Blake Lively- Jason Baldoni and NYT - False Light claims

[Anonymous]

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

You’re asking people who are thrilled at Bowen Yang’s understanding of EEO law and litigation strategy. Don’t get me wrong, I don’t want them to stop teaching us in this thread.

[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

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.

The subpoenas are on this thread and Blake is indeed looking for 2.5 years of data for all the Wayfarer defendants.

[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.

Well the subpoenas speak for themselves.

[Anonymous]

Some of the requests seek call logs, text logs, data logs and location data. The last one is even broader, seeking anything ever produced in any other action concerning the defendant.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Some of the requests seek call logs, text logs, data logs and location data. The last one is even broader, seeking anything ever produced in any other action concerning the defendant.

Just looked at the requests again, and Freedman is correct. On their face they seek all documents related to x phone number, “including but not limited to” call records, text records, data logs and location data.

[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

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.

You seem to be having quite a reaction here.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Some of the requests seek call logs, text logs, data logs and location data. The last one is even broader, seeking anything ever produced in any other action concerning the defendant.

Just looked at the requests again, and Freedman is correct. On their face they seek all documents related to x phone number, “including but not limited to” call records, text records, data logs and location data.

It’s common to start overboard in the request and then negotiate a more limited position. All of this letter writing is totally normal, but usually only between counsel and not brought up w judge until parties are at an impasse. Still, some judges allow for overbroad discovery so it’s a gamble unless you have a good handle on judges historical rulings on discovery issues. And, it comes to bite you if so, since other party can then also ask for overbroad discovery.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Some of the requests seek call logs, text logs, data logs and location data. The last one is even broader, seeking anything ever produced in any other action concerning the defendant.

Just looked at the requests again, and Freedman is correct. On their face they seek all documents related to x phone number, “including but not limited to” call records, text records, data logs and location data.

It’s common to start overboard in the request and then negotiate a more limited position. All of this letter writing is totally normal, but usually only between counsel and not brought up w judge until parties are at an impasse. Still, some judges allow for overbroad discovery so it’s a gamble unless you have a good handle on judges historical rulings on discovery issues. And, it comes to bite you if so, since other party can then also ask for overbroad discovery.

Yeah, not really. I realize you're "I never said I was a lawyer" and deeply invested in the Lively defense but personally, I found this to be egregiously over broad. Better to go in asking for a scalpel version than a net. It's a fishing expedition. Lively and Reynolds are only good for one thing and that's for bringing in the $$$$ for those billables.

[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

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.

Uh, someone said the letter was on Reddit but didn’t post it, so I went on Reddit and did a search. That’s the first place I found it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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

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.

The subpoenas are on this thread and Blake is indeed looking for 2.5 years of data for all the Wayfarer defendants.

I’ll have to look at them myself. I was basing that on what a few people had said earlier.

[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.

Huh ya think? or will the judge just rule against Lively on the grounds that her lawyers are mid-tier parvenues from Manat? 😂

[Anonymous]

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

I would consider this letter BL’s counsel to be further annoying the judge as is their MO. JB’s counsel did nothing wrong. They had a call and didn’t come to an agreement so they filed a motion. Now BL’s counsel is crying in a letter.

[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.

You think it’s weak? Did you actually read it?

[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.

You think it’s weak? Did you actually read it?

I read it and it’s a bunch of whining and crying by BL’s lawyers.

[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.

The subpoenas had already gone out to the carriers at that point and Baldoni filed the objection before Lively even had a chance to narrow the subpoenas. In addition Lively team said it would not look at any disputed discovery until after the meet and confer process was done.