Blake Lively- Jason Baldoni and NYT - False Light claims

[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.

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.

I mean, thank god for the train wreck of a movie/case. Can’t wait to see what the judge says.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Of course she has more things to lose, starting with even more damage to her reputation.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Of course she has more things to lose, starting with even more damage to her reputation.

Baldoni’s rock bottom was after the NYT article; he had nowhere to go but up. Lively’s rock bottom is probably now. I think her best bet is to try to take Baldoni down with her at this point. If he’s really a nice guy, that will be hard to do. If he’s a dirtbag, then they both end up looking bad, but maybe she looks slightly less terrible.

[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?

Sure, once she actually requests relevant documents, he should produce them. Asking for all records is not just a little overbroad. It could be over 90% not relevant material, including material which is private and could cause personal embarrassment.

Baldoni's evidence was all relevant, at least tangentially. It was a bit obnoxious including details like she didn't even read the book, but it's broadly relevant in that it at least relates to the film. What Lively is asking for is everything from a laundry list of people. Everywhere they went, everyone they communicated with. That's not relevant and it's not meant to be a starting point for a negotiation... you don't ask for everything in a person's life and then narrow down. You START with relevant requests. So, again, if she wanted to request dates, locations, and times that Baldoni and Nathan and Abel and Wallace were communicating during relevant periods, that's absolutely fine because that's relevant to her case. How many times Baldoni texted his mom's number and geolocation where he spent his time during the strike... NOT relevant.

[Anonymous]

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=a2XmJg3SEa8&t=165s&pp=2AGlAZACAQ%3D%3D

Interviews/promo for the movie where the dork playing Atlas yuks it up with Ryan Reynolds, Ryan Reynolds’s absolute insane mom, and Hugh Jackman.

Everyone not yet convinced that BL and her vile husband worked together to thieve this film from Baldoni, give the above a watch.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The CEO of WME who fired Justin just got on a podcast and basically said he fired him because he’s ride or die for Blake and Ryan. And that they are good people.

Are people in Hollywood just going crazy? I can’t see how this doesn’t open them up for lawsuits. He basically said there was no reason for firing other than they like Blake ant Ryan. It sounds like he lives in a bubble and has no idea what is going on.

I think it's useful to remember that the word "fire" is being used in a weird way here. Justin didn't work for WME. They worked for him, as his agent. When they "fired" him, they actually just chose to not have him as a client anymore.

They have no liability here. You aren't required to represent someone as a talent agent if you don't want to.

It supports his damages claim against lively and the NYT. DUH

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The CEO of WME who fired Justin just got on a podcast and basically said he fired him because he’s ride or die for Blake and Ryan. And that they are good people.

Are people in Hollywood just going crazy? I can’t see how this doesn’t open them up for lawsuits. He basically said there was no reason for firing other than they like Blake ant Ryan. It sounds like he lives in a bubble and has no idea what is going on.

I think it's useful to remember that the word "fire" is being used in a weird way here. Justin didn't work for WME. They worked for him, as his agent. When they "fired" him, they actually just chose to not have him as a client anymore.

They have no liability here. You aren't required to represent someone as a talent agent if you don't want to.

It supports his damages claim against lively and the NYT. DUH

Ironically as obnoxiously phrased as this comment is, you're not actually disagreeing.

[Anonymous]

I just watched a clip of Baldoni getting his hair cut to donate it to locks of love alongside a clip of Nicepool getting his head blown off.

Really, I think the biggest loser so far in this lawsuit is Reynolds. They are really going to have to uncover some really bad stuff about Baldoni for this narrative to flip.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The CEO of WME who fired Justin just got on a podcast and basically said he fired him because he’s ride or die for Blake and Ryan. And that they are good people.

Are people in Hollywood just going crazy? I can’t see how this doesn’t open them up for lawsuits. He basically said there was no reason for firing other than they like Blake ant Ryan. It sounds like he lives in a bubble and has no idea what is going on.

I think it's useful to remember that the word "fire" is being used in a weird way here. Justin didn't work for WME. They worked for him, as his agent. When they "fired" him, they actually just chose to not have him as a client anymore.

They have no liability here. You aren't required to represent someone as a talent agent if you don't want to.

It supports his damages claim against lively and the NYT. DUH

The PP asked if Emanuel's comments could open him/WME up for lawsuits. The answer is no, because they can drop a client for any reason. He's not an employee of WME.

I am unsure if it supports his damages claim or not. I think there's a lot of factors that go into that. And he only gets damages if he can prove defamation and his other claims.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The CEO of WME who fired Justin just got on a podcast and basically said he fired him because he’s ride or die for Blake and Ryan. And that they are good people.

Are people in Hollywood just going crazy? I can’t see how this doesn’t open them up for lawsuits. He basically said there was no reason for firing other than they like Blake ant Ryan. It sounds like he lives in a bubble and has no idea what is going on.

I think it's useful to remember that the word "fire" is being used in a weird way here. Justin didn't work for WME. They worked for him, as his agent. When they "fired" him, they actually just chose to not have him as a client anymore.

They have no liability here. You aren't required to represent someone as a talent agent if you don't want to.

It supports his damages claim against lively and the NYT. DUH

The PP asked if Emanuel's comments could open him/WME up for lawsuits. The answer is no, because they can drop a client for any reason. He's not an employee of WME.

I am unsure if it supports his damages claim or not. I think there's a lot of factors that go into that. And he only gets damages if he can prove defamation and his other claims.

It will absolutely support damages if he was harmed from being dropped by WME.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=a2XmJg3SEa8&t=165s&pp=2AGlAZACAQ%3D%3D

Interviews/promo for the movie where the dork playing Atlas yuks it up with Ryan Reynolds, Ryan Reynolds’s absolute insane mom, and Hugh Jackman.

Everyone not yet convinced that BL and her vile husband worked together to thieve this film from Baldoni, give the above a watch.

Ryan is the ring leader, of course. He has been a ruthless striver his entire life.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The CEO of WME who fired Justin just got on a podcast and basically said he fired him because he’s ride or die for Blake and Ryan. And that they are good people.

Are people in Hollywood just going crazy? I can’t see how this doesn’t open them up for lawsuits. He basically said there was no reason for firing other than they like Blake ant Ryan. It sounds like he lives in a bubble and has no idea what is going on.

I think it's useful to remember that the word "fire" is being used in a weird way here. Justin didn't work for WME. They worked for him, as his agent. When they "fired" him, they actually just chose to not have him as a client anymore.

They have no liability here. You aren't required to represent someone as a talent agent if you don't want to.

It supports his damages claim against lively and the NYT. DUH

The PP asked if Emanuel's comments could open him/WME up for lawsuits. The answer is no, because they can drop a client for any reason. He's not an employee of WME.

I am unsure if it supports his damages claim or not. I think there's a lot of factors that go into that. And he only gets damages if he can prove defamation and his other claims.

It will absolutely support damages if he was harmed from being dropped by WME.

He should subpoeona communications between Reynolds, Lively, and their contacts at WME from the time that the NYT article dropped (maybe a bit before, in case they tipped off WME) to shortly after Baldoni was dropped. Would be interesting to note if they a) defamed Baldoni to WME directly, b) Specifically asked WME to drop Baldoni, or c) Did not speak to WME about Baldoni but WME took it upon themselves based on the allegations in the press (which could still be damages attributable to Lively and NYT, if the article is deemed defamatory).

[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.

I finally actually saw the subpoenas and this isn't accurate. They aren't even asking for 2.5 years.

For the Wayfarer entities and Jennifer Abel, they ask for records dating back to Dec. 1, 2022, which was the month that Lively came on board with the production.

For Melissa Nathan and the TAG entities, they as for production dating from July, 2024, when Nathan was hired by Baldoni.

Both of those seem reasonable to me, assuming the requests will be circumscribed to excluded privileged and irrelevant communications. I would actually assume that the request would be limited to communications between the identified parties. So they wouldn't include every communication -- not records of people communicating with their spouses or their Bumble dates or their doctor's office or their kid's school. But I could see them asking for all communications between Baldoni and Heath, or between Baldoni and Abel, or between Nathan and Baldoni, during those time periods. The Nathan/TAG request is particularly relevant.

The wild card is that they ask for records for Jed Wallace dating back to December 2022. This part looks like a "fishing expedition" to me and I think reflects the degree to which they truly do not know when Wallace came on board or exactly how he's involved. I would expect Wallace to fight that quite hard and for Lively's team to have to show relevance. I guess we'll see what they show in their amended complaint. Right now I don't think they have anywhere close to enough to ask for that from Wallace.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

I finally actually saw the subpoenas and this isn't accurate. They aren't even asking for 2.5 years.

For the Wayfarer entities and Jennifer Abel, they ask for records dating back to Dec. 1, 2022, which was the month that Lively came on board with the production.

For Melissa Nathan and the TAG entities, they as for production dating from July, 2024, when Nathan was hired by Baldoni.

Both of those seem reasonable to me, assuming the requests will be circumscribed to excluded privileged and irrelevant communications. I would actually assume that the request would be limited to communications between the identified parties. So they wouldn't include every communication -- not records of people communicating with their spouses or their Bumble dates or their doctor's office or their kid's school. But I could see them asking for all communications between Baldoni and Heath, or between Baldoni and Abel, or between Nathan and Baldoni, during those time periods. The Nathan/TAG request is particularly relevant.

The wild card is that they ask for records for Jed Wallace dating back to December 2022. This part looks like a "fishing expedition" to me and I think reflects the degree to which they truly do not know when Wallace came on board or exactly how he's involved. I would expect Wallace to fight that quite hard and for Lively's team to have to show relevance. I guess we'll see what they show in their amended complaint. Right now I don't think they have anywhere close to enough to ask for that from Wallace.

Ok, 2.5 vs 3 years, you got me, but that doesn't go to the substance of what I said.

The bolded part, a litigator can clarify, but that's not how it's supposed to work. The one issuing the subpoena is supposed to identify relevant, nonprivileged material they are requesting, not request everything (and how are Verizon, et al, supposed to know what is relevant or privileged?).

If they wanted " all communications between Baldoni and Heath, or between Baldoni and Abel, or between Nathan and Baldoni, during those time periods" that's fine and I would support that, but they should have asked for that.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

I finally actually saw the subpoenas and this isn't accurate. They aren't even asking for 2.5 years.

For the Wayfarer entities and Jennifer Abel, they ask for records dating back to Dec. 1, 2022, which was the month that Lively came on board with the production.

For Melissa Nathan and the TAG entities, they as for production dating from July, 2024, when Nathan was hired by Baldoni.

Both of those seem reasonable to me, assuming the requests will be circumscribed to excluded privileged and irrelevant communications. I would actually assume that the request would be limited to communications between the identified parties. So they wouldn't include every communication -- not records of people communicating with their spouses or their Bumble dates or their doctor's office or their kid's school. But I could see them asking for all communications between Baldoni and Heath, or between Baldoni and Abel, or between Nathan and Baldoni, during those time periods. The Nathan/TAG request is particularly relevant.

The wild card is that they ask for records for Jed Wallace dating back to December 2022. This part looks like a "fishing expedition" to me and I think reflects the degree to which they truly do not know when Wallace came on board or exactly how he's involved. I would expect Wallace to fight that quite hard and for Lively's team to have to show relevance. I guess we'll see what they show in their amended complaint. Right now I don't think they have anywhere close to enough to ask for that from Wallace.

There is no way you are a lawyer. The requests are the definition of fishing expeditions.