Blake Lively- Jason Baldoni and NYT - False Light claims

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Reading that there may be subpoenas for TS and HJ this week. Could be conjecture, but I wonder if these two, then what about Coop & Gigi?

Why would they subpoena these people? What relevant info about the facts being litigated could they offer.

TS and HJ won't be subpoenaed either, because there's no evidence they have relevant documents. TS *might* be asked to do a third-party interrogatory regarding her interaction with JB, but that's it.

Also if Lively's communications with TS reference JB or IEWU, it's possible that will be requested via discovery, but that will happen through Lively, not through TS. If JB tries to subpoena TS's text records, they'll get a big fat "nice try -- no" from TS's lawyers because she's not a party to the case and they haven't shown her communications are relevant.

HJ will not be involved in discovery at all unless something else comes to light. Right now, what does he have to do with this case? Nothing, that's what.

Some of you seem to think this is some kind of kangaroo court with he goal of exposing and embarrassing famous people for sport. That's a fantasy. They are going to wind up deposing Sony producers, the makeup artists, Lively's driver and assistant, etc. People who were actually on set or involved in the film or marketing. Not Hugh Jackman, who showed up to a couple promotional events and smiled for cameras and that's it.

Happens all the time. Candace Owens received a subpoena for her texts with Kanye for a case she’s not involved in. But yeah, I’m sure TS will move to quash. Just as JB would have in subpoenagate had Lively’s team played by the rules…

PP again, and not so fast on HJ. He was involved in the premiere and promotion of the movie—remember they were trying to copy Barbie/oppenheimer? I think he’ll be subpoenaed (again, I’m sure he’ll fight it) and deposed.

What information would Wayfarer seek from Jackman?

Well for starters, the alleged predator defamation happened at the Deadpool wolverine premiere. I assume they’ll want to know if he was a witness to any of those conversations.

That's not how it works. Are they going to try to depose everyone at that premiere? It's probably thousands of people. The way it would work is you depose or issue interrogatories to the people you KNOW are part of the conversation (so RR and the WME rep he was talking to) and you include questions about who else was present. Based on those answers, you could then request to depose or issue interrogatories to others.

What a lot of people on this thread want is for all the very famous people to be deposed because it would be fun to watch them give testimony, and it doesn't work like that. Other than Lively, Reynolds, Baldoni and the other IEWU cast members, I don't expect any other celebs to actually do depositions, and I think only a couple *might* wind up doing third-party interrogatories or asked to produce documents or communications. I guess Taylor Swift being the main one, though as another PP noted, that's only if certain of Baldoni's claims survive MTDs and we just don't know yet.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I have been trying to understand what is up with the subpoena and have sometimes been following the comments of a California lawyer on Reddit (Kat Ortega - not her real name). Team Baldoni won't want this, as she posts a lot on the pro-Lively site BaldoniFiles, but I find her comments to deal almost exclusively with the legal issues (which most interest me), with California law specifically, and to be extremely informed, technical, and thoughtful.

FWIW, here's a link to her comments specifically, though they will make most sense in context within a thread. https://www.reddit.com/user/KatOrtega118/

Regarding the subpoena, I think she thinks that it probably won't have that much of an effect on the case because the parties are entitled to receive these materials in discovery anyway, and that California specifically allows John Doe complaints in cases involving defamation from the internet etc. I think she thinks there is some small possibility that there could be an issue if some duty of confidentiality was owed from Jones to Wayfarer, but she has actually analyzed the Wayfarer contract with Jones and thinks no such duty exists from that. She also thinks Freedman will need to raise this soon (like this week) if he is going to raise it, though I think also suggested a small chance he might hold it til the amended complaint.

She gives Freedman more credit than I do, generally, which is disappointing, but I still find her comments extremely informative.

Not going to go point by point b/c I don’t care enough, but just want to point out her doe argument is flawed. Doe lawsuits are common in defamation claims on the internet when you’re trying to “unmask” someone. For example, if someone were posting confidential or defamatory information on an online platform, that platform could be subpoenaed for the ip address or email address associated with those comments. The ip address would then be used to try to identify the person behind the content. That’s very different than what happened here.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I have been trying to understand what is up with the subpoena and have sometimes been following the comments of a California lawyer on Reddit (Kat Ortega - not her real name). Team Baldoni won't want this, as she posts a lot on the pro-Lively site BaldoniFiles, but I find her comments to deal almost exclusively with the legal issues (which most interest me), with California law specifically, and to be extremely informed, technical, and thoughtful.

FWIW, here's a link to her comments specifically, though they will make most sense in context within a thread. https://www.reddit.com/user/KatOrtega118/

Regarding the subpoena, I think she thinks that it probably won't have that much of an effect on the case because the parties are entitled to receive these materials in discovery anyway, and that California specifically allows John Doe complaints in cases involving defamation from the internet etc. I think she thinks there is some small possibility that there could be an issue if some duty of confidentiality was owed from Jones to Wayfarer, but she has actually analyzed the Wayfarer contract with Jones and thinks no such duty exists from that. She also thinks Freedman will need to raise this soon (like this week) if he is going to raise it, though I think also suggested a small chance he might hold it til the amended complaint.

She gives Freedman more credit than I do, generally, which is disappointing, but I still find her comments extremely informative.

Not going to go point by point b/c I don’t care enough, but just want to point out her doe argument is flawed. Doe lawsuits are common in defamation claims on the internet when you’re trying to “unmask” someone. For example, if someone were posting confidential or defamatory information on an online platform, that platform could be subpoenaed for the ip address or email address associated with those comments. The ip address would then be used to try to identify the person behind the content. That’s very different than what happened here.

+1

Some of that poster's stuff is good, but the arguments on the Doe lawsuit are disingenuous. There are legitimate uses for them, but "we know who we want to sue, we just don't want them to know we're getting this evidence yet, it's no biggie cause we could have asked for it later in discovery in the actual lawsuit we intend to file" isn't a brilliant legal maneuver and isn't an honest use of this type of suit.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I have been trying to understand what is up with the subpoena and have sometimes been following the comments of a California lawyer on Reddit (Kat Ortega - not her real name). Team Baldoni won't want this, as she posts a lot on the pro-Lively site BaldoniFiles, but I find her comments to deal almost exclusively with the legal issues (which most interest me), with California law specifically, and to be extremely informed, technical, and thoughtful.

FWIW, here's a link to her comments specifically, though they will make most sense in context within a thread. https://www.reddit.com/user/KatOrtega118/

Regarding the subpoena, I think she thinks that it probably won't have that much of an effect on the case because the parties are entitled to receive these materials in discovery anyway, and that California specifically allows John Doe complaints in cases involving defamation from the internet etc. I think she thinks there is some small possibility that there could be an issue if some duty of confidentiality was owed from Jones to Wayfarer, but she has actually analyzed the Wayfarer contract with Jones and thinks no such duty exists from that. She also thinks Freedman will need to raise this soon (like this week) if he is going to raise it, though I think also suggested a small chance he might hold it til the amended complaint.

She gives Freedman more credit than I do, generally, which is disappointing, but I still find her comments extremely informative.

Not going to go point by point b/c I don’t care enough, but just want to point out her doe argument is flawed. Doe lawsuits are common in defamation claims on the internet when you’re trying to “unmask” someone. For example, if someone were posting confidential or defamatory information on an online platform, that platform could be subpoenaed for the ip address or email address associated with those comments. The ip address would then be used to try to identify the person behind the content. That’s very different than what happened here.

+1

Some of that poster's stuff is good, but the arguments on the Doe lawsuit are disingenuous. There are legitimate uses for them, but "we know who we want to sue, we just don't want them to know we're getting this evidence yet, it's no biggie cause we could have asked for it later in discovery in the actual lawsuit we intend to file" isn't a brilliant legal maneuver and isn't an honest use of this type of suit.

She is assuming that multiple subpoenas were issued, some of which occurred overseas I think -- that this case was a precursor case filed to get information on the smear campaign before the main lawsuit was filed, I think. https://www.reddit.com/r/ItEndsWithCourt/comments/1k4ttq8/comment/mog7rs0/?context=3

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I have been trying to understand what is up with the subpoena and have sometimes been following the comments of a California lawyer on Reddit (Kat Ortega - not her real name). Team Baldoni won't want this, as she posts a lot on the pro-Lively site BaldoniFiles, but I find her comments to deal almost exclusively with the legal issues (which most interest me), with California law specifically, and to be extremely informed, technical, and thoughtful.

FWIW, here's a link to her comments specifically, though they will make most sense in context within a thread. https://www.reddit.com/user/KatOrtega118/

Regarding the subpoena, I think she thinks that it probably won't have that much of an effect on the case because the parties are entitled to receive these materials in discovery anyway, and that California specifically allows John Doe complaints in cases involving defamation from the internet etc. I think she thinks there is some small possibility that there could be an issue if some duty of confidentiality was owed from Jones to Wayfarer, but she has actually analyzed the Wayfarer contract with Jones and thinks no such duty exists from that. She also thinks Freedman will need to raise this soon (like this week) if he is going to raise it, though I think also suggested a small chance he might hold it til the amended complaint.

She gives Freedman more credit than I do, generally, which is disappointing, but I still find her comments extremely informative.

Not going to go point by point b/c I don’t care enough, but just want to point out her doe argument is flawed. Doe lawsuits are common in defamation claims on the internet when you’re trying to “unmask” someone. For example, if someone were posting confidential or defamatory information on an online platform, that platform could be subpoenaed for the ip address or email address associated with those comments. The ip address would then be used to try to identify the person behind the content. That’s very different than what happened here.

+1

Some of that poster's stuff is good, but the arguments on the Doe lawsuit are disingenuous. There are legitimate uses for them, but "we know who we want to sue, we just don't want them to know we're getting this evidence yet, it's no biggie cause we could have asked for it later in discovery in the actual lawsuit we intend to file" isn't a brilliant legal maneuver and isn't an honest use of this type of suit.

She is assuming that multiple subpoenas were issued, some of which occurred overseas I think -- that this case was a precursor case filed to get information on the smear campaign before the main lawsuit was filed, I think. https://www.reddit.com/r/ItEndsWithCourt/comments/1k4ttq8/comment/mog7rs0/?context=3

Now that I’ve read her post, it’s even less credible. Droning on and on about CA law when it was a ny subpoena doesn’t make sense for starters. Doubtful there were multiple subpoenas b/c if there were, I believe BL’s lawyers would say “hey, we had no idea where any of this was coming from so we issued multiple subpoenas.” It sounds like a reach tbh.” If there were multiple subpoenas, SJ was likely the only person or entity dumb enough to comply.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I have been trying to understand what is up with the subpoena and have sometimes been following the comments of a California lawyer on Reddit (Kat Ortega - not her real name). Team Baldoni won't want this, as she posts a lot on the pro-Lively site BaldoniFiles, but I find her comments to deal almost exclusively with the legal issues (which most interest me), with California law specifically, and to be extremely informed, technical, and thoughtful.

FWIW, here's a link to her comments specifically, though they will make most sense in context within a thread. https://www.reddit.com/user/KatOrtega118/

Regarding the subpoena, I think she thinks that it probably won't have that much of an effect on the case because the parties are entitled to receive these materials in discovery anyway, and that California specifically allows John Doe complaints in cases involving defamation from the internet etc. I think she thinks there is some small possibility that there could be an issue if some duty of confidentiality was owed from Jones to Wayfarer, but she has actually analyzed the Wayfarer contract with Jones and thinks no such duty exists from that. She also thinks Freedman will need to raise this soon (like this week) if he is going to raise it, though I think also suggested a small chance he might hold it til the amended complaint.

She gives Freedman more credit than I do, generally, which is disappointing, but I still find her comments extremely informative.

Not going to go point by point b/c I don’t care enough, but just want to point out her doe argument is flawed. Doe lawsuits are common in defamation claims on the internet when you’re trying to “unmask” someone. For example, if someone were posting confidential or defamatory information on an online platform, that platform could be subpoenaed for the ip address or email address associated with those comments. The ip address would then be used to try to identify the person behind the content. That’s very different than what happened here.

+1

Some of that poster's stuff is good, but the arguments on the Doe lawsuit are disingenuous. There are legitimate uses for them, but "we know who we want to sue, we just don't want them to know we're getting this evidence yet, it's no biggie cause we could have asked for it later in discovery in the actual lawsuit we intend to file" isn't a brilliant legal maneuver and isn't an honest use of this type of suit.

She is assuming that multiple subpoenas were issued, some of which occurred overseas I think -- that this case was a precursor case filed to get information on the smear campaign before the main lawsuit was filed, I think. https://www.reddit.com/r/ItEndsWithCourt/comments/1k4ttq8/comment/mog7rs0/?context=3

PP. That type of use is legit - say, you know a defamatory comment was posted online, you see it, you don't know who wrote it because it's just a username, so you sue Doe alleging defamation and then use a subpoena to find out the IP and get the user's identity. If Lively did that for some of the reddit and twitter comments, that makes sense.

This is different. They are alleging that they somehow knew someone had a contract with Vanzan (a distinct legal entity, which is not Blake Lively personally) that they were breaching and allegedly committing other torts, but they have no idea who it is, but they somehow knew enough to know that the evidence is contained on a phone possessed by Stephanie Jones... it doesn't make sense unless they knew who and what they were looking for.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I have been trying to understand what is up with the subpoena and have sometimes been following the comments of a California lawyer on Reddit (Kat Ortega - not her real name). Team Baldoni won't want this, as she posts a lot on the pro-Lively site BaldoniFiles, but I find her comments to deal almost exclusively with the legal issues (which most interest me), with California law specifically, and to be extremely informed, technical, and thoughtful.

FWIW, here's a link to her comments specifically, though they will make most sense in context within a thread. https://www.reddit.com/user/KatOrtega118/

Regarding the subpoena, I think she thinks that it probably won't have that much of an effect on the case because the parties are entitled to receive these materials in discovery anyway, and that California specifically allows John Doe complaints in cases involving defamation from the internet etc. I think she thinks there is some small possibility that there could be an issue if some duty of confidentiality was owed from Jones to Wayfarer, but she has actually analyzed the Wayfarer contract with Jones and thinks no such duty exists from that. She also thinks Freedman will need to raise this soon (like this week) if he is going to raise it, though I think also suggested a small chance he might hold it til the amended complaint.

She gives Freedman more credit than I do, generally, which is disappointing, but I still find her comments extremely informative.

Not going to go point by point b/c I don’t care enough, but just want to point out her doe argument is flawed. Doe lawsuits are common in defamation claims on the internet when you’re trying to “unmask” someone. For example, if someone were posting confidential or defamatory information on an online platform, that platform could be subpoenaed for the ip address or email address associated with those comments. The ip address would then be used to try to identify the person behind the content. That’s very different than what happened here.

+1

Some of that poster's stuff is good, but the arguments on the Doe lawsuit are disingenuous. There are legitimate uses for them, but "we know who we want to sue, we just don't want them to know we're getting this evidence yet, it's no biggie cause we could have asked for it later in discovery in the actual lawsuit we intend to file" isn't a brilliant legal maneuver and isn't an honest use of this type of suit.

She is assuming that multiple subpoenas were issued, some of which occurred overseas I think -- that this case was a precursor case filed to get information on the smear campaign before the main lawsuit was filed, I think. https://www.reddit.com/r/ItEndsWithCourt/comments/1k4ttq8/comment/mog7rs0/?context=3

PP. That type of use is legit - say, you know a defamatory comment was posted online, you see it, you don't know who wrote it because it's just a username, so you sue Doe alleging defamation and then use a subpoena to find out the IP and get the user's identity. If Lively did that for some of the reddit and twitter comments, that makes sense.

This is different. They are alleging that they somehow knew someone had a contract with Vanzan (a distinct legal entity, which is not Blake Lively personally) that they were breaching and allegedly committing other torts, but they have no idea who it is, but they somehow knew enough to know that the evidence is contained on a phone possessed by Stephanie Jones... it doesn't make sense unless they knew who and what they were looking for.

+1 the mental gymnastics are unnecessary.

[Anonymous]

One reason the argument over the subpoena is dumb is that Baldoni actually benefited from the Doe lawsuit. Or would have, if the texts hadn't ultimately produced pretty damning evidence of a smear campaign.

Say Baldoni was totally innocent, and there was absolutely no smear campaign. Abel was working to promote Baldoni only, and Nathan was hired to help combat any negative press about him due to the conflict with Lively. But say there was no plan to target Lively. Say there were no blind items and they had not contracted Jed Wallace. Say there was no text from Baldoni asking them to go harder on Lively, or linking to a post about Hailey Bieber and saying "this is what we need."

If that were the case, then Lively wouldn't have been able to sue for retaliation, as she'd have no evidence of it. I think it's highly unlikely she would have filed the SH claims without the retaliation piece -- her SH claims aren't as strong.

So filing the Doe lawsuit would have enabled a totally innocent Baldoni to go totally unscathed -- no one would know Blake had ever looked into it, since no ones names are actually on the lawsuit. She would have had to withdraw the lawsuit once the subpoena turned up no evidence. And then everyone goes on with their lives.

Given that when Lively DID file the current lawsuit with her name and Baldoni's names on it, it immediately turned into a media circus and Baldoni sued for defamation, couldn't you argue the Doe lawsuit was actually a good faith attempt to keep it all quiet in case there was no there there?

[Anonymous]

Finding damaging information doesn't mean the way the information was procured was ethical. I don't feel sorry for Nathan, Abel, and Baldoni, they said what they said and it was wrong and stupid to put that in writing. I can still believe it would be unethical to file the lawsuit in a way that gives them no notice and opportunity to fight the scope of the subpeona (as they had to do with the overbroad telecom subpeonas issued by Lively). In a criminal case it would be game over - if evidence was obtained wrongfully, it can't come in. Lucky for Lively this is a civil case and it won't really matter that much other than in the public opinion. It put Lively in a great position of strength to have all this information already sourced in a quasi-legally sanitized way so she could have the control and go to the Times with the CRD and all that. I've been here making fun of Freedman's "I can just amend, bro, but actually not yet because I don't actually have any facts to back up my case because I need the discovery" but that's very much the position Lively would be in had she not gotten the texts from Jones, or she probably wouldn't have even filed it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Finding damaging information doesn't mean the way the information was procured was ethical. I don't feel sorry for Nathan, Abel, and Baldoni, they said what they said and it was wrong and stupid to put that in writing. I can still believe it would be unethical to file the lawsuit in a way that gives them no notice and opportunity to fight the scope of the subpeona (as they had to do with the overbroad telecom subpeonas issued by Lively). In a criminal case it would be game over - if evidence was obtained wrongfully, it can't come in. Lucky for Lively this is a civil case and it won't really matter that much other than in the public opinion. It put Lively in a great position of strength to have all this information already sourced in a quasi-legally sanitized way so she could have the control and go to the Times with the CRD and all that. I've been here making fun of Freedman's "I can just amend, bro, but actually not yet because I don't actually have any facts to back up my case because I need the discovery" but that's very much the position Lively would be in had she not gotten the texts from Jones, or she probably wouldn't have even filed it.

But then your beef is with Jones, not Lively. Jones could have notified Abel, Nathan and Wayfarer of the subpoena. Lively is not obligated to do that notification. But of course, at the time Jones was responding to the subpoena, she had no interest in acting kindly towards Abel, her former employee who had trashed her anonymously in Business Insider and then tried to steal files and clients on her way out the door, or Nathan who helped facilitate that, or Baldoni/Wayfarer who had terminated their contract with Jones to join Abel.

FAFO. To say it's "unfair" that neither Lively not Jones was inclined to *help* Wayfarer, Abel, or Nathan by telling them about the subpoena so they could object to it is like saying it's "unfair" not to help your ex hire the best possible attorney when you sue them for custody. You reap what you sow. Lively is finding that out now as every crappy thing she's ever done on set or in an interview or in her private life is dredged up and paraded around as evidence that she could not possibly have been sexually harassed. Well, guess what, Baldoni and Abel are finding that out too. You can't treat people badly and then expect those very same people to help you out.

[Anonymous]

But then your beef is with Jones, not Lively. Jones could have notified Abel, Nathan and Wayfarer of the subpoena. Lively is not obligated to do that notification.

Lively and her attorneys are obligated to be honest when filing pleadings before a court. If they alleged that they had no idea who the defendants were, and that they harmed "Vanzan Inc" but they actually knew that they were looking to eventually sue Baldoni, Abel, etc because they harmed Blake Lively, then they were dishonest, and there's no way around that, even if what they found was slimy and ultimately deserved to be exposed. I posted this many pages ago but what if let's say Sarowitz somehow heard that someone friendly to him had damaging information about Blake Lively (maybe some personal texts or information about her businesses that she would otherwise try to get covered by the PO) that she probably would have objected to had she known, but he just used a shell company to file a Doe lawsuit and get his source to turn everything over.... Lively and her supporters would be very upset, rightfully so.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

But then your beef is with Jones, not Lively. Jones could have notified Abel, Nathan and Wayfarer of the subpoena. Lively is not obligated to do that notification.

Lively and her attorneys are obligated to be honest when filing pleadings before a court. If they alleged that they had no idea who the defendants were, and that they harmed "Vanzan Inc" but they actually knew that they were looking to eventually sue Baldoni, Abel, etc because they harmed Blake Lively, then they were dishonest, and there's no way around that, even if what they found was slimy and ultimately deserved to be exposed. I posted this many pages ago but what if let's say Sarowitz somehow heard that someone friendly to him had damaging information about Blake Lively (maybe some personal texts or information about her businesses that she would otherwise try to get covered by the PO) that she probably would have objected to had she known, but he just used a shell company to file a Doe lawsuit and get his source to turn everything over.... Lively and her supporters would be very upset, rightfully so.

I don't think we know the bolded to be true. I think it's possible that Lively had seen too little of the text messages to know with confidence whether Baldoni or Wayfarer could actually be sued. She might have suspected, but if all Leslie Sloane saw or heard about were texts (or even just a text, or part of a text) between Abel and Nathan, that wouldn't be much to go on. Also, her suspicion was that someone had contracted with bot farms or paid posters to spread the negative content about her online. She did not know who those people were, or who the posters were, but had reason to believe that Abel's texts might shed light on that. And indeed they do -- the texts are how Lively learned that Jed Wallace had been hired and was working with Baldoni and Abel/Nathan.

We take for granted what we all know because of those texts. But pretend you've only seen ONE text, or been told about it. What do you know? Basically nothing.

We'll have to agree to disagree regarding the use of the shell company. I think it's a bit tricky but permissible, I see other people think it's dishonest. From where I sit, Vanzan is Blake and Ryan, Blake and Ryan are Vanzan. That's how shell corps work. So it doesn't bother me (I actually think it's smart especially for someone high profile). But I respect that not everyone agrees with me on that.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

But then your beef is with Jones, not Lively. Jones could have notified Abel, Nathan and Wayfarer of the subpoena. Lively is not obligated to do that notification.

Lively and her attorneys are obligated to be honest when filing pleadings before a court. If they alleged that they had no idea who the defendants were, and that they harmed "Vanzan Inc" but they actually knew that they were looking to eventually sue Baldoni, Abel, etc because they harmed Blake Lively, then they were dishonest, and there's no way around that, even if what they found was slimy and ultimately deserved to be exposed. I posted this many pages ago but what if let's say Sarowitz somehow heard that someone friendly to him had damaging information about Blake Lively (maybe some personal texts or information about her businesses that she would otherwise try to get covered by the PO) that she probably would have objected to had she known, but he just used a shell company to file a Doe lawsuit and get his source to turn everything over.... Lively and her supporters would be very upset, rightfully so.

I don't think we know the bolded to be true. I think it's possible that Lively had seen too little of the text messages to know with confidence whether Baldoni or Wayfarer could actually be sued. She might have suspected, but if all Leslie Sloane saw or heard about were texts (or even just a text, or part of a text) between Abel and Nathan, that wouldn't be much to go on. Also, her suspicion was that someone had contracted with bot farms or paid posters to spread the negative content about her online. She did not know who those people were, or who the posters were, but had reason to believe that Abel's texts might shed light on that. And indeed they do -- the texts are how Lively learned that Jed Wallace had been hired and was working with Baldoni and Abel/Nathan.

We take for granted what we all know because of those texts. But pretend you've only seen ONE text, or been told about it. What do you know? Basically nothing.

We'll have to agree to disagree regarding the use of the shell company. I think it's a bit tricky but permissible, I see other people think it's dishonest. From where I sit, Vanzan is Blake and Ryan, Blake and Ryan are Vanzan. That's how shell corps work. So it doesn't bother me (I actually think it's smart especially for someone high profile). But I respect that not everyone agrees with me on that.

Again with the mental gymnastics

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

But then your beef is with Jones, not Lively. Jones could have notified Abel, Nathan and Wayfarer of the subpoena. Lively is not obligated to do that notification.

Lively and her attorneys are obligated to be honest when filing pleadings before a court. If they alleged that they had no idea who the defendants were, and that they harmed "Vanzan Inc" but they actually knew that they were looking to eventually sue Baldoni, Abel, etc because they harmed Blake Lively, then they were dishonest, and there's no way around that, even if what they found was slimy and ultimately deserved to be exposed. I posted this many pages ago but what if let's say Sarowitz somehow heard that someone friendly to him had damaging information about Blake Lively (maybe some personal texts or information about her businesses that she would otherwise try to get covered by the PO) that she probably would have objected to had she known, but he just used a shell company to file a Doe lawsuit and get his source to turn everything over.... Lively and her supporters would be very upset, rightfully so.

I don't think we know the bolded to be true. I think it's possible that Lively had seen too little of the text messages to know with confidence whether Baldoni or Wayfarer could actually be sued. She might have suspected, but if all Leslie Sloane saw or heard about were texts (or even just a text, or part of a text) between Abel and Nathan, that wouldn't be much to go on. Also, her suspicion was that someone had contracted with bot farms or paid posters to spread the negative content about her online. She did not know who those people were, or who the posters were, but had reason to believe that Abel's texts might shed light on that. And indeed they do -- the texts are how Lively learned that Jed Wallace had been hired and was working with Baldoni and Abel/Nathan.

We take for granted what we all know because of those texts. But pretend you've only seen ONE text, or been told about it. What do you know? Basically nothing.

We'll have to agree to disagree regarding the use of the shell company. I think it's a bit tricky but permissible, I see other people think it's dishonest. From where I sit, Vanzan is Blake and Ryan, Blake and Ryan are Vanzan. That's how shell corps work. So it doesn't bother me (I actually think it's smart especially for someone high profile). But I respect that not everyone agrees with me on that.

PP. I appreciate your respectful tone, and I'm not the poster with the eyeroll emoji despite our disagreement. They clearly had at least one defendant in mind, and that was Nathan. Per Baldoni's complaint, in August 2024, Sloane told Nathan she had seen her texts and she'd be sued (and I'm not saying she doesn't deserve to be sued!). It's quite implausible that that information didn't make its way to Lively (the Lively parties haven't answered the complaint but let's just assume Baldoni's complaint is correct about this). So there was at least one potentially named defendant they could have added with the Does, and arguably since they knew it was Baldoni and Wayfarer who hired her, they should have been named too. Come to think of it, she probably should have had Does on her Lively v. Wayfarer complaint to cover bot farms or anonymous posters, in the event that Jed Wallace actually didn't do anything but monitor. And that's all fine when you truly don't know who was responsible, but to the extent that they did know who the potential defendants were, they should not have represented to a NY court that they had no idea who any of the defendants were, as a tactic.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Who are HJ, Coop, and Gigi?

Hugh Jackman, Bradley Cooper, and Gigi Hadid -- three friends of Blake's.

Juicy