Blake Lively- Jason Baldoni and NYT - False Light claims

[Anonymous]

I'm another non-litigating attorney who considers myself neutral but I will join the chorus of lawyers who don't like Freedman.

It's nice to see some breakdown's of who's who. Hoping this will end all the bickering from people who assume they're talking to the same person all the time.

I like whoever is making good arguments. I've been pro-Lively on the Protective Order (a clear win) and think many of the Lively parties have strong MTDs (NYT and Sloane's were very strong and Lively and Reynolds were much more better than I expected). I also appreciate the posts from earlier today on the MTDs. I think the extortion and conspiracy stuff is mostly nonsense but some of the defamation claims will survive (however, the Lively parties generally have pretty good arguments on defamation too).

I've been pro-Baldoni on the issue of the ridiculous fishing expedition subpoenas from Lively and generally think Lively's SH claim is weak and exaggerated and she will probably lose at trial, based on what facts we know so far. Basically since we're at the MTD stage now I probably post more in favor of Lively but as discovery goes on and we get to factual issues I'd probably be more Baldoni.

The retaliation claim is the most interesting part to me because it felt like astroturfing even back in August, and how lucky is she to get that treasure trove of texts from Nathan and Abel, who sound horrible? And now Wallace claims under oath he only did research. I want to see this play out and see if Lively's attorneys can thread the needle on having a claim where the initial harassment/discrimination is weak but the retaliation seems strong (or if Wallace is telling the truth, can they prove someone else planted bots and stories?). And how will they prove what percentage of lost business is from the smear campaign vs the extent of it that was organic?

I also was fascinated by the poster who posted about the PGA mark and the petition to strip her of that. I don't think she got it via extortion, just soft pressure and connections, but I kind of want it to be investigated because it sounds like she deserves to lose it.

I don't care about the PR side because Lively, Reynolds, and Baldoni are all slimy to me.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I'm another non-litigating attorney who considers myself neutral but I will join the chorus of lawyers who don't like Freedman.

It's nice to see some breakdown's of who's who. Hoping this will end all the bickering from people who assume they're talking to the same person all the time.

I like whoever is making good arguments. I've been pro-Lively on the Protective Order (a clear win) and think many of the Lively parties have strong MTDs (NYT and Sloane's were very strong and Lively and Reynolds were much more better than I expected). I also appreciate the posts from earlier today on the MTDs. I think the extortion and conspiracy stuff is mostly nonsense but some of the defamation claims will survive (however, the Lively parties generally have pretty good arguments on defamation too).

I've been pro-Baldoni on the issue of the ridiculous fishing expedition subpoenas from Lively and generally think Lively's SH claim is weak and exaggerated and she will probably lose at trial, based on what facts we know so far. Basically since we're at the MTD stage now I probably post more in favor of Lively but as discovery goes on and we get to factual issues I'd probably be more Baldoni.

The retaliation claim is the most interesting part to me because it felt like astroturfing even back in August, and how lucky is she to get that treasure trove of texts from Nathan and Abel, who sound horrible? And now Wallace claims under oath he only did research. I want to see this play out and see if Lively's attorneys can thread the needle on having a claim where the initial harassment/discrimination is weak but the retaliation seems strong (or if Wallace is telling the truth, can they prove someone else planted bots and stories?). And how will they prove what percentage of lost business is from the smear campaign vs the extent of it that was organic?

I also was fascinated by the poster who posted about the PGA mark and the petition to strip her of that. I don't think she got it via extortion, just soft pressure and connections, but I kind of want it to be investigated because it sounds like she deserves to lose it.

I don't care about the PR side because Lively, Reynolds, and Baldoni are all slimy to me.

Hi! 👋. I have appreciated your contributions here! Just distinguishing you from me, another attorney who has responded above — I noted I am generally a pro-Lively attorney. I made most of the posts about the PO (listened to the hearing etc) and argued that Lively won that issue. Like PP, just adding this to distinguish us to hopefully cut down on “same person” comments etc.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I'm another non-litigating attorney who considers myself neutral but I will join the chorus of lawyers who don't like Freedman.

It's nice to see some breakdown's of who's who. Hoping this will end all the bickering from people who assume they're talking to the same person all the time.

I like whoever is making good arguments. I've been pro-Lively on the Protective Order (a clear win) and think many of the Lively parties have strong MTDs (NYT and Sloane's were very strong and Lively and Reynolds were much more better than I expected). I also appreciate the posts from earlier today on the MTDs. I think the extortion and conspiracy stuff is mostly nonsense but some of the defamation claims will survive (however, the Lively parties generally have pretty good arguments on defamation too).

I've been pro-Baldoni on the issue of the ridiculous fishing expedition subpoenas from Lively and generally think Lively's SH claim is weak and exaggerated and she will probably lose at trial, based on what facts we know so far. Basically since we're at the MTD stage now I probably post more in favor of Lively but as discovery goes on and we get to factual issues I'd probably be more Baldoni.

The retaliation claim is the most interesting part to me because it felt like astroturfing even back in August, and how lucky is she to get that treasure trove of texts from Nathan and Abel, who sound horrible? And now Wallace claims under oath he only did research. I want to see this play out and see if Lively's attorneys can thread the needle on having a claim where the initial harassment/discrimination is weak but the retaliation seems strong (or if Wallace is telling the truth, can they prove someone else planted bots and stories?). And how will they prove what percentage of lost business is from the smear campaign vs the extent of it that was organic?

I also was fascinated by the poster who posted about the PGA mark and the petition to strip her of that. I don't think she got it via extortion, just soft pressure and connections, but I kind of want it to be investigated because it sounds like she deserves to lose it.

I don't care about the PR side because Lively, Reynolds, and Baldoni are all slimy to me.

I’m really curious about the text messages. Seems more and more apparent that there was no subpoena, at least not initially. Some lawyers online say perhaps Lively’s attorneys got one after the fact to cure that original sin, but if Sloane called Melissa Nathan the same day the phone was taken from Jen Abel, then very likely no subpoena at the time Jones first gave the texts to Lively’s camp. Also, this was Jen Abel’s personal phone (with a number she’d had since high school) but sounds like maybe work paid the bill. It was tied to her whole life, bills, two step verification, family photos etc. Sounds like Jones had security take her phone and laptop, used a forensic specialist to search it, and escorted her off the property. I have soooo many questions about this for the lawyers here:

1. Did Jones have a right to take the phone?
2. Did she have a right to search the phone?
3. Did she have the right to share the texts without a subpoena? Wayfarer was her client and had a confidentiality agreement.
4. If she shared the texts illegally, are they admissible in court?
5. And just for fun, the basis of Jones’ contractual complaint against Abel is that Abel violated their non compete. However, apparently CA doesn’t recognize noncompete. Can you enforce an illegal (not sure if that’s the right word) contract clause?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'm another non-litigating attorney who considers myself neutral but I will join the chorus of lawyers who don't like Freedman.

It's nice to see some breakdown's of who's who. Hoping this will end all the bickering from people who assume they're talking to the same person all the time.

I like whoever is making good arguments. I've been pro-Lively on the Protective Order (a clear win) and think many of the Lively parties have strong MTDs (NYT and Sloane's were very strong and Lively and Reynolds were much more better than I expected). I also appreciate the posts from earlier today on the MTDs. I think the extortion and conspiracy stuff is mostly nonsense but some of the defamation claims will survive (however, the Lively parties generally have pretty good arguments on defamation too).

I've been pro-Baldoni on the issue of the ridiculous fishing expedition subpoenas from Lively and generally think Lively's SH claim is weak and exaggerated and she will probably lose at trial, based on what facts we know so far. Basically since we're at the MTD stage now I probably post more in favor of Lively but as discovery goes on and we get to factual issues I'd probably be more Baldoni.

The retaliation claim is the most interesting part to me because it felt like astroturfing even back in August, and how lucky is she to get that treasure trove of texts from Nathan and Abel, who sound horrible? And now Wallace claims under oath he only did research. I want to see this play out and see if Lively's attorneys can thread the needle on having a claim where the initial harassment/discrimination is weak but the retaliation seems strong (or if Wallace is telling the truth, can they prove someone else planted bots and stories?). And how will they prove what percentage of lost business is from the smear campaign vs the extent of it that was organic?

I also was fascinated by the poster who posted about the PGA mark and the petition to strip her of that. I don't think she got it via extortion, just soft pressure and connections, but I kind of want it to be investigated because it sounds like she deserves to lose it.

I don't care about the PR side because Lively, Reynolds, and Baldoni are all slimy to me.

Hi! 👋. I have appreciated your contributions here! Just distinguishing you from me, another attorney who has responded above — I noted I am generally a pro-Lively attorney. I made most of the posts about the PO (listened to the hearing etc) and argued that Lively won that issue. Like PP, just adding this to distinguish us to hopefully cut down on “same person” comments etc.

Thanks! I'm the PP above (I'm also the one who broke down what Lively and Baldoni got in the PO which was 90% in her favor) and I have appreciated your posts, especially the notes from the hearing which as it turned out were very accurate since the judge went the way you said (and I didn't think Lively was going to get as much as she did). Yep, it's definitely frustrating how people keep mixing posters up, sigh.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'm another non-litigating attorney who considers myself neutral but I will join the chorus of lawyers who don't like Freedman.

It's nice to see some breakdown's of who's who. Hoping this will end all the bickering from people who assume they're talking to the same person all the time.

I like whoever is making good arguments. I've been pro-Lively on the Protective Order (a clear win) and think many of the Lively parties have strong MTDs (NYT and Sloane's were very strong and Lively and Reynolds were much more better than I expected). I also appreciate the posts from earlier today on the MTDs. I think the extortion and conspiracy stuff is mostly nonsense but some of the defamation claims will survive (however, the Lively parties generally have pretty good arguments on defamation too).

I've been pro-Baldoni on the issue of the ridiculous fishing expedition subpoenas from Lively and generally think Lively's SH claim is weak and exaggerated and she will probably lose at trial, based on what facts we know so far. Basically since we're at the MTD stage now I probably post more in favor of Lively but as discovery goes on and we get to factual issues I'd probably be more Baldoni.

The retaliation claim is the most interesting part to me because it felt like astroturfing even back in August, and how lucky is she to get that treasure trove of texts from Nathan and Abel, who sound horrible? And now Wallace claims under oath he only did research. I want to see this play out and see if Lively's attorneys can thread the needle on having a claim where the initial harassment/discrimination is weak but the retaliation seems strong (or if Wallace is telling the truth, can they prove someone else planted bots and stories?). And how will they prove what percentage of lost business is from the smear campaign vs the extent of it that was organic?

I also was fascinated by the poster who posted about the PGA mark and the petition to strip her of that. I don't think she got it via extortion, just soft pressure and connections, but I kind of want it to be investigated because it sounds like she deserves to lose it.

I don't care about the PR side because Lively, Reynolds, and Baldoni are all slimy to me.

I’m really curious about the text messages. Seems more and more apparent that there was no subpoena, at least not initially. Some lawyers online say perhaps Lively’s attorneys got one after the fact to cure that original sin, but if Sloane called Melissa Nathan the same day the phone was taken from Jen Abel, then very likely no subpoena at the time Jones first gave the texts to Lively’s camp. Also, this was Jen Abel’s personal phone (with a number she’d had since high school) but sounds like maybe work paid the bill. It was tied to her whole life, bills, two step verification, family photos etc. Sounds like Jones had security take her phone and laptop, used a forensic specialist to search it, and escorted her off the property. I have soooo many questions about this for the lawyers here:

1. Did Jones have a right to take the phone?
2. Did she have a right to search the phone?
3. Did she have the right to share the texts without a subpoena? Wayfarer was her client and had a confidentiality agreement.
4. If she shared the texts illegally, are they admissible in court?
5. And just for fun, the basis of Jones’ contractual complaint against Abel is that Abel violated their non compete. However, apparently CA doesn’t recognize noncompete. Can you enforce an illegal (not sure if that’s the right word) contract clause?

Anyone?

[Anonymous]

It’s quite funny that the pro Lively people think we can’t tell them apart. The ladies doth protest too much.

[Anonymous]

We now return to our regularly scheduled insult portion of the program. Never change, Team Baldoni.

[Anonymous]

Also, I know for sure you cannot tell people apart because I have seen you regularly confuse me with others.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'm another non-litigating attorney who considers myself neutral but I will join the chorus of lawyers who don't like Freedman.

It's nice to see some breakdown's of who's who. Hoping this will end all the bickering from people who assume they're talking to the same person all the time.

I like whoever is making good arguments. I've been pro-Lively on the Protective Order (a clear win) and think many of the Lively parties have strong MTDs (NYT and Sloane's were very strong and Lively and Reynolds were much more better than I expected). I also appreciate the posts from earlier today on the MTDs. I think the extortion and conspiracy stuff is mostly nonsense but some of the defamation claims will survive (however, the Lively parties generally have pretty good arguments on defamation too).

I've been pro-Baldoni on the issue of the ridiculous fishing expedition subpoenas from Lively and generally think Lively's SH claim is weak and exaggerated and she will probably lose at trial, based on what facts we know so far. Basically since we're at the MTD stage now I probably post more in favor of Lively but as discovery goes on and we get to factual issues I'd probably be more Baldoni.

The retaliation claim is the most interesting part to me because it felt like astroturfing even back in August, and how lucky is she to get that treasure trove of texts from Nathan and Abel, who sound horrible? And now Wallace claims under oath he only did research. I want to see this play out and see if Lively's attorneys can thread the needle on having a claim where the initial harassment/discrimination is weak but the retaliation seems strong (or if Wallace is telling the truth, can they prove someone else planted bots and stories?). And how will they prove what percentage of lost business is from the smear campaign vs the extent of it that was organic?

I also was fascinated by the poster who posted about the PGA mark and the petition to strip her of that. I don't think she got it via extortion, just soft pressure and connections, but I kind of want it to be investigated because it sounds like she deserves to lose it.

I don't care about the PR side because Lively, Reynolds, and Baldoni are all slimy to me.

I’m really curious about the text messages. Seems more and more apparent that there was no subpoena, at least not initially. Some lawyers online say perhaps Lively’s attorneys got one after the fact to cure that original sin, but if Sloane called Melissa Nathan the same day the phone was taken from Jen Abel, then very likely no subpoena at the time Jones first gave the texts to Lively’s camp. Also, this was Jen Abel’s personal phone (with a number she’d had since high school) but sounds like maybe work paid the bill. It was tied to her whole life, bills, two step verification, family photos etc. Sounds like Jones had security take her phone and laptop, used a forensic specialist to search it, and escorted her off the property. I have soooo many questions about this for the lawyers here:

1. Did Jones have a right to take the phone?
2. Did she have a right to search the phone?
3. Did she have the right to share the texts without a subpoena? Wayfarer was her client and had a confidentiality agreement.
4. If she shared the texts illegally, are they admissible in court?
5. And just for fun, the basis of Jones’ contractual complaint against Abel is that Abel violated their non compete. However, apparently CA doesn’t recognize noncompete. Can you enforce an illegal (not sure if that’s the right word) contract clause?

Anyone?

DP. This seems pretty important, could the lawyers who are discussing the most boring parts of this case chime in with these pretty relevant questions???

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Just be careful. Not your friends and all that, ha!

?

The pro-Baldoni side are regularly rude and degrading to anyone who who isn’t also flat out pro-Baldoni. Look at how you attacked Po former litigator as some tag team. So now someone is asking PP former litigator if they are former big law etc. Is it a trick lol? Now you want responses like folks are your friends, wut? The pettiness has been nuts, not sure PP should provide you ammunition!

My own pettiness is mostly targeted at things Bryan Freedman does that I find highly questionable.

Not even sure what you mean. I didn’t attack anyone and I find it odd you think you know who posts what. I asked if that attorney who didn’t like freedman was big law because big law lawyers tend to be buttoned down and I can see how they wouldn’t like Freedman’s show boat ways.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'm another non-litigating attorney who considers myself neutral but I will join the chorus of lawyers who don't like Freedman.

It's nice to see some breakdown's of who's who. Hoping this will end all the bickering from people who assume they're talking to the same person all the time.

I like whoever is making good arguments. I've been pro-Lively on the Protective Order (a clear win) and think many of the Lively parties have strong MTDs (NYT and Sloane's were very strong and Lively and Reynolds were much more better than I expected). I also appreciate the posts from earlier today on the MTDs. I think the extortion and conspiracy stuff is mostly nonsense but some of the defamation claims will survive (however, the Lively parties generally have pretty good arguments on defamation too).

I've been pro-Baldoni on the issue of the ridiculous fishing expedition subpoenas from Lively and generally think Lively's SH claim is weak and exaggerated and she will probably lose at trial, based on what facts we know so far. Basically since we're at the MTD stage now I probably post more in favor of Lively but as discovery goes on and we get to factual issues I'd probably be more Baldoni.

The retaliation claim is the most interesting part to me because it felt like astroturfing even back in August, and how lucky is she to get that treasure trove of texts from Nathan and Abel, who sound horrible? And now Wallace claims under oath he only did research. I want to see this play out and see if Lively's attorneys can thread the needle on having a claim where the initial harassment/discrimination is weak but the retaliation seems strong (or if Wallace is telling the truth, can they prove someone else planted bots and stories?). And how will they prove what percentage of lost business is from the smear campaign vs the extent of it that was organic?

I also was fascinated by the poster who posted about the PGA mark and the petition to strip her of that. I don't think she got it via extortion, just soft pressure and connections, but I kind of want it to be investigated because it sounds like she deserves to lose it.

I don't care about the PR side because Lively, Reynolds, and Baldoni are all slimy to me.

Hi! 👋. I have appreciated your contributions here! Just distinguishing you from me, another attorney who has responded above — I noted I am generally a pro-Lively attorney. I made most of the posts about the PO (listened to the hearing etc) and argued that Lively won that issue. Like PP, just adding this to distinguish us to hopefully cut down on “same person” comments etc.

Thanks! I'm the PP above (I'm also the one who broke down what Lively and Baldoni got in the PO which was 90% in her favor) and I have appreciated your posts, especially the notes from the hearing which as it turned out were very accurate since the judge went the way you said (and I didn't think Lively was going to get as much as she did). Yep, it's definitely frustrating how people keep mixing posters up, sigh.

Dp. lol. You are so obvious!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'm another non-litigating attorney who considers myself neutral but I will join the chorus of lawyers who don't like Freedman.

It's nice to see some breakdown's of who's who. Hoping this will end all the bickering from people who assume they're talking to the same person all the time.

I like whoever is making good arguments. I've been pro-Lively on the Protective Order (a clear win) and think many of the Lively parties have strong MTDs (NYT and Sloane's were very strong and Lively and Reynolds were much more better than I expected). I also appreciate the posts from earlier today on the MTDs. I think the extortion and conspiracy stuff is mostly nonsense but some of the defamation claims will survive (however, the Lively parties generally have pretty good arguments on defamation too).

I've been pro-Baldoni on the issue of the ridiculous fishing expedition subpoenas from Lively and generally think Lively's SH claim is weak and exaggerated and she will probably lose at trial, based on what facts we know so far. Basically since we're at the MTD stage now I probably post more in favor of Lively but as discovery goes on and we get to factual issues I'd probably be more Baldoni.

The retaliation claim is the most interesting part to me because it felt like astroturfing even back in August, and how lucky is she to get that treasure trove of texts from Nathan and Abel, who sound horrible? And now Wallace claims under oath he only did research. I want to see this play out and see if Lively's attorneys can thread the needle on having a claim where the initial harassment/discrimination is weak but the retaliation seems strong (or if Wallace is telling the truth, can they prove someone else planted bots and stories?). And how will they prove what percentage of lost business is from the smear campaign vs the extent of it that was organic?

I also was fascinated by the poster who posted about the PGA mark and the petition to strip her of that. I don't think she got it via extortion, just soft pressure and connections, but I kind of want it to be investigated because it sounds like she deserves to lose it.

I don't care about the PR side because Lively, Reynolds, and Baldoni are all slimy to me.

Hi! 👋. I have appreciated your contributions here! Just distinguishing you from me, another attorney who has responded above — I noted I am generally a pro-Lively attorney. I made most of the posts about the PO (listened to the hearing etc) and argued that Lively won that issue. Like PP, just adding this to distinguish us to hopefully cut down on “same person” comments etc.

Thanks! I'm the PP above (I'm also the one who broke down what Lively and Baldoni got in the PO which was 90% in her favor) and I have appreciated your posts, especially the notes from the hearing which as it turned out were very accurate since the judge went the way you said (and I didn't think Lively was going to get as much as she did). Yep, it's definitely frustrating how people keep mixing posters up, sigh.

Dp. lol. You are so obvious!

*shrug*

Ok. All of the pro-Lively or nominally pro-Lively posters are the same and all of the pro-Baldoni posters are different.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Just be careful. Not your friends and all that, ha!

?

The pro-Baldoni side are regularly rude and degrading to anyone who who isn’t also flat out pro-Baldoni. Look at how you attacked Po former litigator as some tag team. So now someone is asking PP former litigator if they are former big law etc. Is it a trick lol? Now you want responses like folks are your friends, wut? The pettiness has been nuts, not sure PP should provide you ammunition!

My own pettiness is mostly targeted at things Bryan Freedman does that I find highly questionable.

Not even sure what you mean. I didn’t attack anyone and I find it odd you think you know who posts what. I asked if that attorney who didn’t like freedman was big law because big law lawyers tend to be buttoned down and I can see how they wouldn’t like Freedman’s show boat ways.

So who is throwing the insults, then? I know it is not every pro-Baldoni attorney. It seems like at least one pro-doni atty and one pro-doni non atty.

You’re right, I didn’t know for sure why you were asking, sorry, but personal questions from your team haven’t generally been kind or good ha. And I think there are only three of you if I’ve counted right.

[Anonymous]

only three of you *who are attorneys*

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'm another non-litigating attorney who considers myself neutral but I will join the chorus of lawyers who don't like Freedman.

It's nice to see some breakdown's of who's who. Hoping this will end all the bickering from people who assume they're talking to the same person all the time.

I like whoever is making good arguments. I've been pro-Lively on the Protective Order (a clear win) and think many of the Lively parties have strong MTDs (NYT and Sloane's were very strong and Lively and Reynolds were much more better than I expected). I also appreciate the posts from earlier today on the MTDs. I think the extortion and conspiracy stuff is mostly nonsense but some of the defamation claims will survive (however, the Lively parties generally have pretty good arguments on defamation too).

I've been pro-Baldoni on the issue of the ridiculous fishing expedition subpoenas from Lively and generally think Lively's SH claim is weak and exaggerated and she will probably lose at trial, based on what facts we know so far. Basically since we're at the MTD stage now I probably post more in favor of Lively but as discovery goes on and we get to factual issues I'd probably be more Baldoni.

The retaliation claim is the most interesting part to me because it felt like astroturfing even back in August, and how lucky is she to get that treasure trove of texts from Nathan and Abel, who sound horrible? And now Wallace claims under oath he only did research. I want to see this play out and see if Lively's attorneys can thread the needle on having a claim where the initial harassment/discrimination is weak but the retaliation seems strong (or if Wallace is telling the truth, can they prove someone else planted bots and stories?). And how will they prove what percentage of lost business is from the smear campaign vs the extent of it that was organic?

I also was fascinated by the poster who posted about the PGA mark and the petition to strip her of that. I don't think she got it via extortion, just soft pressure and connections, but I kind of want it to be investigated because it sounds like she deserves to lose it.

I don't care about the PR side because Lively, Reynolds, and Baldoni are all slimy to me.

I’m really curious about the text messages. Seems more and more apparent that there was no subpoena, at least not initially. Some lawyers online say perhaps Lively’s attorneys got one after the fact to cure that original sin, but if Sloane called Melissa Nathan the same day the phone was taken from Jen Abel, then very likely no subpoena at the time Jones first gave the texts to Lively’s camp. Also, this was Jen Abel’s personal phone (with a number she’d had since high school) but sounds like maybe work paid the bill. It was tied to her whole life, bills, two step verification, family photos etc. Sounds like Jones had security take her phone and laptop, used a forensic specialist to search it, and escorted her off the property. I have soooo many questions about this for the lawyers here:

1. Did Jones have a right to take the phone?
2. Did she have a right to search the phone?
3. Did she have the right to share the texts without a subpoena? Wayfarer was her client and had a confidentiality agreement.
4. If she shared the texts illegally, are they admissible in court?
5. And just for fun, the basis of Jones’ contractual complaint against Abel is that Abel violated their non compete. However, apparently CA doesn’t recognize noncompete. Can you enforce an illegal (not sure if that’s the right word) contract clause?

I'll do my best, though some of this might depend on details I don't currently have, as well as nuance of CA law, where I don't practice. But generally:

1. The phone was apparently Jonesworks property so: yes, Jones had a right to take it. She could have taken it at any time. It was her company's property.

2. Since the phone belonged to Jonesworks, yeah, she had a right to search it. She especially had a right to access any work product on the phone, which would include texts and emails regarding a current client (Wayfarer).

3. Ok, here's where I need to explain the difference between violating a contract and violating the law. Violating a contract is not a crime. It might expose you to liability, via a lawsuit or arbitration. But it's not "illegal" in the way that embezzling money or driving without a license is. Sometimes people break contracts on purpose, and accept the risks of liability, because they have other motivations.

Getting that out of the way, Jones may have breached her contract with Wayfarer when she shared the texts with Leslie Sloane. The contract definitely would have had a confidentiality agreement. However, it looks like Jones is going to argue that Wayfarer was already breaching the contract by committing to follow Abel to her new company. It's impossible to know how this is going to shake out without knowing both the contract and the controlling law really well. So I can't tell you either way.

4. So, again, she wouldn't have shared it "illegally." She would have shared it in breach of her contract with Wayfarer. I don't know of any precedent that would disallow Lively, who was not party to that contract, from using the texts if she received them via a breach of contract. Please note this is different than in criminal law, where people have a right against illegal search & seizure of evidence, and evidence can be disallowed in criminal cases if it was obtained in violation of someone's rights. None of that applies here. It's a civil case, and the phone was not taken or searched by the government. If Abel, or Wayfarer, lose these cases, they can't be sent to prison (the potential loss of freedom, or life, in criminal cases is part of why the law requires high standards for how evidence is obtained).

Also, both Jones and Lively say that the texts in Lively's case were produced via a valid subpoena. I know there has been a lot of talk about whether you can issue a subpoena before litigation has been filed, but my understanding is that in CA it's possible to do this in order to preserve evidence that might otherwise be destroyed. They also have no reason to lie about this -- if it's not true, that will be revealed. But even if it's not true, I think this only matters for Jones (who currently blames the subpoena for her disclosure of the texts in violation of confidentiality) and not Lively. But I do think there was a subpoena.

So long story short, yes, I think the texts will be admissible in court, because they were not obtained "illegally."

5. You are right, CA has changed its law on noncompete clauses, making them harder to enforce. I'm not a CA lawyer though, so I can't tell you for certain if this torpedoes Jones' case against Abel. I would assume even if the noncompete clause is unenforceable, Abel may still be liable for stealing work product, and tortious interference in Jonesworks contract with Wayfarer. But again, I would need to have intimate knowledge of those contracts, all of the facts, and CA law to confidently predict how this goes. I don't have that. But yes, CA's current approach to noncompete clauses is problematic for Jones.