Blake Lively- Jason Baldoni and NYT - False Light claims

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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?

Following up. It looks like Jen had rights. Here’s what I found on California’s website:

There are special protections for phone records, e-mails, and texts
If you are subpoenaing evidence that includes phone records, email, social media, or texts you must get consent from the owner of those communications by having them sign a release.
Your local Self-Help Center or Law Library may be able to help you find the proper language for the specific release you need.
You must give notice to any consumer or employees whose records you seek
If you are subpoenaing evidence that includes consumer records or employee records of a company, you must give notice to the consumer or employee before serving the subpoena in order to give that person the opportunity to object to the production.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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?

Following up. It looks like Jen had rights. Here’s what I found on California’s website:

There are special protections for phone records, e-mails, and texts
If you are subpoenaing evidence that includes phone records, email, social media, or texts you must get consent from the owner of those communications by having them sign a release.
Your local Self-Help Center or Law Library may be able to help you find the proper language for the specific release you need.
You must give notice to any consumer or employees whose records you seek
If you are subpoenaing evidence that includes consumer records or employee records of a company, you must give notice to the consumer or employee before serving the subpoena in order to give that person the opportunity to object to the production.

Again, Abel didn't own the messages. Work messages on work phone? Owner is the employer, no question.

And no, Wayfarer would not have a right to notification as the subject.

I am honestly a little surprised people don't know this. Every employer I've ever had (both law firms and corporate) has told us that any communication on work hardware can be subject to discovery, even after we work there. And therefore to not put anything that would embarrass the company (or me!) in those messages.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Agreed. I am a lawyer, pro-Baldoni and probably guilty of a little snark, here and there. I appreciate the legal arguments and analysis, as long as it’s not paragraphs and all pro-Lively all the time. I refuse to go into serious work over all of this, all of the time.

Like another poster or two have said, let’s analyze but put this stuff into context. This is a Hollywood drama playing out. Nice to analyze but don’t get too wrapped up into it. Breathe. Walk the dog. Eat. I swear a few of the Lively posters literally don’t seem like they move from their screens all day long.

Bigger issues are happening out here in America and this case is great escapism for many, and a good legal thrill for some.

Just keep that in mind. This is an entertainment and pop culture site. I will try to minimize some snark, but really, that’s the whole purpose of this blog.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Agreed. I am a lawyer, pro-Baldoni and probably guilty of a little snark, here and there. I appreciate the legal arguments and analysis, as long as it’s not paragraphs and all pro-Lively all the time. I refuse to go into serious work over all of this, all of the time.

Like another poster or two have said, let’s analyze but put this stuff into context. This is a Hollywood drama playing out. Nice to analyze but don’t get too wrapped up into it. Breathe. Walk the dog. Eat. I swear a few of the Lively posters literally don’t seem like they move from their screens all day long.

Bigger issues are happening out here in America and this case is great escapism for many, and a good legal thrill for some.

Just keep that in mind. This is an entertainment and pop culture site. I will try to minimize some snark, but really, that’s the whole purpose of this blog.

One hundred percent, agree on all points.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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?

Following up. It looks like Jen had rights. Here’s what I found on California’s website:

There are special protections for phone records, e-mails, and texts
If you are subpoenaing evidence that includes phone records, email, social media, or texts you must get consent from the owner of those communications by having them sign a release.
Your local Self-Help Center or Law Library may be able to help you find the proper language for the specific release you need.
You must give notice to any consumer or employees whose records you seek
If you are subpoenaing evidence that includes consumer records or employee records of a company, you must give notice to the consumer or employee before serving the subpoena in order to give that person the opportunity to object to the production.

Again, Abel didn't own the messages. Work messages on work phone? Owner is the employer, no question.

And no, Wayfarer would not have a right to notification as the subject.

I am honestly a little surprised people don't know this. Every employer I've ever had (both law firms and corporate) has told us that any communication on work hardware can be subject to discovery, even after we work there. And therefore to not put anything that would embarrass the company (or me!) in those messages.

Maybe it makes no difference, but it’s my understanding. It was her personal phone. But it was work related messages.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Agreed. I am a lawyer, pro-Baldoni and probably guilty of a little snark, here and there. I appreciate the legal arguments and analysis, as long as it’s not paragraphs and all pro-Lively all the time. I refuse to go into serious work over all of this, all of the time.

Like another poster or two have said, let’s analyze but put this stuff into context. This is a Hollywood drama playing out. Nice to analyze but don’t get too wrapped up into it. Breathe. Walk the dog. Eat. I swear a few of the Lively posters literally don’t seem like they move from their screens all day long.

Bigger issues are happening out here in America and this case is great escapism for many, and a good legal thrill for some.

Just keep that in mind. This is an entertainment and pop culture site. I will try to minimize some snark, but really, that’s the whole purpose of this blog.

One hundred percent, agree on all points.

I am going to just try to ignore snark against Lively or the parties going forward as long as it’s not misogyny as previously discussed. Snark away at the parties if you must!

But insults to posters, I will not ignore. It’s very mean girl. Look how a Baldoni fan asked for help on the subpoena issue, and *the person who you made fun of for being here all the time and posting long responses* (I think) actually helped you, and even looked up CA rules for you. Yet at the same time — on the same page here! — you mock her for “I swear a few of the Lively posters literally don’t seem like they move from their screens all day long.”

She just helped you all! And still, a personal dig.

I (the PO obsessed lawyer) am a person. And PP who posted the subpoena stuff is a person. I’m a lawyer and I type super fast so sometimes my posts are long. If you don’t like them, skip them. A long comment counts as one of 15 comments on each page, same as a short one. But if you insult me or people who are taking similar positions to me, personally, I will start insulting you back, and the thread may just go away.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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?

Following up. It looks like Jen had rights. Here’s what I found on California’s website:

There are special protections for phone records, e-mails, and texts
If you are subpoenaing evidence that includes phone records, email, social media, or texts you must get consent from the owner of those communications by having them sign a release.
Your local Self-Help Center or Law Library may be able to help you find the proper language for the specific release you need.
You must give notice to any consumer or employees whose records you seek
If you are subpoenaing evidence that includes consumer records or employee records of a company, you must give notice to the consumer or employee before serving the subpoena in order to give that person the opportunity to object to the production.

Again, Abel didn't own the messages. Work messages on work phone? Owner is the employer, no question.

And no, Wayfarer would not have a right to notification as the subject.

I am honestly a little surprised people don't know this. Every employer I've ever had (both law firms and corporate) has told us that any communication on work hardware can be subject to discovery, even after we work there. And therefore to not put anything that would embarrass the company (or me!) in those messages.

You’re missing the part that says employees have to be notified if their records are subpoenaed (customers too, which may include wayfarer since the texts concerned them).

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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?

Following up. It looks like Jen had rights. Here’s what I found on California’s website:

There are special protections for phone records, e-mails, and texts
If you are subpoenaing evidence that includes phone records, email, social media, or texts you must get consent from the owner of those communications by having them sign a release.
Your local Self-Help Center or Law Library may be able to help you find the proper language for the specific release you need.
You must give notice to any consumer or employees whose records you seek
If you are subpoenaing evidence that includes consumer records or employee records of a company, you must give notice to the consumer or employee before serving the subpoena in order to give that person the opportunity to object to the production.

Again, Abel didn't own the messages. Work messages on work phone? Owner is the employer, no question.

And no, Wayfarer would not have a right to notification as the subject.

I am honestly a little surprised people don't know this. Every employer I've ever had (both law firms and corporate) has told us that any communication on work hardware can be subject to discovery, even after we work there. And therefore to not put anything that would embarrass the company (or me!) in those messages.

Maybe it makes no difference, but it’s my understanding. It was her personal phone. But it was work related messages.

That was my understanding as well. I imagine it's like my own setup. I've had the same number for 20+ years and I own and pay for the phone itself, but I can submit for service reimbursement because work has the expectation that I have my work outlook on the phone and use it for work. Do they own the rights to everything on it? Is my own use limited because they pay part of the bill? I'd argue no, but I don't know the law here.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Agreed. I am a lawyer, pro-Baldoni and probably guilty of a little snark, here and there. I appreciate the legal arguments and analysis, as long as it’s not paragraphs and all pro-Lively all the time. I refuse to go into serious work over all of this, all of the time.

Like another poster or two have said, let’s analyze but put this stuff into context. This is a Hollywood drama playing out. Nice to analyze but don’t get too wrapped up into it. Breathe. Walk the dog. Eat. I swear a few of the Lively posters literally don’t seem like they move from their screens all day long.

Bigger issues are happening out here in America and this case is great escapism for many, and a good legal thrill for some.

Just keep that in mind. This is an entertainment and pop culture site. I will try to minimize some snark, but really, that’s the whole purpose of this blog.

One hundred percent, agree on all points.

I am going to just try to ignore snark against Lively or the parties going forward as long as it’s not misogyny as previously discussed. Snark away at the parties if you must!

But insults to posters, I will not ignore. It’s very mean girl. Look how a Baldoni fan asked for help on the subpoena issue, and *the person who you made fun of for being here all the time and posting long responses* (I think) actually helped you, and even looked up CA rules for you. Yet at the same time — on the same page here! — you mock her for “I swear a few of the Lively posters literally don’t seem like they move from their screens all day long.”

She just helped you all! And still, a personal dig.

I (the PO obsessed lawyer) am a person. And PP who posted the subpoena stuff is a person. I’m a lawyer and I type super fast so sometimes my posts are long. If you don’t like them, skip them. A long comment counts as one of 15 comments on each page, same as a short one. But if you insult me or people who are taking similar positions to me, personally, I will start insulting you back, and the thread may just go away.

These are different people. I asked about the subpoenas. I did not say anything about lively posters not moving from their screens. That’s someone else. These side conversations about who said what are just unproductive and sucking the air out of this thread. We spend more time talking about that than the issues at a hand.

[Anonymous]

It wasn't Abel's personal phone. Jonesworks provided the phone. Abel (stupidly, IMO) had her personal phone number added to the phone after Jonesworks gave it to her. And she believed that texting using her personal number could keep those communications from Jonesworks. If the texts were if a personal nature, she could maybe make an argument for this. But she was conducting company business in those texts. Thus they are Jonesworks property, regardless of the number used. And if you are wondering, yes this would apply to you if you used your Gmail account on a work provided device to conduct work for the company.

As for notice, the law requires you to notify employees or customers off their *records* are subpoenaed. I don't think work product would be considered a record. That's referring to HR files, employee evaluations, customer sales records and contracts, etc. But work product is not an employee record.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:It wasn't Abel's personal phone. Jonesworks provided the phone. Abel (stupidly, IMO) had her personal phone number added to the phone after Jonesworks gave it to her. And she believed that texting using her personal number could keep those communications from Jonesworks. If the texts were if a personal nature, she could maybe make an argument for this. But she was conducting company business in those texts. Thus they are Jonesworks property, regardless of the number used. And if you are wondering, yes this would apply to you if you used your Gmail account on a work provided device to conduct work for the company.

As for notice, the law requires you to notify employees or customers off their *records* are subpoenaed. I don't think work product would be considered a record. That's referring to HR files, employee evaluations, customer sales records and contracts, etc. But work product is not an employee record.

I’m guessing it’s not that cut and dry. We’ll see what case law BF cites when he makes his arguments. He insists the text messages were obtained illegally, and I’m sure he’ll make some arguments to back up those assertions. I think the case against Jones will be a slam dunk. She acted really inappropriately and recklessly with regard to both her employees and her clients.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Agreed. I am a lawyer, pro-Baldoni and probably guilty of a little snark, here and there. I appreciate the legal arguments and analysis, as long as it’s not paragraphs and all pro-Lively all the time. I refuse to go into serious work over all of this, all of the time.

Like another poster or two have said, let’s analyze but put this stuff into context. This is a Hollywood drama playing out. Nice to analyze but don’t get too wrapped up into it. Breathe. Walk the dog. Eat. I swear a few of the Lively posters literally don’t seem like they move from their screens all day long.

Bigger issues are happening out here in America and this case is great escapism for many, and a good legal thrill for some.

Just keep that in mind. This is an entertainment and pop culture site. I will try to minimize some snark, but really, that’s the whole purpose of this blog.

One hundred percent, agree on all points.

I am going to just try to ignore snark against Lively or the parties going forward as long as it’s not misogyny as previously discussed. Snark away at the parties if you must!

But insults to posters, I will not ignore. It’s very mean girl. Look how a Baldoni fan asked for help on the subpoena issue, and *the person who you made fun of for being here all the time and posting long responses* (I think) actually helped you, and even looked up CA rules for you. Yet at the same time — on the same page here! — you mock her for “I swear a few of the Lively posters literally don’t seem like they move from their screens all day long.”

She just helped you all! And still, a personal dig.

I (the PO obsessed lawyer) am a person. And PP who posted the subpoena stuff is a person. I’m a lawyer and I type super fast so sometimes my posts are long. If you don’t like them, skip them. A long comment counts as one of 15 comments on each page, same as a short one. But if you insult me or people who are taking similar positions to me, personally, I will start insulting you back, and the thread may just go away.

These are different people. I asked about the subpoenas. I did not say anything about lively posters not moving from their screens. That’s someone else. These side conversations about who said what are just unproductive and sucking the air out of this thread. We spend more time talking about that than the issues at a hand.

I meant “you” plural, as in Baldoni fans — thus, “she just helped you all!” But okay. I think this convo is helpful and necessary bc I’m explaining how I’m changing my behavior in this thread. I won’t complain about more (non-misogyny) snark and gossip etc if it’s not directed at posters. If it is (in defiance of DCUM rules), I will insult back and thread may close.

This is more interesting to me than the subpoena tbh, but I’m stopping now. I kept it short!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Agreed. I am a lawyer, pro-Baldoni and probably guilty of a little snark, here and there. I appreciate the legal arguments and analysis, as long as it’s not paragraphs and all pro-Lively all the time. I refuse to go into serious work over all of this, all of the time.

Like another poster or two have said, let’s analyze but put this stuff into context. This is a Hollywood drama playing out. Nice to analyze but don’t get too wrapped up into it. Breathe. Walk the dog. Eat. I swear a few of the Lively posters literally don’t seem like they move from their screens all day long.

Bigger issues are happening out here in America and this case is great escapism for many, and a good legal thrill for some.

Just keep that in mind. This is an entertainment and pop culture site. I will try to minimize some snark, but really, that’s the whole purpose of this blog.

One hundred percent, agree on all points.

I am going to just try to ignore snark against Lively or the parties going forward as long as it’s not misogyny as previously discussed. Snark away at the parties if you must!

But insults to posters, I will not ignore. It’s very mean girl. Look how a Baldoni fan asked for help on the subpoena issue, and *the person who you made fun of for being here all the time and posting long responses* (I think) actually helped you, and even looked up CA rules for you. Yet at the same time — on the same page here! — you mock her for “I swear a few of the Lively posters literally don’t seem like they move from their screens all day long.”

She just helped you all! And still, a personal dig.

I (the PO obsessed lawyer) am a person. And PP who posted the subpoena stuff is a person. I’m a lawyer and I type super fast so sometimes my posts are long. If you don’t like them, skip them. A long comment counts as one of 15 comments on each page, same as a short one. But if you insult me or people who are taking similar positions to me, personally, I will start insulting you back, and the thread may just go away.

These are different people. I asked about the subpoenas. I did not say anything about lively posters not moving from their screens. That’s someone else. These side conversations about who said what are just unproductive and sucking the air out of this thread. We spend more time talking about that than the issues at a hand.

I meant “you” plural, as in Baldoni fans — thus, “she just helped you all!” But okay. I think this convo is helpful and necessary bc I’m explaining how I’m changing my behavior in this thread. I won’t complain about more (non-misogyny) snark and gossip etc if it’s not directed at posters. If it is (in defiance of DCUM rules), I will insult back and thread may close.

This is more interesting to me than the subpoena tbh, but I’m stopping now. I kept it short!

No one cares. We know the collective you will continue your thread “clean ups” and regular complaints in website feedback.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It wasn't Abel's personal phone. Jonesworks provided the phone. Abel (stupidly, IMO) had her personal phone number added to the phone after Jonesworks gave it to her. And she believed that texting using her personal number could keep those communications from Jonesworks. If the texts were if a personal nature, she could maybe make an argument for this. But she was conducting company business in those texts. Thus they are Jonesworks property, regardless of the number used. And if you are wondering, yes this would apply to you if you used your Gmail account on a work provided device to conduct work for the company.

As for notice, the law requires you to notify employees or customers off their *records* are subpoenaed. I don't think work product would be considered a record. That's referring to HR files, employee evaluations, customer sales records and contracts, etc. But work product is not an employee record.

I’m guessing it’s not that cut and dry. We’ll see what case law BF cites when he makes his arguments. He insists the text messages were obtained illegally, and I’m sure he’ll make some arguments to back up those assertions. I think the case against Jones will be a slam dunk. She acted really inappropriately and recklessly with regard to both her employees and her clients.

Yeah, I’m not sure how that shakes up for Justin Baldoni but I’m sure clients of hers don’t exactly appreciate their personal information being used in this way.

Frankly, it sounds like she was melting down and had some sort of a breakdown. I doubt her business is doing that well anyway.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It wasn't Abel's personal phone. Jonesworks provided the phone. Abel (stupidly, IMO) had her personal phone number added to the phone after Jonesworks gave it to her. And she believed that texting using her personal number could keep those communications from Jonesworks. If the texts were if a personal nature, she could maybe make an argument for this. But she was conducting company business in those texts. Thus they are Jonesworks property, regardless of the number used. And if you are wondering, yes this would apply to you if you used your Gmail account on a work provided device to conduct work for the company.

As for notice, the law requires you to notify employees or customers off their *records* are subpoenaed. I don't think work product would be considered a record. That's referring to HR files, employee evaluations, customer sales records and contracts, etc. But work product is not an employee record.

I’m guessing it’s not that cut and dry. We’ll see what case law BF cites when he makes his arguments. He insists the text messages were obtained illegally, and I’m sure he’ll make some arguments to back up those assertions. I think the case against Jones will be a slam dunk. She acted really inappropriately and recklessly with regard to both her employees and her clients.

Yeah, I’m not sure how that shakes up for Justin Baldoni but I’m sure clients of hers don’t exactly appreciate their personal information being used in this way.

Frankly, it sounds like she was melting down and had some sort of a breakdown. I doubt her business is doing that well anyway.

I am certain Jones has lost clients over this and this could torpedo her company. Though you can be resurrected in Hollywood. I'll note her husband is a pretty big deal agent at WME -- yes, the same WME that represents Lively and Reynolds and used to represent Baldoni and Wayfarer. Granted, it's a huge agency with a ton of heavy hitting clients. But the point is that Jones is well connected and has resources.

I don't think any of it is going to matter for the texts though. She might get slapped with breach of contract for disclosing the texts but I do think it will be offset by Wayfarer likely breaching when it committed to following Abel to her own company. So with offsetting damages, it just might not wind up being a big deal for Jones.

Bryan Freedman calling the texts "illegally" obtained is CLASSIC Freedman just straight up lying in order to gain a PR advantage, and this is precisely why I can't stand Bryan Freedman, but whatever. There is not a single allegation regarding the texts that would make them "illegal" for Lively to use. He's just trying to get the JB-hive activated over this. He lies all the time.