Blake Lively- Jason Baldoni and NYT - False Light claims

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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).

+1, while this was definitely a loss for Lively's side, the judge communicated a lot of openness to a more narrowly tailored discovery plan. I am a little surprised they didn't just go for that to begin with, I don't totally get the strategy from Lively's legal team here. I know people on here will say "oh it's because Blake is selfish and demanded they ask for everything" but her lawyers are serious people, I don't actually believe they'd file for discovery based on a client's whim -- it would not be that hard to explain even to a demanding or difficult client that you have to go about discovery in a specific way to get what you want.

So I don't totally get it. Michael Gottlieb isn't a dummy and he's had plenty of very demanding clients in the past. This was a calculated choice but I don't fully understand it.

Her lawyers just aren’t that good. It’s been obvious since the get go. Outplayed by Freedman over and over again.

If she is so powerful that she and her husband have Sony in their back pocket, why can't they afford good lawyers?

Literally her lead trial lawyer has represented Sony in litigation. Do you think Sony can't afford to hire good lawyers?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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).

+1, while this was definitely a loss for Lively's side, the judge communicated a lot of openness to a more narrowly tailored discovery plan. I am a little surprised they didn't just go for that to begin with, I don't totally get the strategy from Lively's legal team here. I know people on here will say "oh it's because Blake is selfish and demanded they ask for everything" but her lawyers are serious people, I don't actually believe they'd file for discovery based on a client's whim -- it would not be that hard to explain even to a demanding or difficult client that you have to go about discovery in a specific way to get what you want.

So I don't totally get it. Michael Gottlieb isn't a dummy and he's had plenty of very demanding clients in the past. This was a calculated choice but I don't fully understand it.

Her lawyers just aren’t that good. It’s been obvious since the get go. Outplayed by Freedman over and over again.

If she is so powerful that she and her husband have Sony in their back pocket, why can't they afford good lawyers?

Apparently they are using Wilkie because Ryan uses them for other, non litigation matters. That was a mistake.

Interesting. Maybe with these losses she will change firms.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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).

+1, while this was definitely a loss for Lively's side, the judge communicated a lot of openness to a more narrowly tailored discovery plan. I am a little surprised they didn't just go for that to begin with, I don't totally get the strategy from Lively's legal team here. I know people on here will say "oh it's because Blake is selfish and demanded they ask for everything" but her lawyers are serious people, I don't actually believe they'd file for discovery based on a client's whim -- it would not be that hard to explain even to a demanding or difficult client that you have to go about discovery in a specific way to get what you want.

So I don't totally get it. Michael Gottlieb isn't a dummy and he's had plenty of very demanding clients in the past. This was a calculated choice but I don't fully understand it.

Her lawyers just aren’t that good. It’s been obvious since the get go. Outplayed by Freedman over and over again.

If she is so powerful that she and her husband have Sony in their back pocket, why can't they afford good lawyers?

Literally her lead trial lawyer has represented Sony in litigation. Do you think Sony can't afford to hire good lawyers?

I am judging him on his work product. It’s been pretty bad. Sony was likely another captive client, meaning Wilkie does other work for them and they get a discounted rate for sending over more work.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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).

Her argument re the smear campaign is predicated on the delusion that prior to filming with Baldoni, Lively was a popular figure across pop culture commentary sites, and that she moved product. She’s been reviled for years for racial insensitivity at best, and her best-known business foray failed and was broadly mocked

She can’t get what she wants both due to and absent that specific delusion. It is what it is.

Not quite. The argument you are referencing would go to damages, but doesn't really impact her ability to make her underlying case. Her argument is that she was sexually harassed, complained about it, and that Wayfarer retaliated against her for complaining via a PR campaign. None of that is predicated on her being popular or "moving product." That's just a standard harassment/retaliation claim under employment law. And if she can prove it to a fact-finder (jury or judge) then she will win regardless of what her popularity level was prior to the whole thing. She could be widely loathed and still win if she can prove they retaliated against her for her SH claims.

Now, in awarding damages, they'd have to determine what financial losses she incurred as a result of the retaliation. And that's where what you are talking about would come in. If Wayfarer could prove she was widely disliked even before the smear campaign and that their actions did little or nothing to damage her already tarnished reputation, they could greatly reduce the potential damages in the event of a loss.

It’s interesting. From what I recall, everything went south with the “congrats on your little bump” video. I imagined Flaa posted that due to the stir the separate premier caused and the media buzz around that. But I’m not super dialed in. I wonder what every else’s perception is.

Yes that's it. She's an attention seeker herself. She saw people complaining about Blake and thought "i have my own negative experience with her!" Blake should've apologized but instead doubled down

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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).

+1, while this was definitely a loss for Lively's side, the judge communicated a lot of openness to a more narrowly tailored discovery plan. I am a little surprised they didn't just go for that to begin with, I don't totally get the strategy from Lively's legal team here. I know people on here will say "oh it's because Blake is selfish and demanded they ask for everything" but her lawyers are serious people, I don't actually believe they'd file for discovery based on a client's whim -- it would not be that hard to explain even to a demanding or difficult client that you have to go about discovery in a specific way to get what you want.

So I don't totally get it. Michael Gottlieb isn't a dummy and he's had plenty of very demanding clients in the past. This was a calculated choice but I don't fully understand it.

Her lawyers just aren’t that good. It’s been obvious since the get go. Outplayed by Freedman over and over again.

If she is so powerful that she and her husband have Sony in their back pocket, why can't they afford good lawyers?

Apparently they are using Wilkie because Ryan uses them for other, non litigation matters. That was a mistake.

Interesting. Maybe with these losses she will change firms.

Two of the better litigation firms have been retained by some of the other defendants.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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).

+1, while this was definitely a loss for Lively's side, the judge communicated a lot of openness to a more narrowly tailored discovery plan. I am a little surprised they didn't just go for that to begin with, I don't totally get the strategy from Lively's legal team here. I know people on here will say "oh it's because Blake is selfish and demanded they ask for everything" but her lawyers are serious people, I don't actually believe they'd file for discovery based on a client's whim -- it would not be that hard to explain even to a demanding or difficult client that you have to go about discovery in a specific way to get what you want.

So I don't totally get it. Michael Gottlieb isn't a dummy and he's had plenty of very demanding clients in the past. This was a calculated choice but I don't fully understand it.

Her lawyers just aren’t that good. It’s been obvious since the get go. Outplayed by Freedman over and over again.

If she is so powerful that she and her husband have Sony in their back pocket, why can't they afford good lawyers?

Literally her lead trial lawyer has represented Sony in litigation. Do you think Sony can't afford to hire good lawyers?

I am judging him on his work product. It’s been pretty bad. Sony was likely another captive client, meaning Wilkie does other work for them and they get a discounted rate for sending over more work.

There's only so much they can do when their client is overly demanding. I do believe Blake and Ryan are pushing a lot of bad decisions like trying to choose who questions her.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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).

+1, while this was definitely a loss for Lively's side, the judge communicated a lot of openness to a more narrowly tailored discovery plan. I am a little surprised they didn't just go for that to begin with, I don't totally get the strategy from Lively's legal team here. I know people on here will say "oh it's because Blake is selfish and demanded they ask for everything" but her lawyers are serious people, I don't actually believe they'd file for discovery based on a client's whim -- it would not be that hard to explain even to a demanding or difficult client that you have to go about discovery in a specific way to get what you want.

So I don't totally get it. Michael Gottlieb isn't a dummy and he's had plenty of very demanding clients in the past. This was a calculated choice but I don't fully understand it.

Her lawyers just aren’t that good. It’s been obvious since the get go. Outplayed by Freedman over and over again.

If she is so powerful that she and her husband have Sony in their back pocket, why can't they afford good lawyers?

Literally her lead trial lawyer has represented Sony in litigation. Do you think Sony can't afford to hire good lawyers?

My question was more of a rhetorical one to PP that said "Her lawyers just aren’t that good. It’s been obvious since the get go. Outplayed by Freedman over and over again."

I tend to agree with the one above that one, that the subpoena was unreasonable and I don't understand how any professional entertained that (even if they're not star litigators or whatever, they're a large respected firm). It was so obviously a losing proposition, so like one poster said, I'm surprised they made the request without explaining to the client how bad of an idea it was.

It actually kind of reminds me of Baldoni's complaint, where she just keeps making the ante with these unreasonable requests (editing bay, PGA mark, red carpet, etc) and getting her way! Maybe she is a witch. But here you have a judge and the judge has the power to deny her requests (which her lawyers should have done before that point).

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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).

+1, while this was definitely a loss for Lively's side, the judge communicated a lot of openness to a more narrowly tailored discovery plan. I am a little surprised they didn't just go for that to begin with, I don't totally get the strategy from Lively's legal team here. I know people on here will say "oh it's because Blake is selfish and demanded they ask for everything" but her lawyers are serious people, I don't actually believe they'd file for discovery based on a client's whim -- it would not be that hard to explain even to a demanding or difficult client that you have to go about discovery in a specific way to get what you want.

So I don't totally get it. Michael Gottlieb isn't a dummy and he's had plenty of very demanding clients in the past. This was a calculated choice but I don't fully understand it.

Her lawyers just aren’t that good. It’s been obvious since the get go. Outplayed by Freedman over and over again.

If she is so powerful that she and her husband have Sony in their back pocket, why can't they afford good lawyers?

Literally her lead trial lawyer has represented Sony in litigation. Do you think Sony can't afford to hire good lawyers?

I am judging him on his work product. It’s been pretty bad. Sony was likely another captive client, meaning Wilkie does other work for them and they get a discounted rate for sending over more work.

There's only so much they can do when their client is overly demanding. I do believe Blake and Ryan are pushing a lot of bad decisions like trying to choose who questions her.

The Complaint was only so so. The subpoenas were worse. The motions have been frivolous. They are going to lose the motion for “attorney’s eyes only” designation next.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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).

+1, while this was definitely a loss for Lively's side, the judge communicated a lot of openness to a more narrowly tailored discovery plan. I am a little surprised they didn't just go for that to begin with, I don't totally get the strategy from Lively's legal team here. I know people on here will say "oh it's because Blake is selfish and demanded they ask for everything" but her lawyers are serious people, I don't actually believe they'd file for discovery based on a client's whim -- it would not be that hard to explain even to a demanding or difficult client that you have to go about discovery in a specific way to get what you want.

So I don't totally get it. Michael Gottlieb isn't a dummy and he's had plenty of very demanding clients in the past. This was a calculated choice but I don't fully understand it.

Her lawyers just aren’t that good. It’s been obvious since the get go. Outplayed by Freedman over and over again.

If she is so powerful that she and her husband have Sony in their back pocket, why can't they afford good lawyers?

Literally her lead trial lawyer has represented Sony in litigation. Do you think Sony can't afford to hire good lawyers?

I am judging him on his work product. It’s been pretty bad. Sony was likely another captive client, meaning Wilkie does other work for them and they get a discounted rate for sending over more work.

There's only so much they can do when their client is overly demanding. I do believe Blake and Ryan are pushing a lot of bad decisions like trying to choose who questions her.

See, that was another doozy. Why can't the lawyer just say "sorry, that's not a thing."

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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).

+1, while this was definitely a loss for Lively's side, the judge communicated a lot of openness to a more narrowly tailored discovery plan. I am a little surprised they didn't just go for that to begin with, I don't totally get the strategy from Lively's legal team here. I know people on here will say "oh it's because Blake is selfish and demanded they ask for everything" but her lawyers are serious people, I don't actually believe they'd file for discovery based on a client's whim -- it would not be that hard to explain even to a demanding or difficult client that you have to go about discovery in a specific way to get what you want.

So I don't totally get it. Michael Gottlieb isn't a dummy and he's had plenty of very demanding clients in the past. This was a calculated choice but I don't fully understand it.

Her lawyers just aren’t that good. It’s been obvious since the get go. Outplayed by Freedman over and over again.

If she is so powerful that she and her husband have Sony in their back pocket, why can't they afford good lawyers?

Literally her lead trial lawyer has represented Sony in litigation. Do you think Sony can't afford to hire good lawyers?

I am judging him on his work product. It’s been pretty bad. Sony was likely another captive client, meaning Wilkie does other work for them and they get a discounted rate for sending over more work.

There's only so much they can do when their client is overly demanding. I do believe Blake and Ryan are pushing a lot of bad decisions like trying to choose who questions her.

See, that was another doozy. Why can't the lawyer just say "sorry, that's not a thing."

Most would. Being able to talk your client out of bad decisions is a big part of being a good litigator. Difficult personalities are often the type to wind up as parties n litigation.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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).

Her argument re the smear campaign is predicated on the delusion that prior to filming with Baldoni, Lively was a popular figure across pop culture commentary sites, and that she moved product. She’s been reviled for years for racial insensitivity at best, and her best-known business foray failed and was broadly mocked

She can’t get what she wants both due to and absent that specific delusion. It is what it is.

Not quite. The argument you are referencing would go to damages, but doesn't really impact her ability to make her underlying case. Her argument is that she was sexually harassed, complained about it, and that Wayfarer retaliated against her for complaining via a PR campaign. None of that is predicated on her being popular or "moving product." That's just a standard harassment/retaliation claim under employment law. And if she can prove it to a fact-finder (jury or judge) then she will win regardless of what her popularity level was prior to the whole thing. She could be widely loathed and still win if she can prove they retaliated against her for her SH claims.

Now, in awarding damages, they'd have to determine what financial losses she incurred as a result of the retaliation. And that's where what you are talking about would come in. If Wayfarer could prove she was widely disliked even before the smear campaign and that their actions did little or nothing to damage her already tarnished reputation, they could greatly reduce the potential damages in the event of a loss.

Rather quite, actually. Seeking two years of communications takes her before the alleged and clearly non-extant sexual harassment. You’re wrong, many others have been right - it was an overbroad and unduly intrusive request. Her lawyers manage to suck and blow but hey, I’m all for the gentle but unmistakably incorrect assertion that it’s all going great! I’m here for the financial hit she and Reynolds are shouldering in attorneys fees. I’m sure another alleged verbatim rant by Steve Sarowitz in any remaining part of the motion practice, or a naughty leak of same to a friendly outlet, will right the ship. Blake is actually on top!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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).

+1, while this was definitely a loss for Lively's side, the judge communicated a lot of openness to a more narrowly tailored discovery plan. I am a little surprised they didn't just go for that to begin with, I don't totally get the strategy from Lively's legal team here. I know people on here will say "oh it's because Blake is selfish and demanded they ask for everything" but her lawyers are serious people, I don't actually believe they'd file for discovery based on a client's whim -- it would not be that hard to explain even to a demanding or difficult client that you have to go about discovery in a specific way to get what you want.

So I don't totally get it. Michael Gottlieb isn't a dummy and he's had plenty of very demanding clients in the past. This was a calculated choice but I don't fully understand it.

Her lawyers just aren’t that good. It’s been obvious since the get go. Outplayed by Freedman over and over again.

If she is so powerful that she and her husband have Sony in their back pocket, why can't they afford good lawyers?

Literally her lead trial lawyer has represented Sony in litigation. Do you think Sony can't afford to hire good lawyers?

I am judging him on his work product. It’s been pretty bad. Sony was likely another captive client, meaning Wilkie does other work for them and they get a discounted rate for sending over more work.

There's only so much they can do when their client is overly demanding. I do believe Blake and Ryan are pushing a lot of bad decisions like trying to choose who questions her.

See, that was another doozy. Why can't the lawyer just say "sorry, that's not a thing."

Most would. Being able to talk your client out of bad decisions is a big part of being a good litigator. Difficult personalities are often the type to wind up as parties n litigation.

Sorry you’re wrong. The most talented attorneys let their high school graduate clients dictate strategy /s

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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).

+1, while this was definitely a loss for Lively's side, the judge communicated a lot of openness to a more narrowly tailored discovery plan. I am a little surprised they didn't just go for that to begin with, I don't totally get the strategy from Lively's legal team here. I know people on here will say "oh it's because Blake is selfish and demanded they ask for everything" but her lawyers are serious people, I don't actually believe they'd file for discovery based on a client's whim -- it would not be that hard to explain even to a demanding or difficult client that you have to go about discovery in a specific way to get what you want.

So I don't totally get it. Michael Gottlieb isn't a dummy and he's had plenty of very demanding clients in the past. This was a calculated choice but I don't fully understand it.

Her lawyers just aren’t that good. It’s been obvious since the get go. Outplayed by Freedman over and over again.

If she is so powerful that she and her husband have Sony in their back pocket, why can't they afford good lawyers?

Literally her lead trial lawyer has represented Sony in litigation. Do you think Sony can't afford to hire good lawyers?

I am judging him on his work product. It’s been pretty bad. Sony was likely another captive client, meaning Wilkie does other work for them and they get a discounted rate for sending over more work.

There's only so much they can do when their client is overly demanding. I do believe Blake and Ryan are pushing a lot of bad decisions like trying to choose who questions her.

See, that was another doozy. Why can't the lawyer just say "sorry, that's not a thing."

$$$

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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).

Her argument re the smear campaign is predicated on the delusion that prior to filming with Baldoni, Lively was a popular figure across pop culture commentary sites, and that she moved product. She’s been reviled for years for racial insensitivity at best, and her best-known business foray failed and was broadly mocked

She can’t get what she wants both due to and absent that specific delusion. It is what it is.

Not quite. The argument you are referencing would go to damages, but doesn't really impact her ability to make her underlying case. Her argument is that she was sexually harassed, complained about it, and that Wayfarer retaliated against her for complaining via a PR campaign. None of that is predicated on her being popular or "moving product." That's just a standard harassment/retaliation claim under employment law. And if she can prove it to a fact-finder (jury or judge) then she will win regardless of what her popularity level was prior to the whole thing. She could be widely loathed and still win if she can prove they retaliated against her for her SH claims.

Now, in awarding damages, they'd have to determine what financial losses she incurred as a result of the retaliation. And that's where what you are talking about would come in. If Wayfarer could prove she was widely disliked even before the smear campaign and that their actions did little or nothing to damage her already tarnished reputation, they could greatly reduce the potential damages in the event of a loss.

Agreed. Her reputation is not germane to the SH and retaliation claims. It's relevant to damages.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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).

+1, while this was definitely a loss for Lively's side, the judge communicated a lot of openness to a more narrowly tailored discovery plan. I am a little surprised they didn't just go for that to begin with, I don't totally get the strategy from Lively's legal team here. I know people on here will say "oh it's because Blake is selfish and demanded they ask for everything" but her lawyers are serious people, I don't actually believe they'd file for discovery based on a client's whim -- it would not be that hard to explain even to a demanding or difficult client that you have to go about discovery in a specific way to get what you want.

So I don't totally get it. Michael Gottlieb isn't a dummy and he's had plenty of very demanding clients in the past. This was a calculated choice but I don't fully understand it.

Her lawyers just aren’t that good. It’s been obvious since the get go. Outplayed by Freedman over and over again.

If she is so powerful that she and her husband have Sony in their back pocket, why can't they afford good lawyers?

Apparently they are using Wilkie because Ryan uses them for other, non litigation matters. That was a mistake.

Interesting. Maybe with these losses she will change firms.

She'll do the same with with new lawyers. Notactuallygolden has been saying the same thing from the start. Do discovery on the people you first and work backwards. How many players does she hope to find anyway? Sarah, Melissa, and Jeb are the core. Would finding low tier assistants really change anything? Blake is focusing on the wrong thing. In Depp/Heard they looked at PR teams as well. They all had to cut their request down but did obtain vital messages. It's not a huge deal but still it's weird