Blake Lively- Jason Baldoni and NYT - False Light claims

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Let’s talk about the crime fraud exception Freedman has alleged in the Jones case (and maybe will allege in the Lively case, since he said he’s preparing more motions). Apparently this is a big deal and is not used often. Any lawyers have thoughts?

I'm a lawyer but not well-versed in tech, and a lot of the arguments are technical so I can't really opine. FWIW, Jones filed a MTD in Jones v. Abel explaining why she believes that these criminal statutes do not apply to her conduct. I can't weigh in whether those arguments are accurate but here it is: https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.nysd.635782/gov.uscourts.nysd.635782.56.0.pdf

And here is Wayfarer's letter from the Lively docket asserting that violation of these statutes supports waiving the privilege due to this exception: https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.nysd.634304/gov.uscourts.nysd.634304.94.0_2.pdf

There might need to be additional briefing or a hearing on this issue. Wayfarer is going to need to articulate specifically how this meets the elements of fraud (there is an argument to be made that Lively's attorneys defrauded NY courts by making false representations in the Doe lawsuit, but not sure if there's a clear argument for Jones committing fraud by responding to the subpoena) and/or for the criminal argument what personal, non-work product related information of Abel's that Jones illegally accessed or disseminated.

In the alternative, Wayfarer argues for an in camera inspection which means Edgeworth produces their documents and they are given to the judge directly to decide what gets delivered to Wayfarer,, instead of Jones and Edgeworth deciding what they turn over. That might be the best way to go.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It’s a crime fraud exception and the fraud argument is the stronger one. Both Jones and Lively have represented to the Court that they properly obtained the texts via subpoena but that is untrue because the subpoena issued in sham litigation. The litigation was a sham because VanZan pled a breach of contract claim, which isn’t amenable to Doe litigation because counterparties are known. Furthermore Van Zan had no relationship, contractual or otherwise, with the Wayfarer defendants.

Jones also represented that the subpoena was Court ordered but no judge was ever assigned to the litigation.

Lively doesn't even need the subpoena to have lawfully obtained the texts. Even if Jones just gave then to her, Lively would not have committed or abetted a fraud to get them.

Jones might have violated contract, I don't know.

The fraud is misrepresenting to the court (Liman’s court) how they were obtained.

Only if the subpoena wasn't legal, which it looks like it was. What is the misrepresentation?

I agree it's kind of a dirty lawyer trick, but it doesn't look like fraud to me.

If you're referring to Jones saying the subpoena was court-ordered when it may not have been, I don't care about that case. I think Jones has done several things for which she might get in trouble or at least lose her case, but I am not really invested in the Jones case either way.

I don’t think it’s correct to say that a subpoena issued in sham litigation is legal. Looks like we’ll find out soon enough.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It’s a crime fraud exception and the fraud argument is the stronger one. Both Jones and Lively have represented to the Court that they properly obtained the texts via subpoena but that is untrue because the subpoena issued in sham litigation. The litigation was a sham because VanZan pled a breach of contract claim, which isn’t amenable to Doe litigation because counterparties are known. Furthermore Van Zan had no relationship, contractual or otherwise, with the Wayfarer defendants.

Jones also represented that the subpoena was Court ordered but no judge was ever assigned to the litigation.

Lively doesn't even need the subpoena to have lawfully obtained the texts. Even if Jones just gave then to her, Lively would not have committed or abetted a fraud to get them.

Jones might have violated contract, I don't know.

The fraud is misrepresenting to the court (Liman’s court) how they were obtained.

Only if the subpoena wasn't legal, which it looks like it was. What is the misrepresentation?

I agree it's kind of a dirty lawyer trick, but it doesn't look like fraud to me.

If you're referring to Jones saying the subpoena was court-ordered when it may not have been, I don't care about that case. I think Jones has done several things for which she might get in trouble or at least lose her case, but I am not really invested in the Jones case either way.

I don’t think it’s correct to say that a subpoena issued in sham litigation is legal. Looks like we’ll find out soon enough.

I think this is wishful thinking on the part of team lively. For weeks before we learned about Vanzan, her supporters on this forum insisted it was a “pre litigation subpoena”. They were loud and rude and said they were “lawyers” and the rest of us underlings simply didn’t know what we were talking about. After the Vanzan story broke they then pivoted to “well this is perfectly normal legal strategy and Freedman just got out lawyered”. Meanwhile creators talking about Vanzan had their videos muted and it was rumored that BL’s team had brought on criminal lawyers, nothing suspicious about that at all…

[Anonymous]

They even said TS would not be deposed, and if so, it would not be a big deal at all. The whole “nothing to see here” notion.

Hmm..

[Anonymous]

Is there a source that confirms they are seeking to depose Taylor? Her rep says document subpoena
https://deadline.com/2025/05/taylor-swift-subpoena-blake-lively-justin-baldoni-battle-1236392212/

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Is there a source that confirms they are seeking to depose Taylor? Her rep says document subpoena
https://deadline.com/2025/05/taylor-swift-subpoena-blake-lively-justin-baldoni-battle-1236392212/

I think that is all there is at the moment.

[Anonymous]

It’s pretty shameless that Blake’s people keep name dropping Sarowitz even after his family was threatened and the fbi even had to get involved. Blake’s spokesperson mentioned sarowitz in their message on Friday criticizing the TS subpoena. Sarowitz is the least involved of the plaintiffs on both sides. They just want people to know Baldoni has a billionaire on his side.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:They even said TS would not be deposed, and if so, it would not be a big deal at all. The whole “nothing to see here” notion.

Hmm..

She hasn't been deposed and it sounds unlikely she will be.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It’s a crime fraud exception and the fraud argument is the stronger one. Both Jones and Lively have represented to the Court that they properly obtained the texts via subpoena but that is untrue because the subpoena issued in sham litigation. The litigation was a sham because VanZan pled a breach of contract claim, which isn’t amenable to Doe litigation because counterparties are known. Furthermore Van Zan had no relationship, contractual or otherwise, with the Wayfarer defendants.

Jones also represented that the subpoena was Court ordered but no judge was ever assigned to the litigation.

Lively doesn't even need the subpoena to have lawfully obtained the texts. Even if Jones just gave then to her, Lively would not have committed or abetted a fraud to get them.

Jones might have violated contract, I don't know.

The fraud is misrepresenting to the court (Liman’s court) how they were obtained.

Only if the subpoena wasn't legal, which it looks like it was. What is the misrepresentation?

I agree it's kind of a dirty lawyer trick, but it doesn't look like fraud to me.

If you're referring to Jones saying the subpoena was court-ordered when it may not have been, I don't care about that case. I think Jones has done several things for which she might get in trouble or at least lose her case, but I am not really invested in the Jones case either way.

I don’t think it’s correct to say that a subpoena issued in sham litigation is legal. Looks like we’ll find out soon enough.

I think this is wishful thinking on the part of team lively. For weeks before we learned about Vanzan, her supporters on this forum insisted it was a “pre litigation subpoena”. They were loud and rude and said they were “lawyers” and the rest of us underlings simply didn’t know what we were talking about. After the Vanzan story broke they then pivoted to “well this is perfectly normal legal strategy and Freedman just got out lawyered”. Meanwhile creators talking about Vanzan had their videos muted and it was rumored that BL’s team had brought on criminal lawyers, nothing suspicious about that at all…

To be fair, pre-litigation subpoenas do exist, and can be used in cases where there is reason to believe documents or other evidence (say security camera footage) will be lost before the potential plaintiff could bring a case. It's not unreasonable to have thought that's what might have been used here. Baldoni supporters also had a bunch of theories (that there had been no subpoena at all, for instance) that turned out to be false.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:They even said TS would not be deposed, and if so, it would not be a big deal at all. The whole “nothing to see here” notion.

Hmm..

She hasn't been deposed and it sounds unlikely she will be.

She will be, it’s the normal order to get documents from a witness and then after reviewing the documents produced, depose them.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:They even said TS would not be deposed, and if so, it would not be a big deal at all. The whole “nothing to see here” notion.

Hmm..

She hasn't been deposed and it sounds unlikely she will be.

She will be, it’s the normal order to get documents from a witness and then after reviewing the documents produced, depose them.

Most people who are served subpoenas for documents or communications are never deposed. And in a civil case, if a witness is resistant to deposition and contends they have nothing relevant to contribute, you would need to be able to prove that you have reason to believe the witness has info directly relevant to the case. What Baldoni has so far produced doesn't show that -- all he has is that in one occasion Swift has told him she liked the scene Blake allegedly wrote. If that's it, there is no way Swift will be deposed -- a deposition is expensive and time consuming for the witness, and judges don't let you just haul whoever you want in to question them.

Also keep in mind Swift is a billionaire and has access to great lawyers, and if she doesn't want to be deposed, they will fight very hard to prevent it.

I don't see it happening. She is, at best, tangentially related to this case.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:They even said TS would not be deposed, and if so, it would not be a big deal at all. The whole “nothing to see here” notion.

Hmm..

She hasn't been deposed and it sounds unlikely she will be.

She will be, it’s the normal order to get documents from a witness and then after reviewing the documents produced, depose them.

Most people who are served subpoenas for documents or communications are never deposed. And in a civil case, if a witness is resistant to deposition and contends they have nothing relevant to contribute, you would need to be able to prove that you have reason to believe the witness has info directly relevant to the case. What Baldoni has so far produced doesn't show that -- all he has is that in one occasion Swift has told him she liked the scene Blake allegedly wrote. If that's it, there is no way Swift will be deposed -- a deposition is expensive and time consuming for the witness, and judges don't let you just haul whoever you want in to question them.

Also keep in mind Swift is a billionaire and has access to great lawyers, and if she doesn't want to be deposed, they will fight very hard to prevent it.

I don't see it happening. She is, at best, tangentially related to this case.

Disagree, I’ve never seen a witness with a documented connection to the case, via email/text here, successfully resist a deposition. Like everything else, we’ll see.

[Anonymous]

I don't think Swift has much, if any, information to give, but I can see Freedman deposing her to create headlines.

[Anonymous]

This weekend. Another example of her personal style being Godawful. When Harry’s high fashion cronies were dressing her 20 years ago she looked amazing. Left to her own devices she looks so embarrassing.

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/tvshowbiz/article-14700919/Blake-Lively-style-makeunder-Taylor-Swift-Justin-Baldoni-lawsuit.html

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:This weekend. Another example of her personal style being Godawful. When Harry’s high fashion cronies were dressing her 20 years ago she looked amazing. Left to her own devices she looks so embarrassing.

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/tvshowbiz/article-14700919/Blake-Lively-style-makeunder-Taylor-Swift-Justin-Baldoni-lawsuit.html