Blake Lively- Jason Baldoni and NYT - False Light claims

[Anonymous]

Some interesting intersections in this case: Wayfarer has sold their latest movie with Scarlet Johansson to Sony, even though some Black supporters have been claiming that relationship is damaged b/c JB was such a terrible director. Also, Patrick Whitesell’s wife liked Justin’s Mother’s Day post and follows him. Patrick is Ari’s former partner at WME. He also was married to Lauren Sanchez previously, who was reportedly one of Jones’ clients. Hollywood really is a small town.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Some interesting intersections in this case: Wayfarer has sold their latest movie with Scarlet Johansson to Sony, even though some Black supporters have been claiming that relationship is damaged b/c JB was such a terrible director. Also, Patrick Whitesell’s wife liked Justin’s Mother’s Day post and follows him. Patrick is Ari’s former partner at WME. He also was married to Lauren Sanchez previously, who was reportedly one of Jones’ clients. Hollywood really is a small town.

Some “Blake” supporters.

[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.

I disagree, you can get it from someone else is not a winning argument. It’s possible that Blake destroyed all or some of her copies of such communication and Taylor did not. If the documents in question are relevant and not privileged, the motion won’t be granted.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Some interesting intersections in this case: Wayfarer has sold their latest movie with Scarlet Johansson to Sony, even though some Black supporters have been claiming that relationship is damaged b/c JB was such a terrible director. Also, Patrick Whitesell’s wife liked Justin’s Mother’s Day post and follows him. Patrick is Ari’s former partner at WME. He also was married to Lauren Sanchez previously, who was reportedly one of Jones’ clients. Hollywood really is a small town.

I have seen nothing about Sony buying Eleanor the Great. That movie already had multiple studios' backing, including Tristar and Sony Picture Classics. I assume a similar development deal to what they did on IEWU with Tristar/Sony providing marketing and distribution. There's no industry news that they sold the whole thing that I can see. Am I missing something?

[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.

I disagree, you can get it from someone else is not a winning argument. It’s possible that Blake destroyed all or some of her copies of such communication and Taylor did not. If the documents in question are relevant and not privileged, the motion won’t be granted.

Not just "someone else." A party to the litigation. A court doesn't mind "inconveniencing" one of the parties because they are personally involved. There are more restrictions on requests to third parties, and judges are more responsive to the argument that a subpoena is unduly burdensome when the person is not directly involved.

Regarding the potential destruction of evidence, the normal way you'd do this is subpoena everything from Lively/Reynolds and, if there is any indication that communications are missing, THEN subpoena the third party to see if they have something you didn't already get. This allows the subpoena to the third party to be more targeted and specific, and then usually less burdensome. You also would go in with proof that you were unable to obtain whatever it is from the opposing party.

But you don't start with the third party.

Also there may be ways to identify potentially deleted messages via metadata, though I personally have never been involved in discovery that went to that level.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote: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.

That would all be privileged communications though. It is not normal to request communications between a party and a lawyer or law firm, for this reason.

I think Wayfarer clearly meant to subpoena Taylor with the original subpoena but they were sloppy with the wording and Venable can play dumb and say "why are you requesting info from us, Venable, we have nothing to do with this." It also makes Wayfarer look stupid, which is to Venable's (and Taylor's) benefit when they issue a more proper subpoena and then Taylor objects to that one.

[Anonymous]

Ha, well it gets twistier. Blake and Ryan have filed a motion to intervene regarding the Venable subpoena:

https://acrobat.adobe.com/id/urn:aaid:sc:US:4f4a0fce-d675-4742-aaa1-e333765df77c

And here they make the confidentiality argument I made above -- that any communications between Lively's lawyers and Venable would of course be attorney work product covered by attorney-client privilege.

Truly: what on earth.

[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.

I disagree, you can get it from someone else is not a winning argument. It’s possible that Blake destroyed all or some of her copies of such communication and Taylor did not. If the documents in question are relevant and not privileged, the motion won’t be granted.

Not just "someone else." A party to the litigation. A court doesn't mind "inconveniencing" one of the parties because they are personally involved. There are more restrictions on requests to third parties, and judges are more responsive to the argument that a subpoena is unduly burdensome when the person is not directly involved.

Regarding the potential destruction of evidence, the normal way you'd do this is subpoena everything from Lively/Reynolds and, if there is any indication that communications are missing, THEN subpoena the third party to see if they have something you didn't already get. This allows the subpoena to the third party to be more targeted and specific, and then usually less burdensome. You also would go in with proof that you were unable to obtain whatever it is from the opposing party.

But you don't start with the third party.

Also there may be ways to identify potentially deleted messages via metadata, though I personally have never been involved in discovery that went to that level.

That isn’t actually how you do it. It’s simply not that burdensome to produce emails and texts. I think she loses this motion. We’ll see.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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.

That would all be privileged communications though. It is not normal to request communications between a party and a lawyer or law firm, for this reason.

I think Wayfarer clearly meant to subpoena Taylor with the original subpoena but they were sloppy with the wording and Venable can play dumb and say "why are you requesting info from us, Venable, we have nothing to do with this." It also makes Wayfarer look stupid, which is to Venable's (and Taylor's) benefit when they issue a more proper subpoena and then Taylor objects to that one.

Dp. Somehow I doubt this is what happened

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Ha, well it gets twistier. Blake and Ryan have filed a motion to intervene regarding the Venable subpoena:

https://acrobat.adobe.com/id/urn:aaid:sc:US:4f4a0fce-d675-4742-aaa1-e333765df77c

And here they make the confidentiality argument I made above -- that any communications between Lively's lawyers and Venable would of course be attorney work product covered by attorney-client privilege.

Truly: what on earth.

Lol another 30 pages! They are definitely racking up billables.

Dp. Somehow I doubt this is what happened

Yeah, I dislike Freedman's general style but can't believe his office would make basic mistakes.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Ha, well it gets twistier. Blake and Ryan have filed a motion to intervene regarding the Venable subpoena:

https://acrobat.adobe.com/id/urn:aaid:sc:US:4f4a0fce-d675-4742-aaa1-e333765df77c

And here they make the confidentiality argument I made above -- that any communications between Lively's lawyers and Venable would of course be attorney work product covered by attorney-client privilege.

Truly: what on earth.

Perhaps not Taylor then. I don’t understand this motion at all, if Venable wasn’t represented Lively and there is no joint defense agreement in place (none is mentioned and it would have to be), communication with Venable would not be protected by any attorney client privilege.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Some interesting intersections in this case: Wayfarer has sold their latest movie with Scarlet Johansson to Sony, even though some Black supporters have been claiming that relationship is damaged b/c JB was such a terrible director. Also, Patrick Whitesell’s wife liked Justin’s Mother’s Day post and follows him. Patrick is Ari’s former partner at WME. He also was married to Lauren Sanchez previously, who was reportedly one of Jones’ clients. Hollywood really is a small town.

I have seen nothing about Sony buying Eleanor the Great. That movie already had multiple studios' backing, including Tristar and Sony Picture Classics. I assume a similar development deal to what they did on IEWU with Tristar/Sony providing marketing and distribution. There's no industry news that they sold the whole thing that I can see. Am I missing something?

https://www.theguardian.com/film/2025/may/09/scarlett-johansson-kristen-stewart-harris-dickinson-directorial-debuts-cannes

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

I certainly don’t think she’s tone deaf. I largely agree with her. Each of us does not (at least for now) see the case the way the opposite side does, we read the existing facts in different ways. So stop being so surprised that not everyone on the thread sees things precisely the way you do. If you stop writing multiple insult posts calling them “pathological” or “insufferable” etc for having a different take, you will stop getting called bullies.

Looks like the parties have finally agreed on and filed a joint stipulation on ESI, meaning that the parties have now agreed on the basic rules of doc production and one or more party may actually begin producing docs now. I wouldn’t be surprised if Lively etc starts producing to back up their statements that they have been ready to produce for some time (but could not given that the ESI Stip was not filed).

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Ha, well it gets twistier. Blake and Ryan have filed a motion to intervene regarding the Venable subpoena:

https://acrobat.adobe.com/id/urn:aaid:sc:US:4f4a0fce-d675-4742-aaa1-e333765df77c

And here they make the confidentiality argument I made above -- that any communications between Lively's lawyers and Venable would of course be attorney work product covered by attorney-client privilege.

Truly: what on earth.

Perhaps not Taylor then. I don’t understand this motion at all, if Venable wasn’t represented Lively and there is no joint defense agreement in place (none is mentioned and it would have to be), communication with Venable would not be protected by any attorney client privilege.

Adding, including work product. After further reflection, my guess is that Gottlieb et al has been sending love letters to Taylor specifying how they are trying to protect her in the litigation, which would primarily be the protective order. Absent a joint defense agreement, such correspondence would be entirely discoverable. And no mention of a joint defense agreement, and I could think of many reasons Taylor would not have wanted one.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Ha, well it gets twistier. Blake and Ryan have filed a motion to intervene regarding the Venable subpoena:

https://acrobat.adobe.com/id/urn:aaid:sc:US:4f4a0fce-d675-4742-aaa1-e333765df77c

And here they make the confidentiality argument I made above -- that any communications between Lively's lawyers and Venable would of course be attorney work product covered by attorney-client privilege.

Truly: what on earth.

Perhaps not Taylor then. I don’t understand this motion at all, if Venable wasn’t represented Lively and there is no joint defense agreement in place (none is mentioned and it would have to be), communication with Venable would not be protected by any attorney client privilege.

Adding, including work product. After further reflection, my guess is that Gottlieb et al has been sending love letters to Taylor specifying how they are trying to protect her in the litigation, which would primarily be the protective order. Absent a joint defense agreement, such correspondence would be entirely discoverable. And no mention of a joint defense agreement, and I could think of many reasons Taylor would not have wanted one.

But is that type of stuff relevant to the claims in the lawsuit?