Blake Lively- Jason Baldoni and NYT - False Light claims

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Dog pool posted some absolutely whacky stuff relating to Freedman, any celebrity he can possibly think of, and citing to reddit posts. I don't have the patience to summarize but maybe someone else does.

I legit dislike Freedman but even I will not give credence to or wade into this dogpool guy stuff.

[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:I think the MTC would be reasonable closer to the discovery deadline — they are entitled to get the dupe docs from both parties — but the day after the ESI was entered and asking for docs it already has (so doesn’t need early on in discovery for any particular reason) without acknowledging the same is bad strategy. I think non lawyers probably don’t realize just how shady a MTC is at a point in time where the docs probably could not have been physically produced pursuant to the newly agreed ESI. I think they run the risk of annoying Liman when they could have waited just a few weeks. This has to be all about affecting the news cycle (maybe they were the ones holding out on the ESI and just agreed in order to file this, in fact) and not about the substance. Hopefully it doesn’t backfire.

Blake has been asking everyone, including third parties, for the same documents.

Further, the texts produced by Lively to WF has no metadata which is weird since Jones had the phone the texts were on and allegedly was given the entire phone,

Lively’s production letter explains that she produced the docs in exactly the same form they were received from Jones, and that as received from Jones, the docs were missing certain metadata:

“Ms. Lively’s forthcoming production contains a reproduction of documents that Ms. Lively received in response to a subpoena duces tecum to Jonesworks, LLC, dated October 1, 2024 (the 'Subpoena'), together with a copy of the Subpoena. Ms. Lively is reproducing the documents responsive to the Subpoena ('Jonesworks Documents') as she received them. For example, the Jonesworks Documents were produced to Ms. Lively without certain attachments and without the metadata contemplated in the subsequently negotiated Joint Stipulation on the Protocol for Discovery of Electronically-Stored Information and Hard Copy Documents, dated May 13, 2025 (Dkt. No. 212; 'ESI Stipulation'). While Ms. Lively’s forthcoming production reflects all metadata fields contemplated in the ESI Stipulation, certain of the fields are not populated because the Jonesworks Documents lacked corresponding metadata. And certain attachments are missing because the Jonesworks Documents did not include them."

Frankly this production letter does make it sound like there is no other version of these docs via VanZan — the docs produced by Lively in May were exactly as received by Jones. It’s right there in the letter. Not sure how much clearer that could be stated.

Liman doesn’t want guesses or assumptions, only facts uncovered via discovery to the proper parties. You should know that by now.

Read the production letter. The information is right there. They already have it.

Facts have not been established yet to confirm Vanzan=Blake. So why should Liman accept that docs produced from Blake would be the same as produced from Vanzan? There’s a reason Garofalo is requesting info on Vanzan’s structure.

Garofalo just blew through all her credibility with her misrepresentations and obfuscations in that filing. Hope the headline (which lasted a few hours before the counter-headlines of “They already have it!” took over) was worth it.

It’s legit for her to ask for the metadata. Obviously.

Read the production letter, which specifically says she gave the metadata that was provided. The docs from Jonesworks were missing metadata as received. How many times do you need to be pointed back at the production letter?

How do they know Vanzan didn't strip metadata before sending to Lively? It's a reasonable ask. MTC would have been stronger had they laid out this argument.

Because the production letter says they didn’t strip out any metadata. It says metadata is provided as existed but some was missing from Jones.

Are you this dense or just pretending to be? The letter is not from Van Zan, it’s not even in the same case, and it doesn’t relate to the subpoena at issue. It has not been established that Lively can speak on behalf of Van Zan.

Dude. Lively is a party in a related litigation (See, e.g., docket entry 3 re statement of relatedness). They are assigned to the same judge for a reason. VanZan is not a party in any of these litigations. Lively clearly has possession and control of the documents that were received directly from Jonesworks in response to the October 14, 2024 VanZan subpoena. That is what the production letter says. Lively produced those documents to Liner Freedman without stripping out any metadata. That is what the production letter says.

Garofalo's MTD indicates none of this. Sure, I guess Garofalo can also ask VanZan to produce exactly the same thing that an actual party, Lively, did, to be sort of a jerk but to be absolutely clear about what was produced. The judge may consider this wasteful. As a PP said, this could have been better handled on a meet and confer. Either way, Garofalo's motion should indicate wtf is going on, and it does not in any way indicate wtf is going on. It wastes everybody's time.

By this logic, every one of Blake’s request for documents to third parties and subsequent motions to compel was wasteful and whatever other criticisms you’ve thrown Garofao’s way.

No, it’s really not the same to ask for one specific thing, and get that thing produced to you by a party, and then ask a non party for that one same specific thing already produced to be produced in the same way all over again.

Lively’s MTCs are substantively different. When you ask two different sources for “all your communications about the movie” you will get different responses from wayfarer vs a Sony rep. They will have sent and received different communications. Different doc reviewers may even mark the same comms as responsive or not, depending on instructions. Those requests are fuzzier and different than the request involved here, which involve precisely the set of same docs under Lively’s control.

When Lively did ask a third party for exactly the same thing she had asked TAG for, she explained what she had already received from TAG and why she had reason to believe TAG’s production had been deficient (i.e, TAG’s production did not include a single communication involving Case or Koslow). So, totally different than the situation here. Get it?

How about acknowledging Garofalo’s MTC is deceptively written? Nothing you would change there?

I don’t think that is true at all when there are reports that Joneswork gave Van Zan Nathan’s actual phone,

[Anonymous]

Is it unusual for Liman to be granting Lively everything she asks for? That California judge rejected Lively's MTC

[Anonymous]

Look, if Lively wants to submit a sworn affidavit that there is not an inch of difference between her and Van Zan, she is the only person responsible for Van Zan and nothing was done by that entity without her full knowledge and permission, perhaps the subpoena can be narrowed.

At the moment, Lively is maintaining that she and Van Zan are separate parties (specifically noted in her submission on this very motion) so the other parties have no choice but to treat them as such.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Is it unusual for Liman to be granting Lively everything she asks for? That California judge rejected Lively's MTC

Yes, but the Lively supporters will swear six ways to Sunday its not.

[Anonymous]

Sorry to interrupt but who is TAG

[Anonymous]

I know the NYT case was a longshot, but Megan Twohey, in her NYT video, claimed that Heath showed Blake naked photos of his wife. Can a news org still get fair reporting privilege if they inaccurately characterize something in a complaint? Just such a misleading interpretation of what Heath did, it's so shitty that the NYT isn't even going to issue a correction for that.

[Anonymous]

Perez Hilton reporting that it is true that the Daily Mail reporter lied in his declaration. Start making the popcorn . . .

[Anonymous]

I wonder if Ellyn strategically filed that MTC after Liman allowed Blake to get info from TAG so Justin's side can show Liman is biased if the MTC isn't granted. Very smart!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Perez Hilton reporting that it is true that the Daily Mail reporter lied in his declaration. Start making the popcorn . . .

I really hope this goes to trial! Blake's side will be claiming that Justin retaliated against her, while the DM reporter will say, "Blake's camp was telling me that Justin is a sexual predator." How can a jury possibly believe Justin retaliated and wasn't just protecting himself!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I know the NYT case was a longshot, but Megan Twohey, in her NYT video, claimed that Heath showed Blake naked photos of his wife. Can a news org still get fair reporting privilege if they inaccurately characterize something in a complaint? Just such a misleading interpretation of what Heath did, it's so shitty that the NYT isn't even going to issue a correction for that.

Depends on what NYT had. They wouldn't have had the video, just whatever Blake's statement was, and i think technically she was naked although you can't actually see her private parts. This is more likely Blake misrepresenting to NYT. If Twohey made it sound like she herself is saying she knows it for a fact then maybe, but again, it's technically true.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Sorry to interrupt but who is TAG

TAG is The Agency Group, Melissa Nathan’s PR firm, funded in large part lol by Scooter Braun.

[Anonymous]

Link to Perez?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Is it unusual for Liman to be granting Lively everything she asks for? That California judge rejected Lively's MTC

Pretty sure it was granted in part and denied in part. Granted in that the docs must be produced by July 1; denied that the docs must be produced earlier.

[Anonymous]

And once again, ZERO accountability from Baldoni supporters re the absolutely deceptive way Garofalo wrote this motion. You guys are the best, and by the best I totally mean the worst. You should not wonder why you keep losing. It is because of stuff like this, apparently second nature to lawyers at Liner Freedman. Throwing up in my mouth a little.