Blake Lively- Jason Baldoni and NYT - False Light claims

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:How soon people forget that Ryan and Scarlett met when he was still technically engaged to Alanis Morisette. Ryan and Alanis called off their engagement in 2007 and Ryan married Scarlett in 2008, but he was dating Scarlett by the time they publicly announced the engagement was off. Is it any surprise then that he moved from Scarlett to Blake in a very similar timeline?

I don't see why Scarlett would be particularly mad at Blake for doing exactly what Scarlett herself did. They were even around the same age. Ultimately both Scarlett and Blake wound up in long-lasting relationships with kids that seem to be pretty stable. If Scarlett is sitting around stewing over Blake, I'd think so much less of her. I sincerely doubt she is though.

And this is how words become exaggerations that misled. I simply said “ it must sting a bit.”

You’re coming back at me saying “sitting around stewing over.” This is an extreme interpretation of what I had questioned.

Think of it as “loud” versus “LOUD.”

That’s how you responded to my simple assertion.

I know why I, from time to time, get overheated when discussing these posts. I’m a victim of workplace harassment. But here I was, asserting a softer and sensitive point about potential marital infidelity, and you turned up the volume.

It seems like you “turn up the volume” with so many of your posts, taking it far more personally at times than suggested. The question is “why?”

Whoa.

I say this as someone who has been harassed: you need to speak to a therapist. This is not a good place or way to work out your issues.

Then what the hell are you doing on here? This is not your lawsuit. Are you being paid or is this just 24x7 escapism for you? Why are you so fixed to this thread? At least I have a reason.

Watch where you throw that stone.

No one is throwing stones except you. This is a pretty juice legal conflict between two celebrities. As a lawyer and someone who enjoys Hollywood and BTS content about movie making, this is a very entertaining story to follow. I enjoy it as a distraction from some of the awful things happening in the world right now, and the legal part gives my brain something to puzzle over in a way that straight up celebrity gossip does not.

But I don't know these people. I wasn't there. Whatever happens, it won't actually impact me personally at all. And the same is true for you. If you can't avoid personalizing every single thing about this story, it is probably bad for your mental health to be discussing it all the time. A therapist would tell you the same thing. Consider that you are clearly very emotionally upset about comments on this thread. Is this a good reason to get emotionally upset? Is it? Go work out your emotions about being harassed with a licensed therapist. This is not a healthy place for you. It's not an escape or a fun puzzle for you. You have internalized it and made it about yourself which (1) sucks for you, and (2) makes it impossible to have a normal conversation with you on this subject because you will take anything that anyone says as a personal attack when we don't even know you! We can't possibly be attacking you personally because we are total strangers who know nothing about your life.

Think about it.

Like I've shared before, this is not your personal legal site. It is not a thread just for hashing over legal content from this case. You keep trying to make it that. I keep reminding you that it is not that. DCUM is not that deep in Entertainment and Pop Culture matter, hence the title of the other threads under this category. I'm not sure why you want to try to make it this legal analysis 101 thread. I encourage you to go back over to Reddit and posit your Lively theories there, where there is a dedicated legal thread for this, along with non legal threads. Or go and summon some gatherings at a local law school and hash over your theories on this case and why you ardently support BL.

I simply support Baldoni because it is clear that Lively's arguments are wrapped in fiction and the product of her imagination, as has been shown throughout. She's a woman, and she's alleging professional SH, and she's a liar.

Any working women would be piqued by the case and how it is playing out, as am I. So what if it touches upon a past work experience. For many of us, this has probably been the case at one point in our professional lives. But you tend to take this to another level, as if you are some insider.

Your opinion isn't any better or any more correct than mine, remember that.

DP from who you are responding to, but, yes, their comments are definitely better and more correct than yours are, because they post facts and analysis of the legal case, whereas you post your personal, subjective, speculative opinions about what jerks you believe Lively and Reynolds are. It’s a completely different thing. The legal analysis has a berifiable basis in fact and the speculative gossip really does not.

Also, when you talk about the people posting views contrary to yours as ”as if you are some sort of insider” or from your prior post, as if they are being paid to post here, it sounds really paranoid and (I hate this word but it’s accepted here for what I’m getting at) unhinged. You need to accept that normal people disagree with you. There are at least three of us here. We covered this 100 pages ago. Please. Accept. Reality.

Xxxx
Just read the commentary from these articles and tell me again that I’m unhinged. The level of disgust that many people are sharing isn’t coming just from me. Read those comments.

I heard that Blake is looking for another ‘ride or die’ lawyer to help represent her. Why don’t both of you apply for the job? You believe wholeheartedly in her cases. Time to get from behind this anonymous website and support your girl!

Here here you Lively legal geniuses! Go help out your gurllll

[Anonymous]

Ok changing the subject a little, Jones is likely in big trouble. It sounds like she gave Jen Abel’s entire physical phone to Lively’s attorneys. Not only a huge invasion of privacy for Jen and Wayfarer, but she potentially violated her confidentiality agreement with other clients too who may have been repped by Jen.

Another problem is all of this was done supposedly under a ny subpoena but Jen was a California Joneswork employee subject to California protections and it was a California phone, which should’ve required a California subpoena. If Jones physically moved the phone across state lines before she was subpoenaed, that may be a loophole, but if the phone was physically in California when Jones was served, that would be problem. And if it turns out that the phone was in California, which is where it was taken from Abel, that means the subpoena was invalid and under California law you have to give consumer notice to anyone who’s info was on the phone, even in a doe lawsuit. Jones is cooked.

[Anonymous]

What is the source for Jones handing over the whole phone? An article was posted earlier which states the request was “concerns, refers, relates and applies to any and all electronic records, data, documents, and communications in Your possession, custody or control collected from a cellular telephone containing the requested information” from December 1, 2022 onward.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:What is the source for Jones handing over the whole phone? An article was posted earlier which states the request was “concerns, refers, relates and applies to any and all electronic records, data, documents, and communications in Your possession, custody or control collected from a cellular telephone containing the requested information” from December 1, 2022 onward.

No Court would have allowed such a subpoena in a civil case, had it been challenged. It’s comically overbroad.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:What is the source for Jones handing over the whole phone? An article was posted earlier which states the request was “concerns, refers, relates and applies to any and all electronic records, data, documents, and communications in Your possession, custody or control collected from a cellular telephone containing the requested information” from December 1, 2022 onward.

Ask 2 Lawyers had the Daily Mail guy on today. DM didn’t quote directly from the subpoena b/c they said their source had asked them not to, but Deadline did so they pulled up the Deadline article which said the subpoena included the following:

“concerns, refers, relates and applies to any and all electronic records, data, documents, and communications in Your possession, custody or control collected from a cellular telephone containing the requested information”

So they were saying essentially that it sounds like she handed over the phone or at least everything in the phone (which is the same difference).

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What is the source for Jones handing over the whole phone? An article was posted earlier which states the request was “concerns, refers, relates and applies to any and all electronic records, data, documents, and communications in Your possession, custody or control collected from a cellular telephone containing the requested information” from December 1, 2022 onward.

Ask 2 Lawyers had the Daily Mail guy on today. DM didn’t quote directly from the subpoena b/c they said their source had asked them not to, but Deadline did so they pulled up the Deadline article which said the subpoena included the following:

“concerns, refers, relates and applies to any and all electronic records, data, documents, and communications in Your possession, custody or control collected from a cellular telephone containing the requested information”

So they were saying essentially that it sounds like she handed over the phone or at least everything in the phone (which is the same difference).

Uh, not to impugn the logical reasoning skills of a couple of [quick Google search] low-rent probate attorneys, but that doesn't follow. The subpoena asked for the phone's contents as they related to Lively and Reynolds from December 1, 2022 forward. In what way does that prove that Jones "handed over the phone" to Lively? It doesn't. They are describing what they were asking for in the subpoena, not what they'd already seen (we actually have no idea what they'd already seen -- all we know is that Leslie Sloane either saw or had described or quoted to her one or more texts from the phone on August 21).

[Anonymous]

Of interest regarding Baldoni's defamation suit against NYT: new jury verdict in Sarah Palin's libel case against NYT finding no defamation and a failure to meet the actual malice standard because the jury found no evidence that the NYT acted without regard for the truth.

The facts in that case are quite different than in the Baldoni suit -- the Palin case concerns an op ed submitted to the Times, not a reported piece by the Times. And unlike with Baldoni, the Times admitted that the op ed included false statements, however the paper quickly issued a retraction and correction when it became aware of the error.

https://www.mediaite.com/politics/just-in-jury-finds-new-york-times-did-not-libel-sarah-palin/

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What is the source for Jones handing over the whole phone? An article was posted earlier which states the request was “concerns, refers, relates and applies to any and all electronic records, data, documents, and communications in Your possession, custody or control collected from a cellular telephone containing the requested information” from December 1, 2022 onward.

Ask 2 Lawyers had the Daily Mail guy on today. DM didn’t quote directly from the subpoena b/c they said their source had asked them not to, but Deadline did so they pulled up the Deadline article which said the subpoena included the following:

“concerns, refers, relates and applies to any and all electronic records, data, documents, and communications in Your possession, custody or control collected from a cellular telephone containing the requested information”

So they were saying essentially that it sounds like she handed over the phone or at least everything in the phone (which is the same difference).

Uh, not to impugn the logical reasoning skills of a couple of [quick Google search] low-rent probate attorneys, but that doesn't follow. The subpoena asked for the phone's contents as they related to Lively and Reynolds from December 1, 2022 forward. In what way does that prove that Jones "handed over the phone" to Lively? It doesn't. They are describing what they were asking for in the subpoena, not what they'd already seen (we actually have no idea what they'd already seen -- all we know is that Leslie Sloane either saw or had described or quoted to her one or more texts from the phone on August 21).

It’s all a big mess. If lively and jones would give BF the subpoena instead of dropping breadcrumbs in the media, we’d have more clarity, but clearly the subpoena in its entirety must be pretty damaging.

The Abel stuff is likely to blow up in Jones’ face. Apparently it was Abel’s personal phone that she used for work and therefore jones was supposed to return it (for example after determining it contained no confidential work product). So one of the arguments Abel is making is that Jones wasn’t even supposed to still have her phone at the time it was turned over by “subpoena”.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What is the source for Jones handing over the whole phone? An article was posted earlier which states the request was “concerns, refers, relates and applies to any and all electronic records, data, documents, and communications in Your possession, custody or control collected from a cellular telephone containing the requested information” from December 1, 2022 onward.

Ask 2 Lawyers had the Daily Mail guy on today. DM didn’t quote directly from the subpoena b/c they said their source had asked them not to, but Deadline did so they pulled up the Deadline article which said the subpoena included the following:

“concerns, refers, relates and applies to any and all electronic records, data, documents, and communications in Your possession, custody or control collected from a cellular telephone containing the requested information”

So they were saying essentially that it sounds like she handed over the phone or at least everything in the phone (which is the same difference).

Uh, not to impugn the logical reasoning skills of a couple of [quick Google search] low-rent probate attorneys, but that doesn't follow. The subpoena asked for the phone's contents as they related to Lively and Reynolds from December 1, 2022 forward. In what way does that prove that Jones "handed over the phone" to Lively? It doesn't. They are describing what they were asking for in the subpoena, not what they'd already seen (we actually have no idea what they'd already seen -- all we know is that Leslie Sloane either saw or had described or quoted to her one or more texts from the phone on August 21).

It’s all a big mess. If lively and jones would give BF the subpoena instead of dropping breadcrumbs in the media, we’d have more clarity, but clearly the subpoena in its entirety must be pretty damaging.

The Abel stuff is likely to blow up in Jones’ face. Apparently it was Abel’s personal phone that she used for work and therefore jones was supposed to return it (for example after determining it contained no confidential work product). So one of the arguments Abel is making is that Jones wasn’t even supposed to still have her phone at the time it was turned over by “subpoena”.

Where are you getting that Jones took Abel's personal property? The Jones lawsuit says Jones took Abel's "company-issued phone." (paragraph 14 - "Abel and Nathan’s covert take down and smear campaigns were revealed in black and white on Abel’s company-issued phone following her termination, which Jonesworks forensically preserved and examined in detail after receiving a subpoena for the phone’s contents." I understand Abel had ported her personal phone number on there, but seems like if the phone was issued by the company, it's theirs to take back (and this is consistent with Abel's plea to Jones not for the phone itself, which you would think she would not turn over at all if it was hers, but just for Jones to release Abel's personal phone number back to her, as she had used it for some time).

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What is the source for Jones handing over the whole phone? An article was posted earlier which states the request was “concerns, refers, relates and applies to any and all electronic records, data, documents, and communications in Your possession, custody or control collected from a cellular telephone containing the requested information” from December 1, 2022 onward.

Ask 2 Lawyers had the Daily Mail guy on today. DM didn’t quote directly from the subpoena b/c they said their source had asked them not to, but Deadline did so they pulled up the Deadline article which said the subpoena included the following:

“concerns, refers, relates and applies to any and all electronic records, data, documents, and communications in Your possession, custody or control collected from a cellular telephone containing the requested information”

So they were saying essentially that it sounds like she handed over the phone or at least everything in the phone (which is the same difference).

Uh, not to impugn the logical reasoning skills of a couple of [quick Google search] low-rent probate attorneys, but that doesn't follow. The subpoena asked for the phone's contents as they related to Lively and Reynolds from December 1, 2022 forward. In what way does that prove that Jones "handed over the phone" to Lively? It doesn't. They are describing what they were asking for in the subpoena, not what they'd already seen (we actually have no idea what they'd already seen -- all we know is that Leslie Sloane either saw or had described or quoted to her one or more texts from the phone on August 21).

It’s all a big mess. If lively and jones would give BF the subpoena instead of dropping breadcrumbs in the media, we’d have more clarity, but clearly the subpoena in its entirety must be pretty damaging.

The Abel stuff is likely to blow up in Jones’ face. Apparently it was Abel’s personal phone that she used for work and therefore jones was supposed to return it (for example after determining it contained no confidential work product). So one of the arguments Abel is making is that Jones wasn’t even supposed to still have her phone at the time it was turned over by “subpoena”.

This is all wrong.

First of all, no one owed Freedman the subpoena. He didn't ask for it! This is adversarial litigation -- do you think Freedman is randomly providing Lively's attorneys with things they didn't ask for, just to be helpful? Of course not. If Freedman believed the subpoena was illegal or that they were lying about it, he could always request the records via discovery. He did not. Also the subpoena was not illegal and they didn't lie about it. It's not a mess.

It was not Abel's personal phone. It was a corporate phone issued by Jonesworks. Abel, because she is apparently a moron, decided to port her personal number onto her employer-owned device. Just FYI -- don't do this.

Because the phone belonged to Jonesworks, everything on it is considered work product. Including, of course, her communications with Baldoni/Wayfarer (a client under contract with Jonesworks, a contract Abel was merely assigned to but did not own) as well as her communications with Nathan regarding the contract with Baldoni/Wayfarer.

The argument Abel is making is about her phone *number*, the one she had ported onto her employer-owned device. When Jonesworks seized the phone and removed Abel from their offices, Abel had no phone (because she'd been using her work phone as her personal phone), so she went to a cell phone store to get a new phone. She wanted to get her personal number removed from the work phone and put on her new personal phone. There was some delay in getting the number released. I'm sure that was inconvenient for Abel but it was (1) her own fault for putting her personal number on the phone, and (2) irrelevant because the contents of the phone were all Jonesworks work product anyway, so Jonesworks was entitled to it regardless of whether Abel's personal number was used on the phone or not.

I think Abel believed if she could get her number ported to a new phone quickly enough, she could delete all the messages that would reveal all her wrongdoing to Jones? But that's not how it works. Jones owned those messages no matter what number they were sent from because they were sent on a Jonesworks device and concerned Jonesworks clients.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What is the source for Jones handing over the whole phone? An article was posted earlier which states the request was “concerns, refers, relates and applies to any and all electronic records, data, documents, and communications in Your possession, custody or control collected from a cellular telephone containing the requested information” from December 1, 2022 onward.

Ask 2 Lawyers had the Daily Mail guy on today. DM didn’t quote directly from the subpoena b/c they said their source had asked them not to, but Deadline did so they pulled up the Deadline article which said the subpoena included the following:

“concerns, refers, relates and applies to any and all electronic records, data, documents, and communications in Your possession, custody or control collected from a cellular telephone containing the requested information”

So they were saying essentially that it sounds like she handed over the phone or at least everything in the phone (which is the same difference).

Uh, not to impugn the logical reasoning skills of a couple of [quick Google search] low-rent probate attorneys, but that doesn't follow. The subpoena asked for the phone's contents as they related to Lively and Reynolds from December 1, 2022 forward. In what way does that prove that Jones "handed over the phone" to Lively? It doesn't. They are describing what they were asking for in the subpoena, not what they'd already seen (we actually have no idea what they'd already seen -- all we know is that Leslie Sloane either saw or had described or quoted to her one or more texts from the phone on August 21).

It’s all a big mess. If lively and jones would give BF the subpoena instead of dropping breadcrumbs in the media, we’d have more clarity, but clearly the subpoena in its entirety must be pretty damaging.

The Abel stuff is likely to blow up in Jones’ face. Apparently it was Abel’s personal phone that she used for work and therefore jones was supposed to return it (for example after determining it contained no confidential work product). So one of the arguments Abel is making is that Jones wasn’t even supposed to still have her phone at the time it was turned over by “subpoena”.

This is all wrong.

First of all, no one owed Freedman the subpoena. He didn't ask for it! This is adversarial litigation -- do you think Freedman is randomly providing Lively's attorneys with things they didn't ask for, just to be helpful? Of course not. If Freedman believed the subpoena was illegal or that they were lying about it, he could always request the records via discovery. He did not. Also the subpoena was not illegal and they didn't lie about it. It's not a mess.

It was not Abel's personal phone. It was a corporate phone issued by Jonesworks. Abel, because she is apparently a moron, decided to port her personal number onto her employer-owned device. Just FYI -- don't do this.

Because the phone belonged to Jonesworks, everything on it is considered work product. Including, of course, her communications with Baldoni/Wayfarer (a client under contract with Jonesworks, a contract Abel was merely assigned to but did not own) as well as her communications with Nathan regarding the contract with Baldoni/Wayfarer.

The argument Abel is making is about her phone *number*, the one she had ported onto her employer-owned device. When Jonesworks seized the phone and removed Abel from their offices, Abel had no phone (because she'd been using her work phone as her personal phone), so she went to a cell phone store to get a new phone. She wanted to get her personal number removed from the work phone and put on her new personal phone. There was some delay in getting the number released. I'm sure that was inconvenient for Abel but it was (1) her own fault for putting her personal number on the phone, and (2) irrelevant because the contents of the phone were all Jonesworks work product anyway, so Jonesworks was entitled to it regardless of whether Abel's personal number was used on the phone or not.

I think Abel believed if she could get her number ported to a new phone quickly enough, she could delete all the messages that would reveal all her wrongdoing to Jones? But that's not how it works. Jones owned those messages no matter what number they were sent from because they were sent on a Jonesworks device and concerned Jonesworks clients.

Confused how a random mom on DCUM would know what Freedman has or has not requested. Certainly if it was not previously requested, it will be now. In any case, it is very possible it was previously requested and not turned over yet.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What is the source for Jones handing over the whole phone? An article was posted earlier which states the request was “concerns, refers, relates and applies to any and all electronic records, data, documents, and communications in Your possession, custody or control collected from a cellular telephone containing the requested information” from December 1, 2022 onward.

Ask 2 Lawyers had the Daily Mail guy on today. DM didn’t quote directly from the subpoena b/c they said their source had asked them not to, but Deadline did so they pulled up the Deadline article which said the subpoena included the following:

“concerns, refers, relates and applies to any and all electronic records, data, documents, and communications in Your possession, custody or control collected from a cellular telephone containing the requested information”

So they were saying essentially that it sounds like she handed over the phone or at least everything in the phone (which is the same difference).

Uh, not to impugn the logical reasoning skills of a couple of [quick Google search] low-rent probate attorneys, but that doesn't follow. The subpoena asked for the phone's contents as they related to Lively and Reynolds from December 1, 2022 forward. In what way does that prove that Jones "handed over the phone" to Lively? It doesn't. They are describing what they were asking for in the subpoena, not what they'd already seen (we actually have no idea what they'd already seen -- all we know is that Leslie Sloane either saw or had described or quoted to her one or more texts from the phone on August 21).

It’s all a big mess. If lively and jones would give BF the subpoena instead of dropping breadcrumbs in the media, we’d have more clarity, but clearly the subpoena in its entirety must be pretty damaging.

The Abel stuff is likely to blow up in Jones’ face. Apparently it was Abel’s personal phone that she used for work and therefore jones was supposed to return it (for example after determining it contained no confidential work product). So one of the arguments Abel is making is that Jones wasn’t even supposed to still have her phone at the time it was turned over by “subpoena”.

This is all wrong.

First of all, no one owed Freedman the subpoena. He didn't ask for it! This is adversarial litigation -- do you think Freedman is randomly providing Lively's attorneys with things they didn't ask for, just to be helpful? Of course not. If Freedman believed the subpoena was illegal or that they were lying about it, he could always request the records via discovery. He did not. Also the subpoena was not illegal and they didn't lie about it. It's not a mess.

It was not Abel's personal phone. It was a corporate phone issued by Jonesworks. Abel, because she is apparently a moron, decided to port her personal number onto her employer-owned device. Just FYI -- don't do this.

Because the phone belonged to Jonesworks, everything on it is considered work product. Including, of course, her communications with Baldoni/Wayfarer (a client under contract with Jonesworks, a contract Abel was merely assigned to but did not own) as well as her communications with Nathan regarding the contract with Baldoni/Wayfarer.

The argument Abel is making is about her phone *number*, the one she had ported onto her employer-owned device. When Jonesworks seized the phone and removed Abel from their offices, Abel had no phone (because she'd been using her work phone as her personal phone), so she went to a cell phone store to get a new phone. She wanted to get her personal number removed from the work phone and put on her new personal phone. There was some delay in getting the number released. I'm sure that was inconvenient for Abel but it was (1) her own fault for putting her personal number on the phone, and (2) irrelevant because the contents of the phone were all Jonesworks work product anyway, so Jonesworks was entitled to it regardless of whether Abel's personal number was used on the phone or not.

I think Abel believed if she could get her number ported to a new phone quickly enough, she could delete all the messages that would reveal all her wrongdoing to Jones? But that's not how it works. Jones owned those messages no matter what number they were sent from because they were sent on a Jonesworks device and concerned Jonesworks clients.

Confused how a random mom on DCUM would know what Freedman has or has not requested. Certainly if it was not previously requested, it will be now. In any case, it is very possible it was previously requested and not turned over yet.

Oh, yeah, let's focus on that and not on the total nonsense that some Team Baldoni person wrote above with their "Apparently it was Abel’s personal phone that she used for work and therefore jones was supposed to return it (for example after determining it contained no confidential work product). So one of the arguments Abel is making is that Jones wasn’t even supposed to still have her phone at the time it was turned over by 'subpoena'." WTF? I thought I had missed some recent news or something but, no, it's just that you can't understand words.

And then I wonder where the crazy conspiracy theories come from. smdh

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What is the source for Jones handing over the whole phone? An article was posted earlier which states the request was “concerns, refers, relates and applies to any and all electronic records, data, documents, and communications in Your possession, custody or control collected from a cellular telephone containing the requested information” from December 1, 2022 onward.

Ask 2 Lawyers had the Daily Mail guy on today. DM didn’t quote directly from the subpoena b/c they said their source had asked them not to, but Deadline did so they pulled up the Deadline article which said the subpoena included the following:

“concerns, refers, relates and applies to any and all electronic records, data, documents, and communications in Your possession, custody or control collected from a cellular telephone containing the requested information”

So they were saying essentially that it sounds like she handed over the phone or at least everything in the phone (which is the same difference).

Uh, not to impugn the logical reasoning skills of a couple of [quick Google search] low-rent probate attorneys, but that doesn't follow. The subpoena asked for the phone's contents as they related to Lively and Reynolds from December 1, 2022 forward. In what way does that prove that Jones "handed over the phone" to Lively? It doesn't. They are describing what they were asking for in the subpoena, not what they'd already seen (we actually have no idea what they'd already seen -- all we know is that Leslie Sloane either saw or had described or quoted to her one or more texts from the phone on August 21).

It’s all a big mess. If lively and jones would give BF the subpoena instead of dropping breadcrumbs in the media, we’d have more clarity, but clearly the subpoena in its entirety must be pretty damaging.

The Abel stuff is likely to blow up in Jones’ face. Apparently it was Abel’s personal phone that she used for work and therefore jones was supposed to return it (for example after determining it contained no confidential work product). So one of the arguments Abel is making is that Jones wasn’t even supposed to still have her phone at the time it was turned over by “subpoena”.

This is all wrong.

First of all, no one owed Freedman the subpoena. He didn't ask for it! This is adversarial litigation -- do you think Freedman is randomly providing Lively's attorneys with things they didn't ask for, just to be helpful? Of course not. If Freedman believed the subpoena was illegal or that they were lying about it, he could always request the records via discovery. He did not. Also the subpoena was not illegal and they didn't lie about it. It's not a mess.

It was not Abel's personal phone. It was a corporate phone issued by Jonesworks. Abel, because she is apparently a moron, decided to port her personal number onto her employer-owned device. Just FYI -- don't do this.

Because the phone belonged to Jonesworks, everything on it is considered work product. Including, of course, her communications with Baldoni/Wayfarer (a client under contract with Jonesworks, a contract Abel was merely assigned to but did not own) as well as her communications with Nathan regarding the contract with Baldoni/Wayfarer.

The argument Abel is making is about her phone *number*, the one she had ported onto her employer-owned device. When Jonesworks seized the phone and removed Abel from their offices, Abel had no phone (because she'd been using her work phone as her personal phone), so she went to a cell phone store to get a new phone. She wanted to get her personal number removed from the work phone and put on her new personal phone. There was some delay in getting the number released. I'm sure that was inconvenient for Abel but it was (1) her own fault for putting her personal number on the phone, and (2) irrelevant because the contents of the phone were all Jonesworks work product anyway, so Jonesworks was entitled to it regardless of whether Abel's personal number was used on the phone or not.

I think Abel believed if she could get her number ported to a new phone quickly enough, she could delete all the messages that would reveal all her wrongdoing to Jones? But that's not how it works. Jones owned those messages no matter what number they were sent from because they were sent on a Jonesworks device and concerned Jonesworks clients.

Confused how a random mom on DCUM would know what Freedman has or has not requested. Certainly if it was not previously requested, it will be now. In any case, it is very possible it was previously requested and not turned over yet.

No, I don't think he will request it now. And if he had requested it, and they had refused to produce, we would have heard about it because discovery disputes would become a question for the judge. I take Freedman at his word that he had not seen it before. Well, if he hadn't seen it, and there was no dispute over its production pending, then he didn't ask for it.

A bunch of random people on the internet are making a huge deal out of this subpoena, but Freedman is not. Sure, he'll give some quote to Deadline about it being "highly irregular" or inappropriate, but the truth is that Freedman uses Doe lawsuits in his own practice. It's to his benefit for you and others to be mad about it because it feeds a negative narrative about Lively. But nothing is going to come of it because it was a legally executed subpoena in a valid Doe lawsuit.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What is the source for Jones handing over the whole phone? An article was posted earlier which states the request was “concerns, refers, relates and applies to any and all electronic records, data, documents, and communications in Your possession, custody or control collected from a cellular telephone containing the requested information” from December 1, 2022 onward.

Ask 2 Lawyers had the Daily Mail guy on today. DM didn’t quote directly from the subpoena b/c they said their source had asked them not to, but Deadline did so they pulled up the Deadline article which said the subpoena included the following:

“concerns, refers, relates and applies to any and all electronic records, data, documents, and communications in Your possession, custody or control collected from a cellular telephone containing the requested information”

So they were saying essentially that it sounds like she handed over the phone or at least everything in the phone (which is the same difference).

Uh, not to impugn the logical reasoning skills of a couple of [quick Google search] low-rent probate attorneys, but that doesn't follow. The subpoena asked for the phone's contents as they related to Lively and Reynolds from December 1, 2022 forward. In what way does that prove that Jones "handed over the phone" to Lively? It doesn't. They are describing what they were asking for in the subpoena, not what they'd already seen (we actually have no idea what they'd already seen -- all we know is that Leslie Sloane either saw or had described or quoted to her one or more texts from the phone on August 21).

It’s all a big mess. If lively and jones would give BF the subpoena instead of dropping breadcrumbs in the media, we’d have more clarity, but clearly the subpoena in its entirety must be pretty damaging.

The Abel stuff is likely to blow up in Jones’ face. Apparently it was Abel’s personal phone that she used for work and therefore jones was supposed to return it (for example after determining it contained no confidential work product). So one of the arguments Abel is making is that Jones wasn’t even supposed to still have her phone at the time it was turned over by “subpoena”.

This is all wrong.

First of all, no one owed Freedman the subpoena. He didn't ask for it! This is adversarial litigation -- do you think Freedman is randomly providing Lively's attorneys with things they didn't ask for, just to be helpful? Of course not. If Freedman believed the subpoena was illegal or that they were lying about it, he could always request the records via discovery. He did not. Also the subpoena was not illegal and they didn't lie about it. It's not a mess.

It was not Abel's personal phone. It was a corporate phone issued by Jonesworks. Abel, because she is apparently a moron, decided to port her personal number onto her employer-owned device. Just FYI -- don't do this.

Because the phone belonged to Jonesworks, everything on it is considered work product. Including, of course, her communications with Baldoni/Wayfarer (a client under contract with Jonesworks, a contract Abel was merely assigned to but did not own) as well as her communications with Nathan regarding the contract with Baldoni/Wayfarer.

The argument Abel is making is about her phone *number*, the one she had ported onto her employer-owned device. When Jonesworks seized the phone and removed Abel from their offices, Abel had no phone (because she'd been using her work phone as her personal phone), so she went to a cell phone store to get a new phone. She wanted to get her personal number removed from the work phone and put on her new personal phone. There was some delay in getting the number released. I'm sure that was inconvenient for Abel but it was (1) her own fault for putting her personal number on the phone, and (2) irrelevant because the contents of the phone were all Jonesworks work product anyway, so Jonesworks was entitled to it regardless of whether Abel's personal number was used on the phone or not.

I think Abel believed if she could get her number ported to a new phone quickly enough, she could delete all the messages that would reveal all her wrongdoing to Jones? But that's not how it works. Jones owned those messages no matter what number they were sent from because they were sent on a Jonesworks device and concerned Jonesworks clients.

Confused how a random mom on DCUM would know what Freedman has or has not requested. Certainly if it was not previously requested, it will be now. In any case, it is very possible it was previously requested and not turned over yet.

No, I don't think he will request it now. And if he had requested it, and they had refused to produce, we would have heard about it because discovery disputes would become a question for the judge. I take Freedman at his word that he had not seen it before. Well, if he hadn't seen it, and there was no dispute over its production pending, then he didn't ask for it.

A bunch of random people on the internet are making a huge deal out of this subpoena, but Freedman is not. Sure, he'll give some quote to Deadline about it being "highly irregular" or inappropriate, but the truth is that Freedman uses Doe lawsuits in his own practice. It's to his benefit for you and others to be mad about it because it feeds a negative narrative about Lively. But nothing is going to come of it because it was a legally executed subpoena in a valid Doe lawsuit.

I highly doubt anyone has completed a document production at this point. They likely have only exchanged written responses, and perhaps shipped over the first tranche of documents.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What is the source for Jones handing over the whole phone? An article was posted earlier which states the request was “concerns, refers, relates and applies to any and all electronic records, data, documents, and communications in Your possession, custody or control collected from a cellular telephone containing the requested information” from December 1, 2022 onward.

Ask 2 Lawyers had the Daily Mail guy on today. DM didn’t quote directly from the subpoena b/c they said their source had asked them not to, but Deadline did so they pulled up the Deadline article which said the subpoena included the following:

“concerns, refers, relates and applies to any and all electronic records, data, documents, and communications in Your possession, custody or control collected from a cellular telephone containing the requested information”

So they were saying essentially that it sounds like she handed over the phone or at least everything in the phone (which is the same difference).

Uh, not to impugn the logical reasoning skills of a couple of [quick Google search] low-rent probate attorneys, but that doesn't follow. The subpoena asked for the phone's contents as they related to Lively and Reynolds from December 1, 2022 forward. In what way does that prove that Jones "handed over the phone" to Lively? It doesn't. They are describing what they were asking for in the subpoena, not what they'd already seen (we actually have no idea what they'd already seen -- all we know is that Leslie Sloane either saw or had described or quoted to her one or more texts from the phone on August 21).

It’s all a big mess. If lively and jones would give BF the subpoena instead of dropping breadcrumbs in the media, we’d have more clarity, but clearly the subpoena in its entirety must be pretty damaging.

The Abel stuff is likely to blow up in Jones’ face. Apparently it was Abel’s personal phone that she used for work and therefore jones was supposed to return it (for example after determining it contained no confidential work product). So one of the arguments Abel is making is that Jones wasn’t even supposed to still have her phone at the time it was turned over by “subpoena”.

This is all wrong.

First of all, no one owed Freedman the subpoena. He didn't ask for it! This is adversarial litigation -- do you think Freedman is randomly providing Lively's attorneys with things they didn't ask for, just to be helpful? Of course not. If Freedman believed the subpoena was illegal or that they were lying about it, he could always request the records via discovery. He did not. Also the subpoena was not illegal and they didn't lie about it. It's not a mess.

It was not Abel's personal phone. It was a corporate phone issued by Jonesworks. Abel, because she is apparently a moron, decided to port her personal number onto her employer-owned device. Just FYI -- don't do this.

Because the phone belonged to Jonesworks, everything on it is considered work product. Including, of course, her communications with Baldoni/Wayfarer (a client under contract with Jonesworks, a contract Abel was merely assigned to but did not own) as well as her communications with Nathan regarding the contract with Baldoni/Wayfarer.

The argument Abel is making is about her phone *number*, the one she had ported onto her employer-owned device. When Jonesworks seized the phone and removed Abel from their offices, Abel had no phone (because she'd been using her work phone as her personal phone), so she went to a cell phone store to get a new phone. She wanted to get her personal number removed from the work phone and put on her new personal phone. There was some delay in getting the number released. I'm sure that was inconvenient for Abel but it was (1) her own fault for putting her personal number on the phone, and (2) irrelevant because the contents of the phone were all Jonesworks work product anyway, so Jonesworks was entitled to it regardless of whether Abel's personal number was used on the phone or not.

I think Abel believed if she could get her number ported to a new phone quickly enough, she could delete all the messages that would reveal all her wrongdoing to Jones? But that's not how it works. Jones owned those messages no matter what number they were sent from because they were sent on a Jonesworks device and concerned Jonesworks clients.

Confused how a random mom on DCUM would know what Freedman has or has not requested. Certainly if it was not previously requested, it will be now. In any case, it is very possible it was previously requested and not turned over yet.

Oh, yeah, let's focus on that and not on the total nonsense that some Team Baldoni person wrote above with their "Apparently it was Abel’s personal phone that she used for work and therefore jones was supposed to return it (for example after determining it contained no confidential work product). So one of the arguments Abel is making is that Jones wasn’t even supposed to still have her phone at the time it was turned over by 'subpoena'." WTF? I thought I had missed some recent news or something but, no, it's just that you can't understand words.

And then I wonder where the crazy conspiracy theories come from. smdh

Can you write two sentences without being nasty. It doesn’t make you look cool, just nasty.🤮