Blake Lively- Jason Baldoni and NYT - False Light claims

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Back to the actual case, Freedman has filed another letter response today, accusing Lively’s counsel of misrepresenting their discovery requests as only seeking non content logs. This echos the argument some of us made on this thread yesterday
I follow a tiktoker who reads the pleadings aloud once filed but I assume this pleading also has made it to reddit.

Any chance you can post the tiktok? Would love for this thread to discuss something of substance again!

Here’s the ppleading, it made it to Reddit. https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.nysd.634304/gov.uscourts.nysd.634304.83.0.pdf

Lots of aggressive language in here again but I notice he does mention he has literally no idea whether the telecom companies can provide the breadth of information they claim is being collected. I don’t know, maybe Baldoni has a point that the subpoenas should have been limited to just the info needed (in which case Lively looks bad), but if it normal practice to request call logs from telecom providers in the way, Baldoni comes off looking bad. In other words, if Lively’s attys have other subpoenas using this language that were okay, this is a Freeman mistake; but if these were drafted by a second year trying to figure things out on their own, Lively looks bad. Still seems like Freeman jumped the gun when Lively specifically said they wouldn’t look at any discovery until an agreement was in place.

You misunderstand almost all of his argument. They ask for far more than logs, and in your words, this is not the “normal way” to ask for just logs.

You misunderstand me. If Wilkie has other subpoenas they served on telecom companies in different cases using this language where all they received from the telecom companies were call logs, this is a normal way to subpoena telecom cos and Freeman just — as he admits in his letter — doesn’t know what records telecom cos have available to provide.

[Anonymous]

I feel like the yes-men and women grifters around them are deeply out of touch or just stealing money from them. It’s baby boomer tier crisis PR in a generation Z hyper-speed era. Fake fan pap walks and an SNL skit might have worked back in the 90s? Not now.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:If that SNL appearance was done to change the public perception on these two, it clearly didn't work. If anything, Ryan joking about their so-called “sexual harassment” claims on national television only made things worse.

I totally agree and said so last night and was ridiculed on here by the BL and RR defender(s?).

[Anonymous]

They’re getting dragged on lipstick alley too. Hilarious comments.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:They’re getting dragged on lipstick alley too. Hilarious comments.

Oh but didn’t you know according to BL/RR supporters that no one is talking about this and we are all unwell?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:They’re getting dragged on lipstick alley too. Hilarious comments.

Oh but didn’t you know according to BL/RR supporters that no one is talking about this and we are all unwell?

I'm not sure that commenters on lipstick alley discussing it proves that this is a widespread discussion.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:They’re getting dragged on lipstick alley too. Hilarious comments.

Oh but didn’t you know according to BL/RR supporters that no one is talking about this and we are all unwell?

I'm not sure that commenters on lipstick alley discussing it proves that this is a widespread discussion.

It’s all over Reddit, Instagram, in the mainstream media. Do you need Donald trump to address it for it to be real to you?

[Anonymous]

Lots of aggressive language in here again but I notice he does mention he has literally no idea whether the telecom companies can provide the breadth of information they claim is being collected.

He has to operate on the assumption they may have it. As has been explained, Lively asked for "all' documents "including but not limited to" the logs and geodata, but they may have additional information (the last few months of texts and web browser history, for example) which is covered by the subpoena. That information, including NOT relevant and possibly privileged information, could cause embarrassment and damage to the defendants and non-parties (such as their spouses and family members) whose information may be included.

I don’t know, maybe Baldoni has a point that the subpoenas should have been limited to just the info needed (in which case Lively looks bad),

It's not a minor point. The information sought must be relevant to the case.

but if it normal practice to request call logs from telecom providers in the way, Baldoni comes off looking bad.

It's not about what's normal practice. It's about what is relevant to that particular case. IMO, even just asking for all logs and location data going back to the 2.5 years is overbroad. For example, why do they need to know how many times Baldoni texted his wife's phone number during that period, or where he stayed during the writer's strike? That information, you'll agree, would be captured by their subpoena and is not relevant.

In other words, if Lively’s attys have other subpoenas using this language that were okay, this is a Freeman mistake; but if these were drafted by a second year trying to figure things out on their own, Lively looks bad.

No, they need to draft the subpoena with the details of the case in mind.

Still seems like Freeman jumped the gun when Lively specifically said they wouldn’t look at any discovery until an agreement was in place.

It would be insane for him to let them get the information on a promise not to look at it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Back to the actual case, Freedman has filed another letter response today, accusing Lively’s counsel of misrepresenting their discovery requests as only seeking non content logs. This echos the argument some of us made on this thread yesterday
I follow a tiktoker who reads the pleadings aloud once filed but I assume this pleading also has made it to reddit.

Any chance you can post the tiktok? Would love for this thread to discuss something of substance again!

Here’s the ppleading, it made it to Reddit. https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.nysd.634304/gov.uscourts.nysd.634304.83.0.pdf

Lots of aggressive language in here again but I notice he does mention he has literally no idea whether the telecom companies can provide the breadth of information they claim is being collected. I don’t know, maybe Baldoni has a point that the subpoenas should have been limited to just the info needed (in which case Lively looks bad), but if it normal practice to request call logs from telecom providers in the way, Baldoni comes off looking bad. In other words, if Lively’s attys have other subpoenas using this language that were okay, this is a Freeman mistake; but if these were drafted by a second year trying to figure things out on their own, Lively looks bad. Still seems like Freeman jumped the gun when Lively specifically said they wouldn’t look at any discovery until an agreement was in place.

You misunderstand almost all of his argument. They ask for far more than logs, and in your words, this is not the “normal way” to ask for just logs.

You misunderstand me. If Wilkie has other subpoenas they served on telecom companies in different cases using this language where all they received from the telecom companies were call logs, this is a normal way to subpoena telecom cos and Freeman just — as he admits in his letter — doesn’t know what records telecom cos have available to provide.

Oh, I understand you.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Lots of aggressive language in here again but I notice he does mention he has literally no idea whether the telecom companies can provide the breadth of information they claim is being collected.

He has to operate on the assumption they may have it. As has been explained, Lively asked for "all' documents "including but not limited to" the logs and geodata, but they may have additional information (the last few months of texts and web browser history, for example) which is covered by the subpoena. That information, including NOT relevant and possibly privileged information, could cause embarrassment and damage to the defendants and non-parties (such as their spouses and family members) whose information may be included.

I don’t know, maybe Baldoni has a point that the subpoenas should have been limited to just the info needed (in which case Lively looks bad),

It's not a minor point. The information sought must be relevant to the case.

but if it normal practice to request call logs from telecom providers in the way, Baldoni comes off looking bad.

It's not about what's normal practice. It's about what is relevant to that particular case. IMO, even just asking for all logs and location data going back to the 2.5 years is overbroad. For example, why do they need to know how many times Baldoni texted his wife's phone number during that period, or where he stayed during the writer's strike? That information, you'll agree, would be captured by their subpoena and is not relevant.

In other words, if Lively’s attys have other subpoenas using this language that were okay, this is a Freeman mistake; but if these were drafted by a second year trying to figure things out on their own, Lively looks bad.

No, they need to draft the subpoena with the details of the case in mind.

Still seems like Freeman jumped the gun when Lively specifically said they wouldn’t look at any discovery until an agreement was in place.

It would be insane for him to let them get the information on a promise not to look at it.

Thank you, did not have the patience to do this.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Lots of aggressive language in here again but I notice he does mention he has literally no idea whether the telecom companies can provide the breadth of information they claim is being collected.

He has to operate on the assumption they may have it. As has been explained, Lively asked for "all' documents "including but not limited to" the logs and geodata, but they may have additional information (the last few months of texts and web browser history, for example) which is covered by the subpoena. That information, including NOT relevant and possibly privileged information, could cause embarrassment and damage to the defendants and non-parties (such as their spouses and family members) whose information may be included.

I don’t know, maybe Baldoni has a point that the subpoenas should have been limited to just the info needed (in which case Lively looks bad),

It's not a minor point. The information sought must be relevant to the case.

but if it normal practice to request call logs from telecom providers in the way, Baldoni comes off looking bad.

It's not about what's normal practice. It's about what is relevant to that particular case. IMO, even just asking for all logs and location data going back to the 2.5 years is overbroad. For example, why do they need to know how many times Baldoni texted his wife's phone number during that period, or where he stayed during the writer's strike? That information, you'll agree, would be captured by their subpoena and is not relevant.

In other words, if Lively’s attys have other subpoenas using this language that were okay, this is a Freeman mistake; but if these were drafted by a second year trying to figure things out on their own, Lively looks bad.

No, they need to draft the subpoena with the details of the case in mind.

Still seems like Freeman jumped the gun when Lively specifically said they wouldn’t look at any discovery until an agreement was in place.

It would be insane for him to let them get the information on a promise not to look at it.

Thank you, did not have the patience to do this.

The most humorous part of this is that they swore if they got all of the information they wouldn’t look at it.

[Anonymous]

Op of the letter response here. There would be no”normal practice” in a civil case where a party could get content materials like texts with only subpoena. Only law enforcement can do so. So drafting these subpoenas in the manner they are drawn would never be ok in the normal course, this is not a case of a someone forgetting to tailor these requests to this particular case.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Lots of aggressive language in here again but I notice he does mention he has literally no idea whether the telecom companies can provide the breadth of information they claim is being collected.

He has to operate on the assumption they may have it. As has been explained, Lively asked for "all' documents "including but not limited to" the logs and geodata, but they may have additional information (the last few months of texts and web browser history, for example) which is covered by the subpoena. That information, including NOT relevant and possibly privileged information, could cause embarrassment and damage to the defendants and non-parties (such as their spouses and family members) whose information may be included.

I don’t know, maybe Baldoni has a point that the subpoenas should have been limited to just the info needed (in which case Lively looks bad),

It's not a minor point. The information sought must be relevant to the case.

but if it normal practice to request call logs from telecom providers in the way, Baldoni comes off looking bad.

It's not about what's normal practice. It's about what is relevant to that particular case. IMO, even just asking for all logs and location data going back to the 2.5 years is overbroad. For example, why do they need to know how many times Baldoni texted his wife's phone number during that period, or where he stayed during the writer's strike? That information, you'll agree, would be captured by their subpoena and is not relevant.

In other words, if Lively’s attys have other subpoenas using this language that were okay, this is a Freeman mistake; but if these were drafted by a second year trying to figure things out on their own, Lively looks bad.

No, they need to draft the subpoena with the details of the case in mind.

Still seems like Freeman jumped the gun when Lively specifically said they wouldn’t look at any discovery until an agreement was in place.

It would be insane for him to let them get the information on a promise not to look at it.

Thank you, did not have the patience to do this.

The most humorous part of this is that they swore if they got all of the information they wouldn’t look at it.

+1

I can't overestimate how much I think even just the logs is way overbroad. That would be a log of every call and text made over a very long period of time. There's a lot you can get out of that. Reynolds and Lively are in the industry. They could literally comb through those numbers compared to their contact list and determine what other industry people Baldoni and Wayfarer defendants are texting. There's probably AI that can do it. They could actually use that information to guess at what projects they are doing or what books they are trying to obtain the rights to. They could figure out what schools their kids go to, what plastic surgeons they visited and law firms they consulted (just the phone numbers is likely not privileged and Verizon and T-Mobile won't know when producing the logs that's what they were), who may be involved with their church, how many times they spoke to their family. It really is extremely invasive. And that's not to mention the location data. Lively knows when filming took place and where Baldoni was during relevant times. Why does she need to know location history over 2.5 years for him and every other defendant? That's insane. And I don't care that they "agreed to drop it" if it shouldn't have been in there in the first place.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Lots of aggressive language in here again but I notice he does mention he has literally no idea whether the telecom companies can provide the breadth of information they claim is being collected.

He has to operate on the assumption they may have it. As has been explained, Lively asked for "all' documents "including but not limited to" the logs and geodata, but they may have additional information (the last few months of texts and web browser history, for example) which is covered by the subpoena. That information, including NOT relevant and possibly privileged information, could cause embarrassment and damage to the defendants and non-parties (such as their spouses and family members) whose information may be included.

I don’t know, maybe Baldoni has a point that the subpoenas should have been limited to just the info needed (in which case Lively looks bad),

It's not a minor point. The information sought must be relevant to the case.

but if it normal practice to request call logs from telecom providers in the way, Baldoni comes off looking bad.

It's not about what's normal practice. It's about what is relevant to that particular case. IMO, even just asking for all logs and location data going back to the 2.5 years is overbroad. For example, why do they need to know how many times Baldoni texted his wife's phone number during that period, or where he stayed during the writer's strike? That information, you'll agree, would be captured by their subpoena and is not relevant.

In other words, if Lively’s attys have other subpoenas using this language that were okay, this is a Freeman mistake; but if these were drafted by a second year trying to figure things out on their own, Lively looks bad.

No, they need to draft the subpoena with the details of the case in mind.

Still seems like Freeman jumped the gun when Lively specifically said they wouldn’t look at any discovery until an agreement was in place.

It would be insane for him to let them get the information on a promise not to look at it.

Thank you, did not have the patience to do this.

The most humorous part of this is that they swore if they got all of the information they wouldn’t look at it.

+1

I can't overestimate how much I think even just the logs is way overbroad. That would be a log of every call and text made over a very long period of time. There's a lot you can get out of that. Reynolds and Lively are in the industry. They could literally comb through those numbers compared to their contact list and determine what other industry people Baldoni and Wayfarer defendants are texting. There's probably AI that can do it. They could actually use that information to guess at what projects they are doing or what books they are trying to obtain the rights to. They could figure out what schools their kids go to, what plastic surgeons they visited and law firms they consulted (just the phone numbers is likely not privileged and Verizon and T-Mobile won't know when producing the logs that's what they were), who may be involved with their church, how many times they spoke to their family. It really is extremely invasive. And that's not to mention the location data. Lively knows when filming took place and where Baldoni was during relevant times. Why does she need to know location history over 2.5 years for him and every other defendant? That's insane. And I don't care that they "agreed to drop it" if it shouldn't have been in there in the first place.

Yet another bad Team Lively decision that is going to piss off the Judge.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I feel like the yes-men and women grifters around them are deeply out of touch or just stealing money from them. It’s baby boomer tier crisis PR in a generation Z hyper-speed era. Fake fan pap walks and an SNL skit might have worked back in the 90s? Not now.

Ryan is basically a boomer. Ari Emanuel is a boomer.