Blake Lively- Jason Baldoni and NYT - False Light claims

[Anonymous]

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.

Can't wait to see her "dragon" Taylor Swift's phone records.

Lmao yes by Team Lively's logic they would need Taylor's full phone records going back years.

In all seriousness, Baldoni reasonably could request Blake and Ryan's communications with Lively from the weeks around that meeting and any incidents relating to use of Taylor's music. That would be the sort of reasonable, limited in time and scope request that one makes in proper discovery, in order to discern whether Lively and Swift were discussing plans to interfere with Baldoni's rights to the film.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

I don't think they are asking for GPS data or anything that would reveal people's personal location at that detail. Maybe cell tower data that would show that the text was written while they were in LA, or maybe even down to the specificity of Malibu. But cell companies won't even have the location data you're talking about.

I do think they opened themselves up to this request by introducing all the texts/emails in their complaint and timeline, some of dubious relevancy to the underlying actions.

Also, regarding the amount of time asked, it seems only slightly overbroad to me. Lively signed on to the movie in either December 2022 or January 2023. They are asking for records going back to September 2022. I don't know when discussions began regarding Lively's involvement in the movie, but I would assume that's what is dictating the parameters of the request. If I were the judge, I might say "no, you need to start with when the problems started," which look like might have been March 2023. Or potentially you might start with the date of Lively's first interactions with Baldoni and Heath (no idea when this might have been). But like the person above who thinks discovery should be limited to August 2024 makes no sense -- even Baldoni's own documents that he has already produced reach back much further than that, to back before filming on the movie began.

I don’t really care to argue about lawyer on lawyer gamesmanship (again, not a lawyer, don’t want to be one). But her claim is that she was sexually harassed for a few weeks at the beginning of production, and then that she was retaliated against via the PR campaign. So she needs to show she was sexually harassed (which would be through her own interactions/texts/video/witnesses) and then what the extent of the retaliation was.

All that text info Baldoni released was from his own phone. She’s free to do the same. Baldoni’s interactions with anyone else have nothing to do with her experiencing sexually harassment for a few weeks while filming this movie. Maybe he was off drowning puppies or telling women they smell good. Still irrelevant. From my own “not a lawyer” perspective.

No, you make a good argument. Unless she’s trying to claim the texts he posted are fabricated, which I don’t think she is. The most relevant area of broader discovery like this would be narrow, focused on the plan for retaliation.

[Anonymous]

Sorry, Blake and Ryan's communications with Swift*

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

I don't think they are asking for GPS data or anything that would reveal people's personal location at that detail. Maybe cell tower data that would show that the text was written while they were in LA, or maybe even down to the specificity of Malibu. But cell companies won't even have the location data you're talking about.

I do think they opened themselves up to this request by introducing all the texts/emails in their complaint and timeline, some of dubious relevancy to the underlying actions.

Also, regarding the amount of time asked, it seems only slightly overbroad to me. Lively signed on to the movie in either December 2022 or January 2023. They are asking for records going back to September 2022. I don't know when discussions began regarding Lively's involvement in the movie, but I would assume that's what is dictating the parameters of the request. If I were the judge, I might say "no, you need to start with when the problems started," which look like might have been March 2023. Or potentially you might start with the date of Lively's first interactions with Baldoni and Heath (no idea when this might have been). But like the person above who thinks discovery should be limited to August 2024 makes no sense -- even Baldoni's own documents that he has already produced reach back much further than that, to back before filming on the movie began.

I don’t really care to argue about lawyer on lawyer gamesmanship (again, not a lawyer, don’t want to be one). But her claim is that she was sexually harassed for a few weeks at the beginning of production, and then that she was retaliated against via the PR campaign. So she needs to show she was sexually harassed (which would be through her own interactions/texts/video/witnesses) and then what the extent of the retaliation was.

All that text info Baldoni released was from his own phone. She’s free to do the same. Baldoni’s interactions with anyone else have nothing to do with her experiencing sexually harassment for a few weeks while filming this movie. Maybe he was off drowning puppies or telling women they smell good. Still irrelevant. From my own “not a lawyer” perspective.

No, you make a good argument. Unless she’s trying to claim the texts he posted are fabricated, which I don’t think she is. The most relevant area of broader discovery like this would be narrow, focused on the plan for retaliation.

(I mean, I think they could ask for broad data within a narrow time frame and narrow number of people - eg between the PR agent, Baldoni and Jed Wallace for when they are alleged to have been retaliating.)

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

I don't think they are asking for GPS data or anything that would reveal people's personal location at that detail. Maybe cell tower data that would show that the text was written while they were in LA, or maybe even down to the specificity of Malibu. But cell companies won't even have the location data you're talking about.

I do think they opened themselves up to this request by introducing all the texts/emails in their complaint and timeline, some of dubious relevancy to the underlying actions.

Also, regarding the amount of time asked, it seems only slightly overbroad to me. Lively signed on to the movie in either December 2022 or January 2023. They are asking for records going back to September 2022. I don't know when discussions began regarding Lively's involvement in the movie, but I would assume that's what is dictating the parameters of the request. If I were the judge, I might say "no, you need to start with when the problems started," which look like might have been March 2023. Or potentially you might start with the date of Lively's first interactions with Baldoni and Heath (no idea when this might have been). But like the person above who thinks discovery should be limited to August 2024 makes no sense -- even Baldoni's own documents that he has already produced reach back much further than that, to back before filming on the movie began.

I don’t really care to argue about lawyer on lawyer gamesmanship (again, not a lawyer, don’t want to be one). But her claim is that she was sexually harassed for a few weeks at the beginning of production, and then that she was retaliated against via the PR campaign. So she needs to show she was sexually harassed (which would be through her own interactions/texts/video/witnesses) and then what the extent of the retaliation was.

All that text info Baldoni released was from his own phone. She’s free to do the same. Baldoni’s interactions with anyone else have nothing to do with her experiencing sexually harassment for a few weeks while filming this movie. Maybe he was off drowning puppies or telling women they smell good. Still irrelevant. From my own “not a lawyer” perspective.

I can think of lots of ways Baldoni's interactions with other people would be directly relevant. He has introduced a lot of select exchanges with other producers and PR people that are clearly part of a broader conversation. His communications with the IC will also be important and relevant.

I don't think Lively will get everything, but Baldoni has very much opened himself up to broad discovery by including so many texts and emails in his complaint. This is how litigation works. Once one side has introduced exchanges like that as relevant, you have to be able to produce the full exchange. Lively's complaint was more narrowly focused than Baldoni's, and Baldoni's legal team made a big deal about putting it all out there. So this was somewhat inevitable, even though it will wind up getting narrowed and walked back by the magistrate judge.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

I don't think they are asking for GPS data or anything that would reveal people's personal location at that detail. Maybe cell tower data that would show that the text was written while they were in LA, or maybe even down to the specificity of Malibu. But cell companies won't even have the location data you're talking about.

I do think they opened themselves up to this request by introducing all the texts/emails in their complaint and timeline, some of dubious relevancy to the underlying actions.

Also, regarding the amount of time asked, it seems only slightly overbroad to me. Lively signed on to the movie in either December 2022 or January 2023. They are asking for records going back to September 2022. I don't know when discussions began regarding Lively's involvement in the movie, but I would assume that's what is dictating the parameters of the request. If I were the judge, I might say "no, you need to start with when the problems started," which look like might have been March 2023. Or potentially you might start with the date of Lively's first interactions with Baldoni and Heath (no idea when this might have been). But like the person above who thinks discovery should be limited to August 2024 makes no sense -- even Baldoni's own documents that he has already produced reach back much further than that, to back before filming on the movie began.

I don’t really care to argue about lawyer on lawyer gamesmanship (again, not a lawyer, don’t want to be one). But her claim is that she was sexually harassed for a few weeks at the beginning of production, and then that she was retaliated against via the PR campaign. So she needs to show she was sexually harassed (which would be through her own interactions/texts/video/witnesses) and then what the extent of the retaliation was.

All that text info Baldoni released was from his own phone. She’s free to do the same. Baldoni’s interactions with anyone else have nothing to do with her experiencing sexually harassment for a few weeks while filming this movie. Maybe he was off drowning puppies or telling women they smell good. Still irrelevant. From my own “not a lawyer” perspective.

No, you make a good argument. Unless she’s trying to claim the texts he posted are fabricated, which I don’t think she is. The most relevant area of broader discovery like this would be narrow, focused on the plan for retaliation.

(I mean, I think they could ask for broad data within a narrow time frame and narrow number of people - eg between the PR agent, Baldoni and Jed Wallace for when they are alleged to have been retaliating.)

I can see that... eg, get info from the phone company to find out when Baldoni, Nathan, Abel, and Wallace were communicating, then request the texts from those parties from those dates, and they can't argue they didn't text during those periods since the phone records will have confirmed it (they may of course argue the texts were deleted). That would be reasonable and fine. What they are requesting is not fine.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

I don't think they are asking for GPS data or anything that would reveal people's personal location at that detail. Maybe cell tower data that would show that the text was written while they were in LA, or maybe even down to the specificity of Malibu. But cell companies won't even have the location data you're talking about.

I do think they opened themselves up to this request by introducing all the texts/emails in their complaint and timeline, some of dubious relevancy to the underlying actions.

Also, regarding the amount of time asked, it seems only slightly overbroad to me. Lively signed on to the movie in either December 2022 or January 2023. They are asking for records going back to September 2022. I don't know when discussions began regarding Lively's involvement in the movie, but I would assume that's what is dictating the parameters of the request. If I were the judge, I might say "no, you need to start with when the problems started," which look like might have been March 2023. Or potentially you might start with the date of Lively's first interactions with Baldoni and Heath (no idea when this might have been). But like the person above who thinks discovery should be limited to August 2024 makes no sense -- even Baldoni's own documents that he has already produced reach back much further than that, to back before filming on the movie began.

I don’t really care to argue about lawyer on lawyer gamesmanship (again, not a lawyer, don’t want to be one). But her claim is that she was sexually harassed for a few weeks at the beginning of production, and then that she was retaliated against via the PR campaign. So she needs to show she was sexually harassed (which would be through her own interactions/texts/video/witnesses) and then what the extent of the retaliation was.

All that text info Baldoni released was from his own phone. She’s free to do the same. Baldoni’s interactions with anyone else have nothing to do with her experiencing sexually harassment for a few weeks while filming this movie. Maybe he was off drowning puppies or telling women they smell good. Still irrelevant. From my own “not a lawyer” perspective.

Her harassment claims actually begin before production, with Baldoni asking her trainer for her weight. And the dispute over the use of the intimacy coordinator would also date to the pre-production period, as well as any debate over Lively's contract. I still think the request is over broad, but not as crazy as people seem to be implying. A lot of the stuff alleged in both complaints happened almost two years ago.

She doesn’t need all those private texts to prove harassment. By definition she had to experience the harassment so all evidence proving it happened should be in her possession, or she should be much more narrowly focused. eg if she knows she complained contemporaneously to anyone and wants documentation on that, she should know more precisely when that was.

[Anonymous]

I don't think Lively will get everything, but Baldoni has very much opened himself up to broad discovery by including so many texts and emails in his complaint. This is how litigation works. Once one side has introduced exchanges like that as relevant, you have to be able to produce the full exchange. Lively's complaint was more narrowly focused than Baldoni's, and Baldoni's legal team made a big deal about putting it all out there. So this was somewhat inevitable, even though it will wind up getting narrowed and walked back by the magistrate judge.

Lively's team can certainly request the full contextualized versions of the text chains he cites. And they should. That is not the same as all records going back 3 years for every person on their list.

[Anonymous]

It’s not even contested that he asked the trainer her weight. It happened. Everyone agrees. What else does she need to prove? That he asked it in a fat-shamey way? Then I guess we need to depose the trainer.

The intimacy coordinator’s role will be easy to determine without phone records.

Witnesses can testify whether Baldoni was talking about porn and being a creep, and if Heath looked into her eyes while she was topless.

Everyone agrees Heath showed her the birthing video.

All the stuff seems verifiable without phone records and GPS data.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:BL needs to settle - the comments all over social media are slaughtering her. She went too far.

They are rich, stupid and arrogant, thus they are being milked by attorneys, consultants, PR, etc.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

I don't think they are asking for GPS data or anything that would reveal people's personal location at that detail. Maybe cell tower data that would show that the text was written while they were in LA, or maybe even down to the specificity of Malibu. But cell companies won't even have the location data you're talking about.

I do think they opened themselves up to this request by introducing all the texts/emails in their complaint and timeline, some of dubious relevancy to the underlying actions.

Also, regarding the amount of time asked, it seems only slightly overbroad to me. Lively signed on to the movie in either December 2022 or January 2023. They are asking for records going back to September 2022. I don't know when discussions began regarding Lively's involvement in the movie, but I would assume that's what is dictating the parameters of the request. If I were the judge, I might say "no, you need to start with when the problems started," which look like might have been March 2023. Or potentially you might start with the date of Lively's first interactions with Baldoni and Heath (no idea when this might have been). But like the person above who thinks discovery should be limited to August 2024 makes no sense -- even Baldoni's own documents that he has already produced reach back much further than that, to back before filming on the movie began.

I don’t really care to argue about lawyer on lawyer gamesmanship (again, not a lawyer, don’t want to be one). But her claim is that she was sexually harassed for a few weeks at the beginning of production, and then that she was retaliated against via the PR campaign. So she needs to show she was sexually harassed (which would be through her own interactions/texts/video/witnesses) and then what the extent of the retaliation was.

All that text info Baldoni released was from his own phone. She’s free to do the same. Baldoni’s interactions with anyone else have nothing to do with her experiencing sexually harassment for a few weeks while filming this movie. Maybe he was off drowning puppies or telling women they smell good. Still irrelevant. From my own “not a lawyer” perspective.

Her harassment claims actually begin before production, with Baldoni asking her trainer for her weight. And the dispute over the use of the intimacy coordinator would also date to the pre-production period, as well as any debate over Lively's contract. I still think the request is over broad, but not as crazy as people seem to be implying. A lot of the stuff alleged in both complaints happened almost two years ago.

I don’t see how either of those two SH allegations, or her contract negotiations, would be proven by any of the requested phone records. It’s not just the time period—it’s what would be available that they actually need.

I am sure there were internal communications among the Wayfarer team about the terms of her contract. In fact Baldoni alludes to this in his complaint, stating that she was requesting a producer credit from the start and they pushed back and gave her executive producer. A lot of his claims relate to the idea that Lively was overstepping the bounds of what she was engaged to do. But if Lively spoke with them about a more expansive role early on, and there is evidence of this in their internal comms, this would be directly relevant to her defense to his claims.

Again, Baldoni opened himself up to this by being so expansive in what he included in his complaint. It's hard to argue that a lot of this isn't relevant once he's already introduced so much to the official record. I do think the court is going to grant a least some of this, in order to provide context to the what Baldoni is alleging. If his presentation has been accurate and truthful, he should embrace further context that will show that, right?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

I don't think Lively will get everything, but Baldoni has very much opened himself up to broad discovery by including so many texts and emails in his complaint. This is how litigation works. Once one side has introduced exchanges like that as relevant, you have to be able to produce the full exchange. Lively's complaint was more narrowly focused than Baldoni's, and Baldoni's legal team made a big deal about putting it all out there. So this was somewhat inevitable, even though it will wind up getting narrowed and walked back by the magistrate judge.

Lively's team can certainly request the full contextualized versions of the text chains he cites. And they should. That is not the same as all records going back 3 years for every person on their list.

2.5 years

I'm sure there will be a fight back and forth over what gets disclosed. That's how discovery works. They will ask for everything, they'll get a lot less than that. But they won't get nothing, and the idea that communication among Wayfarer personnel regarding Lively from January to May of 2023 are not relevant is a stretch. Lively has a strong case for relevancy there.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:BL needs to settle - the comments all over social media are slaughtering her. She went too far.

Why would she settle this early in the lawsuit? She has nothing to lose and will contuine.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

I don't think they are asking for GPS data or anything that would reveal people's personal location at that detail. Maybe cell tower data that would show that the text was written while they were in LA, or maybe even down to the specificity of Malibu. But cell companies won't even have the location data you're talking about.

I do think they opened themselves up to this request by introducing all the texts/emails in their complaint and timeline, some of dubious relevancy to the underlying actions.

Also, regarding the amount of time asked, it seems only slightly overbroad to me. Lively signed on to the movie in either December 2022 or January 2023. They are asking for records going back to September 2022. I don't know when discussions began regarding Lively's involvement in the movie, but I would assume that's what is dictating the parameters of the request. If I were the judge, I might say "no, you need to start with when the problems started," which look like might have been March 2023. Or potentially you might start with the date of Lively's first interactions with Baldoni and Heath (no idea when this might have been). But like the person above who thinks discovery should be limited to August 2024 makes no sense -- even Baldoni's own documents that he has already produced reach back much further than that, to back before filming on the movie began.

I don’t really care to argue about lawyer on lawyer gamesmanship (again, not a lawyer, don’t want to be one). But her claim is that she was sexually harassed for a few weeks at the beginning of production, and then that she was retaliated against via the PR campaign. So she needs to show she was sexually harassed (which would be through her own interactions/texts/video/witnesses) and then what the extent of the retaliation was.

All that text info Baldoni released was from his own phone. She’s free to do the same. Baldoni’s interactions with anyone else have nothing to do with her experiencing sexually harassment for a few weeks while filming this movie. Maybe he was off drowning puppies or telling women they smell good. Still irrelevant. From my own “not a lawyer” perspective.

Her harassment claims actually begin before production, with Baldoni asking her trainer for her weight. And the dispute over the use of the intimacy coordinator would also date to the pre-production period, as well as any debate over Lively's contract. I still think the request is over broad, but not as crazy as people seem to be implying. A lot of the stuff alleged in both complaints happened almost two years ago.

I don’t see how either of those two SH allegations, or her contract negotiations, would be proven by any of the requested phone records. It’s not just the time period—it’s what would be available that they actually need.

I am sure there were internal communications among the Wayfarer team about the terms of her contract. In fact Baldoni alludes to this in his complaint, stating that she was requesting a producer credit from the start and they pushed back and gave her executive producer. A lot of his claims relate to the idea that Lively was overstepping the bounds of what she was engaged to do. But if Lively spoke with them about a more expansive role early on, and there is evidence of this in their internal comms, this would be directly relevant to her defense to his claims.

Again, Baldoni opened himself up to this by being so expansive in what he included in his complaint. It's hard to argue that a lot of this isn't relevant once he's already introduced so much to the official record. I do think the court is going to grant a least some of this, in order to provide context to the what Baldoni is alleging. If his presentation has been accurate and truthful, he should embrace further context that will show that, right?

They need to produce the contract. This whole thing seems so weirdly contract-less.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

I don't think they are asking for GPS data or anything that would reveal people's personal location at that detail. Maybe cell tower data that would show that the text was written while they were in LA, or maybe even down to the specificity of Malibu. But cell companies won't even have the location data you're talking about.

I do think they opened themselves up to this request by introducing all the texts/emails in their complaint and timeline, some of dubious relevancy to the underlying actions.

Also, regarding the amount of time asked, it seems only slightly overbroad to me. Lively signed on to the movie in either December 2022 or January 2023. They are asking for records going back to September 2022. I don't know when discussions began regarding Lively's involvement in the movie, but I would assume that's what is dictating the parameters of the request. If I were the judge, I might say "no, you need to start with when the problems started," which look like might have been March 2023. Or potentially you might start with the date of Lively's first interactions with Baldoni and Heath (no idea when this might have been). But like the person above who thinks discovery should be limited to August 2024 makes no sense -- even Baldoni's own documents that he has already produced reach back much further than that, to back before filming on the movie began.

I don’t really care to argue about lawyer on lawyer gamesmanship (again, not a lawyer, don’t want to be one). But her claim is that she was sexually harassed for a few weeks at the beginning of production, and then that she was retaliated against via the PR campaign. So she needs to show she was sexually harassed (which would be through her own interactions/texts/video/witnesses) and then what the extent of the retaliation was.

All that text info Baldoni released was from his own phone. She’s free to do the same. Baldoni’s interactions with anyone else have nothing to do with her experiencing sexually harassment for a few weeks while filming this movie. Maybe he was off drowning puppies or telling women they smell good. Still irrelevant. From my own “not a lawyer” perspective.

Her harassment claims actually begin before production, with Baldoni asking her trainer for her weight. And the dispute over the use of the intimacy coordinator would also date to the pre-production period, as well as any debate over Lively's contract. I still think the request is over broad, but not as crazy as people seem to be implying. A lot of the stuff alleged in both complaints happened almost two years ago.

She doesn’t need all those private texts to prove harassment. By definition she had to experience the harassment so all evidence proving it happened should be in her possession, or she should be much more narrowly focused. eg if she knows she complained contemporaneously to anyone and wants documentation on that, she should know more precisely when that was.

But due to Baldoni's complaint, she isn't just looking to prove harassment/retaliation. She also has to defend against his claims of extortion and that she "took over" the production. She's entitled to discover relevant to the claims he's alleging, just like he's entitled to discovery for the claims she's alleging. Well, this is what that looks like.