Blake Lively- Jason Baldoni and NYT - False Light claims

[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

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.

I'm the one who said it was on Reddit and I specifically didn't post it because it came from that sub and I knew people here would have some kind of mental breakdown about it. It's not on the more pro-JB and neutralish subs I follow yet and I don't have PACER, so I thought it would be easier to just describe it than to link to a pro-BL sub because everyone is SO sensitive on this thread for some reason.

[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.

Ummm no. BL’s discovery request was basically routine; JB’s response was not. I don’t think either is “disastrous” because unlike you I know that trying to walk on eggshells to seem the most high-tier around the judge is not actually how litigation happens. Yes Baldoni’s team will likely get admonished by the judge; no, I do not think it’s a disaster for their case. I think they wanted to create a narrative of Lively being aggressive and grasping, and at the end of the day, she will still get what she would get with or without this episode (that is, the narrowed call logs).

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Honestly, have you EVER litigated a case? It truly sounds like you have not. I’ve not only clerked for a federal district court judge, but I have also done sexual harassment cases on the plaintiff side and been at a white shoe firm. Discovery starting broad and being narrowed is *completely normal.* Like, not even batting an eye.

[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?

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.

Um ok.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

A few things:

- All motions are filed by letter at this stage, the judge actually requests it. Baldoni's motion was also in letter form. They are the same thing.
- The judge *will* be annoyed that the parties are fighting because he has to weigh in, he will not be more annoyed with BL's lawyers than JB's lawyers and he won't be annoyed by this letter specifically which, unlike the Baldoni letter, actually cites case law and makes a legal argument in favor of what they are asking for (the Baldoni side's letter just cites the FRCP and is mostly invective).
- Ultimately this fight is going to get referred to the magistrate judge who will administer discovery proceedings anyway.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

A few things:

- All motions are filed by letter at this stage, the judge actually requests it. Baldoni's motion was also in letter form. They are the same thing.
- The judge *will* be annoyed that the parties are fighting because he has to weigh in, he will not be more annoyed with BL's lawyers than JB's lawyers and he won't be annoyed by this letter specifically which, unlike the Baldoni letter, actually cites case law and makes a legal argument in favor of what they are asking for (the Baldoni side's letter just cites the FRCP and is mostly invective).
- Ultimately this fight is going to get referred to the magistrate judge who will administer discovery proceedings anyway.

^^this guy litigates

[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.

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.

That the subpoeanas had already gone out explains why Baldoni's team had to act quickly in filing the motion. They don't have to give Lively a "chance" to narrow the request to only relevant material. That's what Lively's firm should have requested in the first place.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Ummm no. BL’s discovery request was basically routine; JB’s response was not. I don’t think either is “disastrous” because unlike you I know that trying to walk on eggshells to seem the most high-tier around the judge is not actually how litigation happens. Yes Baldoni’s team will likely get admonished by the judge; no, I do not think it’s a disaster for their case. I think they wanted to create a narrative of Lively being aggressive and grasping, and at the end of the day, she will still get what she would get with or without this episode (that is, the narrowed call logs).

All of this.

The posts in this thread where they try to attempt legal analysis from a position of knowing absolutely nothing about how courts or judges work but assuming that everyone involved, including the judge, is also "Team Baldoni" and following this case breathlessly via TMZ updates is so weird. There's no question Baldoni's side is doing a way better job with the PR aspect right now, but as far as the court is concerned, they are still in early stages.

Also Liman is striking me as hard to provoke at this point. He's been very even keel. I think he ignores the strong language and just focuses on the legal arguments.

[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

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.

That the subpoeanas had already gone out explains why Baldoni's team had to act quickly in filing the motion. They don't have to give Lively a "chance" to narrow the request to only relevant material. That's what Lively's firm should have requested in the first place.

gosh you are so inconsistent with your insistence on “not annoying the judge.” This was easily resolvable through narrowing the subpoena (and remember that Lively’s team agreed not to look at the data in the interim.) parties are supposed to make an effort to conduct discovery on their own.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Ummm no. BL’s discovery request was basically routine; JB’s response was not. I don’t think either is “disastrous” because unlike you I know that trying to walk on eggshells to seem the most high-tier around the judge is not actually how litigation happens. Yes Baldoni’s team will likely get admonished by the judge; no, I do not think it’s a disaster for their case. I think they wanted to create a narrative of Lively being aggressive and grasping, and at the end of the day, she will still get what she would get with or without this episode (that is, the narrowed call logs).

All of this.

The posts in this thread where they try to attempt legal analysis from a position of knowing absolutely nothing about how courts or judges work but assuming that everyone involved, including the judge, is also "Team Baldoni" and following this case breathlessly via TMZ updates is so weird. There's no question Baldoni's side is doing a way better job with the PR aspect right now, but as far as the court is concerned, they are still in early stages.

Also Liman is striking me as hard to provoke at this point. He's been very even keel. I think he ignores the strong language and just focuses on the legal arguments.

pretty sure Liman has seen worse 😂

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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

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.

That the subpoeanas had already gone out explains why Baldoni's team had to act quickly in filing the motion. They don't have to give Lively a "chance" to narrow the request to only relevant material. That's what Lively's firm should have requested in the first place.

gosh you are so inconsistent with your insistence on “not annoying the judge.” This was easily resolvable through narrowing the subpoena (and remember that Lively’s team agreed not to look at the data in the interim.) parties are supposed to make an effort to conduct discovery on their own.

People on both sides need to stop assuming they are only talking to one person. I never said anything about annoying the judge.

[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

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.

That the subpoeanas had already gone out explains why Baldoni's team had to act quickly in filing the motion. They don't have to give Lively a "chance" to narrow the request to only relevant material. That's what Lively's firm should have requested in the first place.

This.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Honestly, have you EVER litigated a case? It truly sounds like you have not. I’ve not only clerked for a federal district court judge, but I have also done sexual harassment cases on the plaintiff side and been at a white shoe firm. Discovery starting broad and being narrowed is *completely normal.* Like, not even batting an eye.

Dp, 20 year litigator, and I agree with pp that Blake’’s subpoena is extremely overbroad. Moreover, her counsel for some reason misrepresented the scope of the requests in their letter response which will anger the judge. Due to the inclusion of the “including but not limited to” language, her requests are clearly not limited to non content documents. It isn’t even debatable, every litigator knows the meaning of that phrase.

[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

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.

I'm the one who said it was on Reddit and I specifically didn't post it because it came from that sub and I knew people here would have some kind of mental breakdown about it. It's not on the more pro-JB and neutralish subs I follow yet and I don't have PACER, so I thought it would be easier to just describe it than to link to a pro-BL sub because everyone is SO sensitive on this thread for some reason.

Hah! Lesson learned. I use Reddit sparingly, but they are a quick source for stuff like this. I didn’t even look at what sub it was in or read the comments.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Ummm no. BL’s discovery request was basically routine; JB’s response was not. I don’t think either is “disastrous” because unlike you I know that trying to walk on eggshells to seem the most high-tier around the judge is not actually how litigation happens. Yes Baldoni’s team will likely get admonished by the judge; no, I do not think it’s a disaster for their case. I think they wanted to create a narrative of Lively being aggressive and grasping, and at the end of the day, she will still get what she would get with or without this episode (that is, the narrowed call logs).

All of this.

The posts in this thread where they try to attempt legal analysis from a position of knowing absolutely nothing about how courts or judges work but assuming that everyone involved, including the judge, is also "Team Baldoni" and following this case breathlessly via TMZ updates is so weird. There's no question Baldoni's side is doing a way better job with the PR aspect right now, but as far as the court is concerned, they are still in early stages.

Also Liman is striking me as hard to provoke at this point. He's been very even keel. I think he ignores the strong language and just focuses on the legal arguments.

Liman has not been even keeled, he’s clearly annoyed by BL’s lawyers. It is basically unheard of for a judge to deny a motion to which the opposing party has agreed, especially as something as mundane as an extension of time, but that is exactly what the judge did here.

Further, it is super annoying to hear you continually spout about every other lawyer doesn’t know what they are doing but you do. Especially when you consistently have the outlier view. Many of us are experienced litigators.