guess since Freedman keeps going on TV saying he didn’t really lose at all or lost less then he really did keeps confusing people like you.

Let’s see how many claims are in the amended complaint Freedman files today as a starting point lol.

It had seemed to me that Baldoni had actually wanted quite a large sum of money out of this lawsuit since he filed a $400M defamation claim. But since those claims were dismissed as baseless I guess you’re rewriting history again.

Dp, but the recent discovery motions have been a mixed bag for Lively, she was forced to give up her claims for intentional I flictionof emotional distress and outright lost the Swift motion. She had some success in ipushing out the end dare on the other discovery and getting some responses to interrogatories.

Just a little reminder that another recent thing that happened in the case was Judge Liman dismissing every single one of Baldoni's claims, mostly with prejudice, on this day only two weeks ago. *pours out a forty for those $400M defamation and extortion claims RIP*

Well yes, but Lively has also lost some claims.

lol!! Voluntarily. Because she didn't want to give her alleged harasser her medical records. Not because her claims were legally insufficient. As all of Baldoni's claims were found to be. Baldoni was told none of his claims passed the smell test, whereas on the ED claim Lively just said "nah I'm good, you can have these back."

Let me fix this for you— Blake had no medical records to support her claims for intentional infliction of emotional distress and was forced to drop them.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Responding to self here to note that Breed’s 9 exhibits did get filed, you can see them here: https://www.reddit.com/r/ItEndsWithCourt/comments/1lfey19/all_of_the_exhibits_from_the_case_and_butler/

How is Breed a partner, though? He has filed 9 exhibits showing different parts of the same email string that are all contained, I believe, in the single exhibit that Lively filed. That’s why the attorneys use the one email string over and over in a discovery dispute, so you can just use that one email as your exhibit. Now the judge’s clerk needs to go through these additional 9 exhibits for no reason when Breed could have just cited the already existing filing. Silly and unnecessary.

I also find Breed’s language about “We needn’t, any of us, play at saber rattling” etc to be a bit dramatic in here. Is he British or something? This is federal litigation and Liman has set hard discovery deadlines, with substantial completion due well before Breed’s 21 days would end. Less time on fancy language and more time on compliance would be helpful imho.

Home from end of school pool day with a special present from Judge Liman:

First of all, Lively filed a Reply to Breed's letter, saying hey just because we negotiated down what you might owe (for two months) and you kept asking for more at the last minute doesn't mean the initial subpoena was overburdensome and that having wasted our time for two months you shouldn't be made to comply in full with the subpoena as originally written, now. He notes that the Wayfarer parties (and in fact no parties) have yet produced any materials that provide either of these two people's communications, and the time that Lively might have had one or two months ago to piece together what had been provided by the third parties vs provided by Wayfarer etc. is now passed.

Gottlieb also mentions some juicy sounding emails in here on which these two were copied. The first footnote also side-eyes all nine attachments that Breed attached to his opposition as I noted above, explaining that they were just all the same document that Gottlieb et al had attached to their motion in the first place. He says: "evidence their participation in the retaliatory digital effort: in an email from Abel to Case, Koslow, Heath, and Nathan discussing whether TAG’s fee includes “social media mitigation and proactive fan posting to counter the narrative” (ECF No. 84 ¶ 225), in a text from Case to Matthew Mitchell, Nathan, and Abel regarding contents of “HR complaints” from set (id. ¶ 263), in a text from Abel to Mitchell, Nathan, Case, and Koslow discussing the need to “position” reported-upon HR complaints (id. ¶ 264), and in a text from Abel to Mitchell, Nathan, Case, and Koslow discussing an allegation that Baldoni “invited [a woman] up to his hotel room years ago,” and a text from Koslow in response suggesting to “chat to Jed as well on this” (id. ¶ 256). See Exhibit A (here: https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.nysd.634304/gov.uscourts.nysd.634304.363.1.pdf).

Lively Reply: https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.nysd.634304/gov.uscourts.nysd.634304.363.0.pdf

Liman issued a memo endorsement saying there will be a hearing on this issue -- with just the Lively attorneys and Breed & co (i.e., no Freedman) on Tuesday June 24 (day after new complaint and potentially Lively's deposition if it goes as originally scheduled) via Teams: https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.nysd.634304/gov.uscourts.nysd.634304.364.0.pdf

Following up on my post above to note:

A big part of why the communications broke down on this document collection and production for these two third party TAG employees is because kind of at the last minute, Breen objected to producing docs "to the present" and insisted on stopping when the lawsuit was filed in December 2024. Breen says in the lawyer email chain that they objected to the date in their original objections, but if you look, they really did not. The paragraph with the date specification is "Instructions" paragraph 3, and Breen made no objection to that paragraph. Breen said from the very beginning that paragraphs 11 through 13 of the subpoena seemed reasonable and they could produce those documents, and paragraphs 11-13 even specifically state in the doc request itself that they'll require docs from May 2024 "to the present." Breen made no specific objection to the date range, and said in his email these requests were okay! It's only in the lawyer email communications in late-May/early-June that Breen suddenly objects to producing docs after the lawsuit was filed. In briefing this issue to Judge Liman, Breen doesn't really even try to argue that they objected to the date issue in their Responses and Objections, so while he tried that out on Bender he really didn't test it on the judge.

I think that NAG gets this wrong again to be honest in discussing why this plan fell through at 4:40 in this video: https://www.tiktok.com/@notactuallygolden/video/7518888021555531022

NAG is suggesting the prior production plan fell through because another Lively lawyer got on the email and rug pulled against the prior terms that had been worked out by Lively attorneys with Breed. This is just incorrect, because Kristen Bender is the Lively attorney who did most of the negotiating, and is on the last several email communications in this string working out the details. The reason communications broke down is in large part because Breed suddenly objected to producing anything after December 2024, out of the blue (and in fact also objects to producing anything between May and July 2024 as well), and that was not acceptable to Lively's attorneys. There is another issue in here about Breed also objecting to producing texts involving group communications involving any of the Baldoni parties, where Bender may have been willing to agree to this at first but after two months had passed with no docs from anyone, they determined they needed everything.

NAG is blaming the communication breakdown on Lively attorneys. While she's saying that's normal in litigation and isn't really a big deal, she's putting the blame for the sudden change on the wrong party. Breed wanted to limit the productions in two new ways at the last minute and Lively/Bender wasn't willing to move. But NAG puts the blame on Bender/Lively instead, which her fans will like more, but which isn't really correct imo.

The judge has already said that on the issue involving the smear, communications after December 2024 are relevant because Lively's complaint states that the smear is ongoing. So unless the judge decided a non-party shouldn't bear the burden here (and except to the extent that any of the third parties are no longer employed by TAG and wouldn't have communications from them to the present), the judge has already said those later docs would be relevant to the case. Order: https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.nysd.634304/gov.uscourts.nysd.634304.355.0.pdf

This hearing is scheduled for Tuesday 6/24.

Email chain (Bender/Breed): https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.nysd.634304/gov.uscourts.nysd.634304.322.3.pdf
Subpoena where date range is spelled out in Instructions paragraph 3: https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.nysd.634304/gov.uscourts.nysd.634304.322.1.pdf
Breed's Objections and Responses to the subpoena where he doesn't specifically object to Instructions paragraph 3 or make other specific objections to the date range requested besides general overbreadth of the requests: https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.nysd.634304/gov.uscourts.nysd.634304.322.4_1.pdf

Breen's opposition letter brief (where he doesn't really make the claim that their responses and objections included a date objection -- because he really didn't): https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.nysd.634304/gov.uscourts.nysd.634304.358.0.pdf

Oh wow. Gottlieb is so brilliant, amirite?? You could tell he ‘side eyed’ someone in his footnotes?! Wow. Brilliant analysis. Thank god we have you to explain all this minutiae to us!!

What a great attorney. He encouraged, or at least didn’t discourage, his client who depends on her image for her living and her sense of being, to file a weak weak sexual harassment claim that would surely be put under a microscope and attacked as frivolous, put it in a California complaint so she could leak it to the NYT (risking a huge defamation claim, which she fortunately escaped) and then start engaging in a 2 + year litigation which will drag her name through the press constantly, and cost her millions and millions of dollars in legal fees and PR costs trying to rehabilitate her image. Plus she lost her prized relationship in Taylor Swift and is now isolated.

Wow! So awesome! What a great lawyer!!!! Let’s review how he side eyed someone in a footnote some more. Or focus on how she’s ‘winning’ because she escaped a defamation claim on a legal technicality.

Brilliant!!

Are you all right? I'm just talking about the filings that relate to the hearing coming up tomorrow. I guess you're saying that overall this lawsuit was bad for Lively, and I understand how you feel that way. On the other hand, your boy (I think he's surfing in Florida now?) just got all of his own claims dismissed. *poof* My favorite part of your point above is where you say his defamation claim was dismissed "on a legal technicality" lol. If that is how you need to cope, okay.

You seem to be dismissing all of the little back and forth letters and motions that go into litigation like this as unimportant given the larger picture. The day-to-day activity of the legal filings is mostly what interests me in this thread, so that's mostly what I post about. Coincidentally, I also think that's the part of litigation that Freedman is pretty terrible at. Freedman isn't involved in these Breen filings, but Breen is an appropriate stand in for him here ha. Freedman may be good at bullying and PR and maybe even depositions (let's see if that happens today), but he doesn't seem to be very good at motions practice or pleadings -- to me it's almost getting close to looking like malpractice at this point given his choice to file a worthless defamation claim that subjects his clients to treble damages, punitives, and attorneys fees as well as multiple various outstanding Rule 11 sanctions motions. I'm not sure Lively's attorneys will win on all of these, but I bet they will win some, and that's more cash Baldoni's rich benefactor will wind up paying out to Lively in this case.

Look, we all get it. The actual case for lively is such a train wreck and money pit that you need to focus on all the little filings here and there, and then of course the defamation claim. Baldoni doesn’t want money out of this, he wanted his reputation cleared and he has done that in spades. And yes, most people believe lively and the NYT won their cases because of fair report privilege, not because livelys claims were valid.

You’re acting like Baldoni started this and lost. Whereas, NO, Lively started this and although she seems to have avoided huge direct personal financial liability, she has decimated her reputation and is absolutely bleeding money. All for a pointless law suit that has done nothing but make her look like a manipulative liar. You can’t actually think that’s ‘winning’ can you?

How you can continuously come in here and claim the court case is going GREAT for Baldoni when he keeps losing motion after motion is bizarre to me. I guess since Freedman keeps going on TV saying he didn’t really lose at all or lost less then he really did keeps confusing people like you.

Let’s see how many claims are in the amended complaint Freedman files today as a starting point lol.

It had seemed to me that Baldoni had actually wanted quite a large sum of money out of this lawsuit since he filed a $400M defamation claim. But since those claims were dismissed as baseless I guess you’re rewriting history again.

Dp, but the recent discovery motions have been a mixed bag for Lively, she was forced to give up her claims for intentional I flictionof emotional distress and outright lost the Swift motion. She had some success in ipushing out the end dare on the other discovery and getting some responses to interrogatories.

Just a little reminder that another recent thing that happened in the case was Judge Liman dismissing every single one of Baldoni's claims, mostly with prejudice, on this day only two weeks ago. *pours out a forty for those $400M defamation and extortion claims RIP*

Well yes, but Lively has also lost some claims.

lol!! Voluntarily. Because she didn't want to give her alleged harasser her medical records. Not because her claims were legally insufficient. As all of Baldoni's claims were found to be. Baldoni was told none of his claims passed the smell test, whereas on the ED claim Lively just said "nah I'm good, you can have these back."

Let me fix this for you— Blake had no medical records to support her claims for intentional infliction of emotional distress and was forced to drop them.

Given the history we've seen in this case, where Gottlieb generally only files pleadings where he has the receipts to back them up whereas Freedman just files whatever hopes and dreams he wants despite their failure to conform to docket and pleadings requirements in federal courts, I'm going to go with Gottlieb here. Gottlieb's discovery requests may sometimes be overbroad or ask for too much, but he hasn't ever been caught out filing total nonsense like Freedman has now several times. So, no -- I'm pretty sure Lively had medical records to back up her emotional distress claims, but just didn't want to give them as ammunition to her alleged harasser and smearer to find them distorted in some Daily Mail article within the week. A++ decision, Gottlieb. Good call. And you can tell how good of a call it was by how hard Freedman fought to get the med records (rather than have the claims struck). Aww, poor Bryan.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Responding to self here to note that Breed’s 9 exhibits did get filed, you can see them here: https://www.reddit.com/r/ItEndsWithCourt/comments/1lfey19/all_of_the_exhibits_from_the_case_and_butler/

How is Breed a partner, though? He has filed 9 exhibits showing different parts of the same email string that are all contained, I believe, in the single exhibit that Lively filed. That’s why the attorneys use the one email string over and over in a discovery dispute, so you can just use that one email as your exhibit. Now the judge’s clerk needs to go through these additional 9 exhibits for no reason when Breed could have just cited the already existing filing. Silly and unnecessary.

I also find Breed’s language about “We needn’t, any of us, play at saber rattling” etc to be a bit dramatic in here. Is he British or something? This is federal litigation and Liman has set hard discovery deadlines, with substantial completion due well before Breed’s 21 days would end. Less time on fancy language and more time on compliance would be helpful imho.

Home from end of school pool day with a special present from Judge Liman:

First of all, Lively filed a Reply to Breed's letter, saying hey just because we negotiated down what you might owe (for two months) and you kept asking for more at the last minute doesn't mean the initial subpoena was overburdensome and that having wasted our time for two months you shouldn't be made to comply in full with the subpoena as originally written, now. He notes that the Wayfarer parties (and in fact no parties) have yet produced any materials that provide either of these two people's communications, and the time that Lively might have had one or two months ago to piece together what had been provided by the third parties vs provided by Wayfarer etc. is now passed.

Gottlieb also mentions some juicy sounding emails in here on which these two were copied. The first footnote also side-eyes all nine attachments that Breed attached to his opposition as I noted above, explaining that they were just all the same document that Gottlieb et al had attached to their motion in the first place. He says: "evidence their participation in the retaliatory digital effort: in an email from Abel to Case, Koslow, Heath, and Nathan discussing whether TAG’s fee includes “social media mitigation and proactive fan posting to counter the narrative” (ECF No. 84 ¶ 225), in a text from Case to Matthew Mitchell, Nathan, and Abel regarding contents of “HR complaints” from set (id. ¶ 263), in a text from Abel to Mitchell, Nathan, Case, and Koslow discussing the need to “position” reported-upon HR complaints (id. ¶ 264), and in a text from Abel to Mitchell, Nathan, Case, and Koslow discussing an allegation that Baldoni “invited [a woman] up to his hotel room years ago,” and a text from Koslow in response suggesting to “chat to Jed as well on this” (id. ¶ 256). See Exhibit A (here: https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.nysd.634304/gov.uscourts.nysd.634304.363.1.pdf).

Lively Reply: https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.nysd.634304/gov.uscourts.nysd.634304.363.0.pdf

Liman issued a memo endorsement saying there will be a hearing on this issue -- with just the Lively attorneys and Breed & co (i.e., no Freedman) on Tuesday June 24 (day after new complaint and potentially Lively's deposition if it goes as originally scheduled) via Teams: https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.nysd.634304/gov.uscourts.nysd.634304.364.0.pdf

Following up on my post above to note:

A big part of why the communications broke down on this document collection and production for these two third party TAG employees is because kind of at the last minute, Breen objected to producing docs "to the present" and insisted on stopping when the lawsuit was filed in December 2024. Breen says in the lawyer email chain that they objected to the date in their original objections, but if you look, they really did not. The paragraph with the date specification is "Instructions" paragraph 3, and Breen made no objection to that paragraph. Breen said from the very beginning that paragraphs 11 through 13 of the subpoena seemed reasonable and they could produce those documents, and paragraphs 11-13 even specifically state in the doc request itself that they'll require docs from May 2024 "to the present." Breen made no specific objection to the date range, and said in his email these requests were okay! It's only in the lawyer email communications in late-May/early-June that Breen suddenly objects to producing docs after the lawsuit was filed. In briefing this issue to Judge Liman, Breen doesn't really even try to argue that they objected to the date issue in their Responses and Objections, so while he tried that out on Bender he really didn't test it on the judge.

I think that NAG gets this wrong again to be honest in discussing why this plan fell through at 4:40 in this video: https://www.tiktok.com/@notactuallygolden/video/7518888021555531022

NAG is suggesting the prior production plan fell through because another Lively lawyer got on the email and rug pulled against the prior terms that had been worked out by Lively attorneys with Breed. This is just incorrect, because Kristen Bender is the Lively attorney who did most of the negotiating, and is on the last several email communications in this string working out the details. The reason communications broke down is in large part because Breed suddenly objected to producing anything after December 2024, out of the blue (and in fact also objects to producing anything between May and July 2024 as well), and that was not acceptable to Lively's attorneys. There is another issue in here about Breed also objecting to producing texts involving group communications involving any of the Baldoni parties, where Bender may have been willing to agree to this at first but after two months had passed with no docs from anyone, they determined they needed everything.

NAG is blaming the communication breakdown on Lively attorneys. While she's saying that's normal in litigation and isn't really a big deal, she's putting the blame for the sudden change on the wrong party. Breed wanted to limit the productions in two new ways at the last minute and Lively/Bender wasn't willing to move. But NAG puts the blame on Bender/Lively instead, which her fans will like more, but which isn't really correct imo.

The judge has already said that on the issue involving the smear, communications after December 2024 are relevant because Lively's complaint states that the smear is ongoing. So unless the judge decided a non-party shouldn't bear the burden here (and except to the extent that any of the third parties are no longer employed by TAG and wouldn't have communications from them to the present), the judge has already said those later docs would be relevant to the case. Order: https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.nysd.634304/gov.uscourts.nysd.634304.355.0.pdf

This hearing is scheduled for Tuesday 6/24.

Email chain (Bender/Breed): https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.nysd.634304/gov.uscourts.nysd.634304.322.3.pdf
Subpoena where date range is spelled out in Instructions paragraph 3: https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.nysd.634304/gov.uscourts.nysd.634304.322.1.pdf
Breed's Objections and Responses to the subpoena where he doesn't specifically object to Instructions paragraph 3 or make other specific objections to the date range requested besides general overbreadth of the requests: https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.nysd.634304/gov.uscourts.nysd.634304.322.4_1.pdf

Breen's opposition letter brief (where he doesn't really make the claim that their responses and objections included a date objection -- because he really didn't): https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.nysd.634304/gov.uscourts.nysd.634304.358.0.pdf

Oh wow. Gottlieb is so brilliant, amirite?? You could tell he ‘side eyed’ someone in his footnotes?! Wow. Brilliant analysis. Thank god we have you to explain all this minutiae to us!!

What a great attorney. He encouraged, or at least didn’t discourage, his client who depends on her image for her living and her sense of being, to file a weak weak sexual harassment claim that would surely be put under a microscope and attacked as frivolous, put it in a California complaint so she could leak it to the NYT (risking a huge defamation claim, which she fortunately escaped) and then start engaging in a 2 + year litigation which will drag her name through the press constantly, and cost her millions and millions of dollars in legal fees and PR costs trying to rehabilitate her image. Plus she lost her prized relationship in Taylor Swift and is now isolated.

Wow! So awesome! What a great lawyer!!!! Let’s review how he side eyed someone in a footnote some more. Or focus on how she’s ‘winning’ because she escaped a defamation claim on a legal technicality.

Brilliant!!

Are you all right? I'm just talking about the filings that relate to the hearing coming up tomorrow. I guess you're saying that overall this lawsuit was bad for Lively, and I understand how you feel that way. On the other hand, your boy (I think he's surfing in Florida now?) just got all of his own claims dismissed. *poof* My favorite part of your point above is where you say his defamation claim was dismissed "on a legal technicality" lol. If that is how you need to cope, okay.

You seem to be dismissing all of the little back and forth letters and motions that go into litigation like this as unimportant given the larger picture. The day-to-day activity of the legal filings is mostly what interests me in this thread, so that's mostly what I post about. Coincidentally, I also think that's the part of litigation that Freedman is pretty terrible at. Freedman isn't involved in these Breen filings, but Breen is an appropriate stand in for him here ha. Freedman may be good at bullying and PR and maybe even depositions (let's see if that happens today), but he doesn't seem to be very good at motions practice or pleadings -- to me it's almost getting close to looking like malpractice at this point given his choice to file a worthless defamation claim that subjects his clients to treble damages, punitives, and attorneys fees as well as multiple various outstanding Rule 11 sanctions motions. I'm not sure Lively's attorneys will win on all of these, but I bet they will win some, and that's more cash Baldoni's rich benefactor will wind up paying out to Lively in this case.

Look, we all get it. The actual case for lively is such a train wreck and money pit that you need to focus on all the little filings here and there, and then of course the defamation claim. Baldoni doesn’t want money out of this, he wanted his reputation cleared and he has done that in spades. And yes, most people believe lively and the NYT won their cases because of fair report privilege, not because livelys claims were valid.

You’re acting like Baldoni started this and lost. Whereas, NO, Lively started this and although she seems to have avoided huge direct personal financial liability, she has decimated her reputation and is absolutely bleeding money. All for a pointless law suit that has done nothing but make her look like a manipulative liar. You can’t actually think that’s ‘winning’ can you?

How you can continuously come in here and claim the court case is going GREAT for Baldoni when he keeps losing motion after motion is bizarre to me. I guess since Freedman keeps going on TV saying he didn’t really lose at all or lost less then he really did keeps confusing people like you.

Let’s see how many claims are in the amended complaint Freedman files today as a starting point lol.

It had seemed to me that Baldoni had actually wanted quite a large sum of money out of this lawsuit since he filed a $400M defamation claim. But since those claims were dismissed as baseless I guess you’re rewriting history again.

Dp, but the recent discovery motions have been a mixed bag for Lively, she was forced to give up her claims for intentional I flictionof emotional distress and outright lost the Swift motion. She had some success in ipushing out the end dare on the other discovery and getting some responses to interrogatories.

Just a little reminder that another recent thing that happened in the case was Judge Liman dismissing every single one of Baldoni's claims, mostly with prejudice, on this day only two weeks ago. *pours out a forty for those $400M defamation and extortion claims RIP*

Well yes, but Lively has also lost some claims.

lol!! Voluntarily. Because she didn't want to give her alleged harasser her medical records. Not because her claims were legally insufficient. As all of Baldoni's claims were found to be. Baldoni was told none of his claims passed the smell test, whereas on the ED claim Lively just said "nah I'm good, you can have these back."

Let me fix this for you— Blake had no medical records to support her claims for intentional infliction of emotional distress and was forced to drop them.

Given the history we've seen in this case, where Gottlieb generally only files pleadings where he has the receipts to back them up whereas Freedman just files whatever hopes and dreams he wants despite their failure to conform to docket and pleadings requirements in federal courts, I'm going to go with Gottlieb here. Gottlieb's discovery requests may sometimes be overbroad or ask for too much, but he hasn't ever been caught out filing total nonsense like Freedman has now several times. So, no -- I'm pretty sure Lively had medical records to back up her emotional distress claims, but just didn't want to give them as ammunition to her alleged harasser and smearer to find them distorted in some Daily Mail article within the week. A++ decision, Gottlieb. Good call. And you can tell how good of a call it was by how hard Freedman fought to get the med records (rather than have the claims struck). Aww, poor Bryan.

This from the side that claimed Blake got everything she wanted with respect to attorney’s eyes protection in the protective order which does include medical records. Indeed, her attorneys specifically brought up medical records records in their oral argument.

Can’t have it both ways— everyone knows that Freedman can’t release anything marked AEO. Blake didn’t have the goods.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Responding to self here to note that Breed’s 9 exhibits did get filed, you can see them here: https://www.reddit.com/r/ItEndsWithCourt/comments/1lfey19/all_of_the_exhibits_from_the_case_and_butler/

How is Breed a partner, though? He has filed 9 exhibits showing different parts of the same email string that are all contained, I believe, in the single exhibit that Lively filed. That’s why the attorneys use the one email string over and over in a discovery dispute, so you can just use that one email as your exhibit. Now the judge’s clerk needs to go through these additional 9 exhibits for no reason when Breed could have just cited the already existing filing. Silly and unnecessary.

I also find Breed’s language about “We needn’t, any of us, play at saber rattling” etc to be a bit dramatic in here. Is he British or something? This is federal litigation and Liman has set hard discovery deadlines, with substantial completion due well before Breed’s 21 days would end. Less time on fancy language and more time on compliance would be helpful imho.

Home from end of school pool day with a special present from Judge Liman:

First of all, Lively filed a Reply to Breed's letter, saying hey just because we negotiated down what you might owe (for two months) and you kept asking for more at the last minute doesn't mean the initial subpoena was overburdensome and that having wasted our time for two months you shouldn't be made to comply in full with the subpoena as originally written, now. He notes that the Wayfarer parties (and in fact no parties) have yet produced any materials that provide either of these two people's communications, and the time that Lively might have had one or two months ago to piece together what had been provided by the third parties vs provided by Wayfarer etc. is now passed.

Gottlieb also mentions some juicy sounding emails in here on which these two were copied. The first footnote also side-eyes all nine attachments that Breed attached to his opposition as I noted above, explaining that they were just all the same document that Gottlieb et al had attached to their motion in the first place. He says: "evidence their participation in the retaliatory digital effort: in an email from Abel to Case, Koslow, Heath, and Nathan discussing whether TAG’s fee includes “social media mitigation and proactive fan posting to counter the narrative” (ECF No. 84 ¶ 225), in a text from Case to Matthew Mitchell, Nathan, and Abel regarding contents of “HR complaints” from set (id. ¶ 263), in a text from Abel to Mitchell, Nathan, Case, and Koslow discussing the need to “position” reported-upon HR complaints (id. ¶ 264), and in a text from Abel to Mitchell, Nathan, Case, and Koslow discussing an allegation that Baldoni “invited [a woman] up to his hotel room years ago,” and a text from Koslow in response suggesting to “chat to Jed as well on this” (id. ¶ 256). See Exhibit A (here: https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.nysd.634304/gov.uscourts.nysd.634304.363.1.pdf).

Lively Reply: https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.nysd.634304/gov.uscourts.nysd.634304.363.0.pdf

Liman issued a memo endorsement saying there will be a hearing on this issue -- with just the Lively attorneys and Breed & co (i.e., no Freedman) on Tuesday June 24 (day after new complaint and potentially Lively's deposition if it goes as originally scheduled) via Teams: https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.nysd.634304/gov.uscourts.nysd.634304.364.0.pdf

Following up on my post above to note:

A big part of why the communications broke down on this document collection and production for these two third party TAG employees is because kind of at the last minute, Breen objected to producing docs "to the present" and insisted on stopping when the lawsuit was filed in December 2024. Breen says in the lawyer email chain that they objected to the date in their original objections, but if you look, they really did not. The paragraph with the date specification is "Instructions" paragraph 3, and Breen made no objection to that paragraph. Breen said from the very beginning that paragraphs 11 through 13 of the subpoena seemed reasonable and they could produce those documents, and paragraphs 11-13 even specifically state in the doc request itself that they'll require docs from May 2024 "to the present." Breen made no specific objection to the date range, and said in his email these requests were okay! It's only in the lawyer email communications in late-May/early-June that Breen suddenly objects to producing docs after the lawsuit was filed. In briefing this issue to Judge Liman, Breen doesn't really even try to argue that they objected to the date issue in their Responses and Objections, so while he tried that out on Bender he really didn't test it on the judge.

I think that NAG gets this wrong again to be honest in discussing why this plan fell through at 4:40 in this video: https://www.tiktok.com/@notactuallygolden/video/7518888021555531022

NAG is suggesting the prior production plan fell through because another Lively lawyer got on the email and rug pulled against the prior terms that had been worked out by Lively attorneys with Breed. This is just incorrect, because Kristen Bender is the Lively attorney who did most of the negotiating, and is on the last several email communications in this string working out the details. The reason communications broke down is in large part because Breed suddenly objected to producing anything after December 2024, out of the blue (and in fact also objects to producing anything between May and July 2024 as well), and that was not acceptable to Lively's attorneys. There is another issue in here about Breed also objecting to producing texts involving group communications involving any of the Baldoni parties, where Bender may have been willing to agree to this at first but after two months had passed with no docs from anyone, they determined they needed everything.

NAG is blaming the communication breakdown on Lively attorneys. While she's saying that's normal in litigation and isn't really a big deal, she's putting the blame for the sudden change on the wrong party. Breed wanted to limit the productions in two new ways at the last minute and Lively/Bender wasn't willing to move. But NAG puts the blame on Bender/Lively instead, which her fans will like more, but which isn't really correct imo.

The judge has already said that on the issue involving the smear, communications after December 2024 are relevant because Lively's complaint states that the smear is ongoing. So unless the judge decided a non-party shouldn't bear the burden here (and except to the extent that any of the third parties are no longer employed by TAG and wouldn't have communications from them to the present), the judge has already said those later docs would be relevant to the case. Order: https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.nysd.634304/gov.uscourts.nysd.634304.355.0.pdf

This hearing is scheduled for Tuesday 6/24.

Email chain (Bender/Breed): https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.nysd.634304/gov.uscourts.nysd.634304.322.3.pdf
Subpoena where date range is spelled out in Instructions paragraph 3: https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.nysd.634304/gov.uscourts.nysd.634304.322.1.pdf
Breed's Objections and Responses to the subpoena where he doesn't specifically object to Instructions paragraph 3 or make other specific objections to the date range requested besides general overbreadth of the requests: https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.nysd.634304/gov.uscourts.nysd.634304.322.4_1.pdf

Breen's opposition letter brief (where he doesn't really make the claim that their responses and objections included a date objection -- because he really didn't): https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.nysd.634304/gov.uscourts.nysd.634304.358.0.pdf

Oh wow. Gottlieb is so brilliant, amirite?? You could tell he ‘side eyed’ someone in his footnotes?! Wow. Brilliant analysis. Thank god we have you to explain all this minutiae to us!!

What a great attorney. He encouraged, or at least didn’t discourage, his client who depends on her image for her living and her sense of being, to file a weak weak sexual harassment claim that would surely be put under a microscope and attacked as frivolous, put it in a California complaint so she could leak it to the NYT (risking a huge defamation claim, which she fortunately escaped) and then start engaging in a 2 + year litigation which will drag her name through the press constantly, and cost her millions and millions of dollars in legal fees and PR costs trying to rehabilitate her image. Plus she lost her prized relationship in Taylor Swift and is now isolated.

Wow! So awesome! What a great lawyer!!!! Let’s review how he side eyed someone in a footnote some more. Or focus on how she’s ‘winning’ because she escaped a defamation claim on a legal technicality.

Brilliant!!

Are you all right? I'm just talking about the filings that relate to the hearing coming up tomorrow. I guess you're saying that overall this lawsuit was bad for Lively, and I understand how you feel that way. On the other hand, your boy (I think he's surfing in Florida now?) just got all of his own claims dismissed. *poof* My favorite part of your point above is where you say his defamation claim was dismissed "on a legal technicality" lol. If that is how you need to cope, okay.

You seem to be dismissing all of the little back and forth letters and motions that go into litigation like this as unimportant given the larger picture. The day-to-day activity of the legal filings is mostly what interests me in this thread, so that's mostly what I post about. Coincidentally, I also think that's the part of litigation that Freedman is pretty terrible at. Freedman isn't involved in these Breen filings, but Breen is an appropriate stand in for him here ha. Freedman may be good at bullying and PR and maybe even depositions (let's see if that happens today), but he doesn't seem to be very good at motions practice or pleadings -- to me it's almost getting close to looking like malpractice at this point given his choice to file a worthless defamation claim that subjects his clients to treble damages, punitives, and attorneys fees as well as multiple various outstanding Rule 11 sanctions motions. I'm not sure Lively's attorneys will win on all of these, but I bet they will win some, and that's more cash Baldoni's rich benefactor will wind up paying out to Lively in this case.

Look, we all get it. The actual case for lively is such a train wreck and money pit that you need to focus on all the little filings here and there, and then of course the defamation claim. Baldoni doesn’t want money out of this, he wanted his reputation cleared and he has done that in spades. And yes, most people believe lively and the NYT won their cases because of fair report privilege, not because livelys claims were valid.

You’re acting like Baldoni started this and lost. Whereas, NO, Lively started this and although she seems to have avoided huge direct personal financial liability, she has decimated her reputation and is absolutely bleeding money. All for a pointless law suit that has done nothing but make her look like a manipulative liar. You can’t actually think that’s ‘winning’ can you?

How you can continuously come in here and claim the court case is going GREAT for Baldoni when he keeps losing motion after motion is bizarre to me. I guess since Freedman keeps going on TV saying he didn’t really lose at all or lost less then he really did keeps confusing people like you.

Let’s see how many claims are in the amended complaint Freedman files today as a starting point lol.

It had seemed to me that Baldoni had actually wanted quite a large sum of money out of this lawsuit since he filed a $400M defamation claim. But since those claims were dismissed as baseless I guess you’re rewriting history again.

Dp, but the recent discovery motions have been a mixed bag for Lively, she was forced to give up her claims for intentional I flictionof emotional distress and outright lost the Swift motion. She had some success in ipushing out the end dare on the other discovery and getting some responses to interrogatories.

Just a little reminder that another recent thing that happened in the case was Judge Liman dismissing every single one of Baldoni's claims, mostly with prejudice, on this day only two weeks ago. *pours out a forty for those $400M defamation and extortion claims RIP*

Well yes, but Lively has also lost some claims.

lol!! Voluntarily. Because she didn't want to give her alleged harasser her medical records. Not because her claims were legally insufficient. As all of Baldoni's claims were found to be. Baldoni was told none of his claims passed the smell test, whereas on the ED claim Lively just said "nah I'm good, you can have these back."

Let me fix this for you— Blake had no medical records to support her claims for intentional infliction of emotional distress and was forced to drop them.

Given the history we've seen in this case, where Gottlieb generally only files pleadings where he has the receipts to back them up whereas Freedman just files whatever hopes and dreams he wants despite their failure to conform to docket and pleadings requirements in federal courts, I'm going to go with Gottlieb here. Gottlieb's discovery requests may sometimes be overbroad or ask for too much, but he hasn't ever been caught out filing total nonsense like Freedman has now several times. So, no -- I'm pretty sure Lively had medical records to back up her emotional distress claims, but just didn't want to give them as ammunition to her alleged harasser and smearer to find them distorted in some Daily Mail article within the week. A++ decision, Gottlieb. Good call. And you can tell how good of a call it was by how hard Freedman fought to get the med records (rather than have the claims struck). Aww, poor Bryan.

This from the side that claimed Blake got everything she wanted with respect to attorney’s eyes protection in the protective order which does include medical records. Indeed, her attorneys specifically brought up medical records records in their oral argument.

Can’t have it both ways— everyone knows that Freedman can’t release anything marked AEO. Blake didn’t have the goods.

Nah, given that Johnny Depp used Amber Heard's medical records and the psych "expert" that he paid to argue to the jury that Heard had a host of mental illnesses including borderline personality disorder, this was just Gottlieb being smart. And if you don't think Freedman is feeding confidential information to news outlets and that's how they are publishing stories within minutes of hitting the docket, I have some beautiful bridges to sell you.

I haven't seen any news today on whether Lively's deposition actually did or did not happen.

Brett Douglass McDowell has now made his third filing of the day, this one a motion for reconsideration of the denial of his motion to intervene. It's not available via Court Listener, but I feel that is just as well.