Blake Lively- Jason Baldoni and NYT - False Light claims

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:So Blake’s unredacted testimony is consistent with the current focus of their legal strategy, the only actions in the smear she had “personal knowledge” of were Freedman’s post complaint public comments. Who knew Blake and her lawyers had ESP and could foresee this before it happened to describe in the Complaint?

Sure seems like her retail action claim is DOA.

Why was the language “unredacted”?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So Blake’s unredacted testimony is consistent with the current focus of their legal strategy, the only actions in the smear she had “personal knowledge” of were Freedman’s post complaint public comments. Who knew Blake and her lawyers had ESP and could foresee this before it happened to describe in the Complaint?

Sure seems like her retail action claim is DOA.

Why was the language “unredacted”?

Would you prefer unsealed?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Case and Koslow continue to produce amazing hijinks in this litigation.

New MTCs from Gottlieb seek to compel Case and Koslow to produce documents they put on their privilege log which Gottlieb argues are not really priv.

First of all, Case and Koslow both inadvertently produced many of her privileged documents in her document production, which the Lively attorneys discovered, and so stopped reading and reviewing the production on the same day in order to inform Case and Koslow, who re-produced and clawed back documents as privileged.

The docs on Case's log now include docs going back to August 2024, with Freedman, and also documents between Case and her father, and attorney, dating back to August 2024 (where it appears Case was discussing more then her own potential liability).

Case MTC: https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.nysd.634304/gov.uscourts.nysd.634304.585.0.pdf

Koslow MTC: https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.nysd.634304/gov.uscourts.nysd.634304.586.0.pdf

Roeser declaration: https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.nysd.634304/gov.uscourts.nysd.634304.587.0.pdf

This looks like it could become a really big deal. Jed Wallace is on a lot of the communications in question too, which is both interesting in its own right (given the degree to which JW has downplayed what he did for Wayfarer) and could also break privilege and result in these communications becoming evidence, as he was not represented by the attorneys in question.

The documents with Wallace are all after 12/20, the date the lawsuit was filed. So, again, they are moving the entire smear issue to after the Complaint. More importantly, for purposes of this motion, it has already been asserted that Wallace was involved in developing the WF defense and counter claims, so these documents would likely be protected by Attorney work product even if he was not represented himself by Freedman et al. I think at least the Wallace documents will be protected by a privilege, and I don’t care enough to look at the rest.

[Anonymous]

There was that brief period of time where it appeared Wallace was represented by Freedman or considering it. Wallace allowed Freedman to speak on his behalf in the NYT response and was going to accept service for Wallace until he didn’t. That may be enough to defeat the argument that Wallace being on the chain waives privilege.

[Anonymous]

These are the same TAG documents that Blake insisted be handled by her document production company in order to preserve metadata. One has to wonder if that had something to do with the the privileged docs winding up in the production set.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So Blake’s unredacted testimony is consistent with the current focus of their legal strategy, the only actions in the smear she had “personal knowledge” of were Freedman’s post complaint public comments. Who knew Blake and her lawyers had ESP and could foresee this before it happened to describe in the Complaint?

Sure seems like her retail action claim is DOA.

Why was the language “unredacted”?

Would you prefer unsealed?

You am not questioning word choice, but rather I missed say 20 tabs on DCUM and apparently 20 some motions so genuinely asking what happened that resulted in that language that was redacted to now be visible to public? Did BL side move for it to be unsealed and judge agree or was this just the judge compromise for getting rid of deposition as an exhibit? Wondering the legal process of it as would have thought BL side would have preferred it not be visible to public.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So Blake’s unredacted testimony is consistent with the current focus of their legal strategy, the only actions in the smear she had “personal knowledge” of were Freedman’s post complaint public comments. Who knew Blake and her lawyers had ESP and could foresee this before it happened to describe in the Complaint?

Sure seems like her retail action claim is DOA.

Why was the language “unredacted”?

Would you prefer unsealed?

You am not questioning word choice, but rather I missed say 20 tabs on DCUM and apparently 20 some motions so genuinely asking what happened that resulted in that language that was redacted to now be visible to public? Did BL side move for it to be unsealed and judge agree or was this just the judge compromise for getting rid of deposition as an exhibit? Wondering the legal process of it as would have thought BL side would have preferred it not be visible to public.

Despite striking the deposition, the judge revealed the language that WF has redacted from its motion.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So Blake’s unredacted testimony is consistent with the current focus of their legal strategy, the only actions in the smear she had “personal knowledge” of were Freedman’s post complaint public comments. Who knew Blake and her lawyers had ESP and could foresee this before it happened to describe in the Complaint?

Sure seems like her retail action claim is DOA.

Why was the language “unredacted”?

Would you prefer unsealed?

You am not questioning word choice, but rather I missed say 20 tabs on DCUM and apparently 20 some motions so genuinely asking what happened that resulted in that language that was redacted to now be visible to public? Did BL side move for it to be unsealed and judge agree or was this just the judge compromise for getting rid of deposition as an exhibit? Wondering the legal process of it as would have thought BL side would have preferred it not be visible to public.

It seems to have been the judge's decision alone to unseal. Her depo would include both confidential info and non. Wf quoted two lines from it regarding stuff that's already known in public (that Lively considers Freedman’s conduct to be an ongoing smear campaign) but attached her entire depo as an exhibit, sealed. Lively filed a motion to strike that exhibit. Wayfarer redacted those two lines in its letter but the judge said while striking the full depo, those two lines from their letter could be unsealed since there's no apparent reason they should be confidential.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Case and Koslow continue to produce amazing hijinks in this litigation.

New MTCs from Gottlieb seek to compel Case and Koslow to produce documents they put on their privilege log which Gottlieb argues are not really priv.

First of all, Case and Koslow both inadvertently produced many of her privileged documents in her document production, which the Lively attorneys discovered, and so stopped reading and reviewing the production on the same day in order to inform Case and Koslow, who re-produced and clawed back documents as privileged.

The docs on Case's log now include docs going back to August 2024, with Freedman, and also documents between Case and her father, and attorney, dating back to August 2024 (where it appears Case was discussing more then her own potential liability).

Case MTC: https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.nysd.634304/gov.uscourts.nysd.634304.585.0.pdf

Koslow MTC: https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.nysd.634304/gov.uscourts.nysd.634304.586.0.pdf

Roeser declaration: https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.nysd.634304/gov.uscourts.nysd.634304.587.0.pdf

This looks like it could become a really big deal. Jed Wallace is on a lot of the communications in question too, which is both interesting in its own right (given the degree to which JW has downplayed what he did for Wayfarer) and could also break privilege and result in these communications becoming evidence, as he was not represented by the attorneys in question.

What I don't get is why Wayfarer simply adopted Case and Koslows privilege log instead of submitting their own. Is that strategy or lack of resources?

I also don't understand why Garafolo said at the hearing that Wayfarer only asserts privilege as of, IIRC, the day before the CRD was published. I feel like they'd have a decent argument they were anticipating litigation around the time of the film premiere (when they were texting about " if her concerns should come to light") and certainly by the date Jones got Abel's phone and said she was going to get sued (i don't remember the date offhand).

I feel like asserting privilege as early as possible would protect Wayfarer and not really seeing their rationale.

Notactuallygolden's last four videos and comments says this is a strategy from Wayfarer. She detailed in her last summary judgement part 3 video that Lively may lose her case because of missing elements, even if she has all the evidence.
https://www.tiktok.com/@notactuallygolden/video/7536310833832316215

She also addresses the Liman criticism saying that Liman grants Lively's team what they want more often simply because they ask for it. She agrees to the comments saying Judges often know in advance which party has the stronger case and is harsher on them, giving them the other side an abundance of fairness, only to ultimately rule in the stronger case favor.
https://www.tiktok.com/@notactuallygolden/video/7536299301547379982

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Case and Koslow continue to produce amazing hijinks in this litigation.

New MTCs from Gottlieb seek to compel Case and Koslow to produce documents they put on their privilege log which Gottlieb argues are not really priv.

First of all, Case and Koslow both inadvertently produced many of her privileged documents in her document production, which the Lively attorneys discovered, and so stopped reading and reviewing the production on the same day in order to inform Case and Koslow, who re-produced and clawed back documents as privileged.

The docs on Case's log now include docs going back to August 2024, with Freedman, and also documents between Case and her father, and attorney, dating back to August 2024 (where it appears Case was discussing more then her own potential liability).

Case MTC: https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.nysd.634304/gov.uscourts.nysd.634304.585.0.pdf

Koslow MTC: https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.nysd.634304/gov.uscourts.nysd.634304.586.0.pdf

Roeser declaration: https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.nysd.634304/gov.uscourts.nysd.634304.587.0.pdf

This looks like it could become a really big deal. Jed Wallace is on a lot of the communications in question too, which is both interesting in its own right (given the degree to which JW has downplayed what he did for Wayfarer) and could also break privilege and result in these communications becoming evidence, as he was not represented by the attorneys in question.

What I don't get is why Wayfarer simply adopted Case and Koslows privilege log instead of submitting their own. Is that strategy or lack of resources?

I also don't understand why Garafolo said at the hearing that Wayfarer only asserts privilege as of, IIRC, the day before the CRD was published. I feel like they'd have a decent argument they were anticipating litigation around the time of the film premiere (when they were texting about " if her concerns should come to light") and certainly by the date Jones got Abel's phone and said she was going to get sued (i don't remember the date offhand).

I feel like asserting privilege as early as possible would protect Wayfarer and not really seeing their rationale.

Notactuallygolden's last four videos and comments says this is a strategy from Wayfarer. She detailed in her last summary judgement part 3 video that Lively may lose her case because of missing elements, even if she has all the evidence.
https://www.tiktok.com/@notactuallygolden/video/7536310833832316215

She also addresses the Liman criticism saying that Liman grants Lively's team what they want more often simply because they ask for it. She agrees to the comments saying Judges often know in advance which party has the stronger case and is harsher on them, giving them the other side an abundance of fairness, only to ultimately rule in the stronger case favor.
https://www.tiktok.com/@notactuallygolden/video/7536299301547379982

PP. Thank you for the links. I agree with NAG that Wayfarer can win some summary judgment claims, but I was referring specifically to their strategy in saying they only claim attorney client privilege as of the CRD, not their strategy for their whole case. NAG has alluded (and I agree) that they should have tried to at least dismiss her claim that Wayfarer has been committing ongoing defamation through their attorney Freedman. It has created a mess for them in discovery because it gave Lively the opportunity to seek documents from after the CRD was filed and also documents from their law firm (which the judge denied some, but not all).

For me, Wayfarer's strategy seems kinda backwards here... I thought they would be vigorously fighting to assert the attorney client privilege prior to the CRD, and then they should have tried to get the claims for after the CRD dismissed as soon as possible (motion to dismiss, not waiting for summary judgment).

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Case and Koslow continue to produce amazing hijinks in this litigation.

New MTCs from Gottlieb seek to compel Case and Koslow to produce documents they put on their privilege log which Gottlieb argues are not really priv.

First of all, Case and Koslow both inadvertently produced many of her privileged documents in her document production, which the Lively attorneys discovered, and so stopped reading and reviewing the production on the same day in order to inform Case and Koslow, who re-produced and clawed back documents as privileged.

The docs on Case's log now include docs going back to August 2024, with Freedman, and also documents between Case and her father, and attorney, dating back to August 2024 (where it appears Case was discussing more then her own potential liability).

Case MTC: https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.nysd.634304/gov.uscourts.nysd.634304.585.0.pdf

Koslow MTC: https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.nysd.634304/gov.uscourts.nysd.634304.586.0.pdf

Roeser declaration: https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.nysd.634304/gov.uscourts.nysd.634304.587.0.pdf

This looks like it could become a really big deal. Jed Wallace is on a lot of the communications in question too, which is both interesting in its own right (given the degree to which JW has downplayed what he did for Wayfarer) and could also break privilege and result in these communications becoming evidence, as he was not represented by the attorneys in question.

What I don't get is why Wayfarer simply adopted Case and Koslows privilege log instead of submitting their own. Is that strategy or lack of resources?

I also don't understand why Garafolo said at the hearing that Wayfarer only asserts privilege as of, IIRC, the day before the CRD was published. I feel like they'd have a decent argument they were anticipating litigation around the time of the film premiere (when they were texting about " if her concerns should come to light") and certainly by the date Jones got Abel's phone and said she was going to get sued (i don't remember the date offhand).

I feel like asserting privilege as early as possible would protect Wayfarer and not really seeing their rationale.

Notactuallygolden's last four videos and comments says this is a strategy from Wayfarer. She detailed in her last summary judgement part 3 video that Lively may lose her case because of missing elements, even if she has all the evidence.
https://www.tiktok.com/@notactuallygolden/video/7536310833832316215

She also addresses the Liman criticism saying that Liman grants Lively's team what they want more often simply because they ask for it. She agrees to the comments saying Judges often know in advance which party has the stronger case and is harsher on them, giving them the other side an abundance of fairness, only to ultimately rule in the stronger case favor.
https://www.tiktok.com/@notactuallygolden/video/7536299301547379982

I don't believe her at all. She is consistently wrong with her Liman takes, even if now she's saying, "Actually, he was being harsh on purpose all along!" What a joke.

She needs to stick to explaining the law, not making more false predictions and giving JB supporters more false hope.