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:

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.

You don’t get two and a half years of data for a film that these folks were working on in any capacity, including promotion, for a matter of months. Discovery requests are required to be narrowly tailored to a party’s claims.

The funny thing is that the providers won’t have retained 3 years of anything beyond phone records maybe. Typically they keep the other stuff, like texts, only for a few months. In a criminal investigation, prosecutors can request that phone/internet companies retain records before charges are brought, but there is no similar retention request here.

So Blake’s lawyers will get called out by the judge for these requests, which he’ll narrow, but they were never going to get much out of the requests anyway besides recent texts. They are just dummies.

Did you read my post? I don't think they are going to get two and a half years of data. The request will definitely be narrowed by the court and the opposing party, as I literally just stated. I'm just saying that I think it's reasonable for them to request data as far back as December 2022. Likely they want comms related to Lively's hiring that month. I think they will get them, and I think they will get a ton of comms throughout 2023 and 2024, not just when the production was officially in filming or promotion. It's very obvious from Baldoni's filings that the issues in both complaints were discussed extensively via email/text throughout that time period.

I don't understand what some of you were expecting this request to look like or how you think the judge will "punish" them for being broad in their first request. It will be narrowed, they know it will. Which is precisely why they made as broad of a request as possible. If they'd made a more narrow request, Baldoni's team would have responded exactly the same way as they are currently responding. Exactly. So you have to start with the biggest possible request so that when it inevitably gets cut back, you maximize what you might get.

Some of you seem oddly offended by this extremely standard opening salvo in what will no doubt be a lengthy and contested discovery process. Just wait until Baldoni's team does the exact same thing. This is how this works.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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???!!!

I'm not sure it matters?

I was listening to the Las Culturistas podcast this week (Bowen Yang and Matt Rogers) and they made a point that has stuck with me.

It's not illegal to be hard to work with. It might annoy people but it's not illegal. It's not illegal to be rude, to be overly involved with a film production as an actor, to say tone deaf things in interviews or during promotion of a film. These things might make me dislike Blake Lively but they are not (to borrow a favorite term from another poster in this thread) actionable.

Sexual harassment and retaliation are actionable. Lively hasn't proved her case yet but that's what the court case is for. If she can't prove it, sucks for her and Baldoni will be vindicated. If she can, well, he shouldn't have done that and deserves consequences.

I don't understand the point of constantly digging up random people saying "Blake Lively was not nice to me on this film set this one time." Okay, I believe it. She seems like the sort to be entitled and demanding. But I don't understand what it has to do with this case? People can be rude and entitled and still be sexually harassed. One thing doesn't really have a lot to do with the other, IME.

Remember there are two purported victims here.

Lively has her SH claim, and we might expect anyone who experienced sexual harassment by Baldoni to come forward and say, “this happened to me.” Or “he made me uncomfortable too.” So far that hasn’t happened, but we will certainly discuss it here if it does.

Likewise, Baldoni has his claim, and similarly we might expect anyone who experienced bullying by Lively to come forward and say “this happened to me,” or “yes, I had problems working with her too.” And some people have. And so we discuss it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

You don’t get two and a half years of data for a film that these folks were working on in any capacity, including promotion, for a matter of months. Discovery requests are required to be narrowly tailored to a party’s claims.

The funny thing is that the providers won’t have retained 3 years of anything beyond phone records maybe. Typically they keep the other stuff, like texts, only for a few months. In a criminal investigation, prosecutors can request that phone/internet companies retain records before charges are brought, but there is no similar retention request here.

So Blake’s lawyers will get called out by the judge for these requests, which he’ll narrow, but they were never going to get much out of the requests anyway besides recent texts. They are just dummies.

Did you read my post? I don't think they are going to get two and a half years of data. The request will definitely be narrowed by the court and the opposing party, as I literally just stated. I'm just saying that I think it's reasonable for them to request data as far back as December 2022. Likely they want comms related to Lively's hiring that month. I think they will get them, and I think they will get a ton of comms throughout 2023 and 2024, not just when the production was officially in filming or promotion. It's very obvious from Baldoni's filings that the issues in both complaints were discussed extensively via email/text throughout that time period.

I don't understand what some of you were expecting this request to look like or how you think the judge will "punish" them for being broad in their first request. It will be narrowed, they know it will. Which is precisely why they made as broad of a request as possible. If they'd made a more narrow request, Baldoni's team would have responded exactly the same way as they are currently responding. Exactly. So you have to start with the biggest possible request so that when it inevitably gets cut back, you maximize what you might get.

Some of you seem oddly offended by this extremely standard opening salvo in what will no doubt be a lengthy and contested discovery process. Just wait until Baldoni's team does the exact same thing. This is how this works.

It isn’t how it works. Good lawyers will issue requests that are appropriately tailored in time and relevance. Shitty lawyers go on fishing expeditions and needlessly involve the judge the process. This will be the fourth consecutive loss for Blake and company. The judge is going to despise her team. Somehow seems fitting but I am consistently surprised by how weak her legal team is.

[Anonymous]

I really do not like BL. Had no idea of who she was before this, other than RR’s new wife (I like Scarlett, Alanis and Sandra). Boy, did they dodge a bullet!

If this is who TS says is her bestie, then no more TS for me.

I hope that Baldoni is victorious.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

You don’t get two and a half years of data for a film that these folks were working on in any capacity, including promotion, for a matter of months. Discovery requests are required to be narrowly tailored to a party’s claims.

The funny thing is that the providers won’t have retained 3 years of anything beyond phone records maybe. Typically they keep the other stuff, like texts, only for a few months. In a criminal investigation, prosecutors can request that phone/internet companies retain records before charges are brought, but there is no similar retention request here.

So Blake’s lawyers will get called out by the judge for these requests, which he’ll narrow, but they were never going to get much out of the requests anyway besides recent texts. They are just dummies.

Did you read my post? I don't think they are going to get two and a half years of data. The request will definitely be narrowed by the court and the opposing party, as I literally just stated. I'm just saying that I think it's reasonable for them to request data as far back as December 2022. Likely they want comms related to Lively's hiring that month. I think they will get them, and I think they will get a ton of comms throughout 2023 and 2024, not just when the production was officially in filming or promotion. It's very obvious from Baldoni's filings that the issues in both complaints were discussed extensively via email/text throughout that time period.

I don't understand what some of you were expecting this request to look like or how you think the judge will "punish" them for being broad in their first request. It will be narrowed, they know it will. Which is precisely why they made as broad of a request as possible. If they'd made a more narrow request, Baldoni's team would have responded exactly the same way as they are currently responding. Exactly. So you have to start with the biggest possible request so that when it inevitably gets cut back, you maximize what you might get.

Some of you seem oddly offended by this extremely standard opening salvo in what will no doubt be a lengthy and contested discovery process. Just wait until Baldoni's team does the exact same thing. This is how this works.

It isn’t how it works. Good lawyers will issue requests that are appropriately tailored in time and relevance. Shitty lawyers go on fishing expeditions and needlessly involve the judge the process. This will be the fourth consecutive loss for Blake and company. The judge is going to despise her team. Somehow seems fitting but I am consistently surprised by how weak her legal team is.

Maybe the team isn’t the problem and the case is. It seems like everything for BL hangs on discovery from phone records. So they are going to go broad scorch earth and SCREAM about it in the media as if it’s some big win. What is the headlining saying now , something like calling Baldoni and lawyers fraidy cats because they don’t want her team to search ALL of their phone records.

She’s acting just like everyone whose ciriticizing is saying: like a spoiled, entitled Cindy Brady boo hoo.

I would expect that a mom of four would have some class and grace about herself. But I guess this is who she is, a near 40 year old, forever stuck in her teens mentally.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

You don’t get two and a half years of data for a film that these folks were working on in any capacity, including promotion, for a matter of months. Discovery requests are required to be narrowly tailored to a party’s claims.

The funny thing is that the providers won’t have retained 3 years of anything beyond phone records maybe. Typically they keep the other stuff, like texts, only for a few months. In a criminal investigation, prosecutors can request that phone/internet companies retain records before charges are brought, but there is no similar retention request here.

So Blake’s lawyers will get called out by the judge for these requests, which he’ll narrow, but they were never going to get much out of the requests anyway besides recent texts. They are just dummies.

Did you read my post? I don't think they are going to get two and a half years of data. The request will definitely be narrowed by the court and the opposing party, as I literally just stated. I'm just saying that I think it's reasonable for them to request data as far back as December 2022. Likely they want comms related to Lively's hiring that month. I think they will get them, and I think they will get a ton of comms throughout 2023 and 2024, not just when the production was officially in filming or promotion. It's very obvious from Baldoni's filings that the issues in both complaints were discussed extensively via email/text throughout that time period.

I don't understand what some of you were expecting this request to look like or how you think the judge will "punish" them for being broad in their first request. It will be narrowed, they know it will. Which is precisely why they made as broad of a request as possible. If they'd made a more narrow request, Baldoni's team would have responded exactly the same way as they are currently responding. Exactly. So you have to start with the biggest possible request so that when it inevitably gets cut back, you maximize what you might get.

Some of you seem oddly offended by this extremely standard opening salvo in what will no doubt be a lengthy and contested discovery process. Just wait until Baldoni's team does the exact same thing. This is how this works.

It isn’t how it works. Good lawyers will issue requests that are appropriately tailored in time and relevance. Shitty lawyers go on fishing expeditions and needlessly involve the judge the process. This will be the fourth consecutive loss for Blake and company. The judge is going to despise her team. Somehow seems fitting but I am consistently surprised by how weak her legal team is.

Maybe the team isn’t the problem and the case is. It seems like everything for BL hangs on discovery from phone records. So they are going to go broad scorch earth and SCREAM about it in the media as if it’s some big win. What is the headlining saying now , something like calling Baldoni and lawyers fraidy cats because they don’t want her team to search ALL of their phone records.

She’s acting just like everyone whose ciriticizing is saying: like a spoiled, entitled Cindy Brady boo hoo.

I would expect that a mom of four would have some class and grace about herself. But I guess this is who she is, a near 40 year old, forever stuck in her teens mentally.

This is very common in child actors. They stop developing mentally at the age in which they become famous.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Pp That's exactly my line of thinking!! I've followed a few celebrity and high profile cases and they are usually broad like this and get tailored foen if necessary. It's not indicative that that its a fishing expedition or they have nothing. Everyone will have to see each other communications to get a better understanding at what's happening. If the judge says "hey this isn't specific enough" then they cut the dates or identify keyword their looking for.

Jed would have to do his interrogatories first so they know exactly what capacity he's was used in.

[Anonymous]

Maybe the team isn’t the problem and the case is.

Not a bad theory.

[Anonymous]

Any theories on why Blake's team didn't subpeona any of these records before the CPD complaint? This was supposedly how she got the PR peoples' texts, so why not subpeona other records at that time? Was this because they didn't want to tip off Baldoni and Wayfarer before the article dropped? Or does it lend credibility to the theory that the work phone was pretty much leaked to Blake's side?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Any theories on why Blake's team didn't subpeona any of these records before the CPD complaint? This was supposedly how she got the PR peoples' texts, so why not subpeona other records at that time? Was this because they didn't want to tip off Baldoni and Wayfarer before the article dropped? Or does it lend credibility to the theory that the work phone was pretty much leaked to Blake's side?

She got the PR texts because of Stephanie Jones suit against Abel and Nathan. It was existing litigation in which Lively had a vested interest and the texts had already been captured. It would be atypical to subpoena new discovery prior to even filing a lawsuit. She had to file her lawsuit that get discovery.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Any theories on why Blake's team didn't subpeona any of these records before the CPD complaint? This was supposedly how she got the PR peoples' texts, so why not subpeona other records at that time? Was this because they didn't want to tip off Baldoni and Wayfarer before the article dropped? Or does it lend credibility to the theory that the work phone was pretty much leaked to Blake's side?

She got the PR texts because of Stephanie Jones suit against Abel and Nathan. It was existing litigation in which Lively had a vested interest and the texts had already been captured. It would be atypical to subpoena new discovery prior to even filing a lawsuit. She had to file her lawsuit that get discovery.

Thank you. I didn't know they already had a suit going. But how did Lively get access if she wasn't a party?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Pp That's exactly my line of thinking!! I've followed a few celebrity and high profile cases and they are usually broad like this and get tailored foen if necessary. It's not indicative that that its a fishing expedition or they have nothing. Everyone will have to see each other communications to get a better understanding at what's happening. If the judge says "hey this isn't specific enough" then they cut the dates or identify keyword their looking for.

Jed would have to do his interrogatories first so they know exactly what capacity he's was used in.

Right, the “high profile, celebrity”’ style is being a really bad lawyer.

Lawyers actually have an obligation to make a good faith obligation to limit discovery, particularly with respect to relevance. These requests are so out of bounds because they have no limitations whatsoever other than a ridiculously long time period. It’s true that it is not unusual for parties have disputes about the scope of discovery even when properly limited. The usual practice is for the parties to meet and mutually agree on how to narrow a request, thereby avoiding needing the judge to intervene. Here, Lively’s attorneys refused to do that as well. It’s all extremely ill advised.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Any theories on why Blake's team didn't subpeona any of these records before the CPD complaint? This was supposedly how she got the PR peoples' texts, so why not subpeona other records at that time? Was this because they didn't want to tip off Baldoni and Wayfarer before the article dropped? Or does it lend credibility to the theory that the work phone was pretty much leaked to Blake's side?

You can’t get discovery without a law suit.

[Anonymous]

Is it mostly lawyers on this thread?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Any theories on why Blake's team didn't subpeona any of these records before the CPD complaint? This was supposedly how she got the PR peoples' texts, so why not subpeona other records at that time? Was this because they didn't want to tip off Baldoni and Wayfarer before the article dropped? Or does it lend credibility to the theory that the work phone was pretty much leaked to Blake's side?

She got the PR texts because of Stephanie Jones suit against Abel and Nathan. It was existing litigation in which Lively had a vested interest and the texts had already been captured. It would be atypical to subpoena new discovery prior to even filing a lawsuit. She had to file her lawsuit that get discovery.

Thank you. I didn't know they already had a suit going. But how did Lively get access if she wasn't a party?

Stephanie's company technically owns the messages. It was Abel's work phone that she ported her personal number too and naively thought it meant she had privacy with.