Blake Lively- Jason Baldoni and NYT - False Light claims

[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).

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.

I know she claims she was not involved in the smear campaign but once I heard she was connected to Depp/Heard I just can't imagine that wasn't coordinated.

You’re every much as “connected” to Depp/Heard. Flaa is an entertainment journalist and there’s nothing to suggest she’s paid by one size of any conflict. Come on.

[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.

Honey, no. Gottlieb moved to Wilkie from Boise Schiller. He's a real deal powerhouse lawyer.

Perhaps he is not litigating the case for the peanut gallery on Reddit or in order to impress TMZ, but rather with an eye toward the long game. I know for people unfamiliar with how litigation like this works, that might not make sense. But the take that Gottlieb is just a crap lawyer is ridiculous. I don't know if this case is a winner or not, but saying stuff like that makes you sound ignorant. Because of a single discovery setback. Good lord, sometimes I wonder if this thread is mostly populated with like 13 year olds bored during Algebra class.

[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.

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

Wrong.

It’s absolutely germane when she takes as evidence of retaliation social media and her initial complaint cited evidence from SM sites with quotes and nicknames predating her beginning filming of IEWU. She has nothing.

[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.

Honey, no. Gottlieb moved to Wilkie from Boise Schiller. He's a real deal powerhouse lawyer.

Perhaps he is not litigating the case for the peanut gallery on Reddit or in order to impress TMZ, but rather with an eye toward the long game. I know for people unfamiliar with how litigation like this works, that might not make sense. But the take that Gottlieb is just a crap lawyer is ridiculous. I don't know if this case is a winner or not, but saying stuff like that makes you sound ignorant. Because of a single discovery setback. Good lord, sometimes I wonder if this thread is mostly populated with like 13 year olds bored during Algebra class.

Can you bullet out all of Gottlieb’s strategic victories, honey?

[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?

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

I did not follow the Depp/Heard trial at all so I would be interested in hearing more about how discovery worked in that case. I realize it's not quite the same since it was about defamation, not astroturfing.

I still don't really understand how these call logs would have led to relevant evidence. Let's say Baldoni called 1000 people during the relevant time period. Then, you, what, reverse lookup all of them, and eliminate the ones connected to doctor's and lawyer's offices or relatives... and then what? Let's say that leaves 900 phone numbers. Let's say some of them are PR people involved in astroturfing, but others are friends, acquaintances, business contacts... how would you possibly figure out which was which just based on a random phone number? That makes it seem to me this wasn't about finding evidence at all, but dirt.

[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.

Honey, no. Gottlieb moved to Wilkie from Boise Schiller. He's a real deal powerhouse lawyer.

Perhaps he is not litigating the case for the peanut gallery on Reddit or in order to impress TMZ, but rather with an eye toward the long game. I know for people unfamiliar with how litigation like this works, that might not make sense. But the take that Gottlieb is just a crap lawyer is ridiculous. I don't know if this case is a winner or not, but saying stuff like that makes you sound ignorant. Because of a single discovery setback. Good lord, sometimes I wonder if this thread is mostly populated with like 13 year olds bored during Algebra class.

Can you bullet out all of Gottlieb’s strategic victories, honey?

You have access to the internet. His firm has a bullet pointed list of his prior experience on their website, I'm sure. Maybe it could be a research project in your Library & Media class next trimester.

[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.

Honey, no. Gottlieb moved to Wilkie from Boise Schiller. He's a real deal powerhouse lawyer.

Perhaps he is not litigating the case for the peanut gallery on Reddit or in order to impress TMZ, but rather with an eye toward the long game. I know for people unfamiliar with how litigation like this works, that might not make sense. But the take that Gottlieb is just a crap lawyer is ridiculous. I don't know if this case is a winner or not, but saying stuff like that makes you sound ignorant. Because of a single discovery setback. Good lord, sometimes I wonder if this thread is mostly populated with like 13 year olds bored during Algebra class.

What possible strategy was involved, though? It was an overbroad subpoena. Did they think the judge was going to let it slip by? The judge is telling him he needs to serve a limited, tailored subpoena, which is what many of us were saying he should have done in the first place.

[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).

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.

Wrong.

It’s absolutely germane when she takes as evidence of retaliation social media and her initial complaint cited evidence from SM sites with quotes and nicknames predating her beginning filming of IEWU. She has nothing.

Her retaliation claims rely heavily on text messages between Justin and his PR team explicitly talking about planting stories and seeding social media against her. So she does in fact have something. Some of the SM against her was organic, I'm sure. But she has some very solid evidence that Wayfarer sought to sway public opinion against her and to specifically discredit her reputation in a way that would undermine her credibility if she came forward with SH allegations. She has the texts, she has documents from TAG and Abel outlining their plan. It's not nothing. That's honestly a lot more than most retaliation claims have before heading into discovery. The Jonesworks conflict that led Stephanie Jones to seize materials from Abel has bene a huge boon for Lively's case. I actually don't think she'd ever have brought a lawsuit without it.

[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).

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.

Wrong.

It’s absolutely germane when she takes as evidence of retaliation social media and her initial complaint cited evidence from SM sites with quotes and nicknames predating her beginning filming of IEWU. She has nothing.

Her retaliation claims rely heavily on text messages between Justin and his PR team explicitly talking about planting stories and seeding social media against her. So she does in fact have something. Some of the SM against her was organic, I'm sure. But she has some very solid evidence that Wayfarer sought to sway public opinion against her and to specifically discredit her reputation in a way that would undermine her credibility if she came forward with SH allegations. She has the texts, she has documents from TAG and Abel outlining their plan. It's not nothing. That's honestly a lot more than most retaliation claims have before heading into discovery. The Jonesworks conflict that led Stephanie Jones to seize materials from Abel has bene a huge boon for Lively's case. I actually don't think she'd ever have brought a lawsuit without it.

+1

[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.

Honey, no. Gottlieb moved to Wilkie from Boise Schiller. He's a real deal powerhouse lawyer.

Perhaps he is not litigating the case for the peanut gallery on Reddit or in order to impress TMZ, but rather with an eye toward the long game. I know for people unfamiliar with how litigation like this works, that might not make sense. But the take that Gottlieb is just a crap lawyer is ridiculous. I don't know if this case is a winner or not, but saying stuff like that makes you sound ignorant. Because of a single discovery setback. Good lord, sometimes I wonder if this thread is mostly populated with like 13 year olds bored during Algebra class.

What possible strategy was involved, though? It was an overbroad subpoena. Did they think the judge was going to let it slip by? The judge is telling him he needs to serve a limited, tailored subpoena, which is what many of us were saying he should have done in the first place.

I don't disagree with that, and I said upthread that I don't understand the strategy here.

But Gottlieb is a much more successful trial attorney than I am. He has a long track record for being a smart, disciplined, and effective advocate. I'm willing to give him the benefit of the doubt and say that maybe he is working an angle here that I don't understand because I'm not as smart as he is. I just reject the argument that because I don't get this one thing he did, he must be a bad lawyer. He's a good lawyer.

I also ultimately don't think this is a huge loss. The judge basically outlined in very clear terms how Lively's team could get at what they are looking for here. So they'll tailor the subpoenas to those instructions and then it will be hard for Wayfarer to argue with them because they'll be following what the judge told them to do. Presumably.

[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.

Honey, no. Gottlieb moved to Wilkie from Boise Schiller. He's a real deal powerhouse lawyer.

Perhaps he is not litigating the case for the peanut gallery on Reddit or in order to impress TMZ, but rather with an eye toward the long game. I know for people unfamiliar with how litigation like this works, that might not make sense. But the take that Gottlieb is just a crap lawyer is ridiculous. I don't know if this case is a winner or not, but saying stuff like that makes you sound ignorant. Because of a single discovery setback. Good lord, sometimes I wonder if this thread is mostly populated with like 13 year olds bored during Algebra class.

What possible strategy was involved, though? It was an overbroad subpoena. Did they think the judge was going to let it slip by? The judge is telling him he needs to serve a limited, tailored subpoena, which is what many of us were saying he should have done in the first place.

I don't disagree with that, and I said upthread that I don't understand the strategy here.

But Gottlieb is a much more successful trial attorney than I am. He has a long track record for being a smart, disciplined, and effective advocate. I'm willing to give him the benefit of the doubt and say that maybe he is working an angle here that I don't understand because I'm not as smart as he is. I just reject the argument that because I don't get this one thing he did, he must be a bad lawyer. He's a good lawyer.

I also ultimately don't think this is a huge loss. The judge basically outlined in very clear terms how Lively's team could get at what they are looking for here. So they'll tailor the subpoenas to those instructions and then it will be hard for Wayfarer to argue with them because they'll be following what the judge told them to do. Presumably.

PP. Appreciate being able to go back and forth with a respectful tone, thank you!

I am curious now to see what they'll do because part of me wouldn't be shocked if they take the judges' comments about the timeline and limit only the number of months but still request all logs from those months, without addressing the part where the judge says they didn't make any attempt to segregate which phone numbers may lead to discoverable evidence. And then I think they'll get slapped down again.

And that whole thing where they requested cellular location data... they withdrew it but never even attempted to explain the relevance. It was just like "let's get as much as we can possibly request from the phone companies" without regard to its evidentiary value.

[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.

Honey, no. Gottlieb moved to Wilkie from Boise Schiller. He's a real deal powerhouse lawyer.

Perhaps he is not litigating the case for the peanut gallery on Reddit or in order to impress TMZ, but rather with an eye toward the long game. I know for people unfamiliar with how litigation like this works, that might not make sense. But the take that Gottlieb is just a crap lawyer is ridiculous. I don't know if this case is a winner or not, but saying stuff like that makes you sound ignorant. Because of a single discovery setback. Good lord, sometimes I wonder if this thread is mostly populated with like 13 year olds bored during Algebra class.

Can you bullet out all of Gottlieb’s strategic victories, honey?

You have access to the internet. His firm has a bullet pointed list of his prior experience on their website, I'm sure. Maybe it could be a research project in your Library & Media class next trimester.

What question do you think you’re answering?

[Anonymous]

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.

it’s really par for the course to make a broad discovery request that gets narrowed.

[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.

I think anyone who is saying this must not know the legal industry. I do agree they are being outplayed on PR by Freedman (it's his speciality) but if you knew anything about these lawyers, I don't think you'd be so dismissive. Her lead trial lawyer is very well known as a tough litigator who excels in high profile, difficult cases. I would recommend checking out his resume: https://www.willkie.com/professionals/g/gottlieb-michael

He's not a lightweight.

Yes, you’ve tried to hype him from the get go. I am a litigator and I typically work with lawyers who are far more talented. The quality of the work product put out by his firm in this litigation has been very mediocre. Which is why they lose each motion.

lol no.

[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.

Honey, no. Gottlieb moved to Wilkie from Boise Schiller. He's a real deal powerhouse lawyer.

Perhaps he is not litigating the case for the peanut gallery on Reddit or in order to impress TMZ, but rather with an eye toward the long game. I know for people unfamiliar with how litigation like this works, that might not make sense. But the take that Gottlieb is just a crap lawyer is ridiculous. I don't know if this case is a winner or not, but saying stuff like that makes you sound ignorant. Because of a single discovery setback. Good lord, sometimes I wonder if this thread is mostly populated with like 13 year olds bored during Algebra class.

It’s not even really a “setback.” The jr associates here are acting like getting your discovery narrowed by the judge is some kind of disaster. The whole point was to freak out the other side with a broad request.