Blake Lively- Jason Baldoni and NYT - False Light claims

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:See this makes me think Wayfarer should have at least tried to dismiss some of Lively's claims.

Replying to myself. Though I personally find Wallace slimy, I hope that he managed to reschedule his depo or avoided revealing his client list, kudos to the poster who pointed out Liman made him give it up even though it was dubious whether he even had jurisdiction.

Someone try and justify this. Liman is corrupt.

Per the case management hearing yesterday, Wallace’s team confirmed they had completed all their production so I assume it included his client list. He should have been granted a stay for discovery while this was decided. That seems like a bad call for Liman.

But still relieved it was dismissed for now.

The client list is relevant whether Wallace is a party or not, if Wallace's prior clients were used to induce Baldoni and Wayfarer to hire TAG and Wallace. There is already some evidence in the email/text trail that Abel and Nathan talked up work for prior clients in order to convince Baldoni that they could deliver what he wanted -- if that work included references to work for Depp against Amber Heard, that is relevant to the question of whether Baldoni hired them simply to bolster his own rep or to go after Lively. And that's true even if Wallace isn't a party to the case.

I liken this to the google subpoenas. The bolded statement is key to me. If there is actually anything documented where they discussed prior clients, that is fair game (and Lively should have sent interrogatories asking about that), but I think the entire client list was too broad and another judge may have ruled differently. The entire client list is pretty far removed from Blake's case.

It takes many steps to get from the client list to relevant evidence:
-Review client list
-Try to figure out what the PR crisis in each case was about and who the relevant celebrities would have been
-Go back in time, review the social media of those celebrities during the presumed relevant period
-Identify social media accounts that seeded negative content about the relevant celebrities
-Compare those to the list of social media accounts that seeded negative content about Lively
-Subpoena those accounts to unmask who operates them
-Request discovery from the account holders, Wayfarer and Wallace has to what, if any, communication they had that shows there was any connection there with regard to Lively's case

That's extremely tangential, and the client list will also capture other clients who are not celebrities who hired Wallace for confidential matters, or other celebrities with entirely different types of issues (like Bam Margera), or clients who were also bashed by the same content creators but not at the request of Wallace or Wayfarer. It's really a stretch.

No, you don't have to do any of that at this stage. It's just discovery. If they have the client list and it includes work that appears to have involved smearing prominent women online, they can use that list in depositions and in additional research and discovery to see (1) if Wallace's prior work on these engagements induced Baldoni to hire them, which goes directly to whether Baldoni hired TAG/Wallace simply for repetitional rehabilitation or hired them explicitly to smear Lively, and (2) to demonstrate a pattern of work that targeted prominent women in similar ways using similar methods.

It's not a stretch at all. Given the evidence already shows that Wallace's prior work was relevant to him being hired and to encouraging Baldoni/Wayfarer to have faith in his abilities, that makes his prior work relevant to this case and thus his client list is fair game. It's under seal, not public, and they'll have a chance to redact any irrelevant names or engagements before it actually gets entered into the record, if it is. So there's no violation of privacy here and it's a reasonable bit of relevant evidence at this information gathering stage, and likely essential to depositions of all the Wayfarer parties.

Stop playing lawyer, it’s not convincing.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:See this makes me think Wayfarer should have at least tried to dismiss some of Lively's claims.

Replying to myself. Though I personally find Wallace slimy, I hope that he managed to reschedule his depo or avoided revealing his client list, kudos to the poster who pointed out Liman made him give it up even though it was dubious whether he even had jurisdiction.

Someone try and justify this. Liman is corrupt.

Per the case management hearing yesterday, Wallace’s team confirmed they had completed all their production so I assume it included his client list. He should have been granted a stay for discovery while this was decided. That seems like a bad call for Liman.

But still relieved it was dismissed for now.

The client list is relevant whether Wallace is a party or not, if Wallace's prior clients were used to induce Baldoni and Wayfarer to hire TAG and Wallace. There is already some evidence in the email/text trail that Abel and Nathan talked up work for prior clients in order to convince Baldoni that they could deliver what he wanted -- if that work included references to work for Depp against Amber Heard, that is relevant to the question of whether Baldoni hired them simply to bolster his own rep or to go after Lively. And that's true even if Wallace isn't a party to the case.

I liken this to the google subpoenas. The bolded statement is key to me. If there is actually anything documented where they discussed prior clients, that is fair game (and Lively should have sent interrogatories asking about that), but I think the entire client list was too broad and another judge may have ruled differently. The entire client list is pretty far removed from Blake's case.

It takes many steps to get from the client list to relevant evidence:
-Review client list
-Try to figure out what the PR crisis in each case was about and who the relevant celebrities would have been
-Go back in time, review the social media of those celebrities during the presumed relevant period
-Identify social media accounts that seeded negative content about the relevant celebrities
-Compare those to the list of social media accounts that seeded negative content about Lively
-Subpoena those accounts to unmask who operates them
-Request discovery from the account holders, Wayfarer and Wallace has to what, if any, communication they had that shows there was any connection there with regard to Lively's case

That's extremely tangential, and the client list will also capture other clients who are not celebrities who hired Wallace for confidential matters, or other celebrities with entirely different types of issues (like Bam Margera), or clients who were also bashed by the same content creators but not at the request of Wallace or Wayfarer. It's really a stretch.

No, you don't have to do any of that at this stage. It's just discovery. If they have the client list and it includes work that appears to have involved smearing prominent women online, they can use that list in depositions and in additional research and discovery to see (1) if Wallace's prior work on these engagements induced Baldoni to hire them, which goes directly to whether Baldoni hired TAG/Wallace simply for repetitional rehabilitation or hired them explicitly to smear Lively, and (2) to demonstrate a pattern of work that targeted prominent women in similar ways using similar methods.

It's not a stretch at all. Given the evidence already shows that Wallace's prior work was relevant to him being hired and to encouraging Baldoni/Wayfarer to have faith in his abilities, that makes his prior work relevant to this case and thus his client list is fair game. It's under seal, not public, and they'll have a chance to redact any irrelevant names or engagements before it actually gets entered into the record, if it is. So there's no violation of privacy here and it's a reasonable bit of relevant evidence at this information gathering stage, and likely essential to depositions of all the Wayfarer parties.

Stop playing lawyer, it’s not convincing.

+1. Wallace should have been granted a stay while the decision was pending as the NYT was granted.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I just listened to the hearing and they came up with a compromise where all discovery related to requests that have already been issued will be due by the already proposed date of July 25th.

Lively had wanted another deadline for add-on discovery of September 30th. Liman was not keen on that, and everyone agreed to a later discovery deadline of Friday, August 15 for additional discovery that is just being propounded now, especially on third parties. So they will have to get those requests in right away to make that work.

Bender asked for permission to file for additional discovery from info learned at depositions if they can show good cause, and Liman said hey yes but you will have to follow what the Rules say in showing good cause etc. (FURRY PUPPET STUDIO HELLO AGAIN!)

The most amusing part of the hearing for me was when Liman asked Fritz whether he could live with these deadlines and Fritz said yes and then started going off on a tangent re the Google subpoenas and Liman interrupted him and explained there would be another more appropriate time where all the parties would provide their own versions of the facts as they wanted the judge to understand them but right now this was really just a scheduling conference. Like, Liman's version of "Sir, this is a Wendy's." lol

Freedman was reportedly on the call but did not say a word afaict.

How did you listen to hearing if was a call?

There was a dial in posted on the docket. The attorneys were on a video call, which dial ins could hear the audio version of.

So neighborhood Larla and Larlo can dial in to these hearings? Assuming some version of Zoom, but how are the lines not flooded?

Most people have better uses for their time.

Pot? I am not sure you know Kettle, please allow me to introduce you!

I see I hit a nerve.

You always say that when someone points out your hypocrisy. Maybe you are just being petty and making bad arguments.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:See this makes me think Wayfarer should have at least tried to dismiss some of Lively's claims.

Replying to myself. Though I personally find Wallace slimy, I hope that he managed to reschedule his depo or avoided revealing his client list, kudos to the poster who pointed out Liman made him give it up even though it was dubious whether he even had jurisdiction.

Someone try and justify this. Liman is corrupt.

Per the case management hearing yesterday, Wallace’s team confirmed they had completed all their production so I assume it included his client list. He should have been granted a stay for discovery while this was decided. That seems like a bad call for Liman.

But still relieved it was dismissed for now.

The client list is relevant whether Wallace is a party or not, if Wallace's prior clients were used to induce Baldoni and Wayfarer to hire TAG and Wallace. There is already some evidence in the email/text trail that Abel and Nathan talked up work for prior clients in order to convince Baldoni that they could deliver what he wanted -- if that work included references to work for Depp against Amber Heard, that is relevant to the question of whether Baldoni hired them simply to bolster his own rep or to go after Lively. And that's true even if Wallace isn't a party to the case.

I liken this to the google subpoenas. The bolded statement is key to me. If there is actually anything documented where they discussed prior clients, that is fair game (and Lively should have sent interrogatories asking about that), but I think the entire client list was too broad and another judge may have ruled differently. The entire client list is pretty far removed from Blake's case.

It takes many steps to get from the client list to relevant evidence:
-Review client list
-Try to figure out what the PR crisis in each case was about and who the relevant celebrities would have been
-Go back in time, review the social media of those celebrities during the presumed relevant period
-Identify social media accounts that seeded negative content about the relevant celebrities
-Compare those to the list of social media accounts that seeded negative content about Lively
-Subpoena those accounts to unmask who operates them
-Request discovery from the account holders, Wayfarer and Wallace has to what, if any, communication they had that shows there was any connection there with regard to Lively's case

That's extremely tangential, and the client list will also capture other clients who are not celebrities who hired Wallace for confidential matters, or other celebrities with entirely different types of issues (like Bam Margera), or clients who were also bashed by the same content creators but not at the request of Wallace or Wayfarer. It's really a stretch.

No, you don't have to do any of that at this stage. It's just discovery. If they have the client list and it includes work that appears to have involved smearing prominent women online, they can use that list in depositions and in additional research and discovery to see (1) if Wallace's prior work on these engagements induced Baldoni to hire them, which goes directly to whether Baldoni hired TAG/Wallace simply for repetitional rehabilitation or hired them explicitly to smear Lively, and (2) to demonstrate a pattern of work that targeted prominent women in similar ways using similar methods.

It's not a stretch at all. Given the evidence already shows that Wallace's prior work was relevant to him being hired and to encouraging Baldoni/Wayfarer to have faith in his abilities, that makes his prior work relevant to this case and thus his client list is fair game. It's under seal, not public, and they'll have a chance to redact any irrelevant names or engagements before it actually gets entered into the record, if it is. So there's no violation of privacy here and it's a reasonable bit of relevant evidence at this information gathering stage, and likely essential to depositions of all the Wayfarer parties.

PP. What I was describing was a methodology for determining if "it includes work that appears to have involved smearing prominent women online." Obviously, if it says the client is Johnny Depp, that's pretty easy to figure out which one he would have been smearing. It is probably not so readily apparent in other cases.

The more I think about it though, Wallace and Depp probably are not dumb enough for Depp to hire Wallace under his own name, just as Baldoni probably hired Wallace through TAG, so that TAG would be the client on the client list, or perhaps there were additional layers. Lively won't have a hard time uncovering those layers in her own case, but it may not be so easy for other cases involving celebrities.

The client list actually might end up just being a random list of shell companies and PR places and won't have much value at all.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I just listened to the hearing and they came up with a compromise where all discovery related to requests that have already been issued will be due by the already proposed date of July 25th.

Lively had wanted another deadline for add-on discovery of September 30th. Liman was not keen on that, and everyone agreed to a later discovery deadline of Friday, August 15 for additional discovery that is just being propounded now, especially on third parties. So they will have to get those requests in right away to make that work.

Bender asked for permission to file for additional discovery from info learned at depositions if they can show good cause, and Liman said hey yes but you will have to follow what the Rules say in showing good cause etc. (FURRY PUPPET STUDIO HELLO AGAIN!)

The most amusing part of the hearing for me was when Liman asked Fritz whether he could live with these deadlines and Fritz said yes and then started going off on a tangent re the Google subpoenas and Liman interrupted him and explained there would be another more appropriate time where all the parties would provide their own versions of the facts as they wanted the judge to understand them but right now this was really just a scheduling conference. Like, Liman's version of "Sir, this is a Wendy's." lol

Freedman was reportedly on the call but did not say a word afaict.

How did you listen to hearing if was a call?

There was a dial in posted on the docket. The attorneys were on a video call, which dial ins could hear the audio version of.

So neighborhood Larla and Larlo can dial in to these hearings? Assuming some version of Zoom, but how are the lines not flooded?

Most people have better uses for their time.

Pot? I am not sure you know Kettle, please allow me to introduce you!

I see I hit a nerve.

You always say that when someone points out your hypocrisy. Maybe you are just being petty and making bad arguments.

I’m not on this thread enough to be “always” doing anything. Some of you listen to every conference call, take notes on said conference call, read every brief, research every attorney listed on a brief and then post endlessly detailing said activities.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:See this makes me think Wayfarer should have at least tried to dismiss some of Lively's claims.

Replying to myself. Though I personally find Wallace slimy, I hope that he managed to reschedule his depo or avoided revealing his client list, kudos to the poster who pointed out Liman made him give it up even though it was dubious whether he even had jurisdiction.

Someone try and justify this. Liman is corrupt.

Per the case management hearing yesterday, Wallace’s team confirmed they had completed all their production so I assume it included his client list. He should have been granted a stay for discovery while this was decided. That seems like a bad call for Liman.

But still relieved it was dismissed for now.

The client list is relevant whether Wallace is a party or not, if Wallace's prior clients were used to induce Baldoni and Wayfarer to hire TAG and Wallace. There is already some evidence in the email/text trail that Abel and Nathan talked up work for prior clients in order to convince Baldoni that they could deliver what he wanted -- if that work included references to work for Depp against Amber Heard, that is relevant to the question of whether Baldoni hired them simply to bolster his own rep or to go after Lively. And that's true even if Wallace isn't a party to the case.

I liken this to the google subpoenas. The bolded statement is key to me. If there is actually anything documented where they discussed prior clients, that is fair game (and Lively should have sent interrogatories asking about that), but I think the entire client list was too broad and another judge may have ruled differently. The entire client list is pretty far removed from Blake's case.

It takes many steps to get from the client list to relevant evidence:
-Review client list
-Try to figure out what the PR crisis in each case was about and who the relevant celebrities would have been
-Go back in time, review the social media of those celebrities during the presumed relevant period
-Identify social media accounts that seeded negative content about the relevant celebrities
-Compare those to the list of social media accounts that seeded negative content about Lively
-Subpoena those accounts to unmask who operates them
-Request discovery from the account holders, Wayfarer and Wallace has to what, if any, communication they had that shows there was any connection there with regard to Lively's case

That's extremely tangential, and the client list will also capture other clients who are not celebrities who hired Wallace for confidential matters, or other celebrities with entirely different types of issues (like Bam Margera), or clients who were also bashed by the same content creators but not at the request of Wallace or Wayfarer. It's really a stretch.

No, you don't have to do any of that at this stage. It's just discovery. If they have the client list and it includes work that appears to have involved smearing prominent women online, they can use that list in depositions and in additional research and discovery to see (1) if Wallace's prior work on these engagements induced Baldoni to hire them, which goes directly to whether Baldoni hired TAG/Wallace simply for repetitional rehabilitation or hired them explicitly to smear Lively, and (2) to demonstrate a pattern of work that targeted prominent women in similar ways using similar methods.

It's not a stretch at all. Given the evidence already shows that Wallace's prior work was relevant to him being hired and to encouraging Baldoni/Wayfarer to have faith in his abilities, that makes his prior work relevant to this case and thus his client list is fair game. It's under seal, not public, and they'll have a chance to redact any irrelevant names or engagements before it actually gets entered into the record, if it is. So there's no violation of privacy here and it's a reasonable bit of relevant evidence at this information gathering stage, and likely essential to depositions of all the Wayfarer parties.

Stop playing lawyer, it’s not convincing.

+1. Wallace should have been granted a stay while the decision was pending as the NYT was granted.

Liman issued a decision with respect to Wallace knowing he had no jurisdiction over him, then dismissed him after the discovery had been turned over. He should never have decided the motion for a protective order and transferred it to a Texas court. This is actually unethical judicial behavior.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:See this makes me think Wayfarer should have at least tried to dismiss some of Lively's claims.

Replying to myself. Though I personally find Wallace slimy, I hope that he managed to reschedule his depo or avoided revealing his client list, kudos to the poster who pointed out Liman made him give it up even though it was dubious whether he even had jurisdiction.

Someone try and justify this. Liman is corrupt.

Per the case management hearing yesterday, Wallace’s team confirmed they had completed all their production so I assume it included his client list. He should have been granted a stay for discovery while this was decided. That seems like a bad call for Liman.

But still relieved it was dismissed for now.

The client list is relevant whether Wallace is a party or not, if Wallace's prior clients were used to induce Baldoni and Wayfarer to hire TAG and Wallace. There is already some evidence in the email/text trail that Abel and Nathan talked up work for prior clients in order to convince Baldoni that they could deliver what he wanted -- if that work included references to work for Depp against Amber Heard, that is relevant to the question of whether Baldoni hired them simply to bolster his own rep or to go after Lively. And that's true even if Wallace isn't a party to the case.

I liken this to the google subpoenas. The bolded statement is key to me. If there is actually anything documented where they discussed prior clients, that is fair game (and Lively should have sent interrogatories asking about that), but I think the entire client list was too broad and another judge may have ruled differently. The entire client list is pretty far removed from Blake's case.

It takes many steps to get from the client list to relevant evidence:
-Review client list
-Try to figure out what the PR crisis in each case was about and who the relevant celebrities would have been
-Go back in time, review the social media of those celebrities during the presumed relevant period
-Identify social media accounts that seeded negative content about the relevant celebrities
-Compare those to the list of social media accounts that seeded negative content about Lively
-Subpoena those accounts to unmask who operates them
-Request discovery from the account holders, Wayfarer and Wallace has to what, if any, communication they had that shows there was any connection there with regard to Lively's case

That's extremely tangential, and the client list will also capture other clients who are not celebrities who hired Wallace for confidential matters, or other celebrities with entirely different types of issues (like Bam Margera), or clients who were also bashed by the same content creators but not at the request of Wallace or Wayfarer. It's really a stretch.

No, you don't have to do any of that at this stage. It's just discovery. If they have the client list and it includes work that appears to have involved smearing prominent women online, they can use that list in depositions and in additional research and discovery to see (1) if Wallace's prior work on these engagements induced Baldoni to hire them, which goes directly to whether Baldoni hired TAG/Wallace simply for repetitional rehabilitation or hired them explicitly to smear Lively, and (2) to demonstrate a pattern of work that targeted prominent women in similar ways using similar methods.

It's not a stretch at all. Given the evidence already shows that Wallace's prior work was relevant to him being hired and to encouraging Baldoni/Wayfarer to have faith in his abilities, that makes his prior work relevant to this case and thus his client list is fair game. It's under seal, not public, and they'll have a chance to redact any irrelevant names or engagements before it actually gets entered into the record, if it is. So there's no violation of privacy here and it's a reasonable bit of relevant evidence at this information gathering stage, and likely essential to depositions of all the Wayfarer parties.

Stop playing lawyer, it’s not convincing.

+1. Wallace should have been granted a stay while the decision was pending as the NYT was granted.

Liman issued a decision with respect to Wallace knowing he had no jurisdiction over him, then dismissed him after the discovery had been turned over. He should never have decided the motion for a protective order and transferred it to a Texas court. This is actually unethical judicial behavior.

Agreed. Where do you think the unethical behavior is coming from — his connections to Gottlieb?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Case against Wallace has been dismissed according to Reddit. He was the linchpin for the “untraceable smear campaign”. She’s going to have an even harder time proving any retaliation.

She can file in Texas which she didn’t want to do or try again to file in New York and provide more arguments for why NY has jurisdiction.

https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.nysd.634304/gov.uscourts.nysd.634304.426.0.pdf

Right - just to be clear, the claims are not being dismissed because they fail to state a claim (as Baldoni's complaint was), but because Liman says the NY court lacks personal jurisdiction over these claims against Texas resident Wallace, and because Lively did not convincingly tie any of Wallaces actions to NY itself so as to give the state jurisdiction over Wallace. It was necessary to allow some discovery to determine whether jurisdiction existed, and now that discovery has been completed, so Lively has until July 30th to refile the complaint in SDNY if she wishes (rather than in TX), limited purely to those claims that already existed in her prior complaint.

My own personal theory is that Wallace says he was in NY for a week from December 9 to December 16, 2024, but that he didn't do any work on that trip, and that his work on Baldoni concluded in November 2024. I'd be surprised if it really stopped in November, and if Wallace is in charge of Street Relations I would fully expect he conducted some work during his vacation in early December, less than a month after he says his work on Baldoni stopped. Just my theory!

You can’t just make up things and call them your “theory.” No reason to believe Jed didn’t stop. People HATE Blake, no smear campaign needed.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:See this makes me think Wayfarer should have at least tried to dismiss some of Lively's claims.

Replying to myself. Though I personally find Wallace slimy, I hope that he managed to reschedule his depo or avoided revealing his client list, kudos to the poster who pointed out Liman made him give it up even though it was dubious whether he even had jurisdiction.

Someone try and justify this. Liman is corrupt.

Per the case management hearing yesterday, Wallace’s team confirmed they had completed all their production so I assume it included his client list. He should have been granted a stay for discovery while this was decided. That seems like a bad call for Liman.

But still relieved it was dismissed for now.

The client list is relevant whether Wallace is a party or not, if Wallace's prior clients were used to induce Baldoni and Wayfarer to hire TAG and Wallace. There is already some evidence in the email/text trail that Abel and Nathan talked up work for prior clients in order to convince Baldoni that they could deliver what he wanted -- if that work included references to work for Depp against Amber Heard, that is relevant to the question of whether Baldoni hired them simply to bolster his own rep or to go after Lively. And that's true even if Wallace isn't a party to the case.

I liken this to the google subpoenas. The bolded statement is key to me. If there is actually anything documented where they discussed prior clients, that is fair game (and Lively should have sent interrogatories asking about that), but I think the entire client list was too broad and another judge may have ruled differently. The entire client list is pretty far removed from Blake's case.

It takes many steps to get from the client list to relevant evidence:
-Review client list
-Try to figure out what the PR crisis in each case was about and who the relevant celebrities would have been
-Go back in time, review the social media of those celebrities during the presumed relevant period
-Identify social media accounts that seeded negative content about the relevant celebrities
-Compare those to the list of social media accounts that seeded negative content about Lively
-Subpoena those accounts to unmask who operates them
-Request discovery from the account holders, Wayfarer and Wallace has to what, if any, communication they had that shows there was any connection there with regard to Lively's case

That's extremely tangential, and the client list will also capture other clients who are not celebrities who hired Wallace for confidential matters, or other celebrities with entirely different types of issues (like Bam Margera), or clients who were also bashed by the same content creators but not at the request of Wallace or Wayfarer. It's really a stretch.

No, you don't have to do any of that at this stage. It's just discovery. If they have the client list and it includes work that appears to have involved smearing prominent women online, they can use that list in depositions and in additional research and discovery to see (1) if Wallace's prior work on these engagements induced Baldoni to hire them, which goes directly to whether Baldoni hired TAG/Wallace simply for repetitional rehabilitation or hired them explicitly to smear Lively, and (2) to demonstrate a pattern of work that targeted prominent women in similar ways using similar methods.

It's not a stretch at all. Given the evidence already shows that Wallace's prior work was relevant to him being hired and to encouraging Baldoni/Wayfarer to have faith in his abilities, that makes his prior work relevant to this case and thus his client list is fair game. It's under seal, not public, and they'll have a chance to redact any irrelevant names or engagements before it actually gets entered into the record, if it is. So there's no violation of privacy here and it's a reasonable bit of relevant evidence at this information gathering stage, and likely essential to depositions of all the Wayfarer parties.

Stop playing lawyer, it’s not convincing.

+1. Wallace should have been granted a stay while the decision was pending as the NYT was granted.

Liman issued a decision with respect to Wallace knowing he had no jurisdiction over him, then dismissed him after the discovery had been turned over. He should never have decided the motion for a protective order and transferred it to a Texas court. This is actually unethical judicial behavior.

Agreed. Where do you think the unethical behavior is coming from — his connections to Gottlieb?

I think that is the most likely.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:See this makes me think Wayfarer should have at least tried to dismiss some of Lively's claims.

Replying to myself. Though I personally find Wallace slimy, I hope that he managed to reschedule his depo or avoided revealing his client list, kudos to the poster who pointed out Liman made him give it up even though it was dubious whether he even had jurisdiction.

Someone try and justify this. Liman is corrupt.

Per the case management hearing yesterday, Wallace’s team confirmed they had completed all their production so I assume it included his client list. He should have been granted a stay for discovery while this was decided. That seems like a bad call for Liman.

But still relieved it was dismissed for now.

The client list is relevant whether Wallace is a party or not, if Wallace's prior clients were used to induce Baldoni and Wayfarer to hire TAG and Wallace. There is already some evidence in the email/text trail that Abel and Nathan talked up work for prior clients in order to convince Baldoni that they could deliver what he wanted -- if that work included references to work for Depp against Amber Heard, that is relevant to the question of whether Baldoni hired them simply to bolster his own rep or to go after Lively. And that's true even if Wallace isn't a party to the case.

I liken this to the google subpoenas. The bolded statement is key to me. If there is actually anything documented where they discussed prior clients, that is fair game (and Lively should have sent interrogatories asking about that), but I think the entire client list was too broad and another judge may have ruled differently. The entire client list is pretty far removed from Blake's case.

It takes many steps to get from the client list to relevant evidence:
-Review client list
-Try to figure out what the PR crisis in each case was about and who the relevant celebrities would have been
-Go back in time, review the social media of those celebrities during the presumed relevant period
-Identify social media accounts that seeded negative content about the relevant celebrities
-Compare those to the list of social media accounts that seeded negative content about Lively
-Subpoena those accounts to unmask who operates them
-Request discovery from the account holders, Wayfarer and Wallace has to what, if any, communication they had that shows there was any connection there with regard to Lively's case

That's extremely tangential, and the client list will also capture other clients who are not celebrities who hired Wallace for confidential matters, or other celebrities with entirely different types of issues (like Bam Margera), or clients who were also bashed by the same content creators but not at the request of Wallace or Wayfarer. It's really a stretch.

No, you don't have to do any of that at this stage. It's just discovery. If they have the client list and it includes work that appears to have involved smearing prominent women online, they can use that list in depositions and in additional research and discovery to see (1) if Wallace's prior work on these engagements induced Baldoni to hire them, which goes directly to whether Baldoni hired TAG/Wallace simply for repetitional rehabilitation or hired them explicitly to smear Lively, and (2) to demonstrate a pattern of work that targeted prominent women in similar ways using similar methods.

It's not a stretch at all. Given the evidence already shows that Wallace's prior work was relevant to him being hired and to encouraging Baldoni/Wayfarer to have faith in his abilities, that makes his prior work relevant to this case and thus his client list is fair game. It's under seal, not public, and they'll have a chance to redact any irrelevant names or engagements before it actually gets entered into the record, if it is. So there's no violation of privacy here and it's a reasonable bit of relevant evidence at this information gathering stage, and likely essential to depositions of all the Wayfarer parties.

Stop playing lawyer, it’s not convincing.

+1. Wallace should have been granted a stay while the decision was pending as the NYT was granted.

Liman issued a decision with respect to Wallace knowing he had no jurisdiction over him, then dismissed him after the discovery had been turned over. He should never have decided the motion for a protective order and transferred it to a Texas court. This is actually unethical judicial behavior.

Agreed. Where do you think the unethical behavior is coming from — his connections to Gottlieb?

I saw a fun theory that Liman's brother Doug lost a case to Bryan Freedman but I could not verify whether that was true. All I can find is they were both involved in a suit over Amazon's Roadhouse, but they don't appear to be diect adversaries.

[Anonymous]

Comment from Reddit, so take with a grain of salt, but I thought it was interesting:

“I had my lunch with a local judge, and he believes Liman is extremely biased for Lively parties, to the point of throwing the case for her. I was shocked, honestly, that he agreed with me. He stated that federal judges are the least accountable judges in the judicial system!”

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Comment from Reddit, so take with a grain of salt, but I thought it was interesting:

“I had my lunch with a local judge, and he believes Liman is extremely biased for Lively parties, to the point of throwing the case for her. I was shocked, honestly, that he agreed with me. He stated that federal judges are the least accountable judges in the judicial system!”

Liman has already gotten in trouble for not recusing himself in a case in which he had a financial interest via his wife. One would think that would have improved his behavior. It apparently not. There’s a reason he’s a Trump appointee.

[Anonymous]

Let's see if Gottlieb goes on TMZ tomorrow to say he will be refiling all of these claims against Wallace AND MORE* in two weeks, and then doesn't file a thing, actually. And then sends a google doc to Popcorn Planet a day after the deadline passed saying he's considering all the best options. Maybe Baldoni supporters will fall in love with Gottlieb then!

* which he's not allowed to do. But, that's the point.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Let's see if Gottlieb goes on TMZ tomorrow to say he will be refiling all of these claims against Wallace AND MORE* in two weeks, and then doesn't file a thing, actually. And then sends a google doc to Popcorn Planet a day after the deadline passed saying he's considering all the best options. Maybe Baldoni supporters will fall in love with Gottlieb then!

* which he's not allowed to do. But, that's the point.

Take the L, babe.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Comment from Reddit, so take with a grain of salt, but I thought it was interesting:

“I had my lunch with a local judge, and he believes Liman is extremely biased for Lively parties, to the point of throwing the case for her. I was shocked, honestly, that he agreed with me. He stated that federal judges are the least accountable judges in the judicial system!”

I am not a conspiracy theorist at all, and I don’t think there’s a conspiracy. Just bias