Blake Lively- Jason Baldoni and NYT - False Light claims
![[Post New]](/jforum/templates/default/images/icon_minipost_new.gif){kind=icon}
Anonymous
The New York Times article stated that the texts they reviewed had been obtained by subpoena. That was how the existence of a subpoena was known. |
Anonymous
Yes, but I am referring to whoever sent a copy of the subpoena to, IIRC, Deadline and Daily Mail and allowed them to share details from it but not publish it. That had information like the date, which wasn't in NYT, and by searching the NY docket, someone found the VanZan case lined up, given it was started before the subpoena was issued and withdrawn right before the CRD. Why show that to the media if you're not ready to turn it over? Or if it wasn’t Lively's side, who did? |
Anonymous
Likely someone on the pr side for Lively, or perhaps Jones, who thought it was important to show the subpoena existed and (wrongly) thought media saying it existed would end the inquiry. Gotta think the lawyers only learned of the leak after the fact. |
Anonymous
It’s so strange to me that you guys are defending him for going on TV and affirmatively announcing would take actions that were (1) legally and factually incorrect; and (2) he did not take. Surely it would have been better and preferable for him not to have made that wrong announcement in the first place and created a conversation and expectation from Baldoni fans that a SAC would happen. Nope, according to you guys, Freedman should lie about what he will be doing in the case as much as he wants, and he always gets take backs because the client must have changed their minds lolol! Your Freedman loyalty is unflappable. Let’s see if that stays true if Gottlieb can establish Freedman’s involvement in the smear. |
Anonymous
Please name what I said above that is untrue. I'm just making observations based on the pleadings; this third party subpoena was only issued two months ago, not four months like the other third party subpoena that was it issue in the MTC hearing yesterday. I agree Garofalo should be given the materials, but let's acknowledge that the time period is not the same and we can't see the negotiations. |
Anonymous
DP. I guess VanZan itself has the argument that it shouldn't have to turn over material that can be obtained by a party, but what's the excuse from Jones? I'm sure they asked her too. What do you make of Garafalo's argument that given they assert this whole thing was a sham, they need the discovery from both sides to make sure nothing is missing? |
Anonymous
That's a good theory. And yeah - dumb decision if they thought that would end things instead of put fuel on the fire, haha. |
Anonymous
Lively is not a party in the Joneswork litigation. |
Anonymous
That's why I wrote "but what's the excuse from Jones? I'm sure they asked her too." The "both sides" is VanZan and Jones. |
Anonymous
I'm PP you're responding to and all we know about Jones is what Garofalo says in her letter brief about the issue (she does not address the Jones RFPs in any way in her sworn declaration). Garofalo says of Jones in the brief that: "Here, Abel did request the bulk of the documents from Jones in March 2025, but Jones has 'failed thus far to comply.'" Even here, Breen (for Case and Koslow) had the requests for an extra month than Jones did -- February 2025 compared to March. And from this single sentence of description, it's impossible to tell what Garofalo means by "comply." Has Jones produced none of the documents? Or has Jones produced some but not all of them? It does seem like Jones should provide the requested info afaict. Like I said in my original comment, Garofalo's letter brief seemed well written and well sourced to me. I don't even really know what the arguments against providing the info would be, so am interested in seeing the substantive response to this motion. My main point above was in pointing out the fact that the email negotiations were not attached and the request was only made 2 months ago, so the fact that VanZan hasn't produced these docs yet and is also pointing at Jones isn't crazy to me. That said, it does make sense to me that Garofalo would at least want to try to get the docs from VanZan as well as from Jones (especially the info like shareholders that only VanZan has), and I think it was a good idea for Garofalo to file this MTC. I don't know what the judge would decide on the duplicative discovery issue -- Liman did allow it to the limited extent it was requested with Breed, which seemed to involve a limited number of documents. I'm not clear how many "documents" are involved here -- I guess to me it would matter how many documents were involved if you are going to require duplicative discovery, but if feasible I do think some amount of duplicative discovery should be allowed to "check" at least a partial production from one set to another. |
Anonymous
DP totally agree. A paralegal or Admin from his firm fired for incompetence or something like that who now holds a grudge and is OBSESSED (and unemployed). There’s also the Kat Ortega theory. She’s in love/hate with him. |
Anonymous
Responding to self to hedge that I thought also Liman allowed some duplicative discovery in the Breed issue for Case and Koslow in part because the Baldoni parties had professed to produce documents, some of which included TAG documents, but none of which included documents from Case or Koslow -- which itself seemed to raise the question that party production had been inadequate since it was known that TAG possessed relevant documents that included Case and Koslow in the to/cc lines which TAG had not been produced. That seemed like a good reason for the duplicative discovery to be allowed. I am not sure whether we have that here but you are saying the whole thing is a fraud from the start I guess. I will want to see the response to the MTC I guess. |
Anonymous
PP. Thanks for responding. We'll see how Jones responds, but kind of hoping Liman calls a hearing on this to hammer down on those issues you identify - what Jones has provided, and whether duplicative responses are necessary. Lively has different attorneys than VanZan so that would be interesting as they would apparently not be invited so an opportunity for Garafalo/Freedman to control narrative. |
Anonymous
Oh, geez. Here's something from the docket I didn't notice. The ESI Protocol was just entered THIS MORNING in the Jones/Abel case. This means that of course nothing was produced in this case yet, doh, because the parties had not yet agreed together exactly how to produce it, in what format, what metadata, etc!!! Seriously, this makes this MTC look just a little bit stupid imho. The ESI Protocol was literally just entered this morning! !!!!!!! Come. On. |
Anonymous
Correction: The ESI protocol was signed by the judge and entered into the docket yesterday, after which Garofalo served her motion to compel on the same day. In a contentious litigation like this, nobody produces documents before the ESI Protocol/Stipulation is agreed upon and entered into the docket; otherwise you might produce documents in a way that violated the protocol such that you would have to go through the time and expense of having to produce those same documents all over again. I understand that Garofalo wants these docs, but, just like hiding the email discussions the lawyers went through regarding negotiations about the doc requests, it is sketchy to hide/not even mention the fact that the ESI Protocol was only entered on the morning of the same day you filed your MTC. This is surely going to come up in the response and is going to be noticed by the judge; I can only guess the reason to withhold this info now is to foment up your base of non-lawyers? Weak. |