Blake Lively- Jason Baldoni and NYT - False Light claims

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Is it mostly lawyers on this thread?

Lawyers and wannabe lawyers. I think we’ve got it covered.

[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.

true but the problem is, if she’s a nightmare person with a pattern of finding reasons to be offended, trying to get people fired and “poison” other people against them … that makes it much more likely that this whole thing was the fruit of her bad personality and not harassment and retaliation.

[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.

+1. lol at a judge being offended by an overbroad initial discovery request. In this kind of case you don’t clutch pearls over making the judge happy.

[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.

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.

Lolol. tell me you’ve never litigated a case like this without telling me. you’re ridiculously out of your depth.

[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.

+1. lol at a judge being offended by an overbroad initial discovery request. In this kind of case you don’t clutch pearls over making the judge happy.

lol, what a bunch of amateurs Blake has for a legal team. Her case was bad and they are making it worse. Who has ever heard of a motion for extension being denied when the other side agreed to it? Team Lively setting new lows for losing.

[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.

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.

Lolol. tell me you’ve never litigated a case like this without telling me. you’re ridiculously out of your depth.

It would be hard to be doing a worse job than her legal team is currently doing.

[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.

+1. lol at a judge being offended by an overbroad initial discovery request. In this kind of case you don’t clutch pearls over making the judge happy.

lol, what a bunch of amateurs Blake has for a legal team. Her case was bad and they are making it worse. Who has ever heard of a motion for extension being denied when the other side agreed to it? Team Lively setting new lows for losing.

That sounds more like the judge being a jerk than anything else.

[Anonymous]

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.

Whoever is going off on the parents isn’t going to listen to reason. They’re just not all there.

I agree the bashing of RR mom is crass and gratuitous. But her involvement in promoting IEWU goes to show that RR was way too involved in all of this. That part is fair game and just really strange. It would be cute if she was on the red carpet with him for his own movie.

[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:

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.

+1. lol at a judge being offended by an overbroad initial discovery request. In this kind of case you don’t clutch pearls over making the judge happy.

lol, what a bunch of amateurs Blake has for a legal team. Her case was bad and they are making it worse. Who has ever heard of a motion for extension being denied when the other side agreed to it? Team Lively setting new lows for losing.

That sounds more like the judge being a jerk than anything else.

Already fed up with the frivolous requests from the Lively camp and the case has barely started. Will not be happy with the complete fishing expedition subpoenas, nor the fact Lively lawyers refused to negotiate with Freedman to narrow them. Bring on the popcorn.

[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.

I agree but I think there is another aspect here about how her lawsuit has tarnished her reputation, because it's brought all this old stuff out of the woodwork and it's being talked about collectively now (vs who was really that focused on BL before?) So for people who are skeptical of the SH claims, they are pointing out that she took a big risk and there is downside exposure for her.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

true but the problem is, if she’s a nightmare person with a pattern of finding reasons to be offended, trying to get people fired and “poison” other people against them … that makes it much more likely that this whole thing was the fruit of her bad personality and not harassment and retaliation.

Lol. If only the judge could exclude all evidence of retaliation against Lively as the fruit of her bad personality.

[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.

I thought those texts were basically leaked to her - "friendly subpoena" for cover

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

true but the problem is, if she’s a nightmare person with a pattern of finding reasons to be offended, trying to get people fired and “poison” other people against them … that makes it much more likely that this whole thing was the fruit of her bad personality and not harassment and retaliation.

Lol. If only the judge could exclude all evidence of retaliation against Lively as the fruit of her bad personality.

Only someone who has never litigated a case would suggest it’s ok to get on the judge’s bad side.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

true but the problem is, if she’s a nightmare person with a pattern of finding reasons to be offended, trying to get people fired and “poison” other people against them … that makes it much more likely that this whole thing was the fruit of her bad personality and not harassment and retaliation.

Lol. If only the judge could exclude all evidence of retaliation against Lively as the fruit of her bad personality.

Only someone who has never litigated a case would suggest it’s ok to get on the judge’s bad side.

Sorry responded to wrong post.

[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:

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.

+1. lol at a judge being offended by an overbroad initial discovery request. In this kind of case you don’t clutch pearls over making the judge happy.

lol, what a bunch of amateurs Blake has for a legal team. Her case was bad and they are making it worse. Who has ever heard of a motion for extension being denied when the other side agreed to it? Team Lively setting new lows for losing.

That sounds more like the judge being a jerk than anything else.

Already fed up with the frivolous requests from the Lively camp and the case has barely started. Will not be happy with the complete fishing expedition subpoenas, nor the fact Lively lawyers refused to negotiate with Freedman to narrow them. Bring on the popcorn.

Nonlawyer/pro-Baldoni person here. I think one thing Freedman is doing really well is creating a “spoiled Blake” narrative for all of us spectators who are glued to the case. He knows most of us have no idea what a standard discovery request is—all he has to do is tell us it’s over the top and egregious and make a joke about them thinking they are the FBI. And we lap it up! Because it really makes her and Ryan look like such PITAs. I’m not even really sure if Lively asked to not be deposed by Freedman or if he just played up something they said to make it look like she did. I’m enjoying the theater of it all, but I do take it with a grain of salt.