Blake Lively- Jason Baldoni and NYT - False Light claims
![[Post New]](/jforum/templates/default/images/icon_minipost_new.gif){kind=icon}
Anonymous
Lol I wrote 1A because I know it triggers you, a member of the elite “publishing law” bar (read - did doc review on a libel case one time). |
Anonymous
You aren't allowed to even suggest different theories without them jumping down your neck |
Anonymous
His history of astroturfing is completely relevant. Her defense is that he was hired and help create bots for Justin. Have you guys ever been in a discovery. They aren't always directly relevant to the claims. That's why it's always said discoveries are a killer. |
Anonymous
“Touchy times” doesn’t mean Baldoni is anywhere close to a plausible pleading. The relative silence on this case probably means that the 1A experts are not super interested in this case because it’s one of the many cases filed against the Times. It’s nowhere near the interest as the Palin case (or Dominion case) because it is weak. |
Anonymous
fishing expedition. What do his past clients have to do with Baldoni? Nothing admissible there. They can ask what he did for Baldoni, the terms of engagement with Baldoni, etc. |
Anonymous
The past tactics he uses would not be a fishing expedition. The way some users are saying it has zero relevance is actually incredibly suspicious. |
Anonymous
Not disagreeing with your overarching point, but I feel like lawyers are more likely to follow political cases more closely more than celebrity-related ones, or at least celebrity ones featuring two actors who are actually not that big. |
Anonymous
You don't think his past tactics are going to come up?? Seriously? Its not a fishing expedition in the slightest. Discoveries are extremely extensive for a reason. They don't and aren't going to focus on just Baldoni. That goes for Baldoni discoveries against Blake as well. Thinking otherwise is naive. |
Anonymous
| I started feeling awful for Blake Lively yesteray, but then I remember she started it by encouraging the cast to unfollow Justin so she could feed speculation on social media. She was playing with fire here. |
Anonymous
yes it would be. The 2nd Circuit is pretty clear on this. “Au fond, a fishing expedition is indeed permissible and legitimate when the information sought pertains to the subject matter of the case and seems reasonably calculated that discovery would lead to permissible evidence as to claims or defenses. Oppenheimer Fund, Inc. v. Sanders, 437 U.S. 340, 351 (1978). Although this requirement “has been construed broadly,” the information sought must be relevant to an actual claim or defense. Id. at 351-54 (denying discovery of the list of potential plaintiffs in a class action suit because the evidence was not reasonably calculated to be admissible to support any raised claim or defense).” https://casetext.com/case/walsh-v-top-notch-home-designs-corp they can ask Wallace what he did with respect to *Lively* in the engagement he had with Baldoni’s PR firm. Asking him all about his other clients is irrelevant and an obvious fishing expedition to get damaging/embarassing but inadmissible evidence. |
Anonymous
+1 though I don't think it's suspicious so much as reflects this weird approach to this case where whoever you believe dictates your opinion even on legal procedural matters. It's really reductive and I don't get it because these are just discussions of legal strategy and viability of certain motions or approaches. It's just boring. If your take is "I agree with X party and therefore everything their legal team does is genius and correct and sure to be successful, and everything the other side's legal team does is stupid and misguided and has no legal foundation," then there is no reason in a discussion at all. I'm a lawyer and like talking about the legal stuff. I don't really consider myself team anyone. |
Anonymous
The other poster was likely you, but in any case, fishing expeditions are not allowed on discovery. |
Anonymous
“Discoveries are clearly extensive for a reason.” Yes, you are clearly an expert on discoveries. The rest of us are actual litigators. |
Anonymous
| The posters who think discovery has no reasonable limits are the same folks pushing Blake’s request for a gag order a few weeks ago and who also think she is going to add Freedman as a party. None of these things happened or are going to happen in the real world |
Anonymous
The argument for seeking discovery on other clients is to show that Nathan and Abel (and potentially Baldoni) *knew* that Wallace does the kind of astroturfing Lively is accusing him of doing here. The theory of the case, which Lively's lawyers could lay out in a motion to compel, would be that Nathan and Abel famously worked for Johnny Depp during his trial against Amber Heard, where there is extensive evidence of astroturfing. Baldoni must have been aware of this work when he hired them because it is the single most high profile celebrity conflict of the last few years. If Wallace provided astroturfing services to Nathan and Abel in the Depp case, and if Baldoni was aware they had done so and hired them in part because they had this capability via Wallace, this would be directly relevant to the issue of whether Baldoni was hiring this team for his own beneficial PR or to smear Lively online. I'm not saying this is what happened -- I have no idea. I'm saying that this is a sound argument for a judge to grant Lively's lawyers some leeway during discovery to find evidence that would prove the above theory. That's the entire point of discovery -- to get the evidence so the parties know whether they have a case at all, or what arguments they can or want to make at trial. I especially think that if the motions to compel are very carefully written to request discovery related only to Wallace's prior work for Nathan and Abel clients (especially communications between Wallace and Nathan/Abel about the nature of his work) and limited perhaps to a relatively narrow time period or even limited only to the Depp/Heard case as that is what Baldoni and his team were most likely to be aware prior to engaging the team, the judge would be willing to grant it. |