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:

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.

+1 there is a major element of this going on.

[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:

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.

+1 there is a major element of this going on.

Referring back to Blake’s troublesome interviews, she’s making herself look like an unsophisticated PITA. This is all on her, no one is helping her here.

[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:

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.

+1 there is a major element of this going on.

Referring back to Blake’s troublesome interviews, she’s making herself look like an unsophisticated PITA. This is all on her, no one is helping her here.

She absolutely needs no help looking like the spoiled, lying bully that she is.

[Anonymous]

Wow Lively's lawyers just filed a letter response to Baldoni's objections to the subpoenas. I don't think this is good for Baldoni. Can't link right now but you can find the response on Reddit.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Wow Lively's lawyers just filed a letter response to Baldoni's objections to the subpoenas. I don't think this is good for Baldoni. Can't link right now but you can find the response on Reddit.

Filed a letter?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Wow Lively's lawyers just filed a letter response to Baldoni's objections to the subpoenas. I don't think this is good for Baldoni. Can't link right now but you can find the response on Reddit.

Non-lawyer here. What does that mean and why is it bad for Baldoni?

[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:

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.

Lawyer here, her subpoenas were in fact over the top, no hyperbole there.

[Anonymous]

Here’s a Reddit link with the letter. It basically says that Baldoni’s attorneys didn’t meet with Lively’s attorneys in good faith to try to narrow the scope of the subpoenas, and that they also grossly misrepresented what the subpoenas were asking for (by saying they were seeking the actual communications not just the logs). They are basically accusing them of just trying to make a public spectacle rather than trying to work through the issue.

https://www.reddit.com/r/BaldoniFiles/comments/1iqhoek/baldoni_lawyers_gonna_get_bench_slapped/#lightbox

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Wow Lively's lawyers just filed a letter response to Baldoni's objections to the subpoenas. I don't think this is good for Baldoni. Can't link right now but you can find the response on Reddit.

Non-lawyer here. What does that mean and why is it bad for Baldoni?

It’s not, it’s her weak attempt to distract from the fast that Blake keeps losing.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Wow Lively's lawyers just filed a letter response to Baldoni's objections to the subpoenas. I don't think this is good for Baldoni. Can't link right now but you can find the response on Reddit.

Non-lawyer here. What does that mean and why is it bad for Baldoni?

It’s not, it’s her weak attempt to distract from the fast that Blake keeps losing.

Echo that. /another lawyer

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Here’s a Reddit link with the letter. It basically says that Baldoni’s attorneys didn’t meet with Lively’s attorneys in good faith to try to narrow the scope of the subpoenas, and that they also grossly misrepresented what the subpoenas were asking for (by saying they were seeking the actual communications not just the logs). They are basically accusing them of just trying to make a public spectacle rather than trying to work through the issue.

https://www.reddit.com/r/BaldoniFiles/comments/1iqhoek/baldoni_lawyers_gonna_get_bench_slapped/#lightbox

Blake wasn’t willing to narrow anything so not sure how Baldoni was the party acting in bad faith. Nothing in this response changes the fact that the discovery is pverbroad in both time period and scope (seeks all communications with all recipients).

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Wow Lively's lawyers just filed a letter response to Baldoni's objections to the subpoenas. I don't think this is good for Baldoni. Can't link right now but you can find the response on Reddit.

Non-lawyer here. What does that mean and why is it bad for Baldoni?

It’s not, it’s her weak attempt to distract from the fast that Blake keeps losing.

Echo that. /another lawyer

Another echo from another lawyer.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Wow Lively's lawyers just filed a letter response to Baldoni's objections to the subpoenas. I don't think this is good for Baldoni. Can't link right now but you can find the response on Reddit.

Non-lawyer here. What does that mean and why is it bad for Baldoni?

Apparently Freedman refused to participate in a conference to discuss the parameters of the subpoenas and then misrepresented what they were asking for in his response. It looks like he acted in bad faith. According to Lively's lawyers, they were only asking for call log data and were willing to work with Baldoni's team on narrowing the time parameters and even removing location data altogether, but Freedman refused to participate and instead filed objections on these grounds anyway.

I sense the judge will be, um, unhappy about this.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Wow Lively's lawyers just filed a letter response to Baldoni's objections to the subpoenas. I don't think this is good for Baldoni. Can't link right now but you can find the response on Reddit.

Non-lawyer here. What does that mean and why is it bad for Baldoni?

Apparently Freedman refused to participate in a conference to discuss the parameters of the subpoenas and then misrepresented what they were asking for in his response. It looks like he acted in bad faith. According to Lively's lawyers, they were only asking for call log data and were willing to work with Baldoni's team on narrowing the time parameters and even removing location data altogether, but Freedman refused to participate and instead filed objections on these grounds anyway.

I sense the judge will be, um, unhappy about this.

Wrong, JB participated in the call. They didn’t come to an agreement.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Wow Lively's lawyers just filed a letter response to Baldoni's objections to the subpoenas. I don't think this is good for Baldoni. Can't link right now but you can find the response on Reddit.

Non-lawyer here. What does that mean and why is it bad for Baldoni?

Apparently Freedman refused to participate in a conference to discuss the parameters of the subpoenas and then misrepresented what they were asking for in his response. It looks like he acted in bad faith. According to Lively's lawyers, they were only asking for call log data and were willing to work with Baldoni's team on narrowing the time parameters and even removing location data altogether, but Freedman refused to participate and instead filed objections on these grounds anyway.

I sense the judge will be, um, unhappy about this.

Wrong, JB participated in the call. They didn’t come to an agreement.

Sorry that should say JB’s counsel.