Blake Lively- Jason Baldoni and NYT - False Light claims

[Anonymous]

Bender is arguing for Lively, Breed is arguing for Case and Koslow -- I'm not sure Bender is winning. Liman went off to think about what to do and will return with his decision. They will definitely get SOMETHING but not as much as Bender wants, Lively will probably have to pay costs etc.

[Anonymous]

Liman made a pointed statement at Bender when she began her argument to target it at how Lively has tried to narrow the original requests to something that is more manageable for a non-party, and she basically didn't take his advice much and said (as her original motion said) that now that negotiations fell through, we go back to our original request, which was everything. EXCEPT she said they could narrow the requests to just #1, 5, 6, and 7 which mostly encompass everything else anyway.

I think Bender should have argued that if Case and Koslow really don't have anything relevant after 12/2024, then it won't be burdensome to check their documents after that date on the relevant search terms -- there shouldn't even be any/many hits then, and just exclude anything NR.

Liman is still off, thinking.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Please post play by play!

Another one with no life.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Maybe they're not settling. Bryan Freedman released some statement through a youtube personality Rob Zambrano saying the following:

"The Court's decision on the motion to dismiss has no effect whatsoever on the truth that there was no harassment nor any smear campaign, and it does not in any way affect our vigorous defense against Ms. Lively's claims. Discovery is proceeding and we are confident we will prevail against these factually baseless accusations. Instead of revising the existing claims, our clients will be pursuing additional legal options that are available to us." -- Bryan Freedman

I don't know how anyone can believe anything he says anymore tbh.

Insane that you released this statement "through a YouTube personality Rob Zambrano." Like it's one thing to go through TMZ or Daily Mail -- at least those are actual journalistic enterprises, even if they are tabloids. But going through one of these YouTubers is sketchy and indicates he wanted zero follow up questions or even potential commentary on the statement. You know like "Freedman refused to tell TMZ why he had previously claimed they would be amending their complaint, nor would he provide any comment on Lively's deposition that occurred yesterday."

Given that there hasn't been much from the Daily Mail over the last week since Vituscka changed counsel (though Vituscka is still running stories and still works there), I wondered whether maybe Freedman isn't able to feed them stories the way he used to. Even if Vituscka's counsel is now more openly friendly to Freedman, maybe the paper (or even Freedman?) themselves have put up some walls to prevent getting accused of passing info and smearing. Wondering if Freedman has now burned the Daily Mail bridge as a conduit for releasing info from his perspective about the case, but not sure.

If outlets are now reluctant to report out leaks from Freedman/Baldoni, that would on its own be a huge win for Lively in terms of rehabbing her image.

[Anonymous]

Liman is back, prepared to rule.

Granting motion to compel as modified:
Compeling production of docs responsive to 1, 5, 6, and 7.

Production will include responsive docs involving communications with Baldoni, Heath, Sarowitz, and Abel. Not limited to communications involving those docs. Rejecting Case and Koslow's arguments here.

Finding time period suggested in letter at docket 321: July 1 to March 21 2025, and production shall be limited to docs in those time period.

To the extent that docs should be limited to those in December 2024 because work stopped, Liman says this should mean there should be very few docs after December, so plaintiffs should be allowed to probe that question.

Production should be made by 5 pm on July 7 (as Lively asked).

Re cost burden, Liman orders cost sharing to following extent: Lively will cover costs identified at second bullet point of doc at docket 359-9 at page 26 (?), email from Ms. Bender from 2025. Incorporating that bullet point into order.

Anything else we need to do? Breed asks for a written record? Breed notes also that neither of their clients have received deposition notices. Liman thanks everyone.

Generally a win for Lively here, but they will need to do A LOT of quick doc review between 5pm July 7th and their dep scheduled on July 9th.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Liman is back, prepared to rule.

Granting motion to compel as modified:
Compeling production of docs responsive to 1, 5, 6, and 7.

Production will include responsive docs involving communications with Baldoni, Heath, Sarowitz, and Abel. Not limited to communications involving those docs. Rejecting Case and Koslow's arguments here.

Finding time period suggested in letter at docket 321: July 1 to March 21 2025, and production shall be limited to docs in those time period.

To the extent that docs should be limited to those in December 2024 because work stopped, Liman says this should mean there should be very few docs after December, so plaintiffs should be allowed to probe that question.

Production should be made by 5 pm on July 7 (as Lively asked).

Re cost burden, Liman orders cost sharing to following extent: Lively will cover costs identified at second bullet point of doc at docket 359-9 at page 26 (?), email from Ms. Bender from 2025. Incorporating that bullet point into order.

Anything else we need to do? Breed asks for a written record? Breed notes also that neither of their clients have received deposition notices. Liman thanks everyone.

Generally a win for Lively here, but they will need to do A LOT of quick doc review between 5pm July 7th and their dep scheduled on July 9th.

Responding to myself to say: I thought Judge Liman was going to come down harder on Bender/Lively than he did given the sort of hard bargaining he was doing with her at the front. But Bender did come back with good reasons for why they needed what they were asking for, and also maybe Liman was trying to get whatever concessions he could up front (and he did get Bender to narrow the requests to 5).

I say this is a win for Lively because: (1) Liman required production of docs after 12/21/2024, which was one of the two major issues that threw a wrench into negotiations; (2) Liman required production of docs from these non-parties even if the to/from included the names of parties like Baldoni, Heath, and Abel, which is the second major reason negotiations broke down (Liman said Ps should get to test whether or not basically Wayfarer is producing those communications b/c Wayfarer won't even say whose devices were searched etc); and (3) Breed is given basically 14 days to produce everything, which is 1/3 less the time than the 21 days he wanted.

Win for Breed in getting Lively parties to foot part of the bill for the productions, but not really much else. Breed was petulant after the decision tbh and didn't really try to disguise it.

[Anonymous]

Thanks PP who posted updates!

[Anonymous]

Whose deposition is July 9?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Whose deposition is July 9?

Jed Wallace? I don't actually know, just guessing.

[Anonymous]

FWIW, here are all my notes from the call, up until the point where Liman came back on and handed down his decision (where I just live posted). Sorry, it's long:

Parties:
Lively:  Represented by Kristen Bender (not sure if anyone else was on; I missed the beginning because I redialed in after everything went mute)
Katherine Case and Brianna Butler Koslow:  Represented by Maxwell Breed (Parmida Enkeshafi may have also been on but didn't say anything except maybe "What the hell?" below etc).

"You're late, you guys are late" multiple complaints about this.  Someone apparently joins and says "What the hell?"  "Mute.  Okay.  I can't see anything."
After redialing, I came back in at 2:08
Liman: Hearing is limited to Motion to Compel from Case and Koslow.  Will hear from Lively parties first.

Liman notes he is particularly interested in the following:  It's not clear from the correspondence what adjustments Lively parties have made to address burdensomeness arguments made by Case and Koslow.
First:  It's not clear whether there is agreement for Lively parties to pay a portion of costs.
Second, not clear if there's an agreement re searching.
Third:  Re the time period covered by request, there is definitely an issue of disagreement here.
Fourth:  There is an issue re how much time Case and Koslow have in which to produce their docs.

Kristen Bender, arguing for Lively:  Moves to compel docs from March 2024 to March 2025.  These parties DO have relevant docs.  Bender seems to be reading a statement at first, notes that they engaged in extensive negotiations, and those negotiations fell through, so Lively is going back to our original requests which were already narrowly designed.

Relevance:  We anticipate in response to these subpoenas receiving docs relevant to digital campaign.  FN 2 of opening brief.  Time frame:  Requests are narrowly tailored already.  Liman:  In footnote 4, we said client was amenable to narrowing of July 2024 to March 2025.  Bender says it's okay to start in July b/c Case and Cosgrove indicated they have no relevant docs before that period, that narrowing is okay.
Liman asks whether substance of request should be narrowed to exclude some of the parties or group communications with case parties?  Is Bender willing to narrow request?  Bender:  Core of what we want is docs relevant to the campaign, regardless of other parties included on them.  So, no.
Liman (pointed question):  Can't you ask for less than what is drafted in the subpoena, because essentially through your negotiations haven't you acknowledged that you can live with less than what you originally asked for?
Bender:  We could live with getting documents responsive only to RFPs 1, 5, 6, and 7, and not the others (because in effect 1 and 5-7 should basically encompass the other requests).  But we cannot take away the requirement to include all comms, even if they contain party names.
Bender started explaining why there had not been a prior agreement to limit names, and Liman interrupts her saying he's not really interested in whether there was a prior agreement, except insofar as it may reflect what Lively really needs or understanding as to burden.  Need to convince Liman under Rule 26 as to burden.  Let's put aside prior communications, and just argue as if there were no such prior communications.
Bender:  While court can look at productions from parties, but there is no requirement to do so.  Here, we have propounded RFPs on these topics, at docket 202.  But it's clear Lively can seek overlapping and even duplicative production, authority provided at p.3.  Even if Lively were required to exhaust party discovery before third parties, we can't do that -- no discovery from Case or Koslow so far produced, and substantially completion due in a week.  We know they have relevant docs.  
Case and Koslow take position that Lively can circle back after discovery has closed, but Bender notes that this effectively cuts off Lively from being able to affirmatively use discovery to achieve more discovery before it closes.
LIman asks whether Lively has noticed deps on case or koslow?  No.  
Deps close in August.  Several other deps have been noticed.
Bender:  We really have made multiple attempts to narrow the burden.  We even offered to release Case and Koslow from the burden of including their personal devices, if production of their docs was made by the TAG agency, but TAG declined.
Bender:  Modifications that were addressed and disclosed back in April to exclude group messages were never intended to exclude group messages.  Was never our intent to suggest that production would exclude group communications involving any of those individuals.  TAG seems to have operated mostly through group communications.
1, 5, 6, and 7 don't contain "with or concerning" -- it's Bender's view that this encompasses various other requests.  
Liman:  You haven't answered all the questions.  One of the questions was cost sharing and the means by which the docs would be produced.  
Liman:  If there's not an existing offer from Lively to cost share, why shouldn't he impose an obligation to share the costs.  Bender:  We are amenable to cost sharing.Liman asks whether there are any issues to work out re the means of searching the docs?  Bender:  Parties have an understanding of what that would be, through search terms.Original order asked for production by June 27th.  Bender asks that docs be produced within next 10 days.  Need time to review those docs before dep scheduled for July 9th, need no later than July 7th.  

Mr. Breed at Prior Cashman LLP speaks for Case and Koslow:  Breed disagrees with Bender's statement that "Our client's communications are in the complaint" - no, they are passive participants in the to/from line.  Agency Group PR is just a media group, there really wouldn't be involvement in digital manipulation.  Case and Koslow are non parties that are employees of a party.
(I think Breed keeps messing up his clients' names.  Ms. Case and Ms. Butler Koslow, not Ms Butler and Case Cosgrove etc.)
Says subpoenas as propounded were overly broad and unduly burdensome.  Breed starts to address where in the record agreements are reflected.  Liman -- steps in, no, just address these four questions I posed.Argument re time period:  Agency group PR was only retained on July 2nd, 2024, so there should not be any communications in existence before that date.  Offering from July 1 forward.  Bender seeking to the present.  Should be limited to 12/21/24 which was the date Ps filed their complaint for collection and review period.  Liman:  But what about the fact that the complaint alleges continuing violations?  Breed:  Impossible for Ms. Case b/c she left employment on December 31.  Also inconceivable for Ms. Koslow, because it was his understanding that all work for this client stopped at least early in the fall of 2024, if not summer.
Argument re group text:  With respect to the group text, it's interesting counsel would maintain there is a need for double or multiple production of these materials.  These communications feature in the complaint already so Ps already have most of these docs.  The notion that non-party witnesses ought to double or triple produce docs from parties is "unreasoned."  Admission at footnote 2 that Wayfarer parties have made a voluminous production but Lively has not been able to search it yet.  Liman:  Isn't a problem there that Wayfarer parties refuse to indicate the particular parties whose devices have been searched?  Do you have info to contradict that?  Breed:  No, I don't, just know we have Case and Koslow's own devices.
Breed:  We are prepared to collect and produce within a reasonable time period, subject to the limitations that were previously negotiated and understood, paragraphs 10 and 11 of my declaration (docket doc 359).  We would suggest that those be imposed upon the narrowed request of the 5 individual request.  Still want the cost shifting.  And time period should be July 1 to December 21, 2024, and no need to collect and produce group texts involving parties and party principles.  We are still confused why we are here. We could have resolved these issues in the 9 days it took the Lively parties to bring this to the court.  
Liman goes over date issues with Breed again to make sure he understands them:  Ms. Case hasn't been an employee of TAG since December 2024.  Ms. Butler Koslow:  TAG stopped working on this account from August 2nd until sometime in September.  That 12/21 has been a bounding date for other productions.  Also, after that date, the probablility of there being probative evidence is decidedly limited.
Back to Ms. Bender:  The end of the relevant time period was already resolved by the court's order last Wednesday, so docs after December are still relevant.  Liman:  Do you have any info that TAG was working for the parties before the end of December 2024?  Bender:  Ms. Koslow appears on a priv log in connection with "Skyline," the vender involved in creating Exhibit A by the parties.  Other than that, we don't know, but given that the allegations are that TAG WAS involved, there's no reason to exclude those later dates.  It's not as though the Wayfarer parties have provided voluminous productions.  That may itself be an indicator that these third parties may be our best source for productions of these materials.  We are entitled to at least test the idea whether other docs besides what we have exist from third parties for this limited period of time.

Liman took the recess then handed down the decision. I did think the decision was a win for Lively because she won on the date, whether communications involving parties could be excluded (no), and Breed only gets 14 days to produce everything. Breed gets some help on cost sharing. In general, Breed should not have raised these date and party communications issues at the last minute to hold up production -- he totally lost on those issues and now he needs to rush to produce.

I did wonder if the early July deposition was Lively -- I haven't seen definitively whether or not that was taken yet (though I think the popcorn tv guy lolol was saying it was NOT).

[Anonymous]

I really like the way that Liman doesn't hide the ball on what info he is looking for from the lawyers. Some judges do, although sometimes that's because they haven't really read the briefs yet and so aren't really sure. Liman came in briefed and ready to play and rule from the bench, which I think he basically did on the PO order also, so I shouldn't be surprised. He isn't wasting anyone's time.

[Anonymous]

Thank you for the notes PP. I hadn't posted the other day that Breeds request seemed reasonable so it's good that Liman went into that much detail.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Thank you for the notes PP. I hadn't posted the other day that Breeds request seemed reasonable so it's good that Liman went into that much detail.

You're welcome!

A neat reveal during the hearing, which I messed up a little in my notes above and have fixed below (fix in bold), was that TAG and an entity called Skyline were involved in creating the website and/or exhibit A for Freedman sometime after Lively's lawsuit was filed:

"Liman: Do you have any info that TAG was working for the parties AFTER the end of December 2024? Bender: Ms. Koslow appears on a privilege log in connection with "Skyline," the vender involved in creating Exhibit A by the parties. Other than that, we don't know, but given that the allegations are that TAG WAS involved, there's no reason to exclude those later dates. It's not as though the Wayfarer parties have provided voluminous productions. That may itself be an indicator that these third parties may be our best source for productions of these materials. We are entitled to at least test the idea whether other docs besides what we have exist from third parties for this limited period of time."

This Exhibit A involvement also suggested that to some extent Breed's clients had been lying to him, since TAG was still involved with Baldoni affairs in 2025. Freedman filed Exhibit A with his FAC on January 31, 2025, so I guess that priv log entry was from sometime in January.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Maybe they're not settling. Bryan Freedman released some statement through a youtube personality Rob Zambrano saying the following:

"The Court's decision on the motion to dismiss has no effect whatsoever on the truth that there was no harassment nor any smear campaign, and it does not in any way affect our vigorous defense against Ms. Lively's claims. Discovery is proceeding and we are confident we will prevail against these factually baseless accusations. Instead of revising the existing claims, our clients will be pursuing additional legal options that are available to us." -- Bryan Freedman

I don't know how anyone can believe anything he says anymore tbh.

I hope they are going to be appealing the decision with respect to the defamation claims, maybe a motion for reconsideration first? That makes far more sense than pursing the claims they were allowed to replead.

This wouldn't be a crazy strategy (not a motion for reconsideration -- no chance -- but an interlocutory appeal), but why wouldn't he just come out and say that? Also, that would typically be a yes and strategy or at least you'd seek a stay to delay the need to file the repleaded claims; now that he missed the repleading deadline, he's in a much worse position. I think the truth is just that he lost, he misunderstood what he was allowed to replead (and the folks on this site giving the person who tried to explain that a hard time are a particular breed of Baldoni supporter) and then realized what he was allowed to replead wasn't worth it. Living with the decision is a perfectly reasonable strategy -- especially when there's a chance they might end up paying Lively's related costs -- but then he shouldn't have gone on TMZ and blatantly lied. It really gives the impression that Baldoni's legal team is in meltdown mode at this point, although of course they haven't lost any actual ability to defend/ground on their defense.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So far this hearing is going GREAT! Multiple exclamations of "You're late, you guys are late!" followed by someone joining and saying "What the hell? Oh, mute. I can't see anything" etc etc. Now silence.

Please touch grass.

I think it's hilarious that you have nothing substantive to post anymore now that your boy's case is absolutely floundering and Freedman is being shown to be nothing more than a sweet-talking huckster. You've got eff all to say about Freeman's lack of a second amended complaint, when Freedman said there would certainly be one? No comment on that at all? Nothing besides dumb insults for me for taking an hour and a half to listen to a court hearing and write up my notes, when months ago you guys had HOURS AND HOURS to pour over gossip sites and listen to tiktoks about something Lively did 15 years ago.

Wake up and recognize that Baldoni is wrong and Freedman has been lying to you, and that there absolutely was a smear campaign that was making certain web results criticizing Lively more prominent than others that didn't. And you lot totally fell for it. Freedman is a lying liar here and he has been lying to you all along. Just like he lied on tv about a "slave contract." He says whatever lies he needs to be convincing to his audience at the time, but his words have no value and he doesn't care.

Maybe you need to touch some grass.