Blake Lively- Jason Baldoni and NYT - False Light claims

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Oh that's not that extreme at. I thought Justin's lawyer said they wanted every single text message and email?

Question wouldn't Jeb have to answer when officially got involved with the case? Then they can tailor his request better. We know he was hired for Justin so he can't lie to try and get out of pf it right? I guess he could lie lol but it wouldn't work

They did request every single text message, location. and phone call irrespective of recipient. Pp is just hypothesizing how someone might narrow it since Blake’s lawyers did not. That isn’t how discovery works.

It is though. You don't want to be going back to the court for every new little thing you want. You don't want to ask for phone records for June 14th and then find out a month later you also need them for June 10th and 11th. If you do the this way, discovery takes forever and you are very likely to miss things because of time constraints. Initial discovery requests are always broad, with the understanding they will be scaled back because the other side will argue to narrow the timeline, declare certain things privileged, request to have other things reviewed for privilege and relevancy, etc. You start broad and vague and then narrow because that gets you the maximum amount. Whereas starting narrow makes it very likely you'll miss something important.

This request was broader than most, but I can see them making the argument that because Baldoni's side has introduced a ton of communications from throughout this period, they needed to be more maximal. Again, it will be pulled back no matter what so there's not a ton of harm in going very broad with your first stab.

The main irregularity here is that they filed this subpoena prior to even filing their amended complaint or before any responses are filed. Might have to do with the MTDs coming up, I don't know. The timing was a little odd to me. The request itself is very broad but doesn't strike me as that weird given how discovery in a case is likely to work.

I am not really interested in trying to convince someone who is clearly not a lawyer why their crackpot theories make no sense. This will be yet another motion that Lively will be on the losing side of, and the judge will be once again be angry with her side. Multiple posters have already explained this. At some point, perhaps you will learn repeating the same thing multiple times doesn’t make it more persuasive. Another tell that you aren’t a litigator.

I guess we'll see how it all shakes out in court.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Oh that's not that extreme at. I thought Justin's lawyer said they wanted every single text message and email?

Question wouldn't Jeb have to answer when officially got involved with the case? Then they can tailor his request better. We know he was hired for Justin so he can't lie to try and get out of pf it right? I guess he could lie lol but it wouldn't work

They did request every single text message, location. and phone call irrespective of recipient. Pp is just hypothesizing how someone might narrow it since Blake’s lawyers did not. That isn’t how discovery works.

Does anyone have the actual pdf of the discovery request then?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:[twitter]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Along with his Mommie Dearest

Gross, I didn’t know about his mom.

Blake Lively said the reason she’s married to Ryan Reynolds is so she can be friends with his mom. She then goes on to elaborate how important ‘female friendships’ are. They are a bunch of grifters. And besides who wants to be friends with their MIL?

I am confused as to why wanting to be friends with your MIL is a bad thing. That sounds like a positive family dynamic.

Also didn't Ryan Reynold's dad have Parkinson's for like 30 years and hasn't he and his mom been very public about raising money/awareness regarding the disease and also talking about families of Parkinson's patients need support because it can be so hard? It sounds like his mom wound up raising four kids while also caretaking for her husband for decades.

It's weird to go after his family given that history.

The entire family on both sides, BL and RR’s, seems to be dance moms or something. Just grifting attention seekers. Why is RR’s mom interviewing anyone?

RR’s mom has the worst eye job I’ve ever seen, and she seemed legitimately crazy or (and this would be better), on medication or drunk.
Crazy crazy crazy.

Again, it is well known she raised four kids mostly on her own while caretaking for her husband, who had a degenerative disease for 3 decades before he passed. And you are here yelling about how her face looks and accusing her of being on drugs or drunk because she was... enthusiastic in public once?

If you are at the point where you are taking aim at Ryan Reynolds mom, who by all accounts is a nice woman who has not had the easiest time of it, then you've really lost the plot.

You and the other mommy defender watched that video and that’s your conclusion? Uh, cool!

DP and didn't watch the video at all because literally who cares about his mom. That's not at all what makes this so interesting.

+1, I'm not running around watching random videos of Ryan Reynold's mom because I don't really care. I think it's weird anyone does.

It just shows how overly involved RR was.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Oh that's not that extreme at. I thought Justin's lawyer said they wanted every single text message and email?

Question wouldn't Jeb have to answer when officially got involved with the case? Then they can tailor his request better. We know he was hired for Justin so he can't lie to try and get out of pf it right? I guess he could lie lol but it wouldn't work

They did request every single text message, location. and phone call irrespective of recipient. Pp is just hypothesizing how someone might narrow it since Blake’s lawyers did not. That isn’t how discovery works.

Does anyone have the actual pdf of the discovery request then?

Here’s the motion that describes the discovery request. https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.nysd.634304/gov.uscourts.nysd.634304.75.0_1.pdf. That’s all that is publicly available


The “just another mom” poster who claims to have seen them can explain how she has unique access to the actual subpoenas.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Oh that's not that extreme at. I thought Justin's lawyer said they wanted every single text message and email?

Question wouldn't Jeb have to answer when officially got involved with the case? Then they can tailor his request better. We know he was hired for Justin so he can't lie to try and get out of pf it right? I guess he could lie lol but it wouldn't work

They did request every single text message, location. and phone call irrespective of recipient. Pp is just hypothesizing how someone might narrow it since Blake’s lawyers did not. That isn’t how discovery works.

Does anyone have the actual pdf of the discovery request then?

As found on reddit
https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.nysd.634304/gov.uscourts.nysd.634304.80.0.pdf

https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.nysd.634304/gov.uscourts.nysd.634304.81.0.pdf

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Oh that's not that extreme at. I thought Justin's lawyer said they wanted every single text message and email?

Question wouldn't Jeb have to answer when officially got involved with the case? Then they can tailor his request better. We know he was hired for Justin so he can't lie to try and get out of pf it right? I guess he could lie lol but it wouldn't work

They did request every single text message, location. and phone call irrespective of recipient. Pp is just hypothesizing how someone might narrow it since Blake’s lawyers did not. That isn’t how discovery works.

It is though. You don't want to be going back to the court for every new little thing you want. You don't want to ask for phone records for June 14th and then find out a month later you also need them for June 10th and 11th. If you do the this way, discovery takes forever and you are very likely to miss things because of time constraints. Initial discovery requests are always broad, with the understanding they will be scaled back because the other side will argue to narrow the timeline, declare certain things privileged, request to have other things reviewed for privilege and relevancy, etc. You start broad and vague and then narrow because that gets you the maximum amount. Whereas starting narrow makes it very likely you'll miss something important.

This request was broader than most, but I can see them making the argument that because Baldoni's side has introduced a ton of communications from throughout this period, they needed to be more maximal. Again, it will be pulled back no matter what so there's not a ton of harm in going very broad with your first stab.

The main irregularity here is that they filed this subpoena prior to even filing their amended complaint or before any responses are filed. Might have to do with the MTDs coming up, I don't know. The timing was a little odd to me. The request itself is very broad but doesn't strike me as that weird given how discovery in a case is likely to work.

I am not really interested in trying to convince someone who is clearly not a lawyer why their crackpot theories make no sense. This will be yet another motion that Lively will be on the losing side of, and the judge will be once again be angry with her side. Multiple posters have already explained this. At some point, perhaps you will learn repeating the same thing multiple times doesn’t make it more persuasive. Another tell that you aren’t a litigator.

Huh??? PP was totally coherent and described how discovery goes. You on the other hand are not.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:[twitter]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Along with his Mommie Dearest

Gross, I didn’t know about his mom.

Blake Lively said the reason she’s married to Ryan Reynolds is so she can be friends with his mom. She then goes on to elaborate how important ‘female friendships’ are. They are a bunch of grifters. And besides who wants to be friends with their MIL?

I am confused as to why wanting to be friends with your MIL is a bad thing. That sounds like a positive family dynamic.

Also didn't Ryan Reynold's dad have Parkinson's for like 30 years and hasn't he and his mom been very public about raising money/awareness regarding the disease and also talking about families of Parkinson's patients need support because it can be so hard? It sounds like his mom wound up raising four kids while also caretaking for her husband for decades.

It's weird to go after his family given that history.

The entire family on both sides, BL and RR’s, seems to be dance moms or something. Just grifting attention seekers. Why is RR’s mom interviewing anyone?

RR’s mom has the worst eye job I’ve ever seen, and she seemed legitimately crazy or (and this would be better), on medication or drunk.
Crazy crazy crazy.

Again, it is well known she raised four kids mostly on her own while caretaking for her husband, who had a degenerative disease for 3 decades before he passed. And you are here yelling about how her face looks and accusing her of being on drugs or drunk because she was... enthusiastic in public once?

If you are at the point where you are taking aim at Ryan Reynolds mom, who by all accounts is a nice woman who has not had the easiest time of it, then you've really lost the plot.

You and the other mommy defender watched that video and that’s your conclusion? Uh, cool!

DP and didn't watch the video at all because literally who cares about his mom. That's not at all what makes this so interesting.

+1, I'm not running around watching random videos of Ryan Reynold's mom because I don't really care. I think it's weird anyone does.

It’s a video of Ryan and his mom and Atlas promoting IEWU and is relevant to show that RR and his wife did in fact try to take over the movie.

Exactly. Lively’s defenders here are stupid or dishohest - pick a struggle, those are the options, and it’s a fair observation. I described how it was relevant to BL and RR’s grabbing the marketing reins when I posted.

I’ve read some speculation about another element of the production - that Lively malingered to control the rhythm of production. She is a mom of 4, but she was hired to do a job on a specific schedule. She has her crackhead MIL available along with a husband and effectively limitless money for nannies and caregivers and private nursing. Did SHE have, can SHE produce documentation of 4 bouts of strep and one of flu during this relatively short period of time? Because she is in the rare position of having a wealth of options to care for sick kids. Or was she fqn with the production in that way, too, to destabilize everything, and grease the slide to taking over more of IEWU?

Not being interested in RR's mom doesn't make someone a Blake supporter. I literally just don't care and don't want to read a bunch of insults about some old woman who isn't an actor. It's distasteful.

+1, the comments about her were way over the line. I personally think the comments about Lively's appearance and sexual history are also really inappropriate -- it's not relevant and just makes you sound like you hate women.

You can be skeptical of Lively's claims or concerned about how Lively and Reynolds conducted themselves without saying hateful, misogynist things.

Agree 💯

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Oh that's not that extreme at. I thought Justin's lawyer said they wanted every single text message and email?

Question wouldn't Jeb have to answer when officially got involved with the case? Then they can tailor his request better. We know he was hired for Justin so he can't lie to try and get out of pf it right? I guess he could lie lol but it wouldn't work

They did request every single text message, location. and phone call irrespective of recipient. Pp is just hypothesizing how someone might narrow it since Blake’s lawyers did not. That isn’t how discovery works.

Does anyone have the actual pdf of the discovery request then?

As found on reddit
https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.nysd.634304/gov.uscourts.nysd.634304.80.0.pdf

https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.nysd.634304/gov.uscourts.nysd.634304.81.0.pdf

This confirms that they are asking for every single text, phone call, etc. . .for each Wayfarer defendant from December 1, 2022 to present, exactly how described in Freedman’s motion. Exactly the fishing expedition several of us have identified.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Oh that's not that extreme at. I thought Justin's lawyer said they wanted every single text message and email?

Question wouldn't Jeb have to answer when officially got involved with the case? Then they can tailor his request better. We know he was hired for Justin so he can't lie to try and get out of pf it right? I guess he could lie lol but it wouldn't work

They did request every single text message, location. and phone call irrespective of recipient. Pp is just hypothesizing how someone might narrow it since Blake’s lawyers did not. That isn’t how discovery works.

It is though. You don't want to be going back to the court for every new little thing you want. You don't want to ask for phone records for June 14th and then find out a month later you also need them for June 10th and 11th. If you do the this way, discovery takes forever and you are very likely to miss things because of time constraints. Initial discovery requests are always broad, with the understanding they will be scaled back because the other side will argue to narrow the timeline, declare certain things privileged, request to have other things reviewed for privilege and relevancy, etc. You start broad and vague and then narrow because that gets you the maximum amount. Whereas starting narrow makes it very likely you'll miss something important.

This request was broader than most, but I can see them making the argument that because Baldoni's side has introduced a ton of communications from throughout this period, they needed to be more maximal. Again, it will be pulled back no matter what so there's not a ton of harm in going very broad with your first stab.

The main irregularity here is that they filed this subpoena prior to even filing their amended complaint or before any responses are filed. Might have to do with the MTDs coming up, I don't know. The timing was a little odd to me. The request itself is very broad but doesn't strike me as that weird given how discovery in a case is likely to work.

I am not really interested in trying to convince someone who is clearly not a lawyer why their crackpot theories make no sense. This will be yet another motion that Lively will be on the losing side of, and the judge will be once again be angry with her side. Multiple posters have already explained this. At some point, perhaps you will learn repeating the same thing multiple times doesn’t make it more persuasive. Another tell that you aren’t a litigator.

Huh??? PP was totally coherent and described how discovery goes. You on the other hand are not.

How discovery goes? Ok then.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Oh that's not that extreme at. I thought Justin's lawyer said they wanted every single text message and email?

Question wouldn't Jeb have to answer when officially got involved with the case? Then they can tailor his request better. We know he was hired for Justin so he can't lie to try and get out of pf it right? I guess he could lie lol but it wouldn't work

They did request every single text message, location. and phone call irrespective of recipient. Pp is just hypothesizing how someone might narrow it since Blake’s lawyers did not. That isn’t how discovery works.

It is though. You don't want to be going back to the court for every new little thing you want. You don't want to ask for phone records for June 14th and then find out a month later you also need them for June 10th and 11th. If you do the this way, discovery takes forever and you are very likely to miss things because of time constraints. Initial discovery requests are always broad, with the understanding they will be scaled back because the other side will argue to narrow the timeline, declare certain things privileged, request to have other things reviewed for privilege and relevancy, etc. You start broad and vague and then narrow because that gets you the maximum amount. Whereas starting narrow makes it very likely you'll miss something important.

This request was broader than most, but I can see them making the argument that because Baldoni's side has introduced a ton of communications from throughout this period, they needed to be more maximal. Again, it will be pulled back no matter what so there's not a ton of harm in going very broad with your first stab.

The main irregularity here is that they filed this subpoena prior to even filing their amended complaint or before any responses are filed. Might have to do with the MTDs coming up, I don't know. The timing was a little odd to me. The request itself is very broad but doesn't strike me as that weird given how discovery in a case is likely to work.

I am not really interested in trying to convince someone who is clearly not a lawyer why their crackpot theories make no sense. This will be yet another motion that Lively will be on the losing side of, and the judge will be once again be angry with her side. Multiple posters have already explained this. At some point, perhaps you will learn repeating the same thing multiple times doesn’t make it more persuasive. Another tell that you aren’t a litigator.

Huh??? PP was totally coherent and described how discovery goes. You on the other hand are not.

Yes. All smack talking without posting any receipts helps literally no one.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Oh that's not that extreme at. I thought Justin's lawyer said they wanted every single text message and email?

Question wouldn't Jeb have to answer when officially got involved with the case? Then they can tailor his request better. We know he was hired for Justin so he can't lie to try and get out of pf it right? I guess he could lie lol but it wouldn't work

They did request every single text message, location. and phone call irrespective of recipient. Pp is just hypothesizing how someone might narrow it since Blake’s lawyers did not. That isn’t how discovery works.

Does anyone have the actual pdf of the discovery request then?

As found on reddit
https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.nysd.634304/gov.uscourts.nysd.634304.80.0.pdf

https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.nysd.634304/gov.uscourts.nysd.634304.81.0.pdf

This confirms that they are asking for every single text, phone call, etc. . .for each Wayfarer defendant from December 1, 2022 to present, exactly how described in Freedman’s motion. Exactly the fishing expedition several of us have identified.

I see what the other person was talking about now. 2022 is when when Blake was in talks to sign on board so that timeline makes sense. Blake is saying justin was okay with collaboration while the Wayfarer is saying that's not true. Blake doesn't have to prove only the SH but has to prove Justin's claims are false. I am going back to my original opinion. She will most likely have to tailor it more but i don't think those is outrageous asks.

[Anonymous]

https://www.reddit.com/media?url=https%3A%2F%2Fpreview.redd.it%2Fwhy-does-everyone-pick-a-side-in-the-bl-and-jb-lawsuit-v0-qq4g5b0ayyhe1.jpeg%3Fwidth%3D750%26format%3Dpjpg%26auto%3Dwebp%26s%3D891a26e9767da15f8c936aedac89de98ed8322c3

emanuel the hairstylist that made a video last year commented about Blake again

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Oh that's not that extreme at. I thought Justin's lawyer said they wanted every single text message and email?

Question wouldn't Jeb have to answer when officially got involved with the case? Then they can tailor his request better. We know he was hired for Justin so he can't lie to try and get out of pf it right? I guess he could lie lol but it wouldn't work

They did request every single text message, location. and phone call irrespective of recipient. Pp is just hypothesizing how someone might narrow it since Blake’s lawyers did not. That isn’t how discovery works.

Does anyone have the actual pdf of the discovery request then?

As found on reddit
https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.nysd.634304/gov.uscourts.nysd.634304.80.0.pdf

https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.nysd.634304/gov.uscourts.nysd.634304.81.0.pdf

This confirms that they are asking for every single text, phone call, etc. . .for each Wayfarer defendant from December 1, 2022 to present, exactly how described in Freedman’s motion. Exactly the fishing expedition several of us have identified.

I see what the other person was talking about now. 2022 is when when Blake was in talks to sign on board so that timeline makes sense. Blake is saying justin was okay with collaboration while the Wayfarer is saying that's not true. Blake doesn't have to prove only the SH but has to prove Justin's claims are false. I am going back to my original opinion. She will most likely have to tailor it more but i don't think those is outrageous asks.

DP. It's still outrageous, IMO. It would be one thing if they were asking for all logs for communications between all those Wayfarer defendants since December 2022. That's still *very* broad, but you could at least sort of argue that those would be relevant to the film and the case. That would probably be cut down, but I can sort of understand that.

What they are asking for is ALL communications and ALL geolocation data from EACH of those people individually, meaning, eg, where they spent their time during the strike when no filming was going on; every single place they've gone since December 2022; every communication they had with ANYONE (their family, their kids' school, their religious and political affiliates). That is a fishing expedition and no, you don't just ask for all that and expect Verizon and T-Mobile to somehow figure out which of those are relevant or privileged.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Oh that's not that extreme at. I thought Justin's lawyer said they wanted every single text message and email?

Question wouldn't Jeb have to answer when officially got involved with the case? Then they can tailor his request better. We know he was hired for Justin so he can't lie to try and get out of pf it right? I guess he could lie lol but it wouldn't work

They did request every single text message, location. and phone call irrespective of recipient. Pp is just hypothesizing how someone might narrow it since Blake’s lawyers did not. That isn’t how discovery works.

Does anyone have the actual pdf of the discovery request then?

As found on reddit
https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.nysd.634304/gov.uscourts.nysd.634304.80.0.pdf

https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.nysd.634304/gov.uscourts.nysd.634304.81.0.pdf

This confirms that they are asking for every single text, phone call, etc. . .for each Wayfarer defendant from December 1, 2022 to present, exactly how described in Freedman’s motion. Exactly the fishing expedition several of us have identified.

I see what the other person was talking about now. 2022 is when when Blake was in talks to sign on board so that timeline makes sense. Blake is saying justin was okay with collaboration while the Wayfarer is saying that's not true. Blake doesn't have to prove only the SH but has to prove Justin's claims are false. I am going back to my original opinion. She will most likely have to tailor it more but i don't think those is outrageous asks.

+1 The dates track with the timeline of Lively's employment and the origin of the conflict in Justin's complaint (Lively's complaint doesn't not indicate conflict until March/April of 2023, a few months later). And they are properly requesting a much shorter timeline for Nathan and the TAG employees. Yes the request will be narrowed by the court. But the timeline of the request makes sense.

Starting to really wonder what Lively's team has so far on Jed Wallace though. If they have nothing, then asking for his comms dating from December 1, 2022 is pretty crazy. He's not yet even a named defendant, and in her 1st complaint, the only think tying Wallace to her claims is the comment in the PR texts (in August 2024) saying "thanks to Jed's team" or something similar. That won't be enough to get discovery from Wallace dating back to 2022.

So what does Lively's team have that would allow them to credibly make that argument? If they can connect Wallace to Wayfarer as far back as 2022, this is a huge problem for Wayfarer. If they can't... I have some real questions about their strategy here.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:https://www.reddit.com/media?url=https%3A%2F%2Fpreview.redd.it%2Fwhy-does-everyone-pick-a-side-in-the-bl-and-jb-lawsuit-v0-qq4g5b0ayyhe1.jpeg%3Fwidth%3D750%26format%3Dpjpg%26auto%3Dwebp%26s%3D891a26e9767da15f8c936aedac89de98ed8322c3

emanuel the hairstylist that made a video last year commented about Blake again

Oh didn’t you know that everyone that had a bad experience with BL is lying???!!!