Blake Lively- Jason Baldoni and NYT - False Light claims

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Pro BL side is reaching hard; they’re now claiming that the CCs were in touch with TAG via alternate personas. Why can’t they believe people HATE Blake? She’s a tone deaf moron who made light of domestic violence during promo for a movie that made $350 million. It’s not like this bad press was generated for a movie that no one saw, which would have been unusual.

Not a BL supporter, but both can be true. That's almost surely the case. There really was a proposal from TAG about an untraceable PR campaign. Baldoni really did hire them and write "this is what we would need." There really are texts about the narrative shifting "thanks to Jed's team." So it appears something was planned and something was done. It's also surely true many people hate and hated Blake all by themselves. Indeed from what we know of the smear campaign, they were not manufacturing lies or new material but pulling from old, existing material that painted Blake in a bad light, going back to old stories about her being difficult, bullying, etc.

The question is really how far the planned campaign went and the scope of it. Wayfarer of course claims they didn't need it because Jed's "monitoring" showed it was all organic and he advised them not to do anything. Based on the way they talk in the texts at the time it was happening, I'm skeptical of that.

What we don't know if the hate was 99% organic or 50% organic or 5% organic or whatever. And probably never will.

I think the case raises interesting issues and gives us a look into the Hollywood PR machine. And that's why it ends up on these kinds of boring tangents like "how was content creator defined in the first interrogatory." For me, I do want to get to the truth... if BL issued the google subpoena to content creators who merely spoke badly about her, I find that despicable. If the creators are lying about being in contact with TAG and BL is telling the truth, I will give BL credit. If the creators are somehow not lying and they were indirectly manipulated by TAG then that's super interesting and I want to know that too, but agree this is a reach.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Interesting developments regarding the seal on TAG's disclosure of content creators they were in contact with.

If the CCs who have been subpoenaed (or that Google and X have been subpoenaed regarding, more accurately) were on TAG's disclosure of CCs they'd been in contact with, but some of the CCs are saying they've never spoken to TAG or Wallace or anyone in Baldoni's camp, this raises a possibility I had not considered before but would be quite juicy if true:

What if TAG made contact with CCs via fake personas or without identifying themselves as a PR firm? What if they leaked things to CCs or fed them stories anonymously or under the guise of someone else? They would still be required to disclose these contacts in discovery (and it would likely come out in emails/texts disclosed, or if anyone from TAG was deposed, unless they tried to cover it up, but that's a very dangerous game). But the CCs might not realize they'd been contacted.

If TAG's list of CCs they contacted is unsealed and these CCs who are now being subpoenaed but claim they've never spoken to TAG are on it, this is going to be a wild ride. PR is a super sleezy business, so I wouldn't be surprised if that's where this is headed.

That's an interesting theory. I think the interrogatory included "indirect" contact. If there were ever something that would turn those creators against JB, this could be it. I would have to go back and find those emails they had about this, because I remember WF arguing they wanted to limit it to content creators over a certain amount of followers which made me wonder if there were a lot under that threshold.

Another possibility is that the Popcorn Planet guy was on the list but some of the other ladies aren't. PP is the one that had the google doc with Freedman's statement (or something) and is on the subpoena, so he apparently does have some contact with WF side.

I don't know how far AEO extends so why couldn't Lively just write in her letter "Of the 16 subpoenas, 13 were on that list" or something. It makes me think Lively is still playing games with the truth.

It's definitely possible that Lively is using this AEO designation issue to try and just turn the page on the bad press she's getting regarding the CC subpoenas. Certainly that's part of the goal no matter what.

But FWIW, I do not think you could make that comment about "of the 16 subpoenas, 13 were on the list" without violating the AEO designation. That is far too identifying of the contents of the documents under seal. Also, we don't know if it's really only a portion. If all of the CCs they've been subpoenaing subscriber info regarding are on TAG's list, then of course they are not allowed to just say that as it would essentially reveal the contents of the doc under seal.

DP, but yeah, I also came in here to say that I think saying “of the 16 subpoenas, 13 were on the list” also would violate the AEO confidentiality by in effect making direct public statements about who was on the list.

That’s why Hudson in effect had to make all her statements in the letter hypothetical, “for example, if …” etc. Which Baldoni supporters are taking as her just making stuff up to shift blame. Which would be stupid if her to do if nothing she is saying is true, since this info will inevitably be revealed.

You could also argue that the subpoenas themselves were improper use of AEO info if they did indeed use names provided pursuant to that interrogatory. As someone pointed out last night, they should have challenged the designation far earlier.

I don’t think that was required to send the subpoenas out since there is no clear tie between the subpoena and the name on the TAG response. Also it would have added like 2-3 weeks to getting the subpoenaes out, which at this point they really can’t afford.

I'm sure if they made the appropriate motion, Liman would grant them leave to do whatever they wanted... get an extension, file under seal, permission to meet and confer, or whatever. It's a weird situation in a civil case that information is AEO and you can file a subpoena and then cannot answer any questions from the affected parties because you can't divulge anything... it's incredibly unfair to the people whose freaking bank account information is being requested to then be like "oops, we can't answer your question as to whether this is real or why we need it." It's hard to believe a BigLaw firm made such a "mistake" and couldn't foresee this.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Interesting developments regarding the seal on TAG's disclosure of content creators they were in contact with.

If the CCs who have been subpoenaed (or that Google and X have been subpoenaed regarding, more accurately) were on TAG's disclosure of CCs they'd been in contact with, but some of the CCs are saying they've never spoken to TAG or Wallace or anyone in Baldoni's camp, this raises a possibility I had not considered before but would be quite juicy if true:

What if TAG made contact with CCs via fake personas or without identifying themselves as a PR firm? What if they leaked things to CCs or fed them stories anonymously or under the guise of someone else? They would still be required to disclose these contacts in discovery (and it would likely come out in emails/texts disclosed, or if anyone from TAG was deposed, unless they tried to cover it up, but that's a very dangerous game). But the CCs might not realize they'd been contacted.

If TAG's list of CCs they contacted is unsealed and these CCs who are now being subpoenaed but claim they've never spoken to TAG are on it, this is going to be a wild ride. PR is a super sleezy business, so I wouldn't be surprised if that's where this is headed.

That's an interesting theory. I think the interrogatory included "indirect" contact. If there were ever something that would turn those creators against JB, this could be it. I would have to go back and find those emails they had about this, because I remember WF arguing they wanted to limit it to content creators over a certain amount of followers which made me wonder if there were a lot under that threshold.

Another possibility is that the Popcorn Planet guy was on the list but some of the other ladies aren't. PP is the one that had the google doc with Freedman's statement (or something) and is on the subpoena, so he apparently does have some contact with WF side.

I don't know how far AEO extends so why couldn't Lively just write in her letter "Of the 16 subpoenas, 13 were on that list" or something. It makes me think Lively is still playing games with the truth.

It's definitely possible that Lively is using this AEO designation issue to try and just turn the page on the bad press she's getting regarding the CC subpoenas. Certainly that's part of the goal no matter what.

But FWIW, I do not think you could make that comment about "of the 16 subpoenas, 13 were on the list" without violating the AEO designation. That is far too identifying of the contents of the documents under seal. Also, we don't know if it's really only a portion. If all of the CCs they've been subpoenaing subscriber info regarding are on TAG's list, then of course they are not allowed to just say that as it would essentially reveal the contents of the doc under seal.

DP, but yeah, I also came in here to say that I think saying “of the 16 subpoenas, 13 were on the list” also would violate the AEO confidentiality by in effect making direct public statements about who was on the list.

That’s why Hudson in effect had to make all her statements in the letter hypothetical, “for example, if …” etc. Which Baldoni supporters are taking as her just making stuff up to shift blame. Which would be stupid if her to do if nothing she is saying is true, since this info will inevitably be revealed.

You could also argue that the subpoenas themselves were improper use of AEO info if they did indeed use names provided pursuant to that interrogatory. As someone pointed out last night, they should have challenged the designation far earlier.

I don’t think that was required to send the subpoenas out since there is no clear tie between the subpoena and the name on the TAG response. Also it would have added like 2-3 weeks to getting the subpoenaes out, which at this point they really can’t afford.

I'm sure if they made the appropriate motion, Liman would grant them leave to do whatever they wanted... get an extension, file under seal, permission to meet and confer, or whatever. It's a weird situation in a civil case that information is AEO and you can file a subpoena and then cannot answer any questions from the affected parties because you can't divulge anything... it's incredibly unfair to the people whose freaking bank account information is being requested to then be like "oops, we can't answer your question as to whether this is real or why we need it." It's hard to believe a BigLaw firm made such a "mistake" and couldn't foresee this.

Replying to myself, cause I just realized isn't Jed's client list also being allowed to be released because it's protected by the PO? It probably will be designated AEO as well. So if they want to issue subpoenas based on that list they'll have the same problem they allegedly have now.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Interesting developments regarding the seal on TAG's disclosure of content creators they were in contact with.

If the CCs who have been subpoenaed (or that Google and X have been subpoenaed regarding, more accurately) were on TAG's disclosure of CCs they'd been in contact with, but some of the CCs are saying they've never spoken to TAG or Wallace or anyone in Baldoni's camp, this raises a possibility I had not considered before but would be quite juicy if true:

What if TAG made contact with CCs via fake personas or without identifying themselves as a PR firm? What if they leaked things to CCs or fed them stories anonymously or under the guise of someone else? They would still be required to disclose these contacts in discovery (and it would likely come out in emails/texts disclosed, or if anyone from TAG was deposed, unless they tried to cover it up, but that's a very dangerous game). But the CCs might not realize they'd been contacted.

If TAG's list of CCs they contacted is unsealed and these CCs who are now being subpoenaed but claim they've never spoken to TAG are on it, this is going to be a wild ride. PR is a super sleezy business, so I wouldn't be surprised if that's where this is headed.

That's an interesting theory. I think the interrogatory included "indirect" contact. If there were ever something that would turn those creators against JB, this could be it. I would have to go back and find those emails they had about this, because I remember WF arguing they wanted to limit it to content creators over a certain amount of followers which made me wonder if there were a lot under that threshold.

Another possibility is that the Popcorn Planet guy was on the list but some of the other ladies aren't. PP is the one that had the google doc with Freedman's statement (or something) and is on the subpoena, so he apparently does have some contact with WF side.

I don't know how far AEO extends so why couldn't Lively just write in her letter "Of the 16 subpoenas, 13 were on that list" or something. It makes me think Lively is still playing games with the truth.

It's definitely possible that Lively is using this AEO designation issue to try and just turn the page on the bad press she's getting regarding the CC subpoenas. Certainly that's part of the goal no matter what.

But FWIW, I do not think you could make that comment about "of the 16 subpoenas, 13 were on the list" without violating the AEO designation. That is far too identifying of the contents of the documents under seal. Also, we don't know if it's really only a portion. If all of the CCs they've been subpoenaing subscriber info regarding are on TAG's list, then of course they are not allowed to just say that as it would essentially reveal the contents of the doc under seal.

DP, but yeah, I also came in here to say that I think saying “of the 16 subpoenas, 13 were on the list” also would violate the AEO confidentiality by in effect making direct public statements about who was on the list.

That’s why Hudson in effect had to make all her statements in the letter hypothetical, “for example, if …” etc. Which Baldoni supporters are taking as her just making stuff up to shift blame. Which would be stupid if her to do if nothing she is saying is true, since this info will inevitably be revealed.

You could also argue that the subpoenas themselves were improper use of AEO info if they did indeed use names provided pursuant to that interrogatory. As someone pointed out last night, they should have challenged the designation far earlier.

I don’t think that was required to send the subpoenas out since there is no clear tie between the subpoena and the name on the TAG response. Also it would have added like 2-3 weeks to getting the subpoenaes out, which at this point they really can’t afford.

Try a few days, not weeks. There isn’t any point in sending out subpoenas you can’t defend in Court anyway.

Indeed, the better method would have been to depose whomever at TAG has knowledge of the cc identified in that interrogatory, and then subpoenaed two or three of cc seeking confirmatory info.

Even if identified iin the interrogatory, they don’t have a basis for the financial info they seek in the subpoena because the interrogatory doesn’t address compensation or payment. A

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Interesting developments regarding the seal on TAG's disclosure of content creators they were in contact with.

If the CCs who have been subpoenaed (or that Google and X have been subpoenaed regarding, more accurately) were on TAG's disclosure of CCs they'd been in contact with, but some of the CCs are saying they've never spoken to TAG or Wallace or anyone in Baldoni's camp, this raises a possibility I had not considered before but would be quite juicy if true:

What if TAG made contact with CCs via fake personas or without identifying themselves as a PR firm? What if they leaked things to CCs or fed them stories anonymously or under the guise of someone else? They would still be required to disclose these contacts in discovery (and it would likely come out in emails/texts disclosed, or if anyone from TAG was deposed, unless they tried to cover it up, but that's a very dangerous game). But the CCs might not realize they'd been contacted.

If TAG's list of CCs they contacted is unsealed and these CCs who are now being subpoenaed but claim they've never spoken to TAG are on it, this is going to be a wild ride. PR is a super sleezy business, so I wouldn't be surprised if that's where this is headed.

That's an interesting theory. I think the interrogatory included "indirect" contact. If there were ever something that would turn those creators against JB, this could be it. I would have to go back and find those emails they had about this, because I remember WF arguing they wanted to limit it to content creators over a certain amount of followers which made me wonder if there were a lot under that threshold.

Another possibility is that the Popcorn Planet guy was on the list but some of the other ladies aren't. PP is the one that had the google doc with Freedman's statement (or something) and is on the subpoena, so he apparently does have some contact with WF side.

I don't know how far AEO extends so why couldn't Lively just write in her letter "Of the 16 subpoenas, 13 were on that list" or something. It makes me think Lively is still playing games with the truth.

It's definitely possible that Lively is using this AEO designation issue to try and just turn the page on the bad press she's getting regarding the CC subpoenas. Certainly that's part of the goal no matter what.

But FWIW, I do not think you could make that comment about "of the 16 subpoenas, 13 were on the list" without violating the AEO designation. That is far too identifying of the contents of the documents under seal. Also, we don't know if it's really only a portion. If all of the CCs they've been subpoenaing subscriber info regarding are on TAG's list, then of course they are not allowed to just say that as it would essentially reveal the contents of the doc under seal.

DP, but yeah, I also came in here to say that I think saying “of the 16 subpoenas, 13 were on the list” also would violate the AEO confidentiality by in effect making direct public statements about who was on the list.

That’s why Hudson in effect had to make all her statements in the letter hypothetical, “for example, if …” etc. Which Baldoni supporters are taking as her just making stuff up to shift blame. Which would be stupid if her to do if nothing she is saying is true, since this info will inevitably be revealed.

You could also argue that the subpoenas themselves were improper use of AEO info if they did indeed use names provided pursuant to that interrogatory. As someone pointed out last night, they should have challenged the designation far earlier.

I don’t think that was required to send the subpoenas out since there is no clear tie between the subpoena and the name on the TAG response. Also it would have added like 2-3 weeks to getting the subpoenaes out, which at this point they really can’t afford.

Try a few days, not weeks. There isn’t any point in sending out subpoenas you can’t defend in Court anyway.

Indeed, the better method would have been to depose whomever at TAG has knowledge of the cc identified in that interrogatory, and then subpoenaed two or three of cc seeking confirmatory info.

Even if identified iin the interrogatory, they don’t have a basis for the financial info they seek in the subpoena because the interrogatory doesn’t address compensation or payment. A

These letter motions to compel are not being decided in the matter of a few days, unless like for the deposition you request an expedited response and you don’t want to do that for everything you file. It was appropriate for the deposition because it was less than a week away.

Usually, one party files the motion then several days later the other party files an opposition. Then the judge usually takes a week and often longer to respond. Look at the docket. That’s what’s been happening.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Interesting developments regarding the seal on TAG's disclosure of content creators they were in contact with.

If the CCs who have been subpoenaed (or that Google and X have been subpoenaed regarding, more accurately) were on TAG's disclosure of CCs they'd been in contact with, but some of the CCs are saying they've never spoken to TAG or Wallace or anyone in Baldoni's camp, this raises a possibility I had not considered before but would be quite juicy if true:

What if TAG made contact with CCs via fake personas or without identifying themselves as a PR firm? What if they leaked things to CCs or fed them stories anonymously or under the guise of someone else? They would still be required to disclose these contacts in discovery (and it would likely come out in emails/texts disclosed, or if anyone from TAG was deposed, unless they tried to cover it up, but that's a very dangerous game). But the CCs might not realize they'd been contacted.

If TAG's list of CCs they contacted is unsealed and these CCs who are now being subpoenaed but claim they've never spoken to TAG are on it, this is going to be a wild ride. PR is a super sleezy business, so I wouldn't be surprised if that's where this is headed.

That's an interesting theory. I think the interrogatory included "indirect" contact. If there were ever something that would turn those creators against JB, this could be it. I would have to go back and find those emails they had about this, because I remember WF arguing they wanted to limit it to content creators over a certain amount of followers which made me wonder if there were a lot under that threshold.

Another possibility is that the Popcorn Planet guy was on the list but some of the other ladies aren't. PP is the one that had the google doc with Freedman's statement (or something) and is on the subpoena, so he apparently does have some contact with WF side.

I don't know how far AEO extends so why couldn't Lively just write in her letter "Of the 16 subpoenas, 13 were on that list" or something. It makes me think Lively is still playing games with the truth.

It's definitely possible that Lively is using this AEO designation issue to try and just turn the page on the bad press she's getting regarding the CC subpoenas. Certainly that's part of the goal no matter what.

But FWIW, I do not think you could make that comment about "of the 16 subpoenas, 13 were on the list" without violating the AEO designation. That is far too identifying of the contents of the documents under seal. Also, we don't know if it's really only a portion. If all of the CCs they've been subpoenaing subscriber info regarding are on TAG's list, then of course they are not allowed to just say that as it would essentially reveal the contents of the doc under seal.

DP, but yeah, I also came in here to say that I think saying “of the 16 subpoenas, 13 were on the list” also would violate the AEO confidentiality by in effect making direct public statements about who was on the list.

That’s why Hudson in effect had to make all her statements in the letter hypothetical, “for example, if …” etc. Which Baldoni supporters are taking as her just making stuff up to shift blame. Which would be stupid if her to do if nothing she is saying is true, since this info will inevitably be revealed.

You could also argue that the subpoenas themselves were improper use of AEO info if they did indeed use names provided pursuant to that interrogatory. As someone pointed out last night, they should have challenged the designation far earlier.

I don’t think that was required to send the subpoenas out since there is no clear tie between the subpoena and the name on the TAG response. Also it would have added like 2-3 weeks to getting the subpoenaes out, which at this point they really can’t afford.

Try a few days, not weeks. There isn’t any point in sending out subpoenas you can’t defend in Court anyway.

Indeed, the better method would have been to depose whomever at TAG has knowledge of the cc identified in that interrogatory, and then subpoenaed two or three of cc seeking confirmatory info.

Even if identified iin the interrogatory, they don’t have a basis for the financial info they seek in the subpoena because the interrogatory doesn’t address compensation or payment. A

These letter motions to compel are not being decided in the matter of a few days, unless like for the deposition you request an expedited response and you don’t want to do that for everything you file. It was appropriate for the deposition because it was less than a week away.

Usually, one party files the motion then several days later the other party files an opposition. Then the judge usually takes a week and often longer to respond. Look at the docket. That’s what’s been happening.

The motion will be decided in the next few days. Wednesday or earlier.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Interesting developments regarding the seal on TAG's disclosure of content creators they were in contact with.

If the CCs who have been subpoenaed (or that Google and X have been subpoenaed regarding, more accurately) were on TAG's disclosure of CCs they'd been in contact with, but some of the CCs are saying they've never spoken to TAG or Wallace or anyone in Baldoni's camp, this raises a possibility I had not considered before but would be quite juicy if true:

What if TAG made contact with CCs via fake personas or without identifying themselves as a PR firm? What if they leaked things to CCs or fed them stories anonymously or under the guise of someone else? They would still be required to disclose these contacts in discovery (and it would likely come out in emails/texts disclosed, or if anyone from TAG was deposed, unless they tried to cover it up, but that's a very dangerous game). But the CCs might not realize they'd been contacted.

If TAG's list of CCs they contacted is unsealed and these CCs who are now being subpoenaed but claim they've never spoken to TAG are on it, this is going to be a wild ride. PR is a super sleezy business, so I wouldn't be surprised if that's where this is headed.

That's an interesting theory. I think the interrogatory included "indirect" contact. If there were ever something that would turn those creators against JB, this could be it. I would have to go back and find those emails they had about this, because I remember WF arguing they wanted to limit it to content creators over a certain amount of followers which made me wonder if there were a lot under that threshold.

Another possibility is that the Popcorn Planet guy was on the list but some of the other ladies aren't. PP is the one that had the google doc with Freedman's statement (or something) and is on the subpoena, so he apparently does have some contact with WF side.

I don't know how far AEO extends so why couldn't Lively just write in her letter "Of the 16 subpoenas, 13 were on that list" or something. It makes me think Lively is still playing games with the truth.

It's definitely possible that Lively is using this AEO designation issue to try and just turn the page on the bad press she's getting regarding the CC subpoenas. Certainly that's part of the goal no matter what.

But FWIW, I do not think you could make that comment about "of the 16 subpoenas, 13 were on the list" without violating the AEO designation. That is far too identifying of the contents of the documents under seal. Also, we don't know if it's really only a portion. If all of the CCs they've been subpoenaing subscriber info regarding are on TAG's list, then of course they are not allowed to just say that as it would essentially reveal the contents of the doc under seal.

DP, but yeah, I also came in here to say that I think saying “of the 16 subpoenas, 13 were on the list” also would violate the AEO confidentiality by in effect making direct public statements about who was on the list.

That’s why Hudson in effect had to make all her statements in the letter hypothetical, “for example, if …” etc. Which Baldoni supporters are taking as her just making stuff up to shift blame. Which would be stupid if her to do if nothing she is saying is true, since this info will inevitably be revealed.

You could also argue that the subpoenas themselves were improper use of AEO info if they did indeed use names provided pursuant to that interrogatory. As someone pointed out last night, they should have challenged the designation far earlier.

I don’t think that was required to send the subpoenas out since there is no clear tie between the subpoena and the name on the TAG response. Also it would have added like 2-3 weeks to getting the subpoenaes out, which at this point they really can’t afford.

Try a few days, not weeks. There isn’t any point in sending out subpoenas you can’t defend in Court anyway.

Indeed, the better method would have been to depose whomever at TAG has knowledge of the cc identified in that interrogatory, and then subpoenaed two or three of cc seeking confirmatory info.

Even if identified iin the interrogatory, they don’t have a basis for the financial info they seek in the subpoena because the interrogatory doesn’t address compensation or payment. A

These letter motions to compel are not being decided in the matter of a few days, unless like for the deposition you request an expedited response and you don’t want to do that for everything you file. It was appropriate for the deposition because it was less than a week away.

Usually, one party files the motion then several days later the other party files an opposition. Then the judge usually takes a week and often longer to respond. Look at the docket. That’s what’s been happening.

The motion will be decided in the next few days. Wednesday or earlier.

I believe the TAG opposition to this Friday motion is due end of day Tuesday. It's possible that Limen could issue a decision on Wednesday, but that would be because the clerks made the judge aware of the time issue. That's not the timeline on which Lively's other MTCs (or those of other parties) have been decided.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Interesting developments regarding the seal on TAG's disclosure of content creators they were in contact with.

If the CCs who have been subpoenaed (or that Google and X have been subpoenaed regarding, more accurately) were on TAG's disclosure of CCs they'd been in contact with, but some of the CCs are saying they've never spoken to TAG or Wallace or anyone in Baldoni's camp, this raises a possibility I had not considered before but would be quite juicy if true:

What if TAG made contact with CCs via fake personas or without identifying themselves as a PR firm? What if they leaked things to CCs or fed them stories anonymously or under the guise of someone else? They would still be required to disclose these contacts in discovery (and it would likely come out in emails/texts disclosed, or if anyone from TAG was deposed, unless they tried to cover it up, but that's a very dangerous game). But the CCs might not realize they'd been contacted.

If TAG's list of CCs they contacted is unsealed and these CCs who are now being subpoenaed but claim they've never spoken to TAG are on it, this is going to be a wild ride. PR is a super sleezy business, so I wouldn't be surprised if that's where this is headed.

That's an interesting theory. I think the interrogatory included "indirect" contact. If there were ever something that would turn those creators against JB, this could be it. I would have to go back and find those emails they had about this, because I remember WF arguing they wanted to limit it to content creators over a certain amount of followers which made me wonder if there were a lot under that threshold.

Another possibility is that the Popcorn Planet guy was on the list but some of the other ladies aren't. PP is the one that had the google doc with Freedman's statement (or something) and is on the subpoena, so he apparently does have some contact with WF side.

I don't know how far AEO extends so why couldn't Lively just write in her letter "Of the 16 subpoenas, 13 were on that list" or something. It makes me think Lively is still playing games with the truth.

It's definitely possible that Lively is using this AEO designation issue to try and just turn the page on the bad press she's getting regarding the CC subpoenas. Certainly that's part of the goal no matter what.

But FWIW, I do not think you could make that comment about "of the 16 subpoenas, 13 were on the list" without violating the AEO designation. That is far too identifying of the contents of the documents under seal. Also, we don't know if it's really only a portion. If all of the CCs they've been subpoenaing subscriber info regarding are on TAG's list, then of course they are not allowed to just say that as it would essentially reveal the contents of the doc under seal.

DP, but yeah, I also came in here to say that I think saying “of the 16 subpoenas, 13 were on the list” also would violate the AEO confidentiality by in effect making direct public statements about who was on the list.

That’s why Hudson in effect had to make all her statements in the letter hypothetical, “for example, if …” etc. Which Baldoni supporters are taking as her just making stuff up to shift blame. Which would be stupid if her to do if nothing she is saying is true, since this info will inevitably be revealed.

You could also argue that the subpoenas themselves were improper use of AEO info if they did indeed use names provided pursuant to that interrogatory. As someone pointed out last night, they should have challenged the designation far earlier.

I don’t think that was required to send the subpoenas out since there is no clear tie between the subpoena and the name on the TAG response. Also it would have added like 2-3 weeks to getting the subpoenaes out, which at this point they really can’t afford.

Try a few days, not weeks. There isn’t any point in sending out subpoenas you can’t defend in Court anyway.

Indeed, the better method would have been to depose whomever at TAG has knowledge of the cc identified in that interrogatory, and then subpoenaed two or three of cc seeking confirmatory info.

Even if identified iin the interrogatory, they don’t have a basis for the financial info they seek in the subpoena because the interrogatory doesn’t address compensation or payment. A

These letter motions to compel are not being decided in the matter of a few days, unless like for the deposition you request an expedited response and you don’t want to do that for everything you file. It was appropriate for the deposition because it was less than a week away.

Usually, one party files the motion then several days later the other party files an opposition. Then the judge usually takes a week and often longer to respond. Look at the docket. That’s what’s been happening.

The motion will be decided in the next few days. Wednesday or earlier.

I believe the TAG opposition to this Friday motion is due end of day Tuesday. It's possible that Limen could issue a decision on Wednesday, but that would be because the clerks made the judge aware of the time issue. That's not the timeline on which Lively's other MTCs (or those of other parties) have been decided.

They specifically talked about a quick turn around on AEO designation challenges at the hearing. Moreover, that’s how it usually works. This is not like a regular motion to compel.

[Anonymous]

If nothing else Liman is a stickler for the schedule. If either party made him aware they needed a response to move forward to get discovery done by the deadline, he'd rule right away. Doubly so if it's for something Lively wanted.

[Anonymous]

Kevin Fritz bouncing into the docket today to suddenly accept service for the two third parties (head of human resources at Wayfarer Studios and an Accounts Executive and Director at TAG) that they Meister Seelig/Liner Freedman previously told Lively they weren't representing.

Just running the clock and wasting Lively's time -- very much fits their profile.

Barnes Slater (Wayfarer's HR head): https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.nysd.634304/gov.uscourts.nysd.634304.452.0.pdf

Mcneice (TAG): https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.nysd.634304/gov.uscourts.nysd.634304.453.0.pdf

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Interesting developments regarding the seal on TAG's disclosure of content creators they were in contact with.

If the CCs who have been subpoenaed (or that Google and X have been subpoenaed regarding, more accurately) were on TAG's disclosure of CCs they'd been in contact with, but some of the CCs are saying they've never spoken to TAG or Wallace or anyone in Baldoni's camp, this raises a possibility I had not considered before but would be quite juicy if true:

What if TAG made contact with CCs via fake personas or without identifying themselves as a PR firm? What if they leaked things to CCs or fed them stories anonymously or under the guise of someone else? They would still be required to disclose these contacts in discovery (and it would likely come out in emails/texts disclosed, or if anyone from TAG was deposed, unless they tried to cover it up, but that's a very dangerous game). But the CCs might not realize they'd been contacted.

If TAG's list of CCs they contacted is unsealed and these CCs who are now being subpoenaed but claim they've never spoken to TAG are on it, this is going to be a wild ride. PR is a super sleezy business, so I wouldn't be surprised if that's where this is headed.

Lively’s team seems to be playing cute with their words again. They say these creators were listed in a supplement of creators who have spoken negatively about Blake, and then BL’s lawyers say “apparently at the behest of tag”. That “apparently” is doing a whole lot. From what I understand tag’s actual answer to the interrogatory was “none”.

BL’s lawyers made a mistake by subpoenaing these content creators and now they’re trying to do PR clean up with this really unprofessional motion. First of all they’re basically undermining the AEO in their motion because of the level of detail they’re sharing. Second, they’re blaming wayfarer for their own sloppiness and failure to challenge the AEO before sending the subpoenas. They’re trying to blame WF for Blake’s latest round of negative PR when really this is her lawyers’ fault.

[Anonymous]

Blake supporter talking to herself again.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Blake supporter talking to herself again.

Uh, I think like 3 of the last 4 posts were anti-Lively.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Blake supporter talking to herself again.

Uh, I think like 3 of the last 4 posts were anti-Lively.

I wasn’t referencing those posts. I was talking about the multi-paragraph posts that were made today.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Blake supporter talking to herself again.

Shut up shut up shut up!! Multiple people are posting those things. Accept reality.