Blake Lively- Jason Baldoni and NYT - False Light claims

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:[mastodon]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Balding supporters won’t even admit Freedman totally lost the PO argument with Liman, lol!

I’m not personally a supporter of balding, but think the only “winners” with respect to the protective orders was the pr firms.

Proving my point!

Freedman argued nobody should be able to use an AEO designation unless they came to him first and asked him pretty please first and he agreed. Liman said eff that, you’re not the boss here and discovery will take forever. Freedman lost his ill-conceived play to be the big gatekeeper.

Will Baldoni fans admit that? No, Freedman is infallible lol. Okay. 👌

So dramatic…

I’m just saying that if you’re going to brood and complain that one side won’t admit when something in the case goes badly for them, look in the mirror.

I personally don’t think the AEO ruling was a huge win for the lively parties. BF just successfully used it against Sloane. The court denied her request for stay in part b/c she already has AEO. It’s pretty safe to say that no one else in this case is getting a stay either , including Blake and Ryan.

AEO in the PO was not mentioned in judge’s order as reason denying the stay. A PO was going to be issued one way or another. Freedman wanted it without the self-designating AEO and he lost. He argued for something and the judge took Lively’s recommendation instead.

You guys still won’t admit it, it’s incredible the acrobatics you go through to avoid saying he made a bad argument with the judge and his big ego got ahead of him. You should just admit this relatively small loss and move on, but no, it’s deny, deny, deny. It looks ridiculous.

There’s nothing to admit. I don’t agree. The judge’s denial was two lines—denied, get a PO if you need (which in this case includes AEO). Also happens that’s what BF argued in his response to the request for stay.

Freedman argued for Solution 1. Lively argued for Solution 2. Judge Liman granted the PO that mostly follows Solution 1 — the big issue that Freedman was so upset about at the hearing, the AEO being self-determined — was issued Lively’s way, not Freedman’s. Freedman lost. But, sure, “There’s nothing to admit. I don’t agree.” You are refusing to admit reality. It’s sad, really.

False, the big issue that Lively cared about was protecting her personal info and the definition requires her to provide a
all such relevant info without an AEO designation.

False. A big part of Lively’s argument during the PO hearing was that she didn’t want to have to produce info that was super personal but irrelevant to the case with no AOE designation. Now she can. Win for her. Loss for Freedman, who wants everything of hers with as little protections as possible.

You don’t understand the PO or doc productions in a large litigation.

[Anonymous]

Could we just move on from the PO? It's just not that interesting.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Could we just move on from the PO? It's just not that interesting.

lol because you’re wrong but won’t admit it. Total hypocrites.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Balding supporters won’t even admit Freedman totally lost the PO argument with Liman, lol!

I’m not personally a supporter of balding, but think the only “winners” with respect to the protective orders was the pr firms.

Proving my point!

Freedman argued nobody should be able to use an AEO designation unless they came to him first and asked him pretty please first and he agreed. Liman said eff that, you’re not the boss here and discovery will take forever. Freedman lost his ill-conceived play to be the big gatekeeper.

Will Baldoni fans admit that? No, Freedman is infallible lol. Okay. 👌

So dramatic…

I’m just saying that if you’re going to brood and complain that one side won’t admit when something in the case goes badly for them, look in the mirror.

I personally don’t think the AEO ruling was a huge win for the lively parties. BF just successfully used it against Sloane. The court denied her request for stay in part b/c she already has AEO. It’s pretty safe to say that no one else in this case is getting a stay either , including Blake and Ryan.

NYT has a better case for the stay because they just might be getting dismissed from the case completely (Sloane wanted that too, and the order denying the stay may be a signal that's not happening). Blake and Ryan are going to be parties to the case anyway (certain claims against certain parties may be dismissed) so they are eventually going to participate in discovery as parties. I imagine that getting the AEO distinction to prevent leaks of their personal info is more valuable to them than staying the inevitable discovery requests.

They personally won’t be able to use the AEO category as defined except for medical records or future film projects.

That’s flat out wrong. If Twohey has a very personal text to lively that’s not relevant to case, that can be AEO no problem. Same with Lively. And such info may be in the same page or included with other info that is responsive, so it would still be required to be produced.

You misread the PO.

Documents that aren’t relevant aren’t discoverable anyway. There’s literally no benefit to her. And if it’s a text between her and Twohey, it is both relevant and not entitled to AEO designation by definition. Again, you clearly aren’t a litigator.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:[mastodon]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Balding supporters won’t even admit Freedman totally lost the PO argument with Liman, lol!

I’m not personally a supporter of balding, but think the only “winners” with respect to the protective orders was the pr firms.

Proving my point!

Freedman argued nobody should be able to use an AEO designation unless they came to him first and asked him pretty please first and he agreed. Liman said eff that, you’re not the boss here and discovery will take forever. Freedman lost his ill-conceived play to be the big gatekeeper.

Will Baldoni fans admit that? No, Freedman is infallible lol. Okay. 👌

So dramatic…

I’m just saying that if you’re going to brood and complain that one side won’t admit when something in the case goes badly for them, look in the mirror.

I personally don’t think the AEO ruling was a huge win for the lively parties. BF just successfully used it against Sloane. The court denied her request for stay in part b/c she already has AEO. It’s pretty safe to say that no one else in this case is getting a stay either , including Blake and Ryan.

AEO in the PO was not mentioned in judge’s order as reason denying the stay. A PO was going to be issued one way or another. Freedman wanted it without the self-designating AEO and he lost. He argued for something and the judge took Lively’s recommendation instead.

You guys still won’t admit it, it’s incredible the acrobatics you go through to avoid saying he made a bad argument with the judge and his big ego got ahead of him. You should just admit this relatively small loss and move on, but no, it’s deny, deny, deny. It looks ridiculous.

There’s nothing to admit. I don’t agree. The judge’s denial was two lines—denied, get a PO if you need (which in this case includes AEO). Also happens that’s what BF argued in his response to the request for stay.

Freedman argued for Solution 1. Lively argued for Solution 2. Judge Liman granted the PO that mostly follows Solution 1 — the big issue that Freedman was so upset about at the hearing, the AEO being self-determined — was issued Lively’s way, not Freedman’s. Freedman lost. But, sure, “There’s nothing to admit. I don’t agree.” You are refusing to admit reality. It’s sad, really.

False, the big issue that Lively cared about was protecting her personal info and the definition requires her to provide a
all such relevant info without an AEO designation.

False. A big part of Lively’s argument during the PO hearing was that she didn’t want to have to produce info that was super personal but irrelevant to the case with no AOE designation. Now she can. Win for her. Loss for Freedman, who wants everything of hers with as little protections as possible.

You don’t understand the PO or doc productions in a large litigation.

Super personal but not relevant to the case does not have to be turned over in discovery anyway.

[Anonymous]

No one cares about the AEO, we've moved on to how BL is weaponizing the Me Too movement. It's nearly impossible to have an actually interesting conversation on here. People go off on really weird tangents.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Balding supporters won’t even admit Freedman totally lost the PO argument with Liman, lol!

I’m not personally a supporter of balding, but think the only “winners” with respect to the protective orders was the pr firms.

Proving my point!

Freedman argued nobody should be able to use an AEO designation unless they came to him first and asked him pretty please first and he agreed. Liman said eff that, you’re not the boss here and discovery will take forever. Freedman lost his ill-conceived play to be the big gatekeeper.

Will Baldoni fans admit that? No, Freedman is infallible lol. Okay. 👌

So dramatic…

I’m just saying that if you’re going to brood and complain that one side won’t admit when something in the case goes badly for them, look in the mirror.

I personally don’t think the AEO ruling was a huge win for the lively parties. BF just successfully used it against Sloane. The court denied her request for stay in part b/c she already has AEO. It’s pretty safe to say that no one else in this case is getting a stay either , including Blake and Ryan.

NYT has a better case for the stay because they just might be getting dismissed from the case completely (Sloane wanted that too, and the order denying the stay may be a signal that's not happening). Blake and Ryan are going to be parties to the case anyway (certain claims against certain parties may be dismissed) so they are eventually going to participate in discovery as parties. I imagine that getting the AEO distinction to prevent leaks of their personal info is more valuable to them than staying the inevitable discovery requests.

They personally won’t be able to use the AEO category as defined except for medical records or future film projects.

That’s flat out wrong. If Twohey has a very personal text to lively that’s not relevant to case, that can be AEO no problem. Same with Lively. And such info may be in the same page or included with other info that is responsive, so it would still be required to be produced.

You misread the PO.

Documents that aren’t relevant aren’t discoverable anyway. There’s literally no benefit to her. And if it’s a text between her and Twohey, it is both relevant and not entitled to AEO designation by definition. Again, you clearly aren’t a litigator.

Try, if you can, to wrap your head around the crazy idea that some texts and some documents will both contain information that is relevant but also information that is private and irrelevant.

For someone like Swift, the private info can be made AEO whether relevant or not. That’s what the PO says.

For parties like Lively, the info can’t be AEO if it’s relevant. But if it’s NOT directly relevant to a claim but produceable anyway because it’s contained in an otherwise irrelevant doc, I expect they’ll produce an AEO version with all the info showing and a confidential version with the AEO info redacted out. (Kind of similar to how Wallace produced his affidavit).

How can you be a litigator and not be familiar with the fact that docs will contain both relevant and non relevant info?

A 1 pm text from Twohey that’s relevant doesn’t mean that the 3 pm text where Twohey says she had a miscarriage (or some other private info) is relevant. That part can be AEO, but string needs to be produced.

[Anonymous]

Otherwise irrelevant doc above was supposed to say otherwise relevant doc

[Anonymous]

And why on earth you would think that the judge created and allowed a category for party info that was private but not relevant to the case to be declared AEO if such info would never be required to be produced is another indication that you clearly have no idea what you are talking about.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Balding supporters won’t even admit Freedman totally lost the PO argument with Liman, lol!

I’m not personally a supporter of balding, but think the only “winners” with respect to the protective orders was the pr firms.

Proving my point!

Freedman argued nobody should be able to use an AEO designation unless they came to him first and asked him pretty please first and he agreed. Liman said eff that, you’re not the boss here and discovery will take forever. Freedman lost his ill-conceived play to be the big gatekeeper.

Will Baldoni fans admit that? No, Freedman is infallible lol. Okay. 👌

So dramatic…

I’m just saying that if you’re going to brood and complain that one side won’t admit when something in the case goes badly for them, look in the mirror.

I personally don’t think the AEO ruling was a huge win for the lively parties. BF just successfully used it against Sloane. The court denied her request for stay in part b/c she already has AEO. It’s pretty safe to say that no one else in this case is getting a stay either , including Blake and Ryan.

NYT has a better case for the stay because they just might be getting dismissed from the case completely (Sloane wanted that too, and the order denying the stay may be a signal that's not happening). Blake and Ryan are going to be parties to the case anyway (certain claims against certain parties may be dismissed) so they are eventually going to participate in discovery as parties. I imagine that getting the AEO distinction to prevent leaks of their personal info is more valuable to them than staying the inevitable discovery requests.

They personally won’t be able to use the AEO category as defined except for medical records or future film projects.

That’s flat out wrong. If Twohey has a very personal text to lively that’s not relevant to case, that can be AEO no problem. Same with Lively. And such info may be in the same page or included with other info that is responsive, so it would still be required to be produced.

You misread the PO.

Documents that aren’t relevant aren’t discoverable anyway. There’s literally no benefit to her. And if it’s a text between her and Twohey, it is both relevant and not entitled to AEO designation by definition. Again, you clearly aren’t a litigator.

Try, if you can, to wrap your head around the crazy idea that some texts and some documents will both contain information that is relevant but also information that is private and irrelevant.

For someone like Swift, the private info can be made AEO whether relevant or not. That’s what the PO says.

For parties like Lively, the info can’t be AEO if it’s relevant. But if it’s NOT directly relevant to a claim but produceable anyway because it’s contained in an otherwise irrelevant doc, I expect they’ll produce an AEO version with all the info showing and a confidential version with the AEO info redacted out. (Kind of similar to how Wallace produced his affidavit).

How can you be a litigator and not be familiar with the fact that docs will contain both relevant and non relevant info?

A 1 pm text from Twohey that’s relevant doesn’t mean that the 3 pm text where Twohey says she had a miscarriage (or some other private info) is relevant. That part can be AEO, but string needs to be produced.

No you are also wrong on your reading about how it applies to non parties. Several of us have tried to explain that to you multiple times.

If Twohey is texting Blake about her miscarriage, that raises bigger problems on the merits for both of them.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:And why on earth you would think that the judge created and allowed a category for party info that was private but not relevant to the case to be declared AEO if such info would never be required to be produced is another indication that you clearly have no idea what you are talking about.

To shut up Blake and her attorneys. They got what they asked for in such a limited way that it’s meaningless. Which is why numerous posters here and numerous lawyer bloggers have said she didn’t really win anything from the protective order. And yet you or some other Blake fan girl keep saying “I don’t understand why so and so blogger thinks Blake didn’t win.” It’s just ridiculous.

The only parties that got meaningful protection from the protective order are the pr firms.

[Anonymous]

So if someone is required to turn over their texts, is there a software app that pulls them all down so can be printed?

[Anonymous]

So if someone is required to turn over their texts, is there a court-approved software app that pulls them all down so can be printed and accepted by court? Or do attorneys just use Decipher Text and Mac book printing and those are acceptable to prove as authentic in courts?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:So if someone is required to turn over their texts, is there a court-approved software app that pulls them all down so can be printed and accepted by court? Or do attorneys just use Decipher Text and Mac book printing and those are acceptable to prove as authentic in courts?

Courts don't have "approved software." You could submit screenshots. But any texts, or other digital evidence, must be authenticated under FRE 901. There are different ways to authenticate, but you must show that the text is real and is actually from, or to, the phone numbers belonging to the individuals in question. Often authentication is done via testimony of one of the parties.

In the case of the texts from Abel's phone, which were extracted from her phone using software (as opposed to just screenshots), you could provide baby authenticate them with testimony or sworn statements from the person who did the extraction (likely someone in IT or security at Jones works) as well as sworn statements from cell carriers confirming that the numbers in question belong to Abel, Nathan, and Baldoni. You might also be able to do it via testimony by Abel, Nathan, and Baldoni.

But no, courts don't require you use a specific software.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Anyone thinking Ryan and Blake are going to apologize should quickly rethink that lmao

Apologize to who? Baldoni? Why?

Yes people thought Blake and Ryan would settle then publicly apology. That's never ever happening

I don't see why anyone would expect them to file a blockbuster lawsuit and then immediately settle and apologize. The case is just starting. There would be no reason to file if not willing to see it through.

The reason would be to preserve their images and likely careers. They have little to nothing to gain at this point by fighting a protracted legal battle while having the court of public opinion and their peers turn against them. It's not clear to me how you don't understand that. Even with a win I like, "well, the bad guy wins again. Woohoo?"

But you can flip this logic the other direction. There are people saying they will hate BL/RR even if they win the case on the merits. And there are people saying they will hate BL/RR even if they dropped their case and agreed with Wayfarer's narrative and said they were sorry. If that's the case, they might as well just do what they want, since people will literally hate them no matter what they do.

BL/RR believe they are in the right. They believe Baldoni and Heath are hypocritical grifters who posed as male feminists for clout, and then harassed women including Lively on the set of this movie. Lively believes Baldoni sought to film gratuitous sex scenes in this movie featuring domestic violence and sought to prevent that and to prevent Baldoni from making a more salacious cut of the movie. Lively believes that Baldoni and Heath then retaliated against her for doing this by hiring Abel, Nathan, and Jed Wallace to destroy her rep online. And Lively and Reynolds believe that Sarowitz has sworn to spend 100 million dollars to destroy them and kill their careers.

You might think all of that is delusional, but they really believe it. That is their reality. So the idea that they would apologize makes no sense at all. It's actually logical, from their perspective, to continue to pursue this. Because Baldoni supporters will hate them no matter what, and their sincere belief is that Baldoni, Heath, and Sarowitz harmed them, maliciously, and have sworn to destroy them anyway. So they might as well fight.

I'm sure I'll be called a shameless BL supporter now but note I'm not saying I agree with all this. I just find it bizarre when people are like "oh they're on the ropes, surely they will settle any minute now." It's completely illogical.

It's actually not clear at all to me what BL believes or doesn't. There's an alternate theory RR is behind basically all of this and BL is basically along for the ride with a power hungry, super controlling spouse. If she's aligned, sure they'll go to the end of this, but if that's at all at play, they might settle for her own mental health and well being. BUT he appears to be a man who treats his wife like shit so maybe that is not a factor? A lot of the Hollywood PR people come down more on this side. It's a dick measuring contest of power between RR and Baldoni. It's actually a pretty sympathetic take towards Lively without making her a Baldoni victim.

This all just sounds like a bunch of projection and speculation to me. Like something people hope is true but it's based on nothing.

Occam's razor says that Lively sued because she believes her allegations and her husband supports her because he believes his wife. This just feels like a gossip columnist trying to make it more interesting than it is.

Actually, I think the prevailing theory is that Blake never intended to sue and had planned for this to be a PR battle only. Remember this all started with a CRD complaint and an article. She was backed into a corner to sue after JB’s strong reaction to the nyt article.

+1 Lively has a history of successfully harassing and threatening people to get her way, with the support of Reynolds. Baldoni and others caved to their demands under duress throughout this production. Lively and Reynolds clearly thought they would up the ante to get the rights to the sequel and everything else they wanted.

They weren't expecting Baldoni to fight back. They again tried to harass and threaten him into giving in to their demands, knowing that they could afford exorbitant legal fees but Baldoni couldn't. The only reason that it didn't work is because Sarowitz agreed to fund Baldoni's legal fees. Now the horrible behavior of Lively and Reynolds and their associates has been exposed in a way that they never intended when they started their hostilities against Baldoni, Heath, and others.