Blake Lively- Jason Baldoni and NYT - False Light claims

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:haha, Judge Liman denied Wallace's request for a protective order over the identity of his clients, saying that's what the protective order was for. Which I said in here pages ago, but Baldoni supporters laughed at me. lolol.

https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.nysd.634304/gov.uscourts.nysd.634304.390.0.pdf

This seems weird. Can a nonbiased lawyer in here weigh in on whether this decision is unusual? I don't know why he should have to give up the names of his clients.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:haha, Judge Liman denied Wallace's request for a protective order over the identity of his clients, saying that's what the protective order was for. Which I said in here pages ago, but Baldoni supporters laughed at me. lolol.

https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.nysd.634304/gov.uscourts.nysd.634304.390.0.pdf

Once again, your recounting of events is ahistorical. I don't remember anyone here doing that. Yet you always love claiming, "Ha, I said this about the lawsuit, but then Justin supporters said THAT," and we're just like, no, that's not a thing that happened.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So Wallace has filed for a protective order from Lively's request for his client list from 2023 to now (!!!). Wallace has offered a breakdown of the types of clients, but not their names, and i think even that is too generous. I don't buy his "I'm just a country bumpkin from rural Texas helping families with substance abuse issues" but that request is way too broad. IMO the most she should be able to get is any clients or work spotlighted in his pitch to TAG, essentially anyone discussed by him with any of the Wayfarer parties, only limited as to what they were told by Wallace about those clients. I'd be shocked if Liman didn't rule against Lively here.

Motion
https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.nysd.634304/gov.uscourts.nysd.634304.380.0.pdf

Email chain https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.nysd.634304/gov.uscourts.nysd.634304.380.1.pdf

I thought that is what the AOC PO is for. Not sure Lively will get all of this, but I think it will be more that PP above is suggesting. I think this is this is why they (at Lively's insistence) created a category that is for attorneys eyes only.

PP. I just don't think it meets the relevance threshold unless it's tied to the case. If relevant in some way, then AEO. If Wallace said we'll do what we did for Depp, fine. If Lively says I want the names of everyone you worked with so I can look for a pattern, I think it gets denied.

PP above was wrong ("I'd be shocked if Liman didn't rule against Lively here" in first post), but I was right. Lively gets to test whether Wallace ran similar smears for other clients and whether the data shows similarities.

Kind of Peggy Olson telling Don Draper he never said "thank you" to her and Don responding, "That's what the money is for." Here, that's what the protective order is for, as the judge wraps up his order by saying.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So I know that no victim acts the same, no victim is perfect, and victims get nitpicked over the "right" way to behave. But I can't help but shake how unusual Blake's behavior is, and how selfish she is, at the very least. Even people with mixed reputations in Hollywood will speak out in favor of other victims. Amber Heard (who I did believe) and Amber Tamblyn spoke out in favor of Blake. But while Blake has given out vague messages of how she's fighting for all women, she has never ever come out in favor of an individual victim of harassment or assault. It's fishy, like she only cares about her reputation. Or think about the nasty way she reacted when an interviewer asked how she would react if a victim of sexual harassment/abuse came up to her. It was an awkward question, but there was a way to handle that with empathy instead of rolling your eyes and being sarcastic about it.

I don't think Justin harassed her, but one question I'm still unclear about is whether or not Blake *thinks* he harassed her. I used to lean toward yes, but the aforementioned reasons make me think maybe she doesn't.

This came up much earlier in the thread. Do you genuinely believe any victim of harassment wants Blake Lively to speak up in support of her right now, when so very many people seem to genuinely hate Blake Lively? Don’t you try ink this would be perceived as Lively trying to draw more attention to herself and essentially trying to vampirically draw upon the other person’s victimhood?

In the case of other supporters coming out for Lively, they have generally done so after their own scandal and public drubbing is over. They come in later to say “I have been through this too and recognize myself in you.”

I don’t think it would be genuinely helpful to any other victim for a negatively perceived female celebrity like Lively to speak up in their favor right now, and I think Lively has people advising her who know that.

She had an opportunity to support Dylan Farrow when Dylan directly called out Blake, but instead, Blake opted to call Woody Allen "empowering." Truly a feminist leader!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So Wallace has filed for a protective order from Lively's request for his client list from 2023 to now (!!!). Wallace has offered a breakdown of the types of clients, but not their names, and i think even that is too generous. I don't buy his "I'm just a country bumpkin from rural Texas helping families with substance abuse issues" but that request is way too broad. IMO the most she should be able to get is any clients or work spotlighted in his pitch to TAG, essentially anyone discussed by him with any of the Wayfarer parties, only limited as to what they were told by Wallace about those clients. I'd be shocked if Liman didn't rule against Lively here.

Motion
https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.nysd.634304/gov.uscourts.nysd.634304.380.0.pdf

Email chain https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.nysd.634304/gov.uscourts.nysd.634304.380.1.pdf

I thought that is what the AOC PO is for. Not sure Lively will get all of this, but I think it will be more that PP above is suggesting. I think this is this is why they (at Lively's insistence) created a category that is for attorneys eyes only.

PP. I just don't think it meets the relevance threshold unless it's tied to the case. If relevant in some way, then AEO. If Wallace said we'll do what we did for Depp, fine. If Lively says I want the names of everyone you worked with so I can look for a pattern, I think it gets denied.

PP above was wrong ("I'd be shocked if Liman didn't rule against Lively here" in first post), but I was right. Lively gets to test whether Wallace ran similar smears for other clients and whether the data shows similarities.

Kind of Peggy Olson telling Don Draper he never said "thank you" to her and Don responding, "That's what the money is for." Here, that's what the protective order is for, as the judge wraps up his order by saying.

That PP was just sharing that opinion, and in a very calm, reasonable way, but nowhere in that post did they "laugh" at you. Continue on with your inaccurate retellings about this thread, though, I want you to continue upping the ante for my amusement. Soon it's going to be, "I said Liman was going to grant another one of Blake Lively's requests, so JB supporters set my house on fire and cackled manically in my face while they were doing it."

[Anonymous]

Jones v Abel – Order to compel VANZAN communications with Jones & Jonesworks GRANTED in part, denied as moot in part

https://www.reddit.com/r/ItEndsWithLawsuits/comments/1lu36j4/jones_v_abel_order_to_compel_vanzan/

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So Wallace has filed for a protective order from Lively's request for his client list from 2023 to now (!!!). Wallace has offered a breakdown of the types of clients, but not their names, and i think even that is too generous. I don't buy his "I'm just a country bumpkin from rural Texas helping families with substance abuse issues" but that request is way too broad. IMO the most she should be able to get is any clients or work spotlighted in his pitch to TAG, essentially anyone discussed by him with any of the Wayfarer parties, only limited as to what they were told by Wallace about those clients. I'd be shocked if Liman didn't rule against Lively here.

Motion
https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.nysd.634304/gov.uscourts.nysd.634304.380.0.pdf

Email chain https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.nysd.634304/gov.uscourts.nysd.634304.380.1.pdf

I thought that is what the AOC PO is for. Not sure Lively will get all of this, but I think it will be more that PP above is suggesting. I think this is this is why they (at Lively's insistence) created a category that is for attorneys eyes only.

PP. I just don't think it meets the relevance threshold unless it's tied to the case. If relevant in some way, then AEO. If Wallace said we'll do what we did for Depp, fine. If Lively says I want the names of everyone you worked with so I can look for a pattern, I think it gets denied.

PP above was wrong ("I'd be shocked if Liman didn't rule against Lively here" in first post), but I was right. Lively gets to test whether Wallace ran similar smears for other clients and whether the data shows similarities.

Kind of Peggy Olson telling Don Draper he never said "thank you" to her and Don responding, "That's what the money is for." Here, that's what the protective order is for, as the judge wraps up his order by saying.

That PP was just sharing that opinion, and in a very calm, reasonable way, but nowhere in that post did they "laugh" at you. Continue on with your inaccurate retellings about this thread, though, I want you to continue upping the ante for my amusement. Soon it's going to be, "I said Liman was going to grant another one of Blake Lively's requests, so JB supporters set my house on fire and cackled manically in my face while they were doing it."

Look, you're right, PP didn't laugh at me. I have just gotten laughed at so much in this thread for posting my opinions on what should happen with the legal rulings, which generally turn out to be right, that I get confused which ones get laughed at and which ones don't. I did say that's what the protective order was for, which is also, coincidentally, the point that the judge closed on in writing his opinion. But continue getting the legal calls wrong in this thread, it amuses me very much. Sorry not sorry.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So Wallace has filed for a protective order from Lively's request for his client list from 2023 to now (!!!). Wallace has offered a breakdown of the types of clients, but not their names, and i think even that is too generous. I don't buy his "I'm just a country bumpkin from rural Texas helping families with substance abuse issues" but that request is way too broad. IMO the most she should be able to get is any clients or work spotlighted in his pitch to TAG, essentially anyone discussed by him with any of the Wayfarer parties, only limited as to what they were told by Wallace about those clients. I'd be shocked if Liman didn't rule against Lively here.

Motion
https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.nysd.634304/gov.uscourts.nysd.634304.380.0.pdf

Email chain https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.nysd.634304/gov.uscourts.nysd.634304.380.1.pdf

I thought that is what the AOC PO is for. Not sure Lively will get all of this, but I think it will be more that PP above is suggesting. I think this is this is why they (at Lively's insistence) created a category that is for attorneys eyes only.

PP. I just don't think it meets the relevance threshold unless it's tied to the case. If relevant in some way, then AEO. If Wallace said we'll do what we did for Depp, fine. If Lively says I want the names of everyone you worked with so I can look for a pattern, I think it gets denied.

PP above was wrong ("I'd be shocked if Liman didn't rule against Lively here" in first post), but I was right. Lively gets to test whether Wallace ran similar smears for other clients and whether the data shows similarities.

Kind of Peggy Olson telling Don Draper he never said "thank you" to her and Don responding, "That's what the money is for." Here, that's what the protective order is for, as the judge wraps up his order by saying.

I was the PP above. Yes, I was wrong. I am not a Baldoni supporter however, for the record. BTW, please notice I only gave my own opinion, and I did not insult anyone who felt otherwise or say they must not be a lawyer/know that area of the law, so I hope you'll extend the same courtesy to me.

To the extent any of Wallace's clients actually are just normal people or seeking counseling from Street Relations (which would be quite misguided, IMO), I feel sorry for them. Big win for Lively here. She'll have to hire someone to crawl social media for all the clients and look for patterns, which could open up more subpoenas to content creators, perhaps obscure ones.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So Wallace has filed for a protective order from Lively's request for his client list from 2023 to now (!!!). Wallace has offered a breakdown of the types of clients, but not their names, and i think even that is too generous. I don't buy his "I'm just a country bumpkin from rural Texas helping families with substance abuse issues" but that request is way too broad. IMO the most she should be able to get is any clients or work spotlighted in his pitch to TAG, essentially anyone discussed by him with any of the Wayfarer parties, only limited as to what they were told by Wallace about those clients. I'd be shocked if Liman didn't rule against Lively here.

Motion
https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.nysd.634304/gov.uscourts.nysd.634304.380.0.pdf

Email chain https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.nysd.634304/gov.uscourts.nysd.634304.380.1.pdf

I thought that is what the AOC PO is for. Not sure Lively will get all of this, but I think it will be more that PP above is suggesting. I think this is this is why they (at Lively's insistence) created a category that is for attorneys eyes only.

PP. I just don't think it meets the relevance threshold unless it's tied to the case. If relevant in some way, then AEO. If Wallace said we'll do what we did for Depp, fine. If Lively says I want the names of everyone you worked with so I can look for a pattern, I think it gets denied.

PP above was wrong ("I'd be shocked if Liman didn't rule against Lively here" in first post), but I was right. Lively gets to test whether Wallace ran similar smears for other clients and whether the data shows similarities.

Kind of Peggy Olson telling Don Draper he never said "thank you" to her and Don responding, "That's what the money is for." Here, that's what the protective order is for, as the judge wraps up his order by saying.

That PP was just sharing that opinion, and in a very calm, reasonable way, but nowhere in that post did they "laugh" at you. Continue on with your inaccurate retellings about this thread, though, I want you to continue upping the ante for my amusement. Soon it's going to be, "I said Liman was going to grant another one of Blake Lively's requests, so JB supporters set my house on fire and cackled manically in my face while they were doing it."

Thank you.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So Wallace has filed for a protective order from Lively's request for his client list from 2023 to now (!!!). Wallace has offered a breakdown of the types of clients, but not their names, and i think even that is too generous. I don't buy his "I'm just a country bumpkin from rural Texas helping families with substance abuse issues" but that request is way too broad. IMO the most she should be able to get is any clients or work spotlighted in his pitch to TAG, essentially anyone discussed by him with any of the Wayfarer parties, only limited as to what they were told by Wallace about those clients. I'd be shocked if Liman didn't rule against Lively here.

Motion
https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.nysd.634304/gov.uscourts.nysd.634304.380.0.pdf

Email chain https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.nysd.634304/gov.uscourts.nysd.634304.380.1.pdf

I thought that is what the AOC PO is for. Not sure Lively will get all of this, but I think it will be more that PP above is suggesting. I think this is this is why they (at Lively's insistence) created a category that is for attorneys eyes only.

PP. I just don't think it meets the relevance threshold unless it's tied to the case. If relevant in some way, then AEO. If Wallace said we'll do what we did for Depp, fine. If Lively says I want the names of everyone you worked with so I can look for a pattern, I think it gets denied.

PP above was wrong ("I'd be shocked if Liman didn't rule against Lively here" in first post), but I was right. Lively gets to test whether Wallace ran similar smears for other clients and whether the data shows similarities.

Kind of Peggy Olson telling Don Draper he never said "thank you" to her and Don responding, "That's what the money is for." Here, that's what the protective order is for, as the judge wraps up his order by saying.

I was the PP above. Yes, I was wrong. I am not a Baldoni supporter however, for the record. BTW, please notice I only gave my own opinion, and I did not insult anyone who felt otherwise or say they must not be a lawyer/know that area of the law, so I hope you'll extend the same courtesy to me.

To the extent any of Wallace's clients actually are just normal people or seeking counseling from Street Relations (which would be quite misguided, IMO), I feel sorry for them. Big win for Lively here. She'll have to hire someone to crawl social media for all the clients and look for patterns, which could open up more subpoenas to content creators, perhaps obscure ones.

If you read what I wrote in this comment, I actually did not insult you, or say you must not be a lawyer, or that you did not know this area of the law. I did inaccurately report and remember that you laughed at me -- so let me directly apologize to you for that. I am sorry for that inaccuracy, and also for incorrectly assuming you were a Baldoni supporter.

I do not actually feel sorry for anyone who hired Jed Wallace to perform dirty deeds on the internet for them. jmho.

[Anonymous]

Aaaand the CA judge has transferred the issue of the Motion to Quash the subpoena on the Liner Freedman firm back to SDNY with Liman, saying essentially he has already ruled on a number of other third party discovery motions and that any ruling from CA here could get in the way of and/or conflict with those and other discovery rulings. https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cacd.974420/gov.uscourts.cacd.974420.20.0.pdf

I will say again that I don't really think transferring this to Liman really helps Lively; Liman has been careful to say so far that this is not a case against the lawyers, and he did not want to get involved in prohibiting Freedman from taking Lively's deposition. Maybe things will be slightly different here where, to some degree, Gottlieb has provided some evidence that the actual law firm has been involved in the mechanism of the smear (and reportedly Freedman has a close relationship with many LA judges and makes monetary contributions to their election campaigns, so maybe even if Liman isn't a great option, he's still a better choice than LA ha).

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:haha, Judge Liman denied Wallace's request for a protective order over the identity of his clients, saying that's what the protective order was for. Which I said in here pages ago, but Baldoni supporters laughed at me. lolol.

https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.nysd.634304/gov.uscourts.nysd.634304.390.0.pdf

This seems weird. Can a nonbiased lawyer in here weigh in on whether this decision is unusual? I don't know why he should have to give up the names of his clients.

Liman's order, which was linked, explains it. Evidence does not need to be admissible at trial to be pursued in discovery, and if Jed Wallace has run smear campaigns on behalf of other clients, it makes it more likely that Wallace has run a smear campaign here. Wallace not naming names of clients at his dep would foreclose from Lively the opportunity to test the available data/information/social media campaign materials on the names and campaigns run for/against other clients, to see what activities that crossed over with Lively's were similar and whether that amounted to a smear. Lively couldn't check out available info on the Internet to compare with Lively's if Wallace didn't name names. There would be nothing to trace or connect.

I guess you consider me biased, though. *shrug*

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:haha, Judge Liman denied Wallace's request for a protective order over the identity of his clients, saying that's what the protective order was for. Which I said in here pages ago, but Baldoni supporters laughed at me. lolol.

https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.nysd.634304/gov.uscourts.nysd.634304.390.0.pdf

This seems weird. Can a nonbiased lawyer in here weigh in on whether this decision is unusual? I don't know why he should have to give up the names of his clients.

Liman's order, which was linked, explains it. Evidence does not need to be admissible at trial to be pursued in discovery, and if Jed Wallace has run smear campaigns on behalf of other clients, it makes it more likely that Wallace has run a smear campaign here. Wallace not naming names of clients at his dep would foreclose from Lively the opportunity to test the available data/information/social media campaign materials on the names and campaigns run for/against other clients, to see what activities that crossed over with Lively's were similar and whether that amounted to a smear. Lively couldn't check out available info on the Internet to compare with Lively's if Wallace didn't name names. There would be nothing to trace or connect.

I guess you consider me biased, though. *shrug*

I do, so I’m not interested in your analysis

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:haha, Judge Liman denied Wallace's request for a protective order over the identity of his clients, saying that's what the protective order was for. Which I said in here pages ago, but Baldoni supporters laughed at me. lolol.

https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.nysd.634304/gov.uscourts.nysd.634304.390.0.pdf

This seems weird. Can a nonbiased lawyer in here weigh in on whether this decision is unusual? I don't know why he should have to give up the names of his clients.

Liman's order, which was linked, explains it. Evidence does not need to be admissible at trial to be pursued in discovery, and if Jed Wallace has run smear campaigns on behalf of other clients, it makes it more likely that Wallace has run a smear campaign here. Wallace not naming names of clients at his dep would foreclose from Lively the opportunity to test the available data/information/social media campaign materials on the names and campaigns run for/against other clients, to see what activities that crossed over with Lively's were similar and whether that amounted to a smear. Lively couldn't check out available info on the Internet to compare with Lively's if Wallace didn't name names. There would be nothing to trace or connect.

I guess you consider me biased, though. *shrug*

All judges have explanations for the things they do. Does this mean all decisions are unbiased? Do you agree with the Supreme Court’s anti-abortion ruling?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:haha, Judge Liman denied Wallace's request for a protective order over the identity of his clients, saying that's what the protective order was for. Which I said in here pages ago, but Baldoni supporters laughed at me. lolol.

https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.nysd.634304/gov.uscourts.nysd.634304.390.0.pdf

This seems weird. Can a nonbiased lawyer in here weigh in on whether this decision is unusual? I don't know why he should have to give up the names of his clients.

Liman's order, which was linked, explains it. Evidence does not need to be admissible at trial to be pursued in discovery, and if Jed Wallace has run smear campaigns on behalf of other clients, it makes it more likely that Wallace has run a smear campaign here. Wallace not naming names of clients at his dep would foreclose from Lively the opportunity to test the available data/information/social media campaign materials on the names and campaigns run for/against other clients, to see what activities that crossed over with Lively's were similar and whether that amounted to a smear. Lively couldn't check out available info on the Internet to compare with Lively's if Wallace didn't name names. There would be nothing to trace or connect.

I guess you consider me biased, though. *shrug*

I do, so I’m not interested in your analysis

That's too bad, if your goal is to actually understand what is going on in this case, which I keep getting right. Seems like maybe what you actually want here is someone to reassure you that the judge really should be siding with Justin Baldoni in every major decision, given that he is clearly such a good guy, and that any reasonable judge would be ruling against that baddie Lively at every possible turn. There are definitely content providers who are providing those takes, many of which are posted here, so you have many options to try. Good luck with that lol.