Blake Lively- Jason Baldoni and NYT - False Light claims

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:DP from the people merging over the junior lawyer stuff here but at my firm there sure are more senior and less senior partners. I wouldn’t call them baby partners. But the less senior partners often will be more connected to the dirty work of the motions practice and discovery, where the senior partners may have previously started their careers in that work and now are more interested in the more substantive deps and motions etc (though they will still edit the motions etc). Since the less senior partner is waist deep in the motions practice, it often makes the most sense for them to argue those motions, as well, unless something is especially high profile. But a protective order is not too big a deal. Still, it’s one of the first interactions with the judge so would not have been crazy for Gottlieb to take it. I thought the partner who argued it did a good job fwiw. I thought the info she raised on the Wayfarer tactics needed to be raised, at a minimum to tee them up for sanctions when info begins leaking in an “untraceable” way.

Of course Mr. Showboat Freedman argued it, complete with fake histrionics over how wronged he felt that anyone on his team might leak damaging info to the press/influencers, despite his reputation for … leaking damaging info to the press/influencers. Like my teenager would say, I’m not mad, I’m just disappointed, ha.

Again, complete nonsense. Caught in a lie and backpedaling furiously.

I’m the PP you’re responding to (the person who listened to the hearing and summarized it like 5 pages ago here) and not the PP who called Lively’s atty a baby lawyer. I am not backpedaling, I am a whole different person lol. But, I get it, Balboners gonna Balbone.

You both post together all the time. Who knows what the “relationship” is?

As has previously been discussed, you’re too chicken to be shown as a liar by taking this to Jeff, so you just continue to pepper the thread with this silliness every 20 pages. I sincerely IMPLORE you to take all your lame conspiracy theories to Website Feedback, and absent that, to cut it out.

Too lazy actually and too disinterested.

Too lame and scared. I get it. How will you save face when you’re shown to be wrong? It’s a conundrum.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Question for the lawyers here. Someone on Reddit made a point that I hadn’t considered but it does make sense. They asked how was it ok for Stephanie Jones to give Abel’s cellphone to Lively?

Initially I had run with the explanation that it was a work phone and therefore Jones’ property. But, the redditer pointed out that PR agents usually have an NDA or other agreement with their clients to safeguard their privacy. Baldoni was a client of Jonesworks and Jones handed over text messages from a time period when Abel was her employee and Baldoni her client.

Blake claims she had a subpoena but we know that wasn’t true b/c there was no case yet. Jones clearly handed the phone over, which had to be a contract violation with Baldoni’s rights/privacy as a client. No wonder BF calls the texts BL gave to the NYT “the illegally obtained text messages”.

So back to my question—can BF get the texts thrown out? And if so, what does BL really have at that point to prove retaliation?

PP here’s. There’s a lot of lawyers on the thread right now but no one has answered my question from yesterday. Any thoughts on the legality of the text messages? If they were about Baldoni (as a client of Jonesworks) or to Baldoni (as a client of Jonesworks) wouldn’t Jones be in breach of contract or likely an NDA?

Just an admission that I don’t know. I deal with companies and rarely with texts or “stolen text” type issues like that, sorry.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:DP from the people merging over the junior lawyer stuff here but at my firm there sure are more senior and less senior partners. I wouldn’t call them baby partners. But the less senior partners often will be more connected to the dirty work of the motions practice and discovery, where the senior partners may have previously started their careers in that work and now are more interested in the more substantive deps and motions etc (though they will still edit the motions etc). Since the less senior partner is waist deep in the motions practice, it often makes the most sense for them to argue those motions, as well, unless something is especially high profile. But a protective order is not too big a deal. Still, it’s one of the first interactions with the judge so would not have been crazy for Gottlieb to take it. I thought the partner who argued it did a good job fwiw. I thought the info she raised on the Wayfarer tactics needed to be raised, at a minimum to tee them up for sanctions when info begins leaking in an “untraceable” way.

Of course Mr. Showboat Freedman argued it, complete with fake histrionics over how wronged he felt that anyone on his team might leak damaging info to the press/influencers, despite his reputation for … leaking damaging info to the press/influencers. Like my teenager would say, I’m not mad, I’m just disappointed, ha.

PP responding to myself above as the insult posts may get deleted, but this “junior partner focused on discovery” practice is the way it has often worked both at my current and former forms — I’m surprised by any lawyer who would be surprised by this. The younger partners are more connected to the dirty work of discovery that most attorneys hate. Occasionally partners specialize in discovery, but then they are rarely the ones who are also arguing in court. PP was using a somewhat pejorative “baby partner” term that I wouldn’t use, Governski (I just looked her up) graduated law school in 2014 and just became partner 2 years ago — she is a very junior partner at that stage, come on.

I am the PP who used "baby lawyer" and you guys have convinced me that it was not an appropriate term. My dad is a doctor and people use "baby doctor" all the time to refer to residents who have been practicing medicine for years, especially in specialties that might require multiple fellowships to gain the necessary experience, so I didn't think about it as pejorative, just descriptive of someone who is not yet at a level where they are first chair on a case this high profile. I'm sure Governski is a good lawyer and I think she did fine on the call yesterday. I do think she could have been more precise with her language at times but as I said, it wasn't a super critical hearing so I don't think it's a big deal.

I also think they went in at a disadvantage because they are asking for something unusual -- of course Liman is going to prefer to use his model protective order. Asking for more is always an uphill battle. He asked insightful questions and Governski did a decent job answer them, though I would have liked her to articulate the potential damage to third-parties from failing to provide more extensive AEO protection. At one point Liman asked her for an hypothetical and she chose to give a generic hypothetical of a communication between Baldoni and a "very famous" friend. I think she could have offered a more precise hypothetical to explain the risk of damage. For instance: a communication between Baldoni and a famous friend in which Baldoni described something that happened on the set of IEWU, and the famous friend replied that the situation reminded him of something that happened on the set of a big budget film he was working on. If that message was made public, it would immediately embroil the friend and that other production in media critique and celebrity gossip, even if the message itself was of minimal value to the Baldoni/Lively matter.

But I think Goverski was trying to be cautious in offering a hypothetical because she likely did not want to reveal the nature of any of the real communications they are worried about, nor give people the impression that her hypothetical reflected a real situation. But I do think this is the sort of thing Liman was fishing for. There would have been a way to frame it to make it clear the hypothetical was pure invention to highlight the sorts of issues they want to address with the PO.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:DP from the people merging over the junior lawyer stuff here but at my firm there sure are more senior and less senior partners. I wouldn’t call them baby partners. But the less senior partners often will be more connected to the dirty work of the motions practice and discovery, where the senior partners may have previously started their careers in that work and now are more interested in the more substantive deps and motions etc (though they will still edit the motions etc). Since the less senior partner is waist deep in the motions practice, it often makes the most sense for them to argue those motions, as well, unless something is especially high profile. But a protective order is not too big a deal. Still, it’s one of the first interactions with the judge so would not have been crazy for Gottlieb to take it. I thought the partner who argued it did a good job fwiw. I thought the info she raised on the Wayfarer tactics needed to be raised, at a minimum to tee them up for sanctions when info begins leaking in an “untraceable” way.

Of course Mr. Showboat Freedman argued it, complete with fake histrionics over how wronged he felt that anyone on his team might leak damaging info to the press/influencers, despite his reputation for … leaking damaging info to the press/influencers. Like my teenager would say, I’m not mad, I’m just disappointed, ha.

Freedman did such a a bad job that the Judge basically endorsed his proposed treatment of AEO from the bench. When the order confirms that, we’ll be back to hearing how discovery motion wins are meaningless. Rinse, lather, repeat.

Freedman totally lost the NYT motion to stay discovery pretty hard, his whole Baldoni website circus shtick has been shut off by the judge, and he’s got a serious ~350 page group pleading problem (between his amended complaint and statement of alternative facts) that he has admitted to and that the judge has already indicated would be highly likely to lead to dismissal. But other than that, Mrs. Lincoln, Freedman is totally WINNING.

He’s got public opinion on his side and that was the point. Baldoni isn’t the one who had to hire someone to threaten influencers trying to report on the case.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:DP from the people merging over the junior lawyer stuff here but at my firm there sure are more senior and less senior partners. I wouldn’t call them baby partners. But the less senior partners often will be more connected to the dirty work of the motions practice and discovery, where the senior partners may have previously started their careers in that work and now are more interested in the more substantive deps and motions etc (though they will still edit the motions etc). Since the less senior partner is waist deep in the motions practice, it often makes the most sense for them to argue those motions, as well, unless something is especially high profile. But a protective order is not too big a deal. Still, it’s one of the first interactions with the judge so would not have been crazy for Gottlieb to take it. I thought the partner who argued it did a good job fwiw. I thought the info she raised on the Wayfarer tactics needed to be raised, at a minimum to tee them up for sanctions when info begins leaking in an “untraceable” way.

Of course Mr. Showboat Freedman argued it, complete with fake histrionics over how wronged he felt that anyone on his team might leak damaging info to the press/influencers, despite his reputation for … leaking damaging info to the press/influencers. Like my teenager would say, I’m not mad, I’m just disappointed, ha.

PP responding to myself above as the insult posts may get deleted, but this “junior partner focused on discovery” practice is the way it has often worked both at my current and former forms — I’m surprised by any lawyer who would be surprised by this. The younger partners are more connected to the dirty work of discovery that most attorneys hate. Occasionally partners specialize in discovery, but then they are rarely the ones who are also arguing in court. PP was using a somewhat pejorative “baby partner” term that I wouldn’t use, Governski (I just looked her up) graduated law school in 2014 and just became partner 2 years ago — she is a very junior partner at that stage, come on.

I am the PP who used "baby lawyer" and you guys have convinced me that it was not an appropriate term. My dad is a doctor and people use "baby doctor" all the time to refer to residents who have been practicing medicine for years, especially in specialties that might require multiple fellowships to gain the necessary experience, so I didn't think about it as pejorative, just descriptive of someone who is not yet at a level where they are first chair on a case this high profile. I'm sure Governski is a good lawyer and I think she did fine on the call yesterday. I do think she could have been more precise with her language at times but as I said, it wasn't a super critical hearing so I don't think it's a big deal.

I also think they went in at a disadvantage because they are asking for something unusual -- of course Liman is going to prefer to use his model protective order. Asking for more is always an uphill battle. He asked insightful questions and Governski did a decent job answer them, though I would have liked her to articulate the potential damage to third-parties from failing to provide more extensive AEO protection. At one point Liman asked her for an hypothetical and she chose to give a generic hypothetical of a communication between Baldoni and a "very famous" friend. I think she could have offered a more precise hypothetical to explain the risk of damage. For instance: a communication between Baldoni and a famous friend in which Baldoni described something that happened on the set of IEWU, and the famous friend replied that the situation reminded him of something that happened on the set of a big budget film he was working on. If that message was made public, it would immediately embroil the friend and that other production in media critique and celebrity gossip, even if the message itself was of minimal value to the Baldoni/Lively matter.

But I think Goverski was trying to be cautious in offering a hypothetical because she likely did not want to reveal the nature of any of the real communications they are worried about, nor give people the impression that her hypothetical reflected a real situation. But I do think this is the sort of thing Liman was fishing for. There would have been a way to frame it to make it clear the hypothetical was pure invention to highlight the sorts of issues they want to address with the PO.

I don’t think you understand the protection offered by a “confidential” designation.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:DP from the people merging over the junior lawyer stuff here but at my firm there sure are more senior and less senior partners. I wouldn’t call them baby partners. But the less senior partners often will be more connected to the dirty work of the motions practice and discovery, where the senior partners may have previously started their careers in that work and now are more interested in the more substantive deps and motions etc (though they will still edit the motions etc). Since the less senior partner is waist deep in the motions practice, it often makes the most sense for them to argue those motions, as well, unless something is especially high profile. But a protective order is not too big a deal. Still, it’s one of the first interactions with the judge so would not have been crazy for Gottlieb to take it. I thought the partner who argued it did a good job fwiw. I thought the info she raised on the Wayfarer tactics needed to be raised, at a minimum to tee them up for sanctions when info begins leaking in an “untraceable” way.

Of course Mr. Showboat Freedman argued it, complete with fake histrionics over how wronged he felt that anyone on his team might leak damaging info to the press/influencers, despite his reputation for … leaking damaging info to the press/influencers. Like my teenager would say, I’m not mad, I’m just disappointed, ha.

PP responding to myself above as the insult posts may get deleted, but this “junior partner focused on discovery” practice is the way it has often worked both at my current and former forms — I’m surprised by any lawyer who would be surprised by this. The younger partners are more connected to the dirty work of discovery that most attorneys hate. Occasionally partners specialize in discovery, but then they are rarely the ones who are also arguing in court. PP was using a somewhat pejorative “baby partner” term that I wouldn’t use, Governski (I just looked her up) graduated law school in 2014 and just became partner 2 years ago — she is a very junior partner at that stage, come on.

I am the PP who used "baby lawyer" and you guys have convinced me that it was not an appropriate term. My dad is a doctor and people use "baby doctor" all the time to refer to residents who have been practicing medicine for years, especially in specialties that might require multiple fellowships to gain the necessary experience, so I didn't think about it as pejorative, just descriptive of someone who is not yet at a level where they are first chair on a case this high profile. I'm sure Governski is a good lawyer and I think she did fine on the call yesterday. I do think she could have been more precise with her language at times but as I said, it wasn't a super critical hearing so I don't think it's a big deal.

I also think they went in at a disadvantage because they are asking for something unusual -- of course Liman is going to prefer to use his model protective order. Asking for more is always an uphill battle. He asked insightful questions and Governski did a decent job answer them, though I would have liked her to articulate the potential damage to third-parties from failing to provide more extensive AEO protection. At one point Liman asked her for an hypothetical and she chose to give a generic hypothetical of a communication between Baldoni and a "very famous" friend. I think she could have offered a more precise hypothetical to explain the risk of damage. For instance: a communication between Baldoni and a famous friend in which Baldoni described something that happened on the set of IEWU, and the famous friend replied that the situation reminded him of something that happened on the set of a big budget film he was working on. If that message was made public, it would immediately embroil the friend and that other production in media critique and celebrity gossip, even if the message itself was of minimal value to the Baldoni/Lively matter.

But I think Goverski was trying to be cautious in offering a hypothetical because she likely did not want to reveal the nature of any of the real communications they are worried about, nor give people the impression that her hypothetical reflected a real situation. But I do think this is the sort of thing Liman was fishing for. There would have been a way to frame it to make it clear the hypothetical was pure invention to highlight the sorts of issues they want to address with the PO.

Thanks for coming back, PP. I’m the PP you were responding to and while I might not really use that term, I certainly HAVE heard lawyers at my firm use it! Like, I don’t think you were coming out of left field with it, I would expect other lawyers to be familiar with the term and its meaning, and the feigned offense on behalf of the Freedman fans is a bit funny when you read how degrading he is to Wilkie in his papers ha. Usually the people I hear using baby partner are associates who are frankly hoping to one day be a baby partner themselves! I would not hear it from a senior partner discussing a more junior partner, generally — except for some of the more problematic ones ha. Someone elected to the partnership merely 2 years ago would be called that by associates at all the firms I have worked for — out of earshot of Goverski though, lol.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Question for the lawyers here. Someone on Reddit made a point that I hadn’t considered but it does make sense. They asked how was it ok for Stephanie Jones to give Abel’s cellphone to Lively?

Initially I had run with the explanation that it was a work phone and therefore Jones’ property. But, the redditer pointed out that PR agents usually have an NDA or other agreement with their clients to safeguard their privacy. Baldoni was a client of Jonesworks and Jones handed over text messages from a time period when Abel was her employee and Baldoni her client.

Blake claims she had a subpoena but we know that wasn’t true b/c there was no case yet. Jones clearly handed the phone over, which had to be a contract violation with Baldoni’s rights/privacy as a client. No wonder BF calls the texts BL gave to the NYT “the illegally obtained text messages”.

So back to my question—can BF get the texts thrown out? And if so, what does BL really have at that point to prove retaliation?

PP here’s. There’s a lot of lawyers on the thread right now but no one has answered my question from yesterday. Any thoughts on the legality of the text messages? If they were about Baldoni (as a client of Jonesworks) or to Baldoni (as a client of Jonesworks) wouldn’t Jones be in breach of contract or likely an NDA?

I'm an attorney but I think the answer to this lies in the lawsuit between Jones and Abel. Jones is suing Able for breach of contract and tortious interference because Abel was an employee of Jonesworks but left the firm (back in August or September I think, I can't remember -- after IEUW premiered but well before Lively filed her lawsuit) and took some Jonesworks clients with her, including Wayfarer/Baldoni. I don't know the precise history of that action (it's now been consolidated in Liman's court with these related actions) but I believe Abel's texts were uncovered as part of that action. I believe there's a dispute about them because it might have been a personal phone they came off of (paid for by Abel) but obviously she was using it to conduct business for Jonesworks so that may not matter. In any case, that's how Stephanie Jones got the texts, and then they became part of of the record in the Jones v. Abel case. I don't know exactly how Lively was able to get them for her action, they've said there was a subpoena but I think it must have been some kind of third-party subpoena to unmask the record in Jones v. Abel to reveal the text messages, not a subpoena to Jones to simply produce them for Lively (you can't just randomly subpoena documents from someone -- you need to be engaged in litigation first, so I'm guessing Lively must have filed something with the other docket as an interested third party to get them, I'm not exactly sure).

But in any case, no I do not think Jones could be accused of violating her contract or her NDA because the texts weren't just randomly leaked to the media. They were included in court filings in her case against Abel, and then discovered via subpoena by Lively for her action against Baldoni. Jones herself did not at any point disclose client info to the public, and may have had no control over whether Lively received the texts from the court record.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:DP from the people merging over the junior lawyer stuff here but at my firm there sure are more senior and less senior partners. I wouldn’t call them baby partners. But the less senior partners often will be more connected to the dirty work of the motions practice and discovery, where the senior partners may have previously started their careers in that work and now are more interested in the more substantive deps and motions etc (though they will still edit the motions etc). Since the less senior partner is waist deep in the motions practice, it often makes the most sense for them to argue those motions, as well, unless something is especially high profile. But a protective order is not too big a deal. Still, it’s one of the first interactions with the judge so would not have been crazy for Gottlieb to take it. I thought the partner who argued it did a good job fwiw. I thought the info she raised on the Wayfarer tactics needed to be raised, at a minimum to tee them up for sanctions when info begins leaking in an “untraceable” way.

Of course Mr. Showboat Freedman argued it, complete with fake histrionics over how wronged he felt that anyone on his team might leak damaging info to the press/influencers, despite his reputation for … leaking damaging info to the press/influencers. Like my teenager would say, I’m not mad, I’m just disappointed, ha.

Freedman did such a a bad job that the Judge basically endorsed his proposed treatment of AEO from the bench. When the order confirms that, we’ll be back to hearing how discovery motion wins are meaningless. Rinse, lather, repeat.

Freedman totally lost the NYT motion to stay discovery pretty hard, his whole Baldoni website circus shtick has been shut off by the judge, and he’s got a serious ~350 page group pleading problem (between his amended complaint and statement of alternative facts) that he has admitted to and that the judge has already indicated would be highly likely to lead to dismissal. But other than that, Mrs. Lincoln, Freedman is totally WINNING.

He’s got public opinion on his side and that was the point. Baldoni isn’t the one who had to hire someone to threaten influencers trying to report on the case.

That’s not what this colloquy is about — it’s about how Freedman is doing in court before this judge. But Freedman himself is very successful at distracting everyone so you’re learning from the best!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Question for the lawyers here. Someone on Reddit made a point that I hadn’t considered but it does make sense. They asked how was it ok for Stephanie Jones to give Abel’s cellphone to Lively?

Initially I had run with the explanation that it was a work phone and therefore Jones’ property. But, the redditer pointed out that PR agents usually have an NDA or other agreement with their clients to safeguard their privacy. Baldoni was a client of Jonesworks and Jones handed over text messages from a time period when Abel was her employee and Baldoni her client.

Blake claims she had a subpoena but we know that wasn’t true b/c there was no case yet. Jones clearly handed the phone over, which had to be a contract violation with Baldoni’s rights/privacy as a client. No wonder BF calls the texts BL gave to the NYT “the illegally obtained text messages”.

So back to my question—can BF get the texts thrown out? And if so, what does BL really have at that point to prove retaliation?

PP here’s. There’s a lot of lawyers on the thread right now but no one has answered my question from yesterday. Any thoughts on the legality of the text messages? If they were about Baldoni (as a client of Jonesworks) or to Baldoni (as a client of Jonesworks) wouldn’t Jones be in breach of contract or likely an NDA?

I'm an attorney but I think the answer to this lies in the lawsuit between Jones and Abel. Jones is suing Able for breach of contract and tortious interference because Abel was an employee of Jonesworks but left the firm (back in August or September I think, I can't remember -- after IEUW premiered but well before Lively filed her lawsuit) and took some Jonesworks clients with her, including Wayfarer/Baldoni. I don't know the precise history of that action (it's now been consolidated in Liman's court with these related actions) but I believe Abel's texts were uncovered as part of that action. I believe there's a dispute about them because it might have been a personal phone they came off of (paid for by Abel) but obviously she was using it to conduct business for Jonesworks so that may not matter. In any case, that's how Stephanie Jones got the texts, and then they became part of of the record in the Jones v. Abel case. I don't know exactly how Lively was able to get them for her action, they've said there was a subpoena but I think it must have been some kind of third-party subpoena to unmask the record in Jones v. Abel to reveal the text messages, not a subpoena to Jones to simply produce them for Lively (you can't just randomly subpoena documents from someone -- you need to be engaged in litigation first, so I'm guessing Lively must have filed something with the other docket as an interested third party to get them, I'm not exactly sure).

But in any case, no I do not think Jones could be accused of violating her contract or her NDA because the texts weren't just randomly leaked to the media. They were included in court filings in her case against Abel, and then discovered via subpoena by Lively for her action against Baldoni. Jones herself did not at any point disclose client info to the public, and may have had no control over whether Lively received the texts from the court record.

Interesting. Thanks. No obligation to redact client information in such records? Jones’ dispute was with Abel not Baldoni. As a client, I’d still expect my privacy to be protected. Jones is really going to damage her reputation going forward.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Question for the lawyers here. Someone on Reddit made a point that I hadn’t considered but it does make sense. They asked how was it ok for Stephanie Jones to give Abel’s cellphone to Lively?

Initially I had run with the explanation that it was a work phone and therefore Jones’ property. But, the redditer pointed out that PR agents usually have an NDA or other agreement with their clients to safeguard their privacy. Baldoni was a client of Jonesworks and Jones handed over text messages from a time period when Abel was her employee and Baldoni her client.

Blake claims she had a subpoena but we know that wasn’t true b/c there was no case yet. Jones clearly handed the phone over, which had to be a contract violation with Baldoni’s rights/privacy as a client. No wonder BF calls the texts BL gave to the NYT “the illegally obtained text messages”.

So back to my question—can BF get the texts thrown out? And if so, what does BL really have at that point to prove retaliation?

PP here’s. There’s a lot of lawyers on the thread right now but no one has answered my question from yesterday. Any thoughts on the legality of the text messages? If they were about Baldoni (as a client of Jonesworks) or to Baldoni (as a client of Jonesworks) wouldn’t Jones be in breach of contract or likely an NDA?

I'm an attorney but I think the answer to this lies in the lawsuit between Jones and Abel. Jones is suing Able for breach of contract and tortious interference because Abel was an employee of Jonesworks but left the firm (back in August or September I think, I can't remember -- after IEUW premiered but well before Lively filed her lawsuit) and took some Jonesworks clients with her, including Wayfarer/Baldoni. I don't know the precise history of that action (it's now been consolidated in Liman's court with these related actions) but I believe Abel's texts were uncovered as part of that action. I believe there's a dispute about them because it might have been a personal phone they came off of (paid for by Abel) but obviously she was using it to conduct business for Jonesworks so that may not matter. In any case, that's how Stephanie Jones got the texts, and then they became part of of the record in the Jones v. Abel case. I don't know exactly how Lively was able to get them for her action, they've said there was a subpoena but I think it must have been some kind of third-party subpoena to unmask the record in Jones v. Abel to reveal the text messages, not a subpoena to Jones to simply produce them for Lively (you can't just randomly subpoena documents from someone -- you need to be engaged in litigation first, so I'm guessing Lively must have filed something with the other docket as an interested third party to get them, I'm not exactly sure).

But in any case, no I do not think Jones could be accused of violating her contract or her NDA because the texts weren't just randomly leaked to the media. They were included in court filings in her case against Abel, and then discovered via subpoena by Lively for her action against Baldoni. Jones herself did not at any point disclose client info to the public, and may have had no control over whether Lively received the texts from the court record.

Interesting. Thanks. No obligation to redact client information in such records? Jones’ dispute was with Abel not Baldoni. As a client, I’d still expect my privacy to be protected. Jones is really going to damage her reputation going forward.

The client whose information became public was Baldoni, who was the defendant in the Lively action. So I don't see what point redaction would serve in that situation. Everyone would have known who it was because of the context.

Also, Baldoni may have breached his contract with Jonesworks when he and Wayfarer decided to leave to follow Abel to her new firm. That situation is very messy.

Stephanie Jones already has a bunch of other issues. Before all this happened, she was subject to this big exposé alleging bullying and other workplace issues at Jonesworks. Abel claims she left the firm in part for those reasons. And now Jones is somewhat embroiled in this whole Lively/Baldoni thing because technically the alleged retaliation occurred while Baldoni/Wayfarer were Jonesworks clients. It's very, very messy.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:DP from the people merging over the junior lawyer stuff here but at my firm there sure are more senior and less senior partners. I wouldn’t call them baby partners. But the less senior partners often will be more connected to the dirty work of the motions practice and discovery, where the senior partners may have previously started their careers in that work and now are more interested in the more substantive deps and motions etc (though they will still edit the motions etc). Since the less senior partner is waist deep in the motions practice, it often makes the most sense for them to argue those motions, as well, unless something is especially high profile. But a protective order is not too big a deal. Still, it’s one of the first interactions with the judge so would not have been crazy for Gottlieb to take it. I thought the partner who argued it did a good job fwiw. I thought the info she raised on the Wayfarer tactics needed to be raised, at a minimum to tee them up for sanctions when info begins leaking in an “untraceable” way.

Of course Mr. Showboat Freedman argued it, complete with fake histrionics over how wronged he felt that anyone on his team might leak damaging info to the press/influencers, despite his reputation for … leaking damaging info to the press/influencers. Like my teenager would say, I’m not mad, I’m just disappointed, ha.

PP responding to myself above as the insult posts may get deleted, but this “junior partner focused on discovery” practice is the way it has often worked both at my current and former forms — I’m surprised by any lawyer who would be surprised by this. The younger partners are more connected to the dirty work of discovery that most attorneys hate. Occasionally partners specialize in discovery, but then they are rarely the ones who are also arguing in court. PP was using a somewhat pejorative “baby partner” term that I wouldn’t use, Governski (I just looked her up) graduated law school in 2014 and just became partner 2 years ago — she is a very junior partner at that stage, come on.

I am the PP who used "baby lawyer" and you guys have convinced me that it was not an appropriate term. My dad is a doctor and people use "baby doctor" all the time to refer to residents who have been practicing medicine for years, especially in specialties that might require multiple fellowships to gain the necessary experience, so I didn't think about it as pejorative, just descriptive of someone who is not yet at a level where they are first chair on a case this high profile. I'm sure Governski is a good lawyer and I think she did fine on the call yesterday. I do think she could have been more precise with her language at times but as I said, it wasn't a super critical hearing so I don't think it's a big deal.

I also think they went in at a disadvantage because they are asking for something unusual -- of course Liman is going to prefer to use his model protective order. Asking for more is always an uphill battle. He asked insightful questions and Governski did a decent job answer them, though I would have liked her to articulate the potential damage to third-parties from failing to provide more extensive AEO protection. At one point Liman asked her for an hypothetical and she chose to give a generic hypothetical of a communication between Baldoni and a "very famous" friend. I think she could have offered a more precise hypothetical to explain the risk of damage. For instance: a communication between Baldoni and a famous friend in which Baldoni described something that happened on the set of IEWU, and the famous friend replied that the situation reminded him of something that happened on the set of a big budget film he was working on. If that message was made public, it would immediately embroil the friend and that other production in media critique and celebrity gossip, even if the message itself was of minimal value to the Baldoni/Lively matter.

But I think Goverski was trying to be cautious in offering a hypothetical because she likely did not want to reveal the nature of any of the real communications they are worried about, nor give people the impression that her hypothetical reflected a real situation. But I do think this is the sort of thing Liman was fishing for. There would have been a way to frame it to make it clear the hypothetical was pure invention to highlight the sorts of issues they want to address with the PO.

Thanks for coming back, PP. I’m the PP you were responding to and while I might not really use that term, I certainly HAVE heard lawyers at my firm use it! Like, I don’t think you were coming out of left field with it, I would expect other lawyers to be familiar with the term and its meaning, and the feigned offense on behalf of the Freedman fans is a bit funny when you read how degrading he is to Wilkie in his papers ha. Usually the people I hear using baby partner are associates who are frankly hoping to one day be a baby partner themselves! I would not hear it from a senior partner discussing a more junior partner, generally — except for some of the more problematic ones ha. Someone elected to the partnership merely 2 years ago would be called that by associates at all the firms I have worked for — out of earshot of Goverski though, lol.

A baby lawyer is a first year associate not an equity partner. No one says baby partner. Sometimes it is a good idea to cut your losses and admit you wrote a totally idiotic post. But much like Blake, you just keep digging your hole.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Question for the lawyers here. Someone on Reddit made a point that I hadn’t considered but it does make sense. They asked how was it ok for Stephanie Jones to give Abel’s cellphone to Lively?

Initially I had run with the explanation that it was a work phone and therefore Jones’ property. But, the redditer pointed out that PR agents usually have an NDA or other agreement with their clients to safeguard their privacy. Baldoni was a client of Jonesworks and Jones handed over text messages from a time period when Abel was her employee and Baldoni her client.

Blake claims she had a subpoena but we know that wasn’t true b/c there was no case yet. Jones clearly handed the phone over, which had to be a contract violation with Baldoni’s rights/privacy as a client. No wonder BF calls the texts BL gave to the NYT “the illegally obtained text messages”.

So back to my question—can BF get the texts thrown out? And if so, what does BL really have at that point to prove retaliation?

PP here’s. There’s a lot of lawyers on the thread right now but no one has answered my question from yesterday. Any thoughts on the legality of the text messages? If they were about Baldoni (as a client of Jonesworks) or to Baldoni (as a client of Jonesworks) wouldn’t Jones be in breach of contract or likely an NDA?

I'm an attorney but I think the answer to this lies in the lawsuit between Jones and Abel. Jones is suing Able for breach of contract and tortious interference because Abel was an employee of Jonesworks but left the firm (back in August or September I think, I can't remember -- after IEUW premiered but well before Lively filed her lawsuit) and took some Jonesworks clients with her, including Wayfarer/Baldoni. I don't know the precise history of that action (it's now been consolidated in Liman's court with these related actions) but I believe Abel's texts were uncovered as part of that action. I believe there's a dispute about them because it might have been a personal phone they came off of (paid for by Abel) but obviously she was using it to conduct business for Jonesworks so that may not matter. In any case, that's how Stephanie Jones got the texts, and then they became part of of the record in the Jones v. Abel case. I don't know exactly how Lively was able to get them for her action, they've said there was a subpoena but I think it must have been some kind of third-party subpoena to unmask the record in Jones v. Abel to reveal the text messages, not a subpoena to Jones to simply produce them for Lively (you can't just randomly subpoena documents from someone -- you need to be engaged in litigation first, so I'm guessing Lively must have filed something with the other docket as an interested third party to get them, I'm not exactly sure).

But in any case, no I do not think Jones could be accused of violating her contract or her NDA because the texts weren't just randomly leaked to the media. They were included in court filings in her case against Abel, and then discovered via subpoena by Lively for her action against Baldoni. Jones herself did not at any point disclose client info to the public, and may have had no control over whether Lively received the texts from the court record.

Interesting. Thanks. No obligation to redact client information in such records? Jones’ dispute was with Abel not Baldoni. As a client, I’d still expect my privacy to be protected. Jones is really going to damage her reputation going forward.

The client whose information became public was Baldoni, who was the defendant in the Lively action. So I don't see what point redaction would serve in that situation. Everyone would have known who it was because of the context.

Also, Baldoni may have breached his contract with Jonesworks when he and Wayfarer decided to leave to follow Abel to her new firm. That situation is very messy.

Stephanie Jones already has a bunch of other issues. Before all this happened, she was subject to this big exposé alleging bullying and other workplace issues at Jonesworks. Abel claims she left the firm in part for those reasons. And now Jones is somewhat embroiled in this whole Lively/Baldoni thing because technically the alleged retaliation occurred while Baldoni/Wayfarer were Jonesworks clients. It's very, very messy.

Sounds like it! Wow. Jones is a mess. Talk about cutting off your nose to spite your face.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:DP from the people merging over the junior lawyer stuff here but at my firm there sure are more senior and less senior partners. I wouldn’t call them baby partners. But the less senior partners often will be more connected to the dirty work of the motions practice and discovery, where the senior partners may have previously started their careers in that work and now are more interested in the more substantive deps and motions etc (though they will still edit the motions etc). Since the less senior partner is waist deep in the motions practice, it often makes the most sense for them to argue those motions, as well, unless something is especially high profile. But a protective order is not too big a deal. Still, it’s one of the first interactions with the judge so would not have been crazy for Gottlieb to take it. I thought the partner who argued it did a good job fwiw. I thought the info she raised on the Wayfarer tactics needed to be raised, at a minimum to tee them up for sanctions when info begins leaking in an “untraceable” way.

Of course Mr. Showboat Freedman argued it, complete with fake histrionics over how wronged he felt that anyone on his team might leak damaging info to the press/influencers, despite his reputation for … leaking damaging info to the press/influencers. Like my teenager would say, I’m not mad, I’m just disappointed, ha.

PP responding to myself above as the insult posts may get deleted, but this “junior partner focused on discovery” practice is the way it has often worked both at my current and former forms — I’m surprised by any lawyer who would be surprised by this. The younger partners are more connected to the dirty work of discovery that most attorneys hate. Occasionally partners specialize in discovery, but then they are rarely the ones who are also arguing in court. PP was using a somewhat pejorative “baby partner” term that I wouldn’t use, Governski (I just looked her up) graduated law school in 2014 and just became partner 2 years ago — she is a very junior partner at that stage, come on.

I am the PP who used "baby lawyer" and you guys have convinced me that it was not an appropriate term. My dad is a doctor and people use "baby doctor" all the time to refer to residents who have been practicing medicine for years, especially in specialties that might require multiple fellowships to gain the necessary experience, so I didn't think about it as pejorative, just descriptive of someone who is not yet at a level where they are first chair on a case this high profile. I'm sure Governski is a good lawyer and I think she did fine on the call yesterday. I do think she could have been more precise with her language at times but as I said, it wasn't a super critical hearing so I don't think it's a big deal.

I also think they went in at a disadvantage because they are asking for something unusual -- of course Liman is going to prefer to use his model protective order. Asking for more is always an uphill battle. He asked insightful questions and Governski did a decent job answer them, though I would have liked her to articulate the potential damage to third-parties from failing to provide more extensive AEO protection. At one point Liman asked her for an hypothetical and she chose to give a generic hypothetical of a communication between Baldoni and a "very famous" friend. I think she could have offered a more precise hypothetical to explain the risk of damage. For instance: a communication between Baldoni and a famous friend in which Baldoni described something that happened on the set of IEWU, and the famous friend replied that the situation reminded him of something that happened on the set of a big budget film he was working on. If that message was made public, it would immediately embroil the friend and that other production in media critique and celebrity gossip, even if the message itself was of minimal value to the Baldoni/Lively matter.

But I think Goverski was trying to be cautious in offering a hypothetical because she likely did not want to reveal the nature of any of the real communications they are worried about, nor give people the impression that her hypothetical reflected a real situation. But I do think this is the sort of thing Liman was fishing for. There would have been a way to frame it to make it clear the hypothetical was pure invention to highlight the sorts of issues they want to address with the PO.

Thanks for coming back, PP. I’m the PP you were responding to and while I might not really use that term, I certainly HAVE heard lawyers at my firm use it! Like, I don’t think you were coming out of left field with it, I would expect other lawyers to be familiar with the term and its meaning, and the feigned offense on behalf of the Freedman fans is a bit funny when you read how degrading he is to Wilkie in his papers ha. Usually the people I hear using baby partner are associates who are frankly hoping to one day be a baby partner themselves! I would not hear it from a senior partner discussing a more junior partner, generally — except for some of the more problematic ones ha. Someone elected to the partnership merely 2 years ago would be called that by associates at all the firms I have worked for — out of earshot of Goverski though, lol.

A baby lawyer is a first year associate not an equity partner. No one says baby partner. Sometimes it is a good idea to cut your losses and admit you wrote a totally idiotic post. But much like Blake, you just keep digging your hole.

Not to be pedantic but do we know Goverski is an equity partner? Wilkie has a sizable non-equity class, I think nearly as large as their equity headcount. Some firms treat non-equity partners more like counsel or of counsel now.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:DP from the people merging over the junior lawyer stuff here but at my firm there sure are more senior and less senior partners. I wouldn’t call them baby partners. But the less senior partners often will be more connected to the dirty work of the motions practice and discovery, where the senior partners may have previously started their careers in that work and now are more interested in the more substantive deps and motions etc (though they will still edit the motions etc). Since the less senior partner is waist deep in the motions practice, it often makes the most sense for them to argue those motions, as well, unless something is especially high profile. But a protective order is not too big a deal. Still, it’s one of the first interactions with the judge so would not have been crazy for Gottlieb to take it. I thought the partner who argued it did a good job fwiw. I thought the info she raised on the Wayfarer tactics needed to be raised, at a minimum to tee them up for sanctions when info begins leaking in an “untraceable” way.

Of course Mr. Showboat Freedman argued it, complete with fake histrionics over how wronged he felt that anyone on his team might leak damaging info to the press/influencers, despite his reputation for … leaking damaging info to the press/influencers. Like my teenager would say, I’m not mad, I’m just disappointed, ha.

PP responding to myself above as the insult posts may get deleted, but this “junior partner focused on discovery” practice is the way it has often worked both at my current and former forms — I’m surprised by any lawyer who would be surprised by this. The younger partners are more connected to the dirty work of discovery that most attorneys hate. Occasionally partners specialize in discovery, but then they are rarely the ones who are also arguing in court. PP was using a somewhat pejorative “baby partner” term that I wouldn’t use, Governski (I just looked her up) graduated law school in 2014 and just became partner 2 years ago — she is a very junior partner at that stage, come on.

I am the PP who used "baby lawyer" and you guys have convinced me that it was not an appropriate term. My dad is a doctor and people use "baby doctor" all the time to refer to residents who have been practicing medicine for years, especially in specialties that might require multiple fellowships to gain the necessary experience, so I didn't think about it as pejorative, just descriptive of someone who is not yet at a level where they are first chair on a case this high profile. I'm sure Governski is a good lawyer and I think she did fine on the call yesterday. I do think she could have been more precise with her language at times but as I said, it wasn't a super critical hearing so I don't think it's a big deal.

I also think they went in at a disadvantage because they are asking for something unusual -- of course Liman is going to prefer to use his model protective order. Asking for more is always an uphill battle. He asked insightful questions and Governski did a decent job answer them, though I would have liked her to articulate the potential damage to third-parties from failing to provide more extensive AEO protection. At one point Liman asked her for an hypothetical and she chose to give a generic hypothetical of a communication between Baldoni and a "very famous" friend. I think she could have offered a more precise hypothetical to explain the risk of damage. For instance: a communication between Baldoni and a famous friend in which Baldoni described something that happened on the set of IEWU, and the famous friend replied that the situation reminded him of something that happened on the set of a big budget film he was working on. If that message was made public, it would immediately embroil the friend and that other production in media critique and celebrity gossip, even if the message itself was of minimal value to the Baldoni/Lively matter.

But I think Goverski was trying to be cautious in offering a hypothetical because she likely did not want to reveal the nature of any of the real communications they are worried about, nor give people the impression that her hypothetical reflected a real situation. But I do think this is the sort of thing Liman was fishing for. There would have been a way to frame it to make it clear the hypothetical was pure invention to highlight the sorts of issues they want to address with the PO.

Thanks for coming back, PP. I’m the PP you were responding to and while I might not really use that term, I certainly HAVE heard lawyers at my firm use it! Like, I don’t think you were coming out of left field with it, I would expect other lawyers to be familiar with the term and its meaning, and the feigned offense on behalf of the Freedman fans is a bit funny when you read how degrading he is to Wilkie in his papers ha. Usually the people I hear using baby partner are associates who are frankly hoping to one day be a baby partner themselves! I would not hear it from a senior partner discussing a more junior partner, generally — except for some of the more problematic ones ha. Someone elected to the partnership merely 2 years ago would be called that by associates at all the firms I have worked for — out of earshot of Goverski though, lol.

A baby lawyer is a first year associate not an equity partner. No one says baby partner. Sometimes it is a good idea to cut your losses and admit you wrote a totally idiotic post. But much like Blake, you just keep digging your hole.

If you think she’s an equity partner at Wilkie when she just made partner two years ago, I question whether you are a lawyer or even work at a law firm.

Associates at my firm say baby partner. Again, where even do you work?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:DP from the people merging over the junior lawyer stuff here but at my firm there sure are more senior and less senior partners. I wouldn’t call them baby partners. But the less senior partners often will be more connected to the dirty work of the motions practice and discovery, where the senior partners may have previously started their careers in that work and now are more interested in the more substantive deps and motions etc (though they will still edit the motions etc). Since the less senior partner is waist deep in the motions practice, it often makes the most sense for them to argue those motions, as well, unless something is especially high profile. But a protective order is not too big a deal. Still, it’s one of the first interactions with the judge so would not have been crazy for Gottlieb to take it. I thought the partner who argued it did a good job fwiw. I thought the info she raised on the Wayfarer tactics needed to be raised, at a minimum to tee them up for sanctions when info begins leaking in an “untraceable” way.

Of course Mr. Showboat Freedman argued it, complete with fake histrionics over how wronged he felt that anyone on his team might leak damaging info to the press/influencers, despite his reputation for … leaking damaging info to the press/influencers. Like my teenager would say, I’m not mad, I’m just disappointed, ha.

Freedman did such a a bad job that the Judge basically endorsed his proposed treatment of AEO from the bench. When the order confirms that, we’ll be back to hearing how discovery motion wins are meaningless. Rinse, lather, repeat.

Freedman totally lost the NYT motion to stay discovery pretty hard, his whole Baldoni website circus shtick has been shut off by the judge, and he’s got a serious ~350 page group pleading problem (between his amended complaint and statement of alternative facts) that he has admitted to and that the judge has already indicated would be highly likely to lead to dismissal. But other than that, Mrs. Lincoln, Freedman is totally WINNING.

He’s got public opinion on his side and that was the point. Baldoni isn’t the one who had to hire someone to threaten influencers trying to report on the case.

That’s not what this colloquy is about — it’s about how Freedman is doing in court before this judge. But Freedman himself is very successful at distracting everyone so you’re learning from the best!

Let’s review: so far, Freedman successfully opposed Lively’s request for a gag order, request for him not to depose her, and had her subpoenas quashed. He’s also going to get what he wanted with respect to the protective order. He lost the motion to stay. He’s going to file another Complaint. And he defeated Blake in the court of public opinion. I think he’s doing just fine.