Blake Lively- Jason Baldoni and NYT - False Light claims

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:So I read the judge's order and feel like I can provide a fairly unbiased summary, for those who don't speak legalese:

The judge agreed with Wayfarer that the subpoenas were too broad even after being limited only to log data, because they request info for every call/text regardless of recipient. So the judge is quashing the subpoenas for the Wayfarer parties (and only the Wayfarer parties) for all call logs, though leaves open the option of Lively to request call logs between specific parties already involved (so she could request call logs between the Wayfarer parties, and could request call logs between those parties and Jed Wallace, or specific people at Sony, for instance.

However, this just applies to the Wayfarer parties. The judge agreed with Lively that the Wayfarer attorneys lack standing to try and quash the subpoenas on privacy grounds for the non-Wayfarer parties (basically just Jed Wallace, as the PR people are included in the Wayfarer parties). So if Jed wants to quash the subpoenas to him, he will have to have a representative file on his behalf specifically. He can't come in under the Wayfarer umbrella.

Also, when the judge discussed the overbroad nature of the subpoenas, he zeroed in on the timeline. He points out that Lively says the subpoenas are needed to identify parties and communications related to the smear campaign. However most of the subpoenas go back to December of 2022, long before the smear campaign would have started. Thus: over broad. But this does open a door for Lively to attempt a set of subpoenas dating only from July of 2024 to try and go after communications related to the PR campaign. At least that's what I would do if I were her lawyers because the judge has very specifically opened the door for a broader discovery of communications in that part of the timeline.

So yes, definitely a win for Wayfarer. But will be interesting to see now what Jed Wallace does (does he move to quash in the same way? I believe the subpoena against him is more limited in time) and also to see if Lively now pursues a more targeted subpoena regarding the smear campaign.

He will likely move to quash and be successful on the same grounds, which is the subpoena is not properly limited in scope because it seeks all calls.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I don’t think Lively will get anything serious from Wallace - who was never an OG “Wayfarer part(y),” but I look forward to peeking here over the next week to see a bunch of sockpuppeting claims of how Judge Liman’s decisions show Lively has gotten what she wants, how ahead of the ball her legal team is, how JB’s lawyers aren’t actually good, rinse and repeat.

Agree. If her lawyers had written a subpoena with a narrow time frame, only seeking logs with respect to communication among the defendants, she would have already received responsive documents. I’m a lawyer and am constantly shocked by their incompetence.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So I read the judge's order and feel like I can provide a fairly unbiased summary, for those who don't speak legalese:

The judge agreed with Wayfarer that the subpoenas were too broad even after being limited only to log data, because they request info for every call/text regardless of recipient. So the judge is quashing the subpoenas for the Wayfarer parties (and only the Wayfarer parties) for all call logs, though leaves open the option of Lively to request call logs between specific parties already involved (so she could request call logs between the Wayfarer parties, and could request call logs between those parties and Jed Wallace, or specific people at Sony, for instance.

However, this just applies to the Wayfarer parties. The judge agreed with Lively that the Wayfarer attorneys lack standing to try and quash the subpoenas on privacy grounds for the non-Wayfarer parties (basically just Jed Wallace, as the PR people are included in the Wayfarer parties). So if Jed wants to quash the subpoenas to him, he will have to have a representative file on his behalf specifically. He can't come in under the Wayfarer umbrella.

Also, when the judge discussed the overbroad nature of the subpoenas, he zeroed in on the timeline. He points out that Lively says the subpoenas are needed to identify parties and communications related to the smear campaign. However most of the subpoenas go back to December of 2022, long before the smear campaign would have started. Thus: over broad. But this does open a door for Lively to attempt a set of subpoenas dating only from July of 2024 to try and go after communications related to the PR campaign. At least that's what I would do if I were her lawyers because the judge has very specifically opened the door for a broader discovery of communications in that part of the timeline.

So yes, definitely a win for Wayfarer. But will be interesting to see now what Jed Wallace does (does he move to quash in the same way? I believe the subpoena against him is more limited in time) and also to see if Lively now pursues a more targeted subpoena regarding the smear campaign.

He will likely move to quash and be successful on the same grounds, which is the subpoena is not properly limited in scope because it seeks all calls.

Potentially but the judge's focus on the timeline gives me pause. I believe Wallace's records are only subpoenaed from July 2024, so not the 2 years for everyone else. You're probably right but there's an opening there if Lively's lawyers can find a way to walk through it. They probably need to tailor some.

If it were me, I'd be much more specific on the Wallace subpoena and explain that they are explicitly looking for evidence that Wallace was astroturfing. Which would require a broader subpoena because they'd want to be able to see who Wallace was communicating with when they were launching the PR campaign against Lively. It's one of the only ways they might be able to trace Wayfarer, via Wallace, to the social media posts that emerged in August that they contend were part of an astroturfing campaign. They can get at the media leaks and planted articles through Abel and Nathan, but they need Wallace's records to get to the astroturfing.

I think they are more likely to get broad records from Wallace for a narrow range (from late July 2024) than they are to get what they asked for here. But they have to make the argument persuasively. Which I think is easier of you are going after Wallace alone. It 100% looks like a fishing expedition if you are asking for this for all parties starting 2 years ago.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So I read the judge's order and feel like I can provide a fairly unbiased summary, for those who don't speak legalese:

The judge agreed with Wayfarer that the subpoenas were too broad even after being limited only to log data, because they request info for every call/text regardless of recipient. So the judge is quashing the subpoenas for the Wayfarer parties (and only the Wayfarer parties) for all call logs, though leaves open the option of Lively to request call logs between specific parties already involved (so she could request call logs between the Wayfarer parties, and could request call logs between those parties and Jed Wallace, or specific people at Sony, for instance.

However, this just applies to the Wayfarer parties. The judge agreed with Lively that the Wayfarer attorneys lack standing to try and quash the subpoenas on privacy grounds for the non-Wayfarer parties (basically just Jed Wallace, as the PR people are included in the Wayfarer parties). So if Jed wants to quash the subpoenas to him, he will have to have a representative file on his behalf specifically. He can't come in under the Wayfarer umbrella.

Also, when the judge discussed the overbroad nature of the subpoenas, he zeroed in on the timeline. He points out that Lively says the subpoenas are needed to identify parties and communications related to the smear campaign. However most of the subpoenas go back to December of 2022, long before the smear campaign would have started. Thus: over broad. But this does open a door for Lively to attempt a set of subpoenas dating only from July of 2024 to try and go after communications related to the PR campaign. At least that's what I would do if I were her lawyers because the judge has very specifically opened the door for a broader discovery of communications in that part of the timeline.

So yes, definitely a win for Wayfarer. But will be interesting to see now what Jed Wallace does (does he move to quash in the same way? I believe the subpoena against him is more limited in time) and also to see if Lively now pursues a more targeted subpoena regarding the smear campaign.

He will likely move to quash and be successful on the same grounds, which is the subpoena is not properly limited in scope because it seeks all calls.

Potentially but the judge's focus on the timeline gives me pause. I believe Wallace's records are only subpoenaed from July 2024, so not the 2 years for everyone else. You're probably right but there's an opening there if Lively's lawyers can find a way to walk through it. They probably need to tailor some.

If it were me, I'd be much more specific on the Wallace subpoena and explain that they are explicitly looking for evidence that Wallace was astroturfing. Which would require a broader subpoena because they'd want to be able to see who Wallace was communicating with when they were launching the PR campaign against Lively. It's one of the only ways they might be able to trace Wayfarer, via Wallace, to the social media posts that emerged in August that they contend were part of an astroturfing campaign. They can get at the media leaks and planted articles through Abel and Nathan, but they need Wallace's records to get to the astroturfing.

I think they are more likely to get broad records from Wallace for a narrow range (from late July 2024) than they are to get what they asked for here. But they have to make the argument persuasively. Which I think is easier of you are going after Wallace alone. It 100% looks like a fishing expedition if you are asking for this for all parties starting 2 years ago.

They will not get records beyond the identified defendants from anyone. It’s a textbook fishing expedition.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So I read the judge's order and feel like I can provide a fairly unbiased summary, for those who don't speak legalese:

The judge agreed with Wayfarer that the subpoenas were too broad even after being limited only to log data, because they request info for every call/text regardless of recipient. So the judge is quashing the subpoenas for the Wayfarer parties (and only the Wayfarer parties) for all call logs, though leaves open the option of Lively to request call logs between specific parties already involved (so she could request call logs between the Wayfarer parties, and could request call logs between those parties and Jed Wallace, or specific people at Sony, for instance.

However, this just applies to the Wayfarer parties. The judge agreed with Lively that the Wayfarer attorneys lack standing to try and quash the subpoenas on privacy grounds for the non-Wayfarer parties (basically just Jed Wallace, as the PR people are included in the Wayfarer parties). So if Jed wants to quash the subpoenas to him, he will have to have a representative file on his behalf specifically. He can't come in under the Wayfarer umbrella.

Also, when the judge discussed the overbroad nature of the subpoenas, he zeroed in on the timeline. He points out that Lively says the subpoenas are needed to identify parties and communications related to the smear campaign. However most of the subpoenas go back to December of 2022, long before the smear campaign would have started. Thus: over broad. But this does open a door for Lively to attempt a set of subpoenas dating only from July of 2024 to try and go after communications related to the PR campaign. At least that's what I would do if I were her lawyers because the judge has very specifically opened the door for a broader discovery of communications in that part of the timeline.

So yes, definitely a win for Wayfarer. But will be interesting to see now what Jed Wallace does (does he move to quash in the same way? I believe the subpoena against him is more limited in time) and also to see if Lively now pursues a more targeted subpoena regarding the smear campaign.

He will likely move to quash and be successful on the same grounds, which is the subpoena is not properly limited in scope because it seeks all calls.

Potentially but the judge's focus on the timeline gives me pause. I believe Wallace's records are only subpoenaed from July 2024, so not the 2 years for everyone else. You're probably right but there's an opening there if Lively's lawyers can find a way to walk through it. They probably need to tailor some.

If it were me, I'd be much more specific on the Wallace subpoena and explain that they are explicitly looking for evidence that Wallace was astroturfing. Which would require a broader subpoena because they'd want to be able to see who Wallace was communicating with when they were launching the PR campaign against Lively. It's one of the only ways they might be able to trace Wayfarer, via Wallace, to the social media posts that emerged in August that they contend were part of an astroturfing campaign. They can get at the media leaks and planted articles through Abel and Nathan, but they need Wallace's records to get to the astroturfing.

I think they are more likely to get broad records from Wallace for a narrow range (from late July 2024) than they are to get what they asked for here. But they have to make the argument persuasively. Which I think is easier of you are going after Wallace alone. It 100% looks like a fishing expedition if you are asking for this for all parties starting 2 years ago.

They will not get records beyond the identified defendants from anyone. It’s a textbook fishing expedition.

They won't if they frame it vaguely.

I think there's a way to frame it more narrowly, using the judge's reasoning from this order, especially as to Wallace. They need to tighten the timeline and make a more specific argument about why Wallace's records from July/August (and maybe beyond if they can provide evidence of potential astroturfing into September or October) are likely to provide evidence that links directly to the claims they are trying to prove.

The risk is that in making a very specific request, if the records don't show what they expect, it could screw them. That's likely why they are trying to back into it with these super broad requests, hoping for a giant data dump they can sift through without having to reveal to the court or the media exactly what they hope to find. But the judge isn't having it. If they want that stuff, they are going to have to take the risk and spell it out in the request.

[Anonymous]

Well, this is a fun little twist.

https://variety.com/2025/film/news/blake-lively-hires-cia-alum-crisis-pr-justin-baldoni-legal-battle-1236323621/

Blake has hired a crisis PR firm with CIA ties.

Anyone have any clue how much this is costing them?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Baldoni did walk the red carpet at the movie premiere. There are plenty of pictures of him. He and Blake weren’t on the red carpet at the same time but they entered the same way with the same press and photogs.

Also he didn’t spend the premiere in the basement and Blake didn’t banish him to a basement. He watched it in a theatre just like everyone else, but a different theatre.

He was banished by Blake. That's why he took pictures in the separate room, so everyone would know she forced him and his family to go to a different area.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So I read the judge's order and feel like I can provide a fairly unbiased summary, for those who don't speak legalese:

The judge agreed with Wayfarer that the subpoenas were too broad even after being limited only to log data, because they request info for every call/text regardless of recipient. So the judge is quashing the subpoenas for the Wayfarer parties (and only the Wayfarer parties) for all call logs, though leaves open the option of Lively to request call logs between specific parties already involved (so she could request call logs between the Wayfarer parties, and could request call logs between those parties and Jed Wallace, or specific people at Sony, for instance.

However, this just applies to the Wayfarer parties. The judge agreed with Lively that the Wayfarer attorneys lack standing to try and quash the subpoenas on privacy grounds for the non-Wayfarer parties (basically just Jed Wallace, as the PR people are included in the Wayfarer parties). So if Jed wants to quash the subpoenas to him, he will have to have a representative file on his behalf specifically. He can't come in under the Wayfarer umbrella.

Also, when the judge discussed the overbroad nature of the subpoenas, he zeroed in on the timeline. He points out that Lively says the subpoenas are needed to identify parties and communications related to the smear campaign. However most of the subpoenas go back to December of 2022, long before the smear campaign would have started. Thus: over broad. But this does open a door for Lively to attempt a set of subpoenas dating only from July of 2024 to try and go after communications related to the PR campaign. At least that's what I would do if I were her lawyers because the judge has very specifically opened the door for a broader discovery of communications in that part of the timeline.

So yes, definitely a win for Wayfarer. But will be interesting to see now what Jed Wallace does (does he move to quash in the same way? I believe the subpoena against him is more limited in time) and also to see if Lively now pursues a more targeted subpoena regarding the smear campaign.

He will likely move to quash and be successful on the same grounds, which is the subpoena is not properly limited in scope because it seeks all calls.

Potentially but the judge's focus on the timeline gives me pause. I believe Wallace's records are only subpoenaed from July 2024, so not the 2 years for everyone else. You're probably right but there's an opening there if Lively's lawyers can find a way to walk through it. They probably need to tailor some.

If it were me, I'd be much more specific on the Wallace subpoena and explain that they are explicitly looking for evidence that Wallace was astroturfing. Which would require a broader subpoena because they'd want to be able to see who Wallace was communicating with when they were launching the PR campaign against Lively. It's one of the only ways they might be able to trace Wayfarer, via Wallace, to the social media posts that emerged in August that they contend were part of an astroturfing campaign. They can get at the media leaks and planted articles through Abel and Nathan, but they need Wallace's records to get to the astroturfing.

I think they are more likely to get broad records from Wallace for a narrow range (from late July 2024) than they are to get what they asked for here. But they have to make the argument persuasively. Which I think is easier of you are going after Wallace alone. It 100% looks like a fishing expedition if you are asking for this for all parties starting 2 years ago.

They will not get records beyond the identified defendants from anyone. It’s a textbook fishing expedition.

They won't if they frame it vaguely.

I think there's a way to frame it more narrowly, using the judge's reasoning from this order, especially as to Wallace. They need to tighten the timeline and make a more specific argument about why Wallace's records from July/August (and maybe beyond if they can provide evidence of potential astroturfing into September or October) are likely to provide evidence that links directly to the claims they are trying to prove.

The risk is that in making a very specific request, if the records don't show what they expect, it could screw them. That's likely why they are trying to back into it with these super broad requests, hoping for a giant data dump they can sift through without having to reveal to the court or the media exactly what they hope to find. But the judge isn't having it. If they want that stuff, they are going to have to take the risk and spell it out in the request.

There were two major issues the judge identified.
#1 is the timeline. Agree that she can overcome this by tightening the timeline as to Wallace's records.

#2 is the scope of the request for all call logs. How can she overcome this? I don't know that she can.
"the phone records themselves would still contain sensitive
information regarding which doctors, psychologists, or even acquaintances the [Wallace] Parties spoke to, and when." "Lively has identified no means to segregate those numbers that may have some relevance to her case from those numbers that would have no relevance and would reveal sensitive personal information." "More generally, Lively has not provided a basis to believe that the broad discovery she seeks will reveal information regarding unknown participants in the negative media campaign proportionate to the burden on the [Wallace] Parties’ privacy interests." " Lively’s complaint already identifies many individuals who allegedly participated in a negative media campaign. Lively may make discovery requests tailored to those individuals. She is permitted to use the tools of discovery to identify the contact information or telephone numbers for those individuals. Even assuming additional individuals participated in the alleged campaign, the hope that discovery will turn up information on such participants does not justify the broad scope of the Subpoenas."

I read this is saying as to Wayfarer (I have replaced with Wallace), she has to due due diligence to determine relevant phone numbers and request copies of logs with those numbers. She can still try asking for all of Jed Wallace's logs for a shorter period of time, but it would still likely be denied as disproportionate.

(I'm sure Wallace used a burner phone for anything sensitive anyway so I doubt the subpoena would uncover much useful information)

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Baldoni did walk the red carpet at the movie premiere. There are plenty of pictures of him. He and Blake weren’t on the red carpet at the same time but they entered the same way with the same press and photogs.

Also he didn’t spend the premiere in the basement and Blake didn’t banish him to a basement. He watched it in a theatre just like everyone else, but a different theatre.

He was banished by Blake. That's why he took pictures in the separate room, so everyone would know she forced him and his family to go to a different area.

They waited in the basement until they were ushered to a separate theater. They were clever to take all those photos and make it look like they were troupers while being banished to the basement.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Baldoni did walk the red carpet at the movie premiere. There are plenty of pictures of him. He and Blake weren’t on the red carpet at the same time but they entered the same way with the same press and photogs.

Also he didn’t spend the premiere in the basement and Blake didn’t banish him to a basement. He watched it in a theatre just like everyone else, but a different theatre.

He was banished by Blake. That's why he took pictures in the separate room, so everyone would know she forced him and his family to go to a different area.

They waited in the basement until they were ushered to a separate theater. They were clever to take all those photos and make it look like they were troupers while being banished to the basement.

Pretty sure I read she didn’t want him to attend at all. That they negotiated this as a compromise. But again, I’m going to bring to that “separate but equal” doesn’t tend to be any less demoralizing.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Baldoni did walk the red carpet at the movie premiere. There are plenty of pictures of him. He and Blake weren’t on the red carpet at the same time but they entered the same way with the same press and photogs.

Also he didn’t spend the premiere in the basement and Blake didn’t banish him to a basement. He watched it in a theatre just like everyone else, but a different theatre.

He was banished by Blake. That's why he took pictures in the separate room, so everyone would know she forced him and his family to go to a different area.

They waited in the basement until they were ushered to a separate theater. They were clever to take all those photos and make it look like they were troupers while being banished to the basement.

Pretty sure I read she didn’t want him to attend at all. That they negotiated this as a compromise. But again, I’m going to bring to that “separate but equal” doesn’t tend to be any less demoralizing.

Agree on demoralizing. It can stand on its own as an act of isolation, without representing it as him being banished to a basement to watch the movie.

[Anonymous]

Nobody puts Baldoni in the basement.

Maybe that was her fatal error.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Baldoni did walk the red carpet at the movie premiere. There are plenty of pictures of him. He and Blake weren’t on the red carpet at the same time but they entered the same way with the same press and photogs.

Also he didn’t spend the premiere in the basement and Blake didn’t banish him to a basement. He watched it in a theatre just like everyone else, but a different theatre.

He was banished by Blake. That's why he took pictures in the separate room, so everyone would know she forced him and his family to go to a different area.

They waited in the basement until they were ushered to a separate theater. They were clever to take all those photos and make it look like they were troupers while being banished to the basement.

Pretty sure I read she didn’t want him to attend at all. That they negotiated this as a compromise. But again, I’m going to bring to that “separate but equal” doesn’t tend to be any less demoralizing.

Agree on demoralizing. It can stand on its own as an act of isolation, without representing it as him being banished to a basement to watch the movie.

Bethany Frankel, who seems pretty neutral and has spoken up for Blake at times in all this, went to the premierand said how weird it was and it definitely felt separate and it definitely created a vibe to have justin ushered off to another location and not allowed into the main premiere.

We can argue about whether or not he was banished to the basement, but blake created obvious chaos and an uncomfortable environment for him - that should be enough.

[Anonymous]

Hi can someone explain why she doesn't just limit what she's asking for? By keeping the scope within the context of this situation she can still learn about the different pr players they reached too. I don't get why she's making it so complicated

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Hi can someone explain why she doesn't just limit what she's asking for? By keeping the scope within the context of this situation she can still learn about the different pr players they reached too. I don't get why she's making it so complicated

Her argument would be that due to the anonymous nature of the smear campaign, it's not possible to identify all the parties and phone numbers they communicated with, therefore she wants logs of all calls made during that time period (to somehow ascertain who these parties were, and I'm not sure how one would even do that). The judge ruled that this was overbroad and disproportionate as it would also capture all their personal contacts and doctors, etc (something I have argued in this thread as well).

The judge said she should use other tools to try to ascertain who these parties are (for example, she can serve interrogatories asking them for information, contact lists, and phone numbers about other parties who may have information, and then subpoena phone records of communications between the Wayfarer parties and those parties).