Blake Lively- Jason Baldoni and NYT - False Light claims

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Taylor filed a motion to quash her subpoena, as expected.

People on reddit are saying this is it?
https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.dcd.280496/gov.uscourts.dcd.280496.1.0.pdf

[Anonymous]

Jones replied to Wayfarer's letter right around midnight: https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.nysd.634304/gov.uscourts.nysd.634304.209.0.pdf

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Jones replied to Wayfarer's letter right around midnight: https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.nysd.634304/gov.uscourts.nysd.634304.209.0.pdf

I’ll have to read this and TS’s motion in the morning with my coffee!

[Anonymous]

I just want to say I comment the person here who has the strength to respond to the pro-Lively poster's eight-paragraph posts. I used to argue with them in good faith at the beginning of this thread until I realized they will handwave and twist everything. Every. Thing.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I just want to say I comment the person here who has the strength to respond to the pro-Lively poster's eight-paragraph posts. I used to argue with them in good faith at the beginning of this thread until I realized they will handwave and twist everything. Every. Thing.

*I commend

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Taylor filed a motion to quash her subpoena, as expected.

People on reddit are saying this is it?
https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.dcd.280496/gov.uscourts.dcd.280496.1.0.pdf

If so, that's weird. This is a motion by Venable seeking to quash a subpoena in Venable and one of its partners, Baldridge, for communications between Lively/Reynolds and Venable, and between Venable/Baldridge and Michael Gottlieb (Lively's attorney). Taylor Swift's name does not appear at all, nor do they reference any client of Venable.

But also it's weird because the motion to quash is largely based on the arguments that the subpoena overly burdens a non-party and that they are requesting documents that the could obtain from a party (Lively/Reynolds can produce any documents requested).These are the arguments I would expect Swift to make regarding a subpoena for documents. They do not make an objections referencing attorney work product, which I would expect a law firm to make.

Also it makes no sense to me that Wayfarer would subpoena Venable.

So all I can think is that Wayfarer served Taylor's law firm with the intention of serving Taylor, but Venable is playing dumb because the subpoena was poorly worded/framed (just saying "you must produce" and not specifying who "you" is in the document itself. Swift wants to keep her name out of this litigation so this might be a tongue in cheek way of doing so.

I do think that if Wayfarer is just requesting Swift's (or Venable's!) communications with Lively/Reynolds, Liman will grant this because of course they can get that from Lively/Reynolds.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Taylor filed a motion to quash her subpoena, as expected.

People on reddit are saying this is it?
https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.dcd.280496/gov.uscourts.dcd.280496.1.0.pdf

If so, that's weird. This is a motion by Venable seeking to quash a subpoena in Venable and one of its partners, Baldridge, for communications between Lively/Reynolds and Venable, and between Venable/Baldridge and Michael Gottlieb (Lively's attorney). Taylor Swift's name does not appear at all, nor do they reference any client of Venable.

But also it's weird because the motion to quash is largely based on the arguments that the subpoena overly burdens a non-party and that they are requesting documents that the could obtain from a party (Lively/Reynolds can produce any documents requested).These are the arguments I would expect Swift to make regarding a subpoena for documents. They do not make an objections referencing attorney work product, which I would expect a law firm to make.

Also it makes no sense to me that Wayfarer would subpoena Venable.

So all I can think is that Wayfarer served Taylor's law firm with the intention of serving Taylor, but Venable is playing dumb because the subpoena was poorly worded/framed (just saying "you must produce" and not specifying who "you" is in the document itself. Swift wants to keep her name out of this litigation so this might be a tongue in cheek way of doing so.

I do think that if Wayfarer is just requesting Swift's (or Venable's!) communications with Lively/Reynolds, Liman will grant this because of course they can get that from Lively/Reynolds.

PP again. Footnote!

It appears the subpoena they are responding to here was served on Venable in April (coincidentally, or not, the day Travis purportedly unfollowed Ryan).

But a footnote references another subpoena for "one of Venable's clients" and a communication on May 8th asking Venable if they can accept service on that client.

It is confirmed that Venable/Baldridge rep Taylor.

So yes it appears that Wayfarer (sloppily IMO) served a subpoena on Venable in April but perhaps the subpoena was addressed to Taylor but only said "you" in the document (lazy!). And Venable decided to eff with them by treating it as a subpoena on the firm and Baldridge, and now Wayfarer is trying to fix it with another subpoena. Lol.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I just want to say I comment the person here who has the strength to respond to the pro-Lively poster's eight-paragraph posts. I used to argue with them in good faith at the beginning of this thread until I realized they will handwave and twist everything. Every. Thing.

And this is precisely why this thread is hundreds of pages long. Not only does she reply, but it’s always at least 4 or 5 paragraphs, always stating that “she sees all the facts differently.” It’s like everyone seeing the same color green, but she doesn’t see green. She sees powder blue unicorns.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Taylor filed a motion to quash her subpoena, as expected.

People on reddit are saying this is it?
https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.dcd.280496/gov.uscourts.dcd.280496.1.0.pdf

If so, that's weird. This is a motion by Venable seeking to quash a subpoena in Venable and one of its partners, Baldridge, for communications between Lively/Reynolds and Venable, and between Venable/Baldridge and Michael Gottlieb (Lively's attorney). Taylor Swift's name does not appear at all, nor do they reference any client of Venable.

But also it's weird because the motion to quash is largely based on the arguments that the subpoena overly burdens a non-party and that they are requesting documents that the could obtain from a party (Lively/Reynolds can produce any documents requested).These are the arguments I would expect Swift to make regarding a subpoena for documents. They do not make an objections referencing attorney work product, which I would expect a law firm to make.

Also it makes no sense to me that Wayfarer would subpoena Venable.

So all I can think is that Wayfarer served Taylor's law firm with the intention of serving Taylor, but Venable is playing dumb because the subpoena was poorly worded/framed (just saying "you must produce" and not specifying who "you" is in the document itself. Swift wants to keep her name out of this litigation so this might be a tongue in cheek way of doing so.

I do think that if Wayfarer is just requesting Swift's (or Venable's!) communications with Lively/Reynolds, Liman will grant this because of course they can get that from Lively/Reynolds.

PP again. Footnote!

It appears the subpoena they are responding to here was served on Venable in April (coincidentally, or not, the day Travis purportedly unfollowed Ryan).

But a footnote references another subpoena for "one of Venable's clients" and a communication on May 8th asking Venable if they can accept service on that client.

It is confirmed that Venable/Baldridge rep Taylor.

So yes it appears that Wayfarer (sloppily IMO) served a subpoena on Venable in April but perhaps the subpoena was addressed to Taylor but only said "you" in the document (lazy!). And Venable decided to eff with them by treating it as a subpoena on the firm and Baldridge, and now Wayfarer is trying to fix it with another subpoena. Lol.

FWIW I think they were just trying to protect Taylor’s privacy. I don’t think the leaks about the Taylor subpoena have been coming from JB’s camp, as you can see freedman didn’t even give a statement, which is unusual for him. They don’t want to poke the dragon and enrage swifties imo.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I just want to say I comment the person here who has the strength to respond to the pro-Lively poster's eight-paragraph posts. I used to argue with them in good faith at the beginning of this thread until I realized they will handwave and twist everything. Every. Thing.

And this is precisely why this thread is hundreds of pages long. Not only does she reply, but it’s always at least 4 or 5 paragraphs, always stating that “she sees all the facts differently.” It’s like everyone seeing the same color green, but she doesn’t see green. She sees powder blue unicorns.

Different people have different opinions about the case, guys.

For the hundredth time, there are 15 comments per page, whether your comment is 5 paragraphs or five characters. So you responding with a paragraph and then responding again with “oopsie I meant me not them” actually makes the thread roll faster than one 7 paragraph comment.

Props from me to the PP that pro-Baldoni fans are belittling. They continue to bully and demean her, and she basically just stands her ground and makes her points, and mostly doesn’t even throw insults back at them despite extreme provocation on their part. They are behaving like hoodlums and she is just making her points. It’s like one of those after school specials when a kid gets bullied over and over. 🙌

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Taylor filed a motion to quash her subpoena, as expected.

People on reddit are saying this is it?
https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.dcd.280496/gov.uscourts.dcd.280496.1.0.pdf

If so, that's weird. This is a motion by Venable seeking to quash a subpoena in Venable and one of its partners, Baldridge, for communications between Lively/Reynolds and Venable, and between Venable/Baldridge and Michael Gottlieb (Lively's attorney). Taylor Swift's name does not appear at all, nor do they reference any client of Venable.

But also it's weird because the motion to quash is largely based on the arguments that the subpoena overly burdens a non-party and that they are requesting documents that the could obtain from a party (Lively/Reynolds can produce any documents requested).These are the arguments I would expect Swift to make regarding a subpoena for documents. They do not make an objections referencing attorney work product, which I would expect a law firm to make.

Also it makes no sense to me that Wayfarer would subpoena Venable.

So all I can think is that Wayfarer served Taylor's law firm with the intention of serving Taylor, but Venable is playing dumb because the subpoena was poorly worded/framed (just saying "you must produce" and not specifying who "you" is in the document itself. Swift wants to keep her name out of this litigation so this might be a tongue in cheek way of doing so.

I do think that if Wayfarer is just requesting Swift's (or Venable's!) communications with Lively/Reynolds, Liman will grant this because of course they can get that from Lively/Reynolds.

PP again. Footnote!

It appears the subpoena they are responding to here was served on Venable in April (coincidentally, or not, the day Travis purportedly unfollowed Ryan).

But a footnote references another subpoena for "one of Venable's clients" and a communication on May 8th asking Venable if they can accept service on that client.

It is confirmed that Venable/Baldridge rep Taylor.

So yes it appears that Wayfarer (sloppily IMO) served a subpoena on Venable in April but perhaps the subpoena was addressed to Taylor but only said "you" in the document (lazy!). And Venable decided to eff with them by treating it as a subpoena on the firm and Baldridge, and now Wayfarer is trying to fix it with another subpoena. Lol.

FWIW I think they were just trying to protect Taylor’s privacy. I don’t think the leaks about the Taylor subpoena have been coming from JB’s camp, as you can see freedman didn’t even give a statement, which is unusual for him. They don’t want to poke the dragon and enrage swifties imo.

Lol, in what universe is Freedman "trying to protect Taylor's privacy."

Speaking of alternative facts!

[Anonymous]

I was thinking maybe they asked Venable for communications between Lively/Gottlieb and Venable reaching out to coordinate plans in case Swift gets a subpoena, to find out if she even has documents. And then an actual subpoena to Swift came a week later which is referenced in the footnote. It's odd.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I just want to say I comment the person here who has the strength to respond to the pro-Lively poster's eight-paragraph posts. I used to argue with them in good faith at the beginning of this thread until I realized they will handwave and twist everything. Every. Thing.

DP. Totally agree. I suspect she’s the same one who runs to Jeff to try to get us banned and shut down. Similar long winded style and incredible skill at twisting and exaggerating facts to the Nth degree.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I just want to say I comment the person here who has the strength to respond to the pro-Lively poster's eight-paragraph posts. I used to argue with them in good faith at the beginning of this thread until I realized they will handwave and twist everything. Every. Thing.

And this is precisely why this thread is hundreds of pages long. Not only does she reply, but it’s always at least 4 or 5 paragraphs, always stating that “she sees all the facts differently.” It’s like everyone seeing the same color green, but she doesn’t see green. She sees powder blue unicorns.

Different people have different opinions about the case, guys.

For the hundredth time, there are 15 comments per page, whether your comment is 5 paragraphs or five characters. So you responding with a paragraph and then responding again with “oopsie I meant me not them” actually makes the thread roll faster than one 7 paragraph comment.

Props from me to the PP that pro-Baldoni fans are belittling. They continue to bully and demean her, and she basically just stands her ground and makes her points, and mostly doesn’t even throw insults back at them despite extreme provocation on their part. They are behaving like hoodlums and she is just making her points. It’s like one of those after school specials when a kid gets bullied over and over. 🙌

Firstly, no one is bullying her. She is tone deaf, at every turn. And many of us have grown annoyed and intolerant of her contrived pro-Lively no matter what, contortions and distortions.

She is becoming (or has become) the very thing that people have found intolerable about the very person she is defending —insufferable in the face of logic and facts.

No one is asking for her responses to become compliant in tone. But the way she contorts every…single…word that is said about Blake and/or Ryan underscores her quest for the truth and shows how biased she really is. It’s a ‘Blake at all costs’ attitude that draws everyone’s ire.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I just want to say I comment the person here who has the strength to respond to the pro-Lively poster's eight-paragraph posts. I used to argue with them in good faith at the beginning of this thread until I realized they will handwave and twist everything. Every. Thing.

DP. Totally agree. I suspect she’s the same one who runs to Jeff to try to get us banned and shut down. Similar long winded style and incredible skill at twisting and exaggerating facts to the Nth degree.

Pp and like clockwork, here she/they are again in their usual fashion.

Running to defend the inane posts and then also exaggerating the behaviors of the ‘pro Baldoni’ people. Apparently anyone who doesn’t support BL is a ‘hoodlum’ and she/BL’s side are the victims. Every. Single. Time.

Props from me to the PP that pro-Baldoni fans are belittling. They continue to bully and demean her, and she basically just stands her ground and makes her points, and mostly doesn’t even throw insults back at them despite extreme provocation on their part. They are behaving like hoodlums and she is just making her points. It’s like one of those after school specials when a kid gets bullied over and over.