Blake Lively- Jason Baldoni and NYT - False Light claims

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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).

They claim they were willing to narrow the subpoenas (specifically regarding location data) and clarified they are not looking for substantive data but things like call logs. Then the Baldoni attorneys intentionally mislead the public in claiming they were looking for substantive data. This appears to me true, as several attorneys here noted the subpoenas were not looking for 2.5 years of texts/conversations from all parties, as baldoni’s attorneys implied.

[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.

Ignore.

[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.

Ignore.

Whoa. This is actually factual data.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Ignore.

Whoa. This is actually factual data.

DP. I already gave you the facts. Keep up.

[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.

Where do you see JB participated?

Why did Freedman claim they were looking for the content of messages if Lively's attorneys were clear that they were only looking for logs?

Someone is lying about what happened on the call. I wonder if it was recorded.

[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

So the letter says BL lawyers were willing to exclude geolocation after discussion, but then why did they ask for it if it's not relevant after all? Seems shady, like they were gratuitous in their request so they could pretend they were narrowing the scope in good faith.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Where do you see JB participated?

Why did Freedman claim they were looking for the content of messages if Lively's attorneys were clear that they were only looking for logs?

Someone is lying about what happened on the call. I wonder if it was recorded.

JB’s counsel participated in a call. It says it in the letter. They did not come to an agreement on the call.

[Anonymous]

This is another Reddit discussion of the issue (linking the letter):

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

Seems like Freeman got too cocky; I don’t think this kind of thing usually goes over well. And to the extent Lively’s attorneys were trying to work something out in order to use the information subpoenaed in their amended complaint due Monday and now won’t be able to, while Freeman’s lawyers meanwhile appear to be playing these games, it might even lead to an extension. Though I don’t think so.

Looking for this link, I came across another one. Were people here aware that Baldoni was sued in 2020 for discrimination and retaliation? The case, which involved a black male employee (where I believe the litigation was again bankrolled by Baldoni’s rich friend in the same cult-y religion, which by the way does not allow sex before marriage, women to be members of the highest church office, or gay sex/marriage), was apparently ultimately settled out of court. https://www.reddit.com/r/BaldoniFiles/comments/1i9925m/baldoni_was_sued_in_2021_for_discrimination_and/?chainedPosts=t3_1iqhoek

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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

So the letter says BL lawyers were willing to exclude geolocation after discussion, but then why did they ask for it if it's not relevant after all? Seems shady, like they were gratuitous in their request so they could pretend they were narrowing the scope in good faith.

Yup.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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

So the letter says BL lawyers were willing to exclude geolocation after discussion, but then why did they ask for it if it's not relevant after all? Seems shady, like they were gratuitous in their request so they could pretend they were narrowing the scope in good faith.

Yup.

What? That’s negotiating discovery my dude. The other side goes apoplectic over your request and you Kirsten to them and determine ways you can narrow it and still get what you want. You guys have drunk the Kook Aid.

[Anonymous]

That was supposed to be Kool Aid but Kook also works lol.

[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

Oh wow oh my oh no, Blake won!!! What am I doing to do??

Thank you so much for linking to the Baldoni Files, a totally morally neutral site set up per its creators to track all of the other complaints about Baldoni’s crimes of SH and SA against scores of other women. They’re coming. From what I understand, typical she’s a shero MeToo cases are quite subtle and other victims wait 2-12 years to emerge from the woodwork after a splashy complaint is a major story in the NYT.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Ignore.

Whoa. This is actually factual data.

DP. I already gave you the facts. Keep up.

Whoa, wow. PP is just trying to educate you okurrrr? It’s like really really really bad.

[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.

Is it a sixth sense that tells you Liman is clearly most definitely going to kick Bryan Freedman square in the perineum?

[Anonymous]

Let me get this straight,it’s ok for BLs lawyers to annoy the judge but legally disastrous for JBs lawyers. Got it.