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: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.🤮

I have written hundreds of non-nasty sentences here, but they are regularly met with insults and bot accusations, so I don’t sweat it anymore. Did you write that comment? Why were you so off base?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.🤮

I have written hundreds of non-nasty sentences here, but they are regularly met with insults and bot accusations, so I don’t sweat it anymore. Did you write that comment? Why were you so off base?

I did not.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

If Freedman had requested the subpoena and Lively's team had declined to produce it, we would have heard about it. Freedman would be the first to make hay of a situation like that. If he requested it and they are in the process of complying, there's nothing to be upset about. And if he didn't request it, then it's a total non-issue.

It's only people on the internet freaking out about the subpoena. Freedman doesn't really care (he uses Doe lawsuits himself, he can't really object to its use here), but he's happy to let it occupy a few cycles of hate against Lively online as that suits his purposes.

[Anonymous]

Swift and jackman to be get subpoenas next week says one paper. Are depositions made public or only if submitted in court as part of court case?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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).

A new
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.

If Freedman had requested the subpoena and Lively's team had declined to produce it, we would have heard about it. Freedman would be the first to make hay of a situation like that. If he requested it and they are in the process of complying, there's nothing to be upset about. And if he didn't request it, then it's a total non-issue.

It's only people on the internet freaking out about the subpoena. Freedman doesn't really care (he uses Doe lawsuits himself, he can't really object to its use here), but he's happy to let it occupy a few cycles of hate against Lively online as that suits his purposes.

Posting this repeatedly, as you have for over a week now, doesn’t make it anymore true. Let’s let it play out.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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).

A new
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.

If Freedman had requested the subpoena and Lively's team had declined to produce it, we would have heard about it. Freedman would be the first to make hay of a situation like that. If he requested it and they are in the process of complying, there's nothing to be upset about. And if he didn't request it, then it's a total non-issue.

It's only people on the internet freaking out about the subpoena. Freedman doesn't really care (he uses Doe lawsuits himself, he can't really object to its use here), but he's happy to let it occupy a few cycles of hate against Lively online as that suits his purposes.

Posting this repeatedly, as you have for over a week now, doesn’t make it anymore true. Let’s let it play out.

? I have never posted this before.

[Anonymous]

According to the February 3rd Case Management Order, the production of documents isn't supposed to be substantially completed until July 1, 2025 (discovery officially closes on August 14). Initial requests for production of docs (RFPs) were just due a month ago on March 14. Those are the requests that are sent to each party/third party. Then the parties need to actually find the docs requested and respond to them, which can take a while and usually requires a team of reviewers to check for responsiveness and privilege etc.

So really doc productions are probably just beginning to be exchanged now, assuming they are doing it on a rolling basis and not sending everything in in July, which given the combative nature of these parties, is also possible. If they're doing rolling productions and it's anything like what I have seen, nobody has much of an idea what has been produced to them yet, they are probably just beginning to sift through the documents. So nobody would be making complaining pronouncements yet that certain docs had or had not been produced, given that they probably don't have a handle on any large productions they have received so far and that the deadline for production is still two and a half months away.

It's possible that Freedman etc. asked for a description of the subpoena as part of the parties' initial disclosures which were due in mid-February, but real doc production itself is not due to be completed until July (substantially) or August (official close).

[Anonymous]

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.

Exclusive reports from an insider are alleging TS and Jackman are to be served this week and will definitely be subpoenaed. Both of their legal teams declined to comment. Your response just goes to show most of you have little to zero clue what the hell you're talking about.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

If Freedman had requested the subpoena and Lively's team had declined to produce it, we would have heard about it. Freedman would be the first to make hay of a situation like that. If he requested it and they are in the process of complying, there's nothing to be upset about. And if he didn't request it, then it's a total non-issue.

It's only people on the internet freaking out about the subpoena. Freedman doesn't really care (he uses Doe lawsuits himself, he can't really object to its use here), but he's happy to let it occupy a few cycles of hate against Lively online as that suits his purposes.

She brought it on herself being clueless and tone deaf during promotion and marketing. She wouldn't relent from promoting her alcohol or haircare brand during a serious film about domestic violence. When asked to expound on the overall arch of the film and what her character represents, she couldn't articulate what the film was about or provide an accurate character description of Lily Bloom. Probably because she never read the book and saw this screenplay as just a rocket launch for her career. The level of absolute vacuity and improbity she has is incredible. The forbes conference interview laid it all out about the type of person she is and her manifesto. She's a horrible human being.

[Anonymous]

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.

Exclusive reports from an insider are alleging TS and Jackman are to be served this week and will definitely be subpoenaed. Both of their legal teams declined to comment. Your response just goes to show most of you have little to zero clue what the hell you're talking about.

I shared this info at 15:58. Again, not directed at you OP, but I concur with your last sentence. This prior "kangaroo court" poster seems to be dead wrong on this. Let's see how this plays out.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote: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/

Dp. The facts here are different obviously and in certain ways, much more damaging to the NYT. I’ll note that Palins extremely thin case survived a MTD and a summary judgement motion (at least initially) and went to trial. And that judge did almost everything to tip the scales to the NYT. Im fascinated to see how Baldonis defamation suit against the NYT plays out. I’m alone here in thinking it will survive a MTD.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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/

Dp. The facts here are different obviously and in certain ways, much more damaging to the NYT. I’ll note that Palins extremely thin case survived a MTD and a summary judgement motion (at least initially) and went to trial. And that judge did almost everything to tip the scales to the NYT. Im fascinated to see how Baldonis defamation suit against the NYT plays out. I’m alone here in thinking it will survive a MTD.

I tend to think it will be dismissed but curious on your thoughts. Do you think it will all survive or just parts? The part I can possibly see surviving is where they call it a smear campaign in the video but I believe that anything quoted from the CRD or the texts will not be deemed defamatory, ie I don't believe the judge will accept the arguments about context.

[Anonymous]

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.

Exclusive reports from an insider are alleging TS and Jackman are to be served this week and will definitely be subpoenaed. Both of their legal teams declined to comment. Your response just goes to show most of you have little to zero clue what the hell you're talking about.

I shared this info at 15:58. Again, not directed at you OP, but I concur with your last sentence. This prior "kangaroo court" poster seems to be dead wrong on this. Let's see how this plays out.

They remind me of an individual on the Threads app who regularly post inaccurate information about the case. I would not be surprised if this is the same low rent attorney.

[Anonymous]

The phrasing that TS and HJ will be "issued subpoenas" this week indicates to me that either the person leaking this info doesn't understand how subpoenas work or is just making it up. Or maybe has real info but is misstating or misinterpreting it.

The court issues subpoenas. It is unlikely at this stage that they are issuing a subpoena, especially for people as tangentially related to the case as TS or HJ. More likely, as part of the normal discovery process, both sides are providing lists of people from whom they plan to request documents, interrogatories (basically a list of written questions), or testimony. Many of these requests will be uncontested, and no actual subpoena will be issued -- people will just provide relevant info voluntarily.

But once you get into third parties, some people might say they dont' want to participate. They might say they can't, because they simply don't have the info desired, they may say it's overly burdensome for them to provide it, or they may argue that what they are being asked for is not relevant. I anticipate that TS and HJ are likely to fall in this category. At that point, the judge would then weigh in, and IF it is determined that the person has relevant info and it is not overly burdensome for them to provide it, THEN a subpoena might be issued.

I think it's extremely unlikely that the court is at that stage with regards to TS and HJ, especially with MTDs pending that might make any potential testimony or info from them irrelevant. Judge Liman previously expressed an interest in not going too fast with discovery when it is likely that complaints are still to be amended and claims may be dismissed or altered, because you don't want to issue discovery requests that then have to be repeated later because the issues at play have shifted with new pleadings or motions.

So while I think it's entirely likely TS and HJ are appearing on a list of people the Wayfarer parties intend to request info from, I think it's highly unlikely that they are going to be "subpoenaed" by the court *this week*.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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/

Dp. The facts here are different obviously and in certain ways, much more damaging to the NYT. I’ll note that Palins extremely thin case survived a MTD and a summary judgement motion (at least initially) and went to trial. And that judge did almost everything to tip the scales to the NYT. Im fascinated to see how Baldonis defamation suit against the NYT plays out. I’m alone here in thinking it will survive a MTD.

I tend to think it will be dismissed but curious on your thoughts. Do you think it will all survive or just parts? The part I can possibly see surviving is where they call it a smear campaign in the video but I believe that anything quoted from the CRD or the texts will not be deemed defamatory, ie I don't believe the judge will accept the arguments about context.

Yes, I think parts will survive. I don’t have time to do a complete analysis but I don’t think it will be dismissed in full. But with litigation, you never know. That judge in Palin kept trying to get rid of that case, but it kept coming back