Blake Lively- Jason Baldoni and NYT - False Light claims

[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.

[Anonymous]

I was too lazy to respond to the subpoena questions, but PP above gave a good response. It's not that interesting to lawyers because basically as they explained, it's not going to matter that much to the legal case and there probably was a subpoena if her lawyers are writing that there was in their pleadings.

[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?

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.

Thanks. Very helpful. Most of what you said tracks with what I suspected. I do think there was NOT a subpoena at the time of initial disclosure and that seems to be the prevailing thinking, though I’m not sure how much it will matter in the end. I’m also not sure that Jones’ argument that wayfarer was in breach of contract for going with Abel will be an excuse for violating confidentiality. The appropriate remedy would’ve been to hold them financially accountable to their full contract term, not to violate confidentiality. I think it will be hard for Jones to get clients in the future and I imagine her existing clients will leave her.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I was too lazy to respond to the subpoena questions, but PP above gave a good response. It's not that interesting to lawyers because basically as they explained, it's not going to matter that much to the legal case and there probably was a subpoena if her lawyers are writing that there was in their pleadings.

From what I understand they updated the language in their amended complaint to add caveats, saying Lively “believed” there was a subpoena. The prevailing thinking right now is that because Jones gave the texts to Sloane the same day she took the phone, it would’ve been impossible to get a subpoena that fast (also no one on the opposing side has seen this subpoena). Also usually there’s a requirement to notify the affected party that their information had been subpoena’d (that was not done either). Best guess is that if there was a subpoena at all, it was done after the disclosure had already taken place.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I was too lazy to respond to the subpoena questions, but PP above gave a good response. It's not that interesting to lawyers because basically as they explained, it's not going to matter that much to the legal case and there probably was a subpoena if her lawyers are writing that there was in their pleadings.

From what I understand they updated the language in their amended complaint to add caveats, saying Lively “believed” there was a subpoena. The prevailing thinking right now is that because Jones gave the texts to Sloane the same day she took the phone, it would’ve been impossible to get a subpoena that fast (also no one on the opposing side has seen this subpoena). Also usually there’s a requirement to notify the affected party that their information had been subpoena’d (that was not done either). Best guess is that if there was a subpoena at all, it was done after the disclosure had already taken place.

PP you're responding too. That sounds plausible. I don't think they'd outright lie there was one if if it didn't exist, but manufacturing one after the fact, maybe.

[Anonymous]

Question: Is anyone left on the thread that isn’t a lawyer?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I was too lazy to respond to the subpoena questions, but PP above gave a good response. It's not that interesting to lawyers because basically as they explained, it's not going to matter that much to the legal case and there probably was a subpoena if her lawyers are writing that there was in their pleadings.

From what I understand they updated the language in their amended complaint to add caveats, saying Lively “believed” there was a subpoena. The prevailing thinking right now is that because Jones gave the texts to Sloane the same day she took the phone, it would’ve been impossible to get a subpoena that fast (also no one on the opposing side has seen this subpoena). Also usually there’s a requirement to notify the affected party that their information had been subpoena’d (that was not done either). Best guess is that if there was a subpoena at all, it was done after the disclosure had already taken place.

I'm the one who wrote the long response about the phone and subpoena.

Agree that it sounds like Jones shared at least some texts with Leslie Sloane almost immediately after seizing/searching the phone, and there's no way that was via subpoena. More likely, Jones was pissed at Abel, saw the texts about Lively, and decided to share at least some of them with Leslie Sloane to get back at Abel. This was pretty petty.

But once Sloane had seem what I presume to be some of the more damning texts (the stuff about "we can bury her" I'm guessing), she would be able to tell Lively they existed and Lively could then go about getting via subpoena. Again, since it's a civil case, it would not matter that the only reason Lively found out about them was because Jones decided to disclose them.

Regarding whether Abel should have been notified of the subpoena, I actually don't think so, because again, those texts were Jonesworks work product. If the subpoena was narrowly drawn to include only texts related to the Wayfarer account and Lively, there is no privacy reason why Abel would need to be notified. She was acting as an agent of Jonesworks when she sent those texts (something I think she had forgotten) and this has no privacy right. The texts don't concern anything like her medical data, private life, etc

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Yes, they are. Because the “pro” Baldoni comments are organic and natural from level people who’ve examined this from all angles. While the pro Blake and Ryan are clearly artificial and over the top de facto if not literal bots.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Question: Is anyone left on the thread that isn’t a lawyer?

Yup. I find the legal implications of this case the most boring, though some elements are certainly interesting. Watching the many lawyers coming in to bicker is not fun, but luckily there’s enough other posters that I’m still coming back to the thread.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Yes, they are. Because the “pro” Baldoni comments are organic and natural from level people who’ve examined this from all angles. While the pro Blake and Ryan are clearly artificial and over the top de facto if not literal bots.

I’m the PO lawyer (not the PP). I have explained to you that my pro-Lively comments in this thread are as much if not more anti-Freedman comments because of the ego-driven and insult-y way he conducts the case. I dislike Freedman so much that it made me feel sorry for and sympathize somewhat with Lively. Why is that hard for you to understand and accept such that you not insult me with “de facto if not literal bots” comments? I’ve been on DCUM for years. Check me out on the special needs board. Or, I once posted that I hated when work people started their emails with “hello” lol.

Three different lawyers here are united by their dislike of Freedman, whereas you three are united by liking Baldoni. Why is that so hard for you to understand and accept?

I am tired of the Baldoni team ignoring DCUM rules and insulting the people they disagree with while I just abide by the rules and take it. If you continue this, I am going to start insulting you back, as the whim strikes. Jeff might close the thread. So please stop. Seriously.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I was too lazy to respond to the subpoena questions, but PP above gave a good response. It's not that interesting to lawyers because basically as they explained, it's not going to matter that much to the legal case and there probably was a subpoena if her lawyers are writing that there was in their pleadings.

From what I understand they updated the language in their amended complaint to add caveats, saying Lively “believed” there was a subpoena. The prevailing thinking right now is that because Jones gave the texts to Sloane the same day she took the phone, it would’ve been impossible to get a subpoena that fast (also no one on the opposing side has seen this subpoena). Also usually there’s a requirement to notify the affected party that their information had been subpoena’d (that was not done either). Best guess is that if there was a subpoena at all, it was done after the disclosure had already taken place.

I'm the one who wrote the long response about the phone and subpoena.

Agree that it sounds like Jones shared at least some texts with Leslie Sloane almost immediately after seizing/searching the phone, and there's no way that was via subpoena. More likely, Jones was pissed at Abel, saw the texts about Lively, and decided to share at least some of them with Leslie Sloane to get back at Abel. This was pretty petty.

But once Sloane had seem what I presume to be some of the more damning texts (the stuff about "we can bury her" I'm guessing), she would be able to tell Lively they existed and Lively could then go about getting via subpoena. Again, since it's a civil case, it would not matter that the only reason Lively found out about them was because Jones decided to disclose them.

Regarding whether Abel should have been notified of the subpoena, I actually don't think so, because again, those texts were Jonesworks work product. If the subpoena was narrowly drawn to include only texts related to the Wayfarer account and Lively, there is no privacy reason why Abel would need to be notified. She was acting as an agent of Jonesworks when she sent those texts (something I think she had forgotten) and this has no privacy right. The texts don't concern anything like her medical data, private life, etc

.

Did wayfarer have a right to notification as the subject of the texts?