Blake Lively- Jason Baldoni and NYT - False Light claims

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Freedman filed a motion against Blake’s subpoenas. Apparently her attorneys are seeking complete phone and text records for a three year period for,each defendant. So neither restricted in time to when they were filming/editing/promoting the movie or restricted in subject matter, or in recipients. They are literally seeking every text or phone call made by each defendant in the past three years. This is going to be another victory for Freedman. It’s literally the definition of a fishing expedition. As a practical matter, providers are unlikely to have texts from more than the last three to six months.

Is there a source? All the article I am finding are from 1 day ago and say Lively is issuing the subpoenas. Can't find information on Freedman's motion.

It was filed this afternoon, a lawyer who follows the docket read the motion on TikTok. If you had pacer access, you could check, I guess.

Cool, actual insider info! Hopefully will pop up on TMZ soon, then.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Freedman filed a motion against Blake’s subpoenas. Apparently her attorneys are seeking complete phone and text records for a three year period for,each defendant. So neither restricted in time to when they were filming/editing/promoting the movie or restricted in subject matter, or in recipients. They are literally seeking every text or phone call made by each defendant in the past three years. This is going to be another victory for Freedman. It’s literally the definition of a fishing expedition. As a practical matter, providers are unlikely to have texts from more than the last three to six months.

Is there a source? All the article I am finding are from 1 day ago and say Lively is issuing the subpoenas. Can't find information on Freedman's motion.

It was filed this afternoon, a lawyer who follows the docket read the motion on TikTok. If you had pacer access, you could check, I guess.

Cool, actual insider info! Hopefully will pop up on TMZ soon, then.

They asked for emergency relief so might just hear about a decision. Blake’s complaint is due on Tuesday so they’ll probably be watching the docket closely Tuesday afternoon.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Freedman filed a motion against Blake’s subpoenas. Apparently her attorneys are seeking complete phone and text records for a three year period for,each defendant. So neither restricted in time to when they were filming/editing/promoting the movie or restricted in subject matter, or in recipients. They are literally seeking every text or phone call made by each defendant in the past three years. This is going to be another victory for Freedman. It’s literally the definition of a fishing expedition. As a practical matter, providers are unlikely to have texts from more than the last three to six months.

Is there a source? All the article I am finding are from 1 day ago and say Lively is issuing the subpoenas. Can't find information on Freedman's motion.

It was filed this afternoon, a lawyer who follows the docket read the motion on TikTok. If you had pacer access, you could check, I guess.

Here’s the doc:

https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.nysd.634304/gov.uscourts.nysd.634304.75.0_1.pdf

[Anonymous]

This Reddit post contains links to the actual subpoenas and the information the Lively parties requested. https://www.reddit.com/r/JustinBaldoni/comments/1ipqokn/i_found_the_exact_subpoenas_issued_to_all_the/?rdt=63717

And here’s Baldoni’s response: https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.nysd.634304/gov.uscourts.nysd.634304.75.0_1.pdf

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I don’t know. There’s so much vitriol against her (which I admit I’m not following closely), that I kind of feel bad for her, at this point. It’s a bit OTT - people are delighting in her downfall. It’s hard to know if those first-hand accounts are true.

Accusing someone of SH is serious business. If she bent the truth, people have a right to be upset. Most of us read the allegations and were on her side. After seeing Baldoni’s receipts almost the majority of us flipped and are now Team Justin. We all feel manipulated by her. If she had something, some tangible evidence, I think she would have revealed it by now.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:This Reddit post contains links to the actual subpoenas and the information the Lively parties requested. https://www.reddit.com/r/JustinBaldoni/comments/1ipqokn/i_found_the_exact_subpoenas_issued_to_all_the/?rdt=63717

And here’s Baldoni’s response: https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.nysd.634304/gov.uscourts.nysd.634304.75.0_1.pdf

That's insane and sickening (and I'm the one who defended her saying it wasn't a fishing expedition with Jed Wallace, obviously before this information came out). They even want encryption keys and passwords.

They're asking for everything back to 2022 from these people (I looked them up but a few I could not figure out if any of you sleuths can help)
Justin Baldoni
Jamey Heath
Melissa Nathan
Milica Toskovic (Wayfarer VP)
Jed Wallace
Katie Case (?)
Breanna Butler Koslow (Executive Vice President at The Agency Group)
Matthew Mitchell (?)
Henry Hargitai (Senior Social Media Manager @ JONESWORKS)
Tera Hanks (President of Wayfarer)
Steve Sarowitz (Co-founder of Wayfarer)
Matthew Gibson (?)
Jarriesse Blackmon (Executive Assistant, Wayfarer)

[Anonymous]

I'm a lawyer but not a litigator, so question for the litigators:

When I saw the original subpoena, I figured it was intentionally broad with the assumption that the producing party would be able to withhold or redact anything privileged or not relevant, at their discretion (at least for the first pass). Is that not how it works? Apologies if this is a dumb question.

I ask because way back at the beginning of my career, I did doc review for a couple discovery projects at my firm, and that's what we did -- we had contractors come in and review pages and pages of docs using special software and flag things as relevant and not relevant, and then we'd do a second pass ourselves to catch anything borderline, and then then someone else would review to remove anything privileged. I assumed this was how most large discovery requests worked but, again, that is my only experience with discovery and I was a super green associate just making hours on loan to another group so not my area of expertise.

[Anonymous]

Is it normal to subpeona the wireless carrier and not the parties? How would Verizon know what's relevant or privileged? How would they know if Baldoni is texting strategy with his lawyer rather than agent for example? This seems bonkers.

[Anonymous]

Here's a day different take on the subpoenas: https://www.threads.net/@morewithmj/post/DGFYqa3A2DG?xmt=AQGzTGKfDSw_D8lnAhUVliWgi-bpmRUqRUWF-Qam64phvg

She's saying Lively's attorneys are only requesting logs from the third-party carriers, not messages themselves (which the carriers likely don't even have, especially going back two years). The subpoenas don't specify message content.

The argument is that call and text logs could help Lively's attorneys figure out what they need to request from Baldoni and his team, and could help clarify timelines. It would "tighten" the timeline because it would be reliable evidence of when people were in contact. So for instance if Lively registered a complaint with Wayfarer via one person, they could look to see if that person communicated with Baldoni or Heath shortly thereafter. It could also help them with depositions.

[Anonymous]

I really wonder what’s going on over there. I thought Lively’s attorneys were supposed to be the “high road” attorneys. But now they seem unethical.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Here's a day different take on the subpoenas: https://www.threads.net/@morewithmj/post/DGFYqa3A2DG?xmt=AQGzTGKfDSw_D8lnAhUVliWgi-bpmRUqRUWF-Qam64phvg

She's saying Lively's attorneys are only requesting logs from the third-party carriers, not messages themselves (which the carriers likely don't even have, especially going back two years). The subpoenas don't specify message content.

The argument is that call and text logs could help Lively's attorneys figure out what they need to request from Baldoni and his team, and could help clarify timelines. It would "tighten" the timeline because it would be reliable evidence of when people were in contact. So for instance if Lively registered a complaint with Wayfarer via one person, they could look to see if that person communicated with Baldoni or Heath shortly thereafter. It could also help them with depositions.

I guess I’m just confused as to why they are going back so far. Do they think there’s some vast conspiracy by Justin need to go after Blake lively even before she sign onto the movie? I just don’t get it.

I can’t think of any reason other than they can just continue to bill and make money and or they ate completely desperate for anything they can find.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Here's a day different take on the subpoenas: https://www.threads.net/@morewithmj/post/DGFYqa3A2DG?xmt=AQGzTGKfDSw_D8lnAhUVliWgi-bpmRUqRUWF-Qam64phvg

She's saying Lively's attorneys are only requesting logs from the third-party carriers, not messages themselves (which the carriers likely don't even have, especially going back two years). The subpoenas don't specify message content.

The argument is that call and text logs could help Lively's attorneys figure out what they need to request from Baldoni and his team, and could help clarify timelines. It would "tighten" the timeline because it would be reliable evidence of when people were in contact. So for instance if Lively registered a complaint with Wayfarer via one person, they could look to see if that person communicated with Baldoni or Heath shortly thereafter. It could also help them with depositions.

I’m not an attorney but it makes no sense to me. If the claim is retaliation starting in August, you wouldn’t need anything before that. And there response is really smarmy:

Responding to Baldoni’s objections, a Lively spokesperson said Friday: “If they have so many receipts why are they so afraid to produce them?”

https://variety.com/2025/film/news/justin-baldoni-blake-lively-phone-records-subpoena-browser-data-1236308764/

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I really wonder what’s going on over there. I thought Lively’s attorneys were supposed to be the “high road” attorneys. But now they seem unethical.

Nah this is how this kind of litigation gets done baby! Gloves off. Making an over broad discovery request is not unethical.

I am somewhat persuaded by the point that they are not requesting content but just call logs and locations. But the length of time seems over broad and obviously some may be privileged (ie to your lawyer, which they can’t get in discovery.)

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Here's a day different take on the subpoenas: https://www.threads.net/@morewithmj/post/DGFYqa3A2DG?xmt=AQGzTGKfDSw_D8lnAhUVliWgi-bpmRUqRUWF-Qam64phvg

She's saying Lively's attorneys are only requesting logs from the third-party carriers, not messages themselves (which the carriers likely don't even have, especially going back two years). The subpoenas don't specify message content.

The argument is that call and text logs could help Lively's attorneys figure out what they need to request from Baldoni and his team, and could help clarify timelines. It would "tighten" the timeline because it would be reliable evidence of when people were in contact. So for instance if Lively registered a complaint with Wayfarer via one person, they could look to see if that person communicated with Baldoni or Heath shortly thereafter. It could also help them with depositions.

I’m not an attorney but it makes no sense to me. If the claim is retaliation starting in August, you wouldn’t need anything before that. And there response is really smarmy:

Responding to Baldoni’s objections, a Lively spokesperson said Friday: “If they have so many receipts why are they so afraid to produce them?”

https://variety.com/2025/film/news/justin-baldoni-blake-lively-phone-records-subpoena-browser-data-1236308764/

That response doesn't even make sense. What they should be doing is explaining the basis for their request. They are asking for each person's entire personal location history going back years before the film. How are those receipts?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I really wonder what’s going on over there. I thought Lively’s attorneys were supposed to be the “high road” attorneys. But now they seem unethical.

Nah this is how this kind of litigation gets done baby! Gloves off. Making an over broad discovery request is not unethical.

I am somewhat persuaded by the point that they are not requesting content but just call logs and locations. But the length of time seems over broad and obviously some may be privileged (ie to your lawyer, which they can’t get in discovery.)

It doesn't only have be nonpriveleged but also relevant. Why do they need everyone's location history? A list of every time the were at the grocery store, spa, plastic surgery office, political meetings, therapist, their mom's house, their vacation house, a poker game, a bar, church, strip club, kid's school. Everything. That's not OK and doubt Lively would be happy to turn over her own.