Blake Lively- Jason Baldoni and NYT - False Light claims

[Anonymous]

https://deadline.com/2025/04/justin-baldoni-blake-lively-lawsuit-publicist-stephanie-jones-1236365725/

Jones stated in a filing, which I have not yet read, that she turned over the texts in response to the subpoena. The author of the article claims to have reviewed the subpoena: Deadline has viewed a copy of the subpoena cited by Jones. Dated last October, it orders her to turn over all related pieces of communication, including email and texts.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I just really enjoy that the "litigator" here has been so swift to make fun of me at every turn and yet has been so very wrong about the PO and now about this. Oh great litigator, you may bill more than me but my counsel is better lol.

Judge went even harder than I thought! I thought he would split the baby and he went all out in enforcing the original deadlines.

There are many of us who are real lawyers who mock you. Typical that you think it’s one person. Most of us, unlike you, have lives so don’t live on this thread.

I mean for as much as the pro Lively pp posts, there's always a pro Baldoni post making fun of her a few minutes later, so j wouldn't cast stones here.

It's so strange that you are convinced there is exactly one pro-Lively poster on this thread when there are obviously several.

[Anonymous]

https://people.com/blake-lively-no-regrets-suing-justin-baldoni-source-exclusive-11713053

Clearly a response to those saying they regret it

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:https://people.com/blake-lively-no-regrets-suing-justin-baldoni-source-exclusive-11713053

Clearly a response to those saying they regret it

I wonder if they're feeling good about the MTDs now. I don't think all claims will be dismissed of course, but my guess is the Lively and Sloane parties will be happier than Wayfarer.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:DP but also thought the judge was being strict here and wondering if this portends the judge will dismiss some claims without leave to amend.

Didn’t give Lively an unopposed request for extension so seems he wants to move things along. That’s usually the sign of a judge that wants a settlement,

Just laughing at this reading of the tea leaves from Team Balboni that, of course, the judge's actions here portends a settlement! Everything that happens portends a settlement to you guys! Lively requesting more time to file an amended complaint portended a settlement! The MTDs portended a settlement! Lively et al opposing Freedman's extension requests portened a settlement! The judge denying said extension portends a settlement! And yet, there is still no settlement, aw. Maybe the judge dismissing a bunch of Baldoni's claims also will portend a settlement? I bet it will!

I really enjoyed Reynolds letter opposing the Baldoni's motion to extend time. Its reasoning and case support is great, it notes that -- inexplicably! -- Baldoni doesn't even mention the proper standard for showing good cause for an extension (which, amusingly, is based on Liman's prior case called Furry Puppet Studio -- that is fantastic!). But, specifically, the tone of the letter is great, I love it. It isn't demeaning to Baldoni (as Freedman's letters often are), but it clearly states how Freedman's past "strategic" decisions in the case (which probably were made more for the PR side than the legal side) properly lead to rejection of Baldoni's extension request here. If Freedman thought they couldn't meet their discovery deadlines, they could have agreed to Sloane's motion to stay discovery two weeks ago. Nope. Alternatively, Freedman could have preserved their opportunity to amend their complaint as of right for the first time. Nope, they didn't do that either, and instead filed their first amended complaint and its crazy appendix with no notice to either party claiming they wanted to move the case forward. And the paragraph on there being no right to have MTD rulings before you amend your complaint is *chef's kiss*:

"The premise of the Wayfarer Parties’ request—that they should be entitled to read the Court’s decision on the motions to dismiss before seeking leave to amend—is unsupported. Rule 15 permits a party to amend once as of right within 21 days of an opponent’s responsive pleading (provided the party has not already burned that chance, as the Wayfarer Parties did), and Rule 16 requires that an amendment deadline be fixed in a scheduling order entered near the outset of the case. Nothing in the rules guarantees a party the right to lose a motion to dismiss before alleging all of the facts that support their claims (much less to continue receiving discovery while they wait). Moreover, the Wayfarer Parties have already sought leave to amend in each of their oppositions to each motion to dismiss, but did not identify in any of the oppositions how they would amend their pleading to cure any defects, much less attach a proposed further amended complaint. See L.R. 15. Nor do they do so now, even as they ask the Court to grant this “exceptional” relief. At best, the “information supporting the [Wayfarer Parties’] proposed amendment . . . was available to [them] even before [they] filed suit,” defeating a request for more time to amend. Parker, 204 F.3d at 341."

The letter is great, and I love that it's full of reasonable arguments that rightly point out the mistakes that Freedman made up until this point, but keeps the tone perfectly straightforward and not petulant and insulting, as Freedman's letters often are.

That's more than I can do here, as I note that no one on Team Baldoni is admitting they were completely wrong on this motion. Just as with the PO! I almost expect that someone will try to position this as a win for Baldoni, actually. (Like, someone already is saying it means the judge wants settlement, lol!) You guys are so quick to insult the lawyers who defend Lively's legal arguments, and yet here we are again, somehow, with you having been so fantastically and completely wrong. WRONG. WRONG. Will anyone on Team Baldoni admit they were wrong here? Not holding my breath lol. Maybe we are better lawyers than you think, though. Or maybe you are less great than you think you are.

[Anonymous]

Forgot to include a link to Lively's letter response opposing the request for extension of time. It's here: https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.nysd.634304/gov.uscourts.nysd.634304.173.0.pdf

[Anonymous]

Jason? I thought it was Justin?

Hope he goes down and Ryan Reynolds too.

Insufferable people.

[Anonymous]

Sarowitz is surely spending a fortune already but he might want to consider hiring better lawyers.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I just really enjoy that the "litigator" here has been so swift to make fun of me at every turn and yet has been so very wrong about the PO and now about this. Oh great litigator, you may bill more than me but my counsel is better lol.

Judge went even harder than I thought! I thought he would split the baby and he went all out in enforcing the original deadlines.

There are many of us who are real lawyers who mock you. Typical that you think it’s one person. Most of us, unlike you, have lives so don’t live on this thread.

I mean for as much as the pro Lively pp posts, there's always a pro Baldoni post making fun of her a few minutes later, so j wouldn't cast stones here.

It's so strange that you are convinced there is exactly one pro-Lively poster on this thread when there are obviously several.

The general public sees right through the lying scam artists, which is why they’re like 99% on Justin’s side. This Blake and Ryan crash out is getting sadder and sadder. Just digging a bigger hole the more they prolong this evil hoax.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I just really enjoy that the "litigator" here has been so swift to make fun of me at every turn and yet has been so very wrong about the PO and now about this. Oh great litigator, you may bill more than me but my counsel is better lol.

Judge went even harder than I thought! I thought he would split the baby and he went all out in enforcing the original deadlines.

There are many of us who are real lawyers who mock you. Typical that you think it’s one person. Most of us, unlike you, have lives so don’t live on this thread.

I mean for as much as the pro Lively pp posts, there's always a pro Baldoni post making fun of her a few minutes later, so j wouldn't cast stones here.

It's so strange that you are convinced there is exactly one pro-Lively poster on this thread when there are obviously several.

The general public sees right through the lying scam artists, which is why they’re like 99% on Justin’s side. This Blake and Ryan crash out is getting sadder and sadder. Just digging a bigger hole the more they prolong this evil hoax.

Your boy failed to even cite the applicable legal standard in his request for more time. That is something first year law students understand they need to do. Bombast and theatrics might be fun for the public, but they don't decide legal arguments.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:https://deadline.com/2025/04/justin-baldoni-blake-lively-lawsuit-publicist-stephanie-jones-1236365725/

Jones stated in a filing, which I have not yet read, that she turned over the texts in response to the subpoena. The author of the article claims to have reviewed the subpoena: Deadline has viewed a copy of the subpoena cited by Jones. Dated last October, it orders her to turn over all related pieces of communication, including email and texts.

The subpoena issue is still such a mystery. The two pubs that covered the story don’t include an attachment. They didn’t say what case it was connected with. And they misspelled Manatt, Phelps and Phillips and called it Mariatt. SJ also didn’t include a subpoena as an exhibit in her court filing. Why show it to the press and not the court? Something’s really fishy with the so called subpoena.

Even though I think lively can still use the texts in court, I do wonder if they’re potentially opening themselves up to penalties for leaking confidential information to the nyt. Evidence obtained by subpoena is considered confidential and can’t just be leaked to the press. The NYT said they reviewed thousands of documents that Lively got by subpoena. Those thousands of documents were not all included in the CRD complaint, and even if they were, the CRD is also a confidential complaint. What’s the penalty for leaking subpoenaed evidence?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:https://deadline.com/2025/04/justin-baldoni-blake-lively-lawsuit-publicist-stephanie-jones-1236365725/

Jones stated in a filing, which I have not yet read, that she turned over the texts in response to the subpoena. The author of the article claims to have reviewed the subpoena: Deadline has viewed a copy of the subpoena cited by Jones. Dated last October, it orders her to turn over all related pieces of communication, including email and texts.

The subpoena issue is still such a mystery. The two pubs that covered the story don’t include an attachment. They didn’t say what case it was connected with. And they misspelled Manatt, Phelps and Phillips and called it Mariatt. SJ also didn’t include a subpoena as an exhibit in her court filing. Why show it to the press and not the court? Something’s really fishy with the so called subpoena.

Even though I think lively can still use the texts in court, I do wonder if they’re potentially opening themselves up to penalties for leaking confidential information to the nyt. Evidence obtained by subpoena is considered confidential and can’t just be leaked to the press. The NYT said they reviewed thousands of documents that Lively got by subpoena. Those thousands of documents were not all included in the CRD complaint, and even if they were, the CRD is also a confidential complaint. What’s the penalty for leaking subpoenaed evidence?

I suppose it depends on whether was a protective order in that case, but we'd have to know what case that was! There may be no penalty at all if Jones owned the information, as the employer. You can leak your own information, whether it was subject to a subpoena or not (and I tend to believe Jones showed it to Sloane right away, well before any subpoena). That also hinges on Wayfarer's contract and whether this was considered confidential information under that contract, so Wayfarer could sue her for damages.

I thought this post on reddit was interesting https://www.reddit.com/r/ItEndsWithLawsuits/comments/1jwpd2k/deadline_confirms_they_viewed_a_subpoena_dated/

I'm not vouching for all of it but they make an interesting point about Wayfarer's contract being poorly drafted, leaving it open to an interpretation that confidentiality did not survive termination of that contract, and therefore Jones was entitled to leak it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:https://deadline.com/2025/04/justin-baldoni-blake-lively-lawsuit-publicist-stephanie-jones-1236365725/

Jones stated in a filing, which I have not yet read, that she turned over the texts in response to the subpoena. The author of the article claims to have reviewed the subpoena: Deadline has viewed a copy of the subpoena cited by Jones. Dated last October, it orders her to turn over all related pieces of communication, including email and texts.

The subpoena issue is still such a mystery. The two pubs that covered the story don’t include an attachment. They didn’t say what case it was connected with. And they misspelled Manatt, Phelps and Phillips and called it Mariatt. SJ also didn’t include a subpoena as an exhibit in her court filing. Why show it to the press and not the court? Something’s really fishy with the so called subpoena.

Even though I think lively can still use the texts in court, I do wonder if they’re potentially opening themselves up to penalties for leaking confidential information to the nyt. Evidence obtained by subpoena is considered confidential and can’t just be leaked to the press. The NYT said they reviewed thousands of documents that Lively got by subpoena. Those thousands of documents were not all included in the CRD complaint, and even if they were, the CRD is also a confidential complaint. What’s the penalty for leaking subpoenaed evidence?

I suppose it depends on whether was a protective order in that case, but we'd have to know what case that was! There may be no penalty at all if Jones owned the information, as the employer. You can leak your own information, whether it was subject to a subpoena or not (and I tend to believe Jones showed it to Sloane right away, well before any subpoena). That also hinges on Wayfarer's contract and whether this was considered confidential information under that contract, so Wayfarer could sue her for damages.

I thought this post on reddit was interesting https://www.reddit.com/r/ItEndsWithLawsuits/comments/1jwpd2k/deadline_confirms_they_viewed_a_subpoena_dated/

I'm not vouching for all of it but they make an interesting point about Wayfarer's contract being poorly drafted, leaving it open to an interpretation that confidentiality did not survive termination of that contract, and therefore Jones was entitled to leak it.

But what I’m asking about is not the leak from Jones to Lively, but rather the leak from lively (who supposedly got the texts by subpoena) to the NYT. Does that make sense?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:https://deadline.com/2025/04/justin-baldoni-blake-lively-lawsuit-publicist-stephanie-jones-1236365725/

Jones stated in a filing, which I have not yet read, that she turned over the texts in response to the subpoena. The author of the article claims to have reviewed the subpoena: Deadline has viewed a copy of the subpoena cited by Jones. Dated last October, it orders her to turn over all related pieces of communication, including email and texts.

The subpoena issue is still such a mystery. The two pubs that covered the story don’t include an attachment. They didn’t say what case it was connected with. And they misspelled Manatt, Phelps and Phillips and called it Mariatt. SJ also didn’t include a subpoena as an exhibit in her court filing. Why show it to the press and not the court? Something’s really fishy with the so called subpoena.

Even though I think lively can still use the texts in court, I do wonder if they’re potentially opening themselves up to penalties for leaking confidential information to the nyt. Evidence obtained by subpoena is considered confidential and can’t just be leaked to the press. The NYT said they reviewed thousands of documents that Lively got by subpoena. Those thousands of documents were not all included in the CRD complaint, and even if they were, the CRD is also a confidential complaint. What’s the penalty for leaking subpoenaed evidence?

I suppose it depends on whether was a protective order in that case, but we'd have to know what case that was! There may be no penalty at all if Jones owned the information, as the employer. You can leak your own information, whether it was subject to a subpoena or not (and I tend to believe Jones showed it to Sloane right away, well before any subpoena). That also hinges on Wayfarer's contract and whether this was considered confidential information under that contract, so Wayfarer could sue her for damages.

I thought this post on reddit was interesting https://www.reddit.com/r/ItEndsWithLawsuits/comments/1jwpd2k/deadline_confirms_they_viewed_a_subpoena_dated/

I'm not vouching for all of it but they make an interesting point about Wayfarer's contract being poorly drafted, leaving it open to an interpretation that confidentiality did not survive termination of that contract, and therefore Jones was entitled to leak it.

But what I’m asking about is not the leak from Jones to Lively, but rather the leak from lively (who supposedly got the texts by subpoena) to the NYT. Does that make sense?

Ah, yes, that makes sense and I did not catch it. So then yeah, I believe that would depend on any protective order that exists in the case that Lively used to grant this subpoena, which is a big mystery.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:https://deadline.com/2025/04/justin-baldoni-blake-lively-lawsuit-publicist-stephanie-jones-1236365725/

Jones stated in a filing, which I have not yet read, that she turned over the texts in response to the subpoena. The author of the article claims to have reviewed the subpoena: Deadline has viewed a copy of the subpoena cited by Jones. Dated last October, it orders her to turn over all related pieces of communication, including email and texts.

The subpoena issue is still such a mystery. The two pubs that covered the story don’t include an attachment. They didn’t say what case it was connected with. And they misspelled Manatt, Phelps and Phillips and called it Mariatt. SJ also didn’t include a subpoena as an exhibit in her court filing. Why show it to the press and not the court? Something’s really fishy with the so called subpoena.

Even though I think lively can still use the texts in court, I do wonder if they’re potentially opening themselves up to penalties for leaking confidential information to the nyt. Evidence obtained by subpoena is considered confidential and can’t just be leaked to the press. The NYT said they reviewed thousands of documents that Lively got by subpoena. Those thousands of documents were not all included in the CRD complaint, and even if they were, the CRD is also a confidential complaint. What’s the penalty for leaking subpoenaed evidence?

I suppose it depends on whether was a protective order in that case, but we'd have to know what case that was! There may be no penalty at all if Jones owned the information, as the employer. You can leak your own information, whether it was subject to a subpoena or not (and I tend to believe Jones showed it to Sloane right away, well before any subpoena). That also hinges on Wayfarer's contract and whether this was considered confidential information under that contract, so Wayfarer could sue her for damages.

I thought this post on reddit was interesting https://www.reddit.com/r/ItEndsWithLawsuits/comments/1jwpd2k/deadline_confirms_they_viewed_a_subpoena_dated/

I'm not vouching for all of it but they make an interesting point about Wayfarer's contract being poorly drafted, leaving it open to an interpretation that confidentiality did not survive termination of that contract, and therefore Jones was entitled to leak it.

But what I’m asking about is not the leak from Jones to Lively, but rather the leak from lively (who supposedly got the texts by subpoena) to the NYT. Does that make sense?

Ah, yes, that makes sense and I did not catch it. So then yeah, I believe that would depend on any protective order that exists in the case that Lively used to grant this subpoena, which is a big mystery.

I imagine there wasn’t a PO, since the parties weren’t notified and given a chance to oppose? On Reddit people are saying lively and Sloane have added criminal attorneys to their teams. I have no source for that, but I do know you can’t issue a fake subpoena (which some people think is what happened) and you can’t leak subpoenaed evidence (which is the the most generous way of looking at what Lively did). All so interesting!