Blake Lively- Jason Baldoni and NYT - False Light claims

[Anonymous]

Sloane has filed a motion to compel Baldoni to answer interrogatories, including identifying the defamatory statements against Justin and the information they claimed in their response to the MTDs (when they said "Additional information had come to light" that they could add to an amended complaint). They attached a exhibit where Baldoni has boilerplate objections to answering virtually everything. In addition, there's a footnote in the letter regarding a reporter referring to a "3 way call" between Sloane, Nathan, and the reporter; Sloane contends that there was never such a call and Nathan may have violated the wiretapping act by including the reporter on the call without her knowledge.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Sloane has filed a motion to compel Baldoni to answer interrogatories, including identifying the defamatory statements against Justin and the information they claimed in their response to the MTDs (when they said "Additional information had come to light" that they could add to an amended complaint). They attached a exhibit where Baldoni has boilerplate objections to answering virtually everything. In addition, there's a footnote in the letter regarding a reporter referring to a "3 way call" between Sloane, Nathan, and the reporter; Sloane contends that there was never such a call and Nathan may have violated the wiretapping act by including the reporter on the call without her knowledge.

I’m confused. She’s alleging there was no call, but that that same call was wire tapped?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Sloane has filed a motion to compel Baldoni to answer interrogatories, including identifying the defamatory statements against Justin and the information they claimed in their response to the MTDs (when they said "Additional information had come to light" that they could add to an amended complaint). They attached a exhibit where Baldoni has boilerplate objections to answering virtually everything. In addition, there's a footnote in the letter regarding a reporter referring to a "3 way call" between Sloane, Nathan, and the reporter; Sloane contends that there was never such a call and Nathan may have violated the wiretapping act by including the reporter on the call without her knowledge.

I’m confused. She’s alleging there was no call, but that that same call was wire tapped?

What part of this do you not understand? Lawyers commonly do this — this thing you say happened didn’t happen, but if it did, show us your evidence proving it happened, and by the way, it appears that evidence was illegally obtained or fabricated. Lawyers will attack a thing in pieces as to every part.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Sloane has filed a motion to compel Baldoni to answer interrogatories, including identifying the defamatory statements against Justin and the information they claimed in their response to the MTDs (when they said "Additional information had come to light" that they could add to an amended complaint). They attached a exhibit where Baldoni has boilerplate objections to answering virtually everything. In addition, there's a footnote in the letter regarding a reporter referring to a "3 way call" between Sloane, Nathan, and the reporter; Sloane contends that there was never such a call and Nathan may have violated the wiretapping act by including the reporter on the call without her knowledge.

I’m confused. She’s alleging there was no call, but that that same call was wire tapped?

What part of this do you not understand? Lawyers commonly do this — this thing you say happened didn’t happen, but if it did, show us your evidence proving it happened, and by the way, it appears that evidence was illegally obtained or fabricated. Lawyers will attack a thing in pieces as to every part.

Sorry, I’m a lawyer and that doesn’t make no sense. Perhaps you are relaying it incorrectly.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Sloane has filed a motion to compel Baldoni to answer interrogatories, including identifying the defamatory statements against Justin and the information they claimed in their response to the MTDs (when they said "Additional information had come to light" that they could add to an amended complaint). They attached a exhibit where Baldoni has boilerplate objections to answering virtually everything. In addition, there's a footnote in the letter regarding a reporter referring to a "3 way call" between Sloane, Nathan, and the reporter; Sloane contends that there was never such a call and Nathan may have violated the wiretapping act by including the reporter on the call without her knowledge.

I’m confused. She’s alleging there was no call, but that that same call was wire tapped?

What part of this do you not understand? Lawyers commonly do this — this thing you say happened didn’t happen, but if it did, show us your evidence proving it happened, and by the way, it appears that evidence was illegally obtained or fabricated. Lawyers will attack a thing in pieces as to every part.

What you said was Sloan contends there was no call and that the reporter might have wired tapped to the call.

Surely you see how that makes no sense, but go on with your smugness.

Your explanation, as obnoxious as it was, actually did help. But you should’ve said, Sloane contends there is no call, but if there is, there needs to be evidence of it.

[Anonymous]

Lawyer here. To maintain Sloan’s credibility, she should be arguing either no such call occurred, if true, or if the call occurred, it was illegally recorded. Not both. But there has been a lot of bad lawyering in this case, particularly by her lawyers.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Sloane has filed a motion to compel Baldoni to answer interrogatories, including identifying the defamatory statements against Justin and the information they claimed in their response to the MTDs (when they said "Additional information had come to light" that they could add to an amended complaint). They attached a exhibit where Baldoni has boilerplate objections to answering virtually everything. In addition, there's a footnote in the letter regarding a reporter referring to a "3 way call" between Sloane, Nathan, and the reporter; Sloane contends that there was never such a call and Nathan may have violated the wiretapping act by including the reporter on the call without her knowledge.

I’m confused. She’s alleging there was no call, but that that same call was wire tapped?

Sloane is saying she never knowingly participated in a 3 way call with Nathan and a reporter, so if a third person was on a call, that person was added without her consent which is what she's considering the wiretapping (I don't know if that meets the legal definition of wiretapping or not).

This is the exact language. https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.nysd.634304/gov.uscourts.nysd.634304.190.0.pdf
That same message (which the Wayfarer Parties have yet to produce) reveals that Melissa Nathan surreptitiously listened to Ms. Sloane’s phone calls in violation of California’s wiretapping statute, Cal. Penal Code § 631. The Daily Mail reporter writes: “I had a three-way call with her and Melissa and she never said anything about it then either.” Ex. C. at 16. There was, however, never a “three-way call” that Ms. Sloane ever knew of, meaning that either the Daily Mail reporter or Nathan added the other to a private conversation without Ms. Sloane’s consent

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Lawyer here. To maintain Sloan’s credibility, she should be arguing either no such call occurred, if true, or if the call occurred, it was illegally recorded. Not both. But there has been a lot of bad lawyering in this case, particularly by her lawyers.

Do you the NYT case will survive a motion to dismiss? As a layperson, this is the actually the case I'm most interested in, but it sounds like people think it wouldn't go anywhere.

[Anonymous]

Wayfarer's response to Sloane https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.nysd.634304/gov.uscourts.nysd.634304.193.0.pdf

[Anonymous]

Travis and Jason have an interview with Ben Affleck coming out, and in the promotional clip Ben is talking about how it’s hard to have authentic relationships in Hollywood. Travis is nodding along like it’s really resonating, and some are speculating that this interview inspired him to unfollow RR.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Travis and Jason have an interview with Ben Affleck coming out, and in the promotional clip Ben is talking about how it’s hard to have authentic relationships in Hollywood. Travis is nodding along like it’s really resonating, and some are speculating that this interview inspired him to unfollow RR.

That seems unlikely, since the Kelce’s podcast is recorded Tuesdays and released on Wednesdays, and the Kelce unfollowing was noticed on Monday. But keep scraping.

[Anonymous]

INTERNET SLEUTHS FOR THE WIN AGAIN!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Wayfarer's response to Sloane https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.nysd.634304/gov.uscourts.nysd.634304.193.0.pdf

The part of this that was most interesting to me was the doc request. Judge Liman denied Freedman’s request for an extension to file an amended complaint. Freedman has been leaving breadcrumbs in his oppositions to his motions to compel about all the new evidence he has obtained to support his claims, including those against Sloane. So Sloane requests the docs Freedman will rely on, and Freedman objects saying he hasn’t filed the amendment yet and maybe it won’t ever be filed.

Seems like if Freedman has additional docs to support his claims (and the judge already wanted Freedman to amend by now and he chose not to), maybe Freedman should be required to produce that additional evidence now.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Wayfarer's response to Sloane https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.nysd.634304/gov.uscourts.nysd.634304.193.0.pdf

The part of this that was most interesting to me was the doc request. Judge Liman denied Freedman’s request for an extension to file an amended complaint. Freedman has been leaving breadcrumbs in his oppositions to his motions to compel about all the new evidence he has obtained to support his claims, including those against Sloane. So Sloane requests the docs Freedman will rely on, and Freedman objects saying he hasn’t filed the amendment yet and maybe it won’t ever be filed.

Seems like if Freedman has additional docs to support his claims (and the judge already wanted Freedman to amend by now and he chose not to), maybe Freedman should be required to produce that additional evidence now.

I thought it was ok to object to "documents you intend to rely on in the SAC" because they may still be deliberating that. I do think he should be required to present the additional facts referred to in the response to the MTD, because he did file that memo, so whatever he was referring to is known concrete information.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Travis and Jason have an interview with Ben Affleck coming out, and in the promotional clip Ben is talking about how it’s hard to have authentic relationships in Hollywood. Travis is nodding along like it’s really resonating, and some are speculating that this interview inspired him to unfollow RR.

That seems unlikely, since the Kelce’s podcast is recorded Tuesdays and released on Wednesdays, and the Kelce unfollowing was noticed on Monday. But keep scraping.

This hasn’t even been released. Was recorded well in advance. Your facts about this record on Tues release on Weds thing is wrong. The promo alone has been out for days. Rude and wrong. Very on brand for team Blake.