Blake Lively- Jason Baldoni and NYT - False Light claims

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Did not see it discussed here but the New York Times said Baldoni’s assertion that NYT had Lively’s complaint in advance, based on “internet sleuth” metadata, was inaccurate. NYT noted that the metadata was automatically generated and not something that accurately represented the date they received the complaint. So NYT is doubling down on not having received the complaint weeks in advance, which seems like something the NYT attorneys would require them to have hammered down tight first — suggesting that this assertion that made big waves for Baldoni last week is a nothingburger.

I agree that they say all that but if you read closely they conclude with saying they did not POST the complaint in advance. They are vague on when they got it, although they say the metadata is not the right date.

I can understand why you might want to see it that way, but I don’t read that as an accurate interpretation of the NYT’s statement at all. The NYT says that it received and posted the complaint after it was filed and calls Baldoni’s assertion that the NYT received the complaint in advance of filing is a “bogus claim.”

From the NYT spokesperson: "The Baldoni/Wayfarer legal filings are rife with inaccuracies about The New York Times, including, for example, the bogus claim that The Times had early access to Ms. Lively's state civil rights complaint. . . . The [internet] sleuths [Baldoni relies on] have noted that a version of the Lively state complaint published by The Times carries the date 'December 10' even though the complaint wasn't filed until more than a week later," the spokesperson continued. "The problem: that date is generated by Google software and is unrelated to the date when The Times received it and posted it. A look at the metadata from the posted document correctly shows it was posted after Ms. Lively filed it with the California Civil Rights Department."

https://www.justjared.com/2025/02/01/the-new-york-times-fires-back-at-justin-baldoni-bogus-claim-they-had-early-access-to-blake-livelys-complaint/

I personally just don’t think the NYT would lie about this when it has so much at stake, or that the NYT lawyers would allow them to release an inaccurate statement on it, but ymmv. So, to me, lots of flash from Baldoni on something that is likely to turn out to be a total nothingburger.

Np and lawyer. I don’t think they lied in their statement, but I think it was carefully worded to be slightly misleading. They clearly worked with Blake well before she filed her complaint and this issue goes straight to the heart of their best defamation defense- Fair report.

I also think that their first PR statement- how they ‘meticulously reported’ this story or something like that will bite them in the ass. How do you ‘meticulously’ report a story and not speak to the other side???

PP you are responding to and also a lawyer, and we are going to have to agree to disagree on this NYT statement I excerpted above. Baldoni asserted with great fanfare that NYT had Lively’s complaint weeks in advance — based on metadata — and NYT has come out to say the metadata is automatically generated and Baldoni is incorrect. I believe NYT here when it says they didn’t have the complaint. I don’t think they’re being slightly misleading in saying they didn’t have it. That detail got Baldoni a ton of press last week and he appears to have been completely wrong about it (because I don’t think NYT would double down on this if they actually had it first). Also lots of chatter in this thread about how that salacious earlier assertion spelled doom for Lively. Huh. But apparently, Baldoni got it wrong.

Baldoni is certainly a public figure and if you think he has a strong defamation case against the NYT here under the “Fair Report” part of the test, we are going to have to agree to disagree again here.

The arrogance of some lawyers on here astounds me. You’re a lawyer but clearly not a publishing lawyer, and you are coming out with a position when you don’t even know defamation basics, while I do and know about vetting. You are confusing fair report as Baldonis claim when it is the exact opposite.

NYT piece was worded to say they didn’t have the complaint. Which might be true. But it ultimately doesn’t protect them bc it’s likely going to come out that they’d been working with Blake all along, which goes to the heart of their defamation defense that they just happened to be reporting on a legal filing and matter of public interest- eg, a fair report.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I’m an old and don’t have TikTok. In case there are others like me, I wanted to share this Reddit post because it has embedded TikTok videos of women sharing their experiences working with Justin. #7 is partially compelling (and there’s additional info in the comments).

https://www.reddit.com/r/JustinBaldoni/comments/1i9f5kk/women_castcrew_share_their_own_stories_to_support

Old person. Give more context when you link. That’s a DCUM rule, no?

Is it good bad?

Old person here. Sorry, thought the link made it clear. These are women offering positive experiences. This is nothing to do with the legality of the case, but I've seen people remark on here that nobody has come forward to support him, so I thought I'd post since it's all in one place and easy to scroll through.

Thank you, sorry for the snark

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:DP. So, wait, the Baldoni supporters don’t think any discovery will be allowed on whether Jed Wallace has astroturfed in the past, besides on Lively’s case? No dep questions because “it isn’t relevant at all for these claims”? I’m not sure they’ll get a bunch of RFPs about it like the other PP was suggesting but I think saying it isn’t relevant at all is wishful thinking. Another DP above explained more carefully how and why Wallace’s astroturfing info from other cases could come in.

It’s pretty basic in the law of evidence that you don’t get to introduce evidence of a party’s past acts or “character” unless it has been put into play by the party himself or some other narrow exceptions.

I don’t think Lively is going to get this discovery. But admissibility is not the standard for discovery. Discovery is broader.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Did not see it discussed here but the New York Times said Baldoni’s assertion that NYT had Lively’s complaint in advance, based on “internet sleuth” metadata, was inaccurate. NYT noted that the metadata was automatically generated and not something that accurately represented the date they received the complaint. So NYT is doubling down on not having received the complaint weeks in advance, which seems like something the NYT attorneys would require them to have hammered down tight first — suggesting that this assertion that made big waves for Baldoni last week is a nothingburger.

I agree that they say all that but if you read closely they conclude with saying they did not POST the complaint in advance. They are vague on when they got it, although they say the metadata is not the right date.

I can understand why you might want to see it that way, but I don’t read that as an accurate interpretation of the NYT’s statement at all. The NYT says that it received and posted the complaint after it was filed and calls Baldoni’s assertion that the NYT received the complaint in advance of filing is a “bogus claim.”

From the NYT spokesperson: "The Baldoni/Wayfarer legal filings are rife with inaccuracies about The New York Times, including, for example, the bogus claim that The Times had early access to Ms. Lively's state civil rights complaint. . . . The [internet] sleuths [Baldoni relies on] have noted that a version of the Lively state complaint published by The Times carries the date 'December 10' even though the complaint wasn't filed until more than a week later," the spokesperson continued. "The problem: that date is generated by Google software and is unrelated to the date when The Times received it and posted it. A look at the metadata from the posted document correctly shows it was posted after Ms. Lively filed it with the California Civil Rights Department."

https://www.justjared.com/2025/02/01/the-new-york-times-fires-back-at-justin-baldoni-bogus-claim-they-had-early-access-to-blake-livelys-complaint/

I personally just don’t think the NYT would lie about this when it has so much at stake, or that the NYT lawyers would allow them to release an inaccurate statement on it, but ymmv. So, to me, lots of flash from Baldoni on something that is likely to turn out to be a total nothingburger.

Np and lawyer. I don’t think they lied in their statement, but I think it was carefully worded to be slightly misleading. They clearly worked with Blake well before she filed her complaint and this issue goes straight to the heart of their best defamation defense- Fair report.

I also think that their first PR statement- how they ‘meticulously reported’ this story or something like that will bite them in the ass. How do you ‘meticulously’ report a story and not speak to the other side???

PP you are responding to and also a lawyer, and we are going to have to agree to disagree on this NYT statement I excerpted above. Baldoni asserted with great fanfare that NYT had Lively’s complaint weeks in advance — based on metadata — and NYT has come out to say the metadata is automatically generated and Baldoni is incorrect. I believe NYT here when it says they didn’t have the complaint. I don’t think they’re being slightly misleading in saying they didn’t have it. That detail got Baldoni a ton of press last week and he appears to have been completely wrong about it (because I don’t think NYT would double down on this if they actually had it first). Also lots of chatter in this thread about how that salacious earlier assertion spelled doom for Lively. Huh. But apparently, Baldoni got it wrong.

Baldoni is certainly a public figure and if you think he has a strong defamation case against the NYT here under the “Fair Report” part of the test, we are going to have to agree to disagree again here.

The arrogance of some lawyers on here astounds me. You’re a lawyer but clearly not a publishing lawyer, and you are coming out with a position when you don’t even know defamation basics, while I do and know about vetting. You are confusing fair report as Baldonis claim when it is the exact opposite.

NYT piece was worded to say they didn’t have the complaint. Which might be true. But it ultimately doesn’t protect them bc it’s likely going to come out that they’d been working with Blake all along, which goes to the heart of their defamation defense that they just happened to be reporting on a legal filing and matter of public interest- eg, a fair report.

DP lol at you throwing shade about “publishing lawyers.” Plenty of us here have enough background in defamation and 1A to know that the case against the NYT is very, very weak. This is not actually a super complex area of the law. And not that the top legal minds are rushing to the newspapers to comment on this, but I have not seen any article quoting a lawyer arguing that he has a strong claim - only the opposite.

https://www.businessinsider.com/can-justin-baldoni-win-lawsuit-new-york-times-lawyer-analysis-2025-1

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:DP. So, wait, the Baldoni supporters don’t think any discovery will be allowed on whether Jed Wallace has astroturfed in the past, besides on Lively’s case? No dep questions because “it isn’t relevant at all for these claims”? I’m not sure they’ll get a bunch of RFPs about it like the other PP was suggesting but I think saying it isn’t relevant at all is wishful thinking. Another DP above explained more carefully how and why Wallace’s astroturfing info from other cases could come in.

+1, the work Wallace had done for Nathan and Abel in the past would be directly relevant to what they hired Wallace to do on Baldoni's behalf. I don't think they would be allowed a "fishing expedition" to inquire about any work Wallace had ever done for anyone else, but I do think they would be allowed to ask what the working relationship between Nathan/Abel and Wallace had been in the past, and especially whether this was provided to Baldoni to induce him to hire them or to subcontract Wallace.

I'm not saying they'll find anything, and the answer on all sides might be "we've never hired Wallace to astroturf against someone and didn't in this case" in which case it's all moot. But the idea that Lively's lawyers won't even be allowed to inquire about the sort of work Wallace has done for this particular PR/crisis team is silly. It's not even really a stretch to say it's relevant.

FRE 404 baby

For discovery, you look at FRCP not FRE.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:DP. So, wait, the Baldoni supporters don’t think any discovery will be allowed on whether Jed Wallace has astroturfed in the past, besides on Lively’s case? No dep questions because “it isn’t relevant at all for these claims”? I’m not sure they’ll get a bunch of RFPs about it like the other PP was suggesting but I think saying it isn’t relevant at all is wishful thinking. Another DP above explained more carefully how and why Wallace’s astroturfing info from other cases could come in.

It’s pretty basic in the law of evidence that you don’t get to introduce evidence of a party’s past acts or “character” unless it has been put into play by the party himself or some other narrow exceptions.

I don’t think Lively is going to get this discovery. But admissibility is not the standard for discovery. Discovery is broader.

lol no not that broad. You don’t get to do discovery for inadmissible evidence.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:DP. So, wait, the Baldoni supporters don’t think any discovery will be allowed on whether Jed Wallace has astroturfed in the past, besides on Lively’s case? No dep questions because “it isn’t relevant at all for these claims”? I’m not sure they’ll get a bunch of RFPs about it like the other PP was suggesting but I think saying it isn’t relevant at all is wishful thinking. Another DP above explained more carefully how and why Wallace’s astroturfing info from other cases could come in.

+1, the work Wallace had done for Nathan and Abel in the past would be directly relevant to what they hired Wallace to do on Baldoni's behalf. I don't think they would be allowed a "fishing expedition" to inquire about any work Wallace had ever done for anyone else, but I do think they would be allowed to ask what the working relationship between Nathan/Abel and Wallace had been in the past, and especially whether this was provided to Baldoni to induce him to hire them or to subcontract Wallace.

I'm not saying they'll find anything, and the answer on all sides might be "we've never hired Wallace to astroturf against someone and didn't in this case" in which case it's all moot. But the idea that Lively's lawyers won't even be allowed to inquire about the sort of work Wallace has done for this particular PR/crisis team is silly. It's not even really a stretch to say it's relevant.

You are incredibly naive if you think a judge is going to order discovery on other clients.

I didn't say order discovery. I said ask. I think lawyers will be allowed to ask Nathan, Abel, and Wallace about work he'd done for them in the past. I think it would be considered relevant to whether Nathan and Abel expected Wallace to astroturf against Lively, and (if Wallace did indeed do that) whether they could be expected to have known. I agree a judge is not going to compel discovery from Wallace on all his other clients.

A lot of this comes down to whether or not Wallace actually did any astorturfing/seeding against Lively. I honestly don't know! It sounds likely he's done that kind of work in the past (in fact very likely he did it against Amber Heard for Johnny Depp and this same PR team) but it's also entirely possible that he didn't do it against Lively because her own boneheaded PR moves made it unnecessary.

I am thrown by the text message between Nathan and Abel in which they specifically credit Wallace's team for online sentiment. But it's possible they were referring to work Wallace had done to seed stories that focused on Baldoni in a good light. I don't know.

I would assume any deposition of Wallace, Nathan, and Abel would get into this because it's pretty central to the retaliation claims.

I'm not saying all this because I think Lively has a great case or I think Baldoni is a predator -- I don't. But from a legal perspective, it's perfectly relevant whether Nathan/Abel had contracted with Wallace in the past to do the kind of astroturfing he is alleged to have done here. The proximity in time of the Depp/Heard case and the fact that it was the same PR team makes it more likely that they will ask about it because it could also go to why Baldoni hired that particular team. I think Lively's team will try to establish that Baldoni specifically worked with *this* PR team because they had so successfully destroyed Amber Heard. Whether that's a valid argument, I really don't know. How many PR teams like this are there in Hollywood? How weird is it that Baldoni used the same people? I truly don't know the answer to that question.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:DP. So, wait, the Baldoni supporters don’t think any discovery will be allowed on whether Jed Wallace has astroturfed in the past, besides on Lively’s case? No dep questions because “it isn’t relevant at all for these claims”? I’m not sure they’ll get a bunch of RFPs about it like the other PP was suggesting but I think saying it isn’t relevant at all is wishful thinking. Another DP above explained more carefully how and why Wallace’s astroturfing info from other cases could come in.

+1, the work Wallace had done for Nathan and Abel in the past would be directly relevant to what they hired Wallace to do on Baldoni's behalf. I don't think they would be allowed a "fishing expedition" to inquire about any work Wallace had ever done for anyone else, but I do think they would be allowed to ask what the working relationship between Nathan/Abel and Wallace had been in the past, and especially whether this was provided to Baldoni to induce him to hire them or to subcontract Wallace.

I'm not saying they'll find anything, and the answer on all sides might be "we've never hired Wallace to astroturf against someone and didn't in this case" in which case it's all moot. But the idea that Lively's lawyers won't even be allowed to inquire about the sort of work Wallace has done for this particular PR/crisis team is silly. It's not even really a stretch to say it's relevant.

You are incredibly naive if you think a judge is going to order discovery on other clients.

I didn't say order discovery. I said ask. I think lawyers will be allowed to ask Nathan, Abel, and Wallace about work he'd done for them in the past. I think it would be considered relevant to whether Nathan and Abel expected Wallace to astroturf against Lively, and (if Wallace did indeed do that) whether they could be expected to have known. I agree a judge is not going to compel discovery from Wallace on all his other clients.

A lot of this comes down to whether or not Wallace actually did any astorturfing/seeding against Lively. I honestly don't know! It sounds likely he's done that kind of work in the past (in fact very likely he did it against Amber Heard for Johnny Depp and this same PR team) but it's also entirely possible that he didn't do it against Lively because her own boneheaded PR moves made it unnecessary.

I am thrown by the text message between Nathan and Abel in which they specifically credit Wallace's team for online sentiment. But it's possible they were referring to work Wallace had done to seed stories that focused on Baldoni in a good light. I don't know.

I would assume any deposition of Wallace, Nathan, and Abel would get into this because it's pretty central to the retaliation claims.

I'm not saying all this because I think Lively has a great case or I think Baldoni is a predator -- I don't. But from a legal perspective, it's perfectly relevant whether Nathan/Abel had contracted with Wallace in the past to do the kind of astroturfing he is alleged to have done here. The proximity in time of the Depp/Heard case and the fact that it was the same PR team makes it more likely that they will ask about it because it could also go to why Baldoni hired that particular team. I think Lively's team will try to establish that Baldoni specifically worked with *this* PR team because they had so successfully destroyed Amber Heard. Whether that's a valid argument, I really don't know. How many PR teams like this are there in Hollywood? How weird is it that Baldoni used the same people? I truly don't know the answer to that question.

You can ask just about anything in an individual deposition. And you know what he’s going to say in response, right?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:DP. So, wait, the Baldoni supporters don’t think any discovery will be allowed on whether Jed Wallace has astroturfed in the past, besides on Lively’s case? No dep questions because “it isn’t relevant at all for these claims”? I’m not sure they’ll get a bunch of RFPs about it like the other PP was suggesting but I think saying it isn’t relevant at all is wishful thinking. Another DP above explained more carefully how and why Wallace’s astroturfing info from other cases could come in.

It’s pretty basic in the law of evidence that you don’t get to introduce evidence of a party’s past acts or “character” unless it has been put into play by the party himself or some other narrow exceptions.

I don’t think Lively is going to get this discovery. But admissibility is not the standard for discovery. Discovery is broader.

lol no not that broad. You don’t get to do discovery for inadmissible evidence.

You actually can get discovery that is questionable on admissibility. Judges are not making determinations on admissibility during fact discovery/motions to compel.

I don’t think Lively is getting the PP’s fishing expedition, but the judges is looking at relevance, burden, etc not admissibility.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:DP. So, wait, the Baldoni supporters don’t think any discovery will be allowed on whether Jed Wallace has astroturfed in the past, besides on Lively’s case? No dep questions because “it isn’t relevant at all for these claims”? I’m not sure they’ll get a bunch of RFPs about it like the other PP was suggesting but I think saying it isn’t relevant at all is wishful thinking. Another DP above explained more carefully how and why Wallace’s astroturfing info from other cases could come in.

+1, the work Wallace had done for Nathan and Abel in the past would be directly relevant to what they hired Wallace to do on Baldoni's behalf. I don't think they would be allowed a "fishing expedition" to inquire about any work Wallace had ever done for anyone else, but I do think they would be allowed to ask what the working relationship between Nathan/Abel and Wallace had been in the past, and especially whether this was provided to Baldoni to induce him to hire them or to subcontract Wallace.

I'm not saying they'll find anything, and the answer on all sides might be "we've never hired Wallace to astroturf against someone and didn't in this case" in which case it's all moot. But the idea that Lively's lawyers won't even be allowed to inquire about the sort of work Wallace has done for this particular PR/crisis team is silly. It's not even really a stretch to say it's relevant.

You are incredibly naive if you think a judge is going to order discovery on other clients.

I didn't say order discovery. I said ask. I think lawyers will be allowed to ask Nathan, Abel, and Wallace about work he'd done for them in the past. I think it would be considered relevant to whether Nathan and Abel expected Wallace to astroturf against Lively, and (if Wallace did indeed do that) whether they could be expected to have known. I agree a judge is not going to compel discovery from Wallace on all his other clients.

A lot of this comes down to whether or not Wallace actually did any astorturfing/seeding against Lively. I honestly don't know! It sounds likely he's done that kind of work in the past (in fact very likely he did it against Amber Heard for Johnny Depp and this same PR team) but it's also entirely possible that he didn't do it against Lively because her own boneheaded PR moves made it unnecessary.

I am thrown by the text message between Nathan and Abel in which they specifically credit Wallace's team for online sentiment. But it's possible they were referring to work Wallace had done to seed stories that focused on Baldoni in a good light. I don't know.

I would assume any deposition of Wallace, Nathan, and Abel would get into this because it's pretty central to the retaliation claims.

I'm not saying all this because I think Lively has a great case or I think Baldoni is a predator -- I don't. But from a legal perspective, it's perfectly relevant whether Nathan/Abel had contracted with Wallace in the past to do the kind of astroturfing he is alleged to have done here. The proximity in time of the Depp/Heard case and the fact that it was the same PR team makes it more likely that they will ask about it because it could also go to why Baldoni hired that particular team. I think Lively's team will try to establish that Baldoni specifically worked with *this* PR team because they had so successfully destroyed Amber Heard. Whether that's a valid argument, I really don't know. How many PR teams like this are there in Hollywood? How weird is it that Baldoni used the same people? I truly don't know the answer to that question.

You can ask just about anything in an individual deposition. And you know what he’s going to say in response, right?

And no one going to take these high profile depositions to get information for the case. They are taking depositions to lock down admissions for trial.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:DP. So, wait, the Baldoni supporters don’t think any discovery will be allowed on whether Jed Wallace has astroturfed in the past, besides on Lively’s case? No dep questions because “it isn’t relevant at all for these claims”? I’m not sure they’ll get a bunch of RFPs about it like the other PP was suggesting but I think saying it isn’t relevant at all is wishful thinking. Another DP above explained more carefully how and why Wallace’s astroturfing info from other cases could come in.

+1, the work Wallace had done for Nathan and Abel in the past would be directly relevant to what they hired Wallace to do on Baldoni's behalf. I don't think they would be allowed a "fishing expedition" to inquire about any work Wallace had ever done for anyone else, but I do think they would be allowed to ask what the working relationship between Nathan/Abel and Wallace had been in the past, and especially whether this was provided to Baldoni to induce him to hire them or to subcontract Wallace.

I'm not saying they'll find anything, and the answer on all sides might be "we've never hired Wallace to astroturf against someone and didn't in this case" in which case it's all moot. But the idea that Lively's lawyers won't even be allowed to inquire about the sort of work Wallace has done for this particular PR/crisis team is silly. It's not even really a stretch to say it's relevant.

You are incredibly naive if you think a judge is going to order discovery on other clients.

I didn't say order discovery. I said ask. I think lawyers will be allowed to ask Nathan, Abel, and Wallace about work he'd done for them in the past. I think it would be considered relevant to whether Nathan and Abel expected Wallace to astroturf against Lively, and (if Wallace did indeed do that) whether they could be expected to have known. I agree a judge is not going to compel discovery from Wallace on all his other clients.

A lot of this comes down to whether or not Wallace actually did any astorturfing/seeding against Lively. I honestly don't know! It sounds likely he's done that kind of work in the past (in fact very likely he did it against Amber Heard for Johnny Depp and this same PR team) but it's also entirely possible that he didn't do it against Lively because her own boneheaded PR moves made it unnecessary.

I am thrown by the text message between Nathan and Abel in which they specifically credit Wallace's team for online sentiment. But it's possible they were referring to work Wallace had done to seed stories that focused on Baldoni in a good light. I don't know.

I would assume any deposition of Wallace, Nathan, and Abel would get into this because it's pretty central to the retaliation claims.

I'm not saying all this because I think Lively has a great case or I think Baldoni is a predator -- I don't. But from a legal perspective, it's perfectly relevant whether Nathan/Abel had contracted with Wallace in the past to do the kind of astroturfing he is alleged to have done here. The proximity in time of the Depp/Heard case and the fact that it was the same PR team makes it more likely that they will ask about it because it could also go to why Baldoni hired that particular team. I think Lively's team will try to establish that Baldoni specifically worked with *this* PR team because they had so successfully destroyed Amber Heard. Whether that's a valid argument, I really don't know. How many PR teams like this are there in Hollywood? How weird is it that Baldoni used the same people? I truly don't know the answer to that question.

You can ask just about anything in an individual deposition. And you know what he’s going to say in response, right?

If he flatly denies that he's ever astroturfed in the past, I think that actually increases the odds of getting some actual discovery on his prior work. Because there is quite a bit of evidence that he has done that work, and again, quite a bit of work that he specifically did it for Nathan/Abel on Amber Heard. There are also PR professionals and reporters who have openly talked in the media about how Wallace is known for doing this kind of work. If he just claims he doesn't do that kind of work and Lively's team can provide evidence that yes, he does, the judge is actually more likely to grant a "fishing expedition" because they'll have evidence he perjured himself.

Again, I say this as someone who doesn't think Lively's SH case is strong at all and thinks Baldoni has been mistreated in all of this. The Wallace situation is a major issue for Baldoni and his PR team because Lively's retaliation claims are stronger than her SH claims and his defense hinges on this idea that they never actually smeared Lively online. Wallace is a fly in that ointment, and he's a really unsavory character, which makes it worse for them. The more Lively is allowed to dig around in this aspect of the case, the worse it is for Baldoni. So I hope for his sake that Baldoni had no idea of Wallace's prior work and also that Wallace didn't actually astroturf against Lively. If Baldoni did know and if Wallace did astroturf, this all gets much harder for Baldoni and makes a beneficial settlement much less likely.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:DP. So, wait, the Baldoni supporters don’t think any discovery will be allowed on whether Jed Wallace has astroturfed in the past, besides on Lively’s case? No dep questions because “it isn’t relevant at all for these claims”? I’m not sure they’ll get a bunch of RFPs about it like the other PP was suggesting but I think saying it isn’t relevant at all is wishful thinking. Another DP above explained more carefully how and why Wallace’s astroturfing info from other cases could come in.

+1, the work Wallace had done for Nathan and Abel in the past would be directly relevant to what they hired Wallace to do on Baldoni's behalf. I don't think they would be allowed a "fishing expedition" to inquire about any work Wallace had ever done for anyone else, but I do think they would be allowed to ask what the working relationship between Nathan/Abel and Wallace had been in the past, and especially whether this was provided to Baldoni to induce him to hire them or to subcontract Wallace.

I'm not saying they'll find anything, and the answer on all sides might be "we've never hired Wallace to astroturf against someone and didn't in this case" in which case it's all moot. But the idea that Lively's lawyers won't even be allowed to inquire about the sort of work Wallace has done for this particular PR/crisis team is silly. It's not even really a stretch to say it's relevant.

You are incredibly naive if you think a judge is going to order discovery on other clients.

I didn't say order discovery. I said ask. I think lawyers will be allowed to ask Nathan, Abel, and Wallace about work he'd done for them in the past. I think it would be considered relevant to whether Nathan and Abel expected Wallace to astroturf against Lively, and (if Wallace did indeed do that) whether they could be expected to have known. I agree a judge is not going to compel discovery from Wallace on all his other clients.

A lot of this comes down to whether or not Wallace actually did any astorturfing/seeding against Lively. I honestly don't know! It sounds likely he's done that kind of work in the past (in fact very likely he did it against Amber Heard for Johnny Depp and this same PR team) but it's also entirely possible that he didn't do it against Lively because her own boneheaded PR moves made it unnecessary.

I am thrown by the text message between Nathan and Abel in which they specifically credit Wallace's team for online sentiment. But it's possible they were referring to work Wallace had done to seed stories that focused on Baldoni in a good light. I don't know.

I would assume any deposition of Wallace, Nathan, and Abel would get into this because it's pretty central to the retaliation claims.

I'm not saying all this because I think Lively has a great case or I think Baldoni is a predator -- I don't. But from a legal perspective, it's perfectly relevant whether Nathan/Abel had contracted with Wallace in the past to do the kind of astroturfing he is alleged to have done here. The proximity in time of the Depp/Heard case and the fact that it was the same PR team makes it more likely that they will ask about it because it could also go to why Baldoni hired that particular team. I think Lively's team will try to establish that Baldoni specifically worked with *this* PR team because they had so successfully destroyed Amber Heard. Whether that's a valid argument, I really don't know. How many PR teams like this are there in Hollywood? How weird is it that Baldoni used the same people? I truly don't know the answer to that question.

You can ask just about anything in an individual deposition. And you know what he’s going to say in response, right?

And no one going to take these high profile depositions to get information for the case. They are taking depositions to lock down admissions for trial.

Actually deposing someone like Wallace would be largely about obtaining evidence, especially at this stage.

The odds of this thing going to trial are slim.

Both sides are going to use discovery to strengthen their bargaining position with regards to settlement.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Did not see it discussed here but the New York Times said Baldoni’s assertion that NYT had Lively’s complaint in advance, based on “internet sleuth” metadata, was inaccurate. NYT noted that the metadata was automatically generated and not something that accurately represented the date they received the complaint. So NYT is doubling down on not having received the complaint weeks in advance, which seems like something the NYT attorneys would require them to have hammered down tight first — suggesting that this assertion that made big waves for Baldoni last week is a nothingburger.

I agree that they say all that but if you read closely they conclude with saying they did not POST the complaint in advance. They are vague on when they got it, although they say the metadata is not the right date.

I can understand why you might want to see it that way, but I don’t read that as an accurate interpretation of the NYT’s statement at all. The NYT says that it received and posted the complaint after it was filed and calls Baldoni’s assertion that the NYT received the complaint in advance of filing is a “bogus claim.”

From the NYT spokesperson: "The Baldoni/Wayfarer legal filings are rife with inaccuracies about The New York Times, including, for example, the bogus claim that The Times had early access to Ms. Lively's state civil rights complaint. . . . The [internet] sleuths [Baldoni relies on] have noted that a version of the Lively state complaint published by The Times carries the date 'December 10' even though the complaint wasn't filed until more than a week later," the spokesperson continued. "The problem: that date is generated by Google software and is unrelated to the date when The Times received it and posted it. A look at the metadata from the posted document correctly shows it was posted after Ms. Lively filed it with the California Civil Rights Department."

https://www.justjared.com/2025/02/01/the-new-york-times-fires-back-at-justin-baldoni-bogus-claim-they-had-early-access-to-blake-livelys-complaint/

I personally just don’t think the NYT would lie about this when it has so much at stake, or that the NYT lawyers would allow them to release an inaccurate statement on it, but ymmv. So, to me, lots of flash from Baldoni on something that is likely to turn out to be a total nothingburger.

Np and lawyer. I don’t think they lied in their statement, but I think it was carefully worded to be slightly misleading. They clearly worked with Blake well before she filed her complaint and this issue goes straight to the heart of their best defamation defense- Fair report.

I also think that their first PR statement- how they ‘meticulously reported’ this story or something like that will bite them in the ass. How do you ‘meticulously’ report a story and not speak to the other side???

PP you are responding to and also a lawyer, and we are going to have to agree to disagree on this NYT statement I excerpted above. Baldoni asserted with great fanfare that NYT had Lively’s complaint weeks in advance — based on metadata — and NYT has come out to say the metadata is automatically generated and Baldoni is incorrect. I believe NYT here when it says they didn’t have the complaint. I don’t think they’re being slightly misleading in saying they didn’t have it. That detail got Baldoni a ton of press last week and he appears to have been completely wrong about it (because I don’t think NYT would double down on this if they actually had it first). Also lots of chatter in this thread about how that salacious earlier assertion spelled doom for Lively. Huh. But apparently, Baldoni got it wrong.

Baldoni is certainly a public figure and if you think he has a strong defamation case against the NYT here under the “Fair Report” part of the test, we are going to have to agree to disagree again here.

The arrogance of some lawyers on here astounds me. You’re a lawyer but clearly not a publishing lawyer, and you are coming out with a position when you don’t even know defamation basics, while I do and know about vetting. You are confusing fair report as Baldonis claim when it is the exact opposite.

NYT piece was worded to say they didn’t have the complaint. Which might be true. But it ultimately doesn’t protect them bc it’s likely going to come out that they’d been working with Blake all along, which goes to the heart of their defamation defense that they just happened to be reporting on a legal filing and matter of public interest- eg, a fair report.

DP lol at you throwing shade about “publishing lawyers.” Plenty of us here have enough background in defamation and 1A to know that the case against the NYT is very, very weak. This is not actually a super complex area of the law. And not that the top legal minds are rushing to the newspapers to comment on this, but I have not seen any article quoting a lawyer arguing that he has a strong claim - only the opposite.

https://www.businessinsider.com/can-justin-baldoni-win-lawsuit-new-york-times-lawyer-analysis-2025-1

Pp Omg you again with your 1A nonsense. You don’t know this area of the law, so please stop. Now you’ll start going on about actual malice. The other piece of defamation law you sort of remember from your media law 101 training.

And I’ll repeat what i told you earlier after you were going on about actual malice, this entire thread started bc of a podcast with 2 lawyers who said NYT had risk. You likely aren’t seeing knowledgable people speaking out bc no one likes to openly bet against the beloved NYT (which btw, every defense side firm lawyer hopes to work for bc the work is great and they pay their bills) but the chatter is that yes, this story was off and baldoni is coming out strong.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:DP. So, wait, the Baldoni supporters don’t think any discovery will be allowed on whether Jed Wallace has astroturfed in the past, besides on Lively’s case? No dep questions because “it isn’t relevant at all for these claims”? I’m not sure they’ll get a bunch of RFPs about it like the other PP was suggesting but I think saying it isn’t relevant at all is wishful thinking. Another DP above explained more carefully how and why Wallace’s astroturfing info from other cases could come in.

+1, the work Wallace had done for Nathan and Abel in the past would be directly relevant to what they hired Wallace to do on Baldoni's behalf. I don't think they would be allowed a "fishing expedition" to inquire about any work Wallace had ever done for anyone else, but I do think they would be allowed to ask what the working relationship between Nathan/Abel and Wallace had been in the past, and especially whether this was provided to Baldoni to induce him to hire them or to subcontract Wallace.

I'm not saying they'll find anything, and the answer on all sides might be "we've never hired Wallace to astroturf against someone and didn't in this case" in which case it's all moot. But the idea that Lively's lawyers won't even be allowed to inquire about the sort of work Wallace has done for this particular PR/crisis team is silly. It's not even really a stretch to say it's relevant.

You are incredibly naive if you think a judge is going to order discovery on other clients.

I didn't say order discovery. I said ask. I think lawyers will be allowed to ask Nathan, Abel, and Wallace about work he'd done for them in the past. I think it would be considered relevant to whether Nathan and Abel expected Wallace to astroturf against Lively, and (if Wallace did indeed do that) whether they could be expected to have known. I agree a judge is not going to compel discovery from Wallace on all his other clients.

A lot of this comes down to whether or not Wallace actually did any astorturfing/seeding against Lively. I honestly don't know! It sounds likely he's done that kind of work in the past (in fact very likely he did it against Amber Heard for Johnny Depp and this same PR team) but it's also entirely possible that he didn't do it against Lively because her own boneheaded PR moves made it unnecessary.

I am thrown by the text message between Nathan and Abel in which they specifically credit Wallace's team for online sentiment. But it's possible they were referring to work Wallace had done to seed stories that focused on Baldoni in a good light. I don't know.

I would assume any deposition of Wallace, Nathan, and Abel would get into this because it's pretty central to the retaliation claims.

I'm not saying all this because I think Lively has a great case or I think Baldoni is a predator -- I don't. But from a legal perspective, it's perfectly relevant whether Nathan/Abel had contracted with Wallace in the past to do the kind of astroturfing he is alleged to have done here. The proximity in time of the Depp/Heard case and the fact that it was the same PR team makes it more likely that they will ask about it because it could also go to why Baldoni hired that particular team. I think Lively's team will try to establish that Baldoni specifically worked with *this* PR team because they had so successfully destroyed Amber Heard. Whether that's a valid argument, I really don't know. How many PR teams like this are there in Hollywood? How weird is it that Baldoni used the same people? I truly don't know the answer to that question.

You can ask just about anything in an individual deposition. And you know what he’s going to say in response, right?

If he flatly denies that he's ever astroturfed in the past, I think that actually increases the odds of getting some actual discovery on his prior work. Because there is quite a bit of evidence that he has done that work, and again, quite a bit of work that he specifically did it for Nathan/Abel on Amber Heard. There are also PR professionals and reporters who have openly talked in the media about how Wallace is known for doing this kind of work. If he just claims he doesn't do that kind of work and Lively's team can provide evidence that yes, he does, the judge is actually more likely to grant a "fishing expedition" because they'll have evidence he perjured himself.

Again, I say this as someone who doesn't think Lively's SH case is strong at all and thinks Baldoni has been mistreated in all of this. The Wallace situation is a major issue for Baldoni and his PR team because Lively's retaliation claims are stronger than her SH claims and his defense hinges on this idea that they never actually smeared Lively online. Wallace is a fly in that ointment, and he's a really unsavory character, which makes it worse for them. The more Lively is allowed to dig around in this aspect of the case, the worse it is for Baldoni. So I hope for his sake that Baldoni had no idea of Wallace's prior work and also that Wallace didn't actually astroturf against Lively. If Baldoni did know and if Wallace did astroturf, this all gets much harder for Baldoni and makes a beneficial settlement much less likely.

“Astrotuf, I don’t use that term.” “I have so many clients I can’t remember the details of each.” “Sitting here today, I can’t recall.” “I’m drawing blank.” “I’m not sure I understand your question, can you say it again.”

Flatly denying is not going to increase changes for more discovery. What a strange idea. Plus if they caught him a lie, lawyers would save for the a real moment, not discovery motions.

Being a lawyer is nothing like it is on TV.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Did not see it discussed here but the New York Times said Baldoni’s assertion that NYT had Lively’s complaint in advance, based on “internet sleuth” metadata, was inaccurate. NYT noted that the metadata was automatically generated and not something that accurately represented the date they received the complaint. So NYT is doubling down on not having received the complaint weeks in advance, which seems like something the NYT attorneys would require them to have hammered down tight first — suggesting that this assertion that made big waves for Baldoni last week is a nothingburger.

I agree that they say all that but if you read closely they conclude with saying they did not POST the complaint in advance. They are vague on when they got it, although they say the metadata is not the right date.

I can understand why you might want to see it that way, but I don’t read that as an accurate interpretation of the NYT’s statement at all. The NYT says that it received and posted the complaint after it was filed and calls Baldoni’s assertion that the NYT received the complaint in advance of filing is a “bogus claim.”

From the NYT spokesperson: "The Baldoni/Wayfarer legal filings are rife with inaccuracies about The New York Times, including, for example, the bogus claim that The Times had early access to Ms. Lively's state civil rights complaint. . . . The [internet] sleuths [Baldoni relies on] have noted that a version of the Lively state complaint published by The Times carries the date 'December 10' even though the complaint wasn't filed until more than a week later," the spokesperson continued. "The problem: that date is generated by Google software and is unrelated to the date when The Times received it and posted it. A look at the metadata from the posted document correctly shows it was posted after Ms. Lively filed it with the California Civil Rights Department."

https://www.justjared.com/2025/02/01/the-new-york-times-fires-back-at-justin-baldoni-bogus-claim-they-had-early-access-to-blake-livelys-complaint/

I personally just don’t think the NYT would lie about this when it has so much at stake, or that the NYT lawyers would allow them to release an inaccurate statement on it, but ymmv. So, to me, lots of flash from Baldoni on something that is likely to turn out to be a total nothingburger.

Np and lawyer. I don’t think they lied in their statement, but I think it was carefully worded to be slightly misleading. They clearly worked with Blake well before she filed her complaint and this issue goes straight to the heart of their best defamation defense- Fair report.

I also think that their first PR statement- how they ‘meticulously reported’ this story or something like that will bite them in the ass. How do you ‘meticulously’ report a story and not speak to the other side???

PP you are responding to and also a lawyer, and we are going to have to agree to disagree on this NYT statement I excerpted above. Baldoni asserted with great fanfare that NYT had Lively’s complaint weeks in advance — based on metadata — and NYT has come out to say the metadata is automatically generated and Baldoni is incorrect. I believe NYT here when it says they didn’t have the complaint. I don’t think they’re being slightly misleading in saying they didn’t have it. That detail got Baldoni a ton of press last week and he appears to have been completely wrong about it (because I don’t think NYT would double down on this if they actually had it first). Also lots of chatter in this thread about how that salacious earlier assertion spelled doom for Lively. Huh. But apparently, Baldoni got it wrong.

Baldoni is certainly a public figure and if you think he has a strong defamation case against the NYT here under the “Fair Report” part of the test, we are going to have to agree to disagree again here.

The arrogance of some lawyers on here astounds me. You’re a lawyer but clearly not a publishing lawyer, and you are coming out with a position when you don’t even know defamation basics, while I do and know about vetting. You are confusing fair report as Baldonis claim when it is the exact opposite.

NYT piece was worded to say they didn’t have the complaint. Which might be true. But it ultimately doesn’t protect them bc it’s likely going to come out that they’d been working with Blake all along, which goes to the heart of their defamation defense that they just happened to be reporting on a legal filing and matter of public interest- eg, a fair report.

DP lol at you throwing shade about “publishing lawyers.” Plenty of us here have enough background in defamation and 1A to know that the case against the NYT is very, very weak. This is not actually a super complex area of the law. And not that the top legal minds are rushing to the newspapers to comment on this, but I have not seen any article quoting a lawyer arguing that he has a strong claim - only the opposite.

https://www.businessinsider.com/can-justin-baldoni-win-lawsuit-new-york-times-lawyer-analysis-2025-1

Pp Omg you again with your 1A nonsense. You don’t know this area of the law, so please stop. Now you’ll start going on about actual malice. The other piece of defamation law you sort of remember from your media law 101 training.

And I’ll repeat what i told you earlier after you were going on about actual malice, this entire thread started bc of a podcast with 2 lawyers who said NYT had risk. You likely aren’t seeing knowledgable people speaking out bc no one likes to openly bet against the beloved NYT (which btw, every defense side firm lawyer hopes to work for bc the work is great and they pay their bills) but the chatter is that yes, this story was off and baldoni is coming out strong.

DP but actually I think a major reason you don't see many outlets giving credence to the case against the NYT here is because right now there is a lot of anxiety in the media and among lawyers who work on these sorts of cases that 1st Amendment protections are being weakened. There is probably some fear of pissing of the NYT as well but I think the bigger issue is that no one wants to see negative precedent set over this stupid, tabloid-y Hollywood squabble, which could serious impact how journalists at any outlet report on genuinely important matters. Especially given what is currently happening in the world.