Blake Lively- Jason Baldoni and NYT - False Light claims

[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

[Anonymous]

First (small) movement on the google stuff on the docket. A pro so content creator filed an anonymous motion to quash. Liman orders they cannot proceed anonymously and must either file under their name or request leave to file anonymously with an explanation. https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.nysd.634304/gov.uscourts.nysd.634304.428.0.pdf

I hope the person is able to file that motion and not have their name and personal information blasted to the world, which would defeat the entire purpose of the motion to quash, because then the info would go the entire world, not just Lively.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Babe, I can't tell from this board whether this is an L for Lively because Liman dismissed the claims or whether it's a huge win for Lively because it should be dismissed with prejudice except clearly Liman is so terribly biased in her favor. Let me know when you decide lol.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

I mean, I kind of can? It's the Internet and people speculate? Granted, if I were thinking about trying to file my little theory with the judge based on something someone told me that they heard from someone else who heard it from someone else, probably any loser off the street would know not to try that on -- oh, wait --

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:First (small) movement on the google stuff on the docket. A pro so content creator filed an anonymous motion to quash. Liman orders they cannot proceed anonymously and must either file under their name or request leave to file anonymously with an explanation. https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.nysd.634304/gov.uscourts.nysd.634304.428.0.pdf

I hope the person is able to file that motion and not have their name and personal information blasted to the world, which would defeat the entire purpose of the motion to quash, because then the info would go the entire world, not just Lively.

The person who wrote the motion is doing a livestream: https://www.youtube.com/live/46mhC_1zMcY

It's funny, I generally can't stand the pro-Baldoni content churning but I'm so rooting for them now. I'd never be watching one of these, lol. Kind of a Streisand effect.

[Anonymous]

Liman granted Gottlieb an emergency hearing tonight at 5:30.

https://x.com/innercitypress/status/1945598664140816556