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:I also think it's weird for Freedman to subpoena all communications with a particular attorney/firm. It's weird to assume there won't be a common interest agreement in place, and/or to make that a big issue for discovery. And the fact that he's doing this to Taylor Swift suggests to me that he wants to put pressure on the Swift/Lively relationship in order to annoy Lively and in order to make Swift annoyed at Lively, and in order to make public, at some point, whatever information he finds out about the relationship.

It doesn't seem like something that would actually help Baldoni beat SH allegations, or the retaliation claim. I don't think I've ever in my legal career asked for someone's communications with another law firm. But Freedman's gotta have something to go talk to Candace Owens about, right?

It’s not weird to ask. If there’s a joint defense or similar, so be it. Why would freedman assume this without asking?

How many doc requests have you served that asked a third party for communications with another law firm that represented a party in the case? I have never had the occasion to make such an ask before. Not a single one.

Dp, but my guess is that they asked Blake for all correspondence with Taylor related to IEWU and they objected on the grounds of attorney client privilege/work product, which then led to the current subpoena. Or Freedman got a tip there is something noteworthy in that correspondence. I don’t think he did it without a reason.

#1, that doesn't make any sense because there are going to be text messages or other communications between the two that don't involve attorneys. So right off the bat, you're making things up to make this make sense. And #2, you don't answer my question. I assume the answer is zero, because like any normal attorney you don't go around subpoenaing other attorneys' communications with law firms that oppose you in a litigation, hoping to catch them out but also showing yourself to be a complete tool.

Why are you so angry? Let it play out and then complain if there is a reason. This will be decided relatively quickly.

I'm not angry. I don't understand why Baldoni fans aren't recognizing some of the stuff Freedman is doing as mistakes or bad lawyering. I've never seen interrogatory responses like he sent (late!) that come nowhere near answering the question and say instead he's willing to meet and confer, for vast majority of the responses. Never. And I've never seen another lawyer subpoena a third party for communications with a law firm that represents the opposition, and in a case like this involving Taylor Swift it seems he just wants to embarrass her and/or cause friction with Lively through the litigation, because that's a good story for him. I'm involved with plenty of discovery and this is not normal. I don't understand why you aren't saying that.

Yes, we know, you already gave us several pages of posts about eight interrogatories. And I said then, as I say now, there is truly nothing less consequential.


Taylor is directly mentioned in Baldoni’s complaint. There was no way she was not going to be the subject of a subpoena.

DP. I don't see an issue in them requesting documents from Swift, if she has any (is she a big texter? IDK). A deposition might be a stretch. But the law firm that represents her!? It's unusual. Is Freedman going to subpoena the *lawyers* of every other party receiving a subpoena? Doubtful. The justification for this is not clear.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I also think it's weird for Freedman to subpoena all communications with a particular attorney/firm. It's weird to assume there won't be a common interest agreement in place, and/or to make that a big issue for discovery. And the fact that he's doing this to Taylor Swift suggests to me that he wants to put pressure on the Swift/Lively relationship in order to annoy Lively and in order to make Swift annoyed at Lively, and in order to make public, at some point, whatever information he finds out about the relationship.

It doesn't seem like something that would actually help Baldoni beat SH allegations, or the retaliation claim. I don't think I've ever in my legal career asked for someone's communications with another law firm. But Freedman's gotta have something to go talk to Candace Owens about, right?

It’s not weird to ask. If there’s a joint defense or similar, so be it. Why would freedman assume this without asking?

How many doc requests have you served that asked a third party for communications with another law firm that represented a party in the case? I have never had the occasion to make such an ask before. Not a single one.

Dp, but my guess is that they asked Blake for all correspondence with Taylor related to IEWU and they objected on the grounds of attorney client privilege/work product, which then led to the current subpoena. Or Freedman got a tip there is something noteworthy in that correspondence. I don’t think he did it without a reason.

#1, that doesn't make any sense because there are going to be text messages or other communications between the two that don't involve attorneys. So right off the bat, you're making things up to make this make sense. And #2, you don't answer my question. I assume the answer is zero, because like any normal attorney you don't go around subpoenaing other attorneys' communications with law firms that oppose you in a litigation, hoping to catch them out but also showing yourself to be a complete tool.

Why are you so angry? Let it play out and then complain if there is a reason. This will be decided relatively quickly.

I'm not angry. I don't understand why Baldoni fans aren't recognizing some of the stuff Freedman is doing as mistakes or bad lawyering. I've never seen interrogatory responses like he sent (late!) that come nowhere near answering the question and say instead he's willing to meet and confer, for vast majority of the responses. Never. And I've never seen another lawyer subpoena a third party for communications with a law firm that represents the opposition, and in a case like this involving Taylor Swift it seems he just wants to embarrass her and/or cause friction with Lively through the litigation, because that's a good story for him. I'm involved with plenty of discovery and this is not normal. I don't understand why you aren't saying that.

Yes, we know, you already gave us several pages of posts about eight interrogatories. And I said then, as I say now, there is truly nothing less consequential.


Taylor is directly mentioned in Baldoni’s complaint. There was no way she was not going to be the subject of a subpoena.

Please directly answer my original question: How many times have you subpoenaed a third party's legal counsel for their communications with a law firm representing parties who opposed you in that case?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I also think it's weird for Freedman to subpoena all communications with a particular attorney/firm. It's weird to assume there won't be a common interest agreement in place, and/or to make that a big issue for discovery. And the fact that he's doing this to Taylor Swift suggests to me that he wants to put pressure on the Swift/Lively relationship in order to annoy Lively and in order to make Swift annoyed at Lively, and in order to make public, at some point, whatever information he finds out about the relationship.

It doesn't seem like something that would actually help Baldoni beat SH allegations, or the retaliation claim. I don't think I've ever in my legal career asked for someone's communications with another law firm. But Freedman's gotta have something to go talk to Candace Owens about, right?

It’s not weird to ask. If there’s a joint defense or similar, so be it. Why would freedman assume this without asking?

How many doc requests have you served that asked a third party for communications with another law firm that represented a party in the case? I have never had the occasion to make such an ask before. Not a single one.

Dp, but my guess is that they asked Blake for all correspondence with Taylor related to IEWU and they objected on the grounds of attorney client privilege/work product, which then led to the current subpoena. Or Freedman got a tip there is something noteworthy in that correspondence. I don’t think he did it without a reason.

#1, that doesn't make any sense because there are going to be text messages or other communications between the two that don't involve attorneys. So right off the bat, you're making things up to make this make sense. And #2, you don't answer my question. I assume the answer is zero, because like any normal attorney you don't go around subpoenaing other attorneys' communications with law firms that oppose you in a litigation, hoping to catch them out but also showing yourself to be a complete tool.

Why are you so angry? Let it play out and then complain if there is a reason. This will be decided relatively quickly.

I'm not angry. I don't understand why Baldoni fans aren't recognizing some of the stuff Freedman is doing as mistakes or bad lawyering. I've never seen interrogatory responses like he sent (late!) that come nowhere near answering the question and say instead he's willing to meet and confer, for vast majority of the responses. Never. And I've never seen another lawyer subpoena a third party for communications with a law firm that represents the opposition, and in a case like this involving Taylor Swift it seems he just wants to embarrass her and/or cause friction with Lively through the litigation, because that's a good story for him. I'm involved with plenty of discovery and this is not normal. I don't understand why you aren't saying that.

Yes, we know, you already gave us several pages of posts about eight interrogatories. And I said then, as I say now, there is truly nothing less consequential.


Taylor is directly mentioned in Baldoni’s complaint. There was no way she was not going to be the subject of a subpoena.

She's mentioned one time and her name was redacted. And the situation she was mentioned in reference to doesn't involve her law firm -- the complaint just says that Swift was at Lively's apartment when Baldoni was there one time and Swift said she'd read the pages from the rooftop scene Blake had given her and liked them.

Nothing about that indicates that there would be a reason to subpoena her law firm.

It's very weird.

[Anonymous]

I'm beginning to think the people who thought Hugh Jackman would be subpoenaed just for walking the red carpet were right. Crazy times.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I also think it's weird for Freedman to subpoena all communications with a particular attorney/firm. It's weird to assume there won't be a common interest agreement in place, and/or to make that a big issue for discovery. And the fact that he's doing this to Taylor Swift suggests to me that he wants to put pressure on the Swift/Lively relationship in order to annoy Lively and in order to make Swift annoyed at Lively, and in order to make public, at some point, whatever information he finds out about the relationship.

It doesn't seem like something that would actually help Baldoni beat SH allegations, or the retaliation claim. I don't think I've ever in my legal career asked for someone's communications with another law firm. But Freedman's gotta have something to go talk to Candace Owens about, right?

It’s not weird to ask. If there’s a joint defense or similar, so be it. Why would freedman assume this without asking?

How many doc requests have you served that asked a third party for communications with another law firm that represented a party in the case? I have never had the occasion to make such an ask before. Not a single one.

Dp, but my guess is that they asked Blake for all correspondence with Taylor related to IEWU and they objected on the grounds of attorney client privilege/work product, which then led to the current subpoena. Or Freedman got a tip there is something noteworthy in that correspondence. I don’t think he did it without a reason.

#1, that doesn't make any sense because there are going to be text messages or other communications between the two that don't involve attorneys. So right off the bat, you're making things up to make this make sense. And #2, you don't answer my question. I assume the answer is zero, because like any normal attorney you don't go around subpoenaing other attorneys' communications with law firms that oppose you in a litigation, hoping to catch them out but also showing yourself to be a complete tool.

Why are you so angry? Let it play out and then complain if there is a reason. This will be decided relatively quickly.

I'm not angry. I don't understand why Baldoni fans aren't recognizing some of the stuff Freedman is doing as mistakes or bad lawyering. I've never seen interrogatory responses like he sent (late!) that come nowhere near answering the question and say instead he's willing to meet and confer, for vast majority of the responses. Never. And I've never seen another lawyer subpoena a third party for communications with a law firm that represents the opposition, and in a case like this involving Taylor Swift it seems he just wants to embarrass her and/or cause friction with Lively through the litigation, because that's a good story for him. I'm involved with plenty of discovery and this is not normal. I don't understand why you aren't saying that.

You are always angry.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I'm beginning to think the people who thought Hugh Jackman would be subpoenaed just for walking the red carpet were right. Crazy times.

Yes there was someone who thought he would be subpoenaed because he was at the premiere where Reynolds allegedly called Baldoni a predator in conversation with a WME exec. I was like "are they going to subpoena the hundreds of people at that premiere? there's no indication Jackman was even present for that conversation."

But now I think they just might try to subpoena everyone who attended the Deadpool/Wolverine premiere this summer.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'm beginning to think the people who thought Hugh Jackman would be subpoenaed just for walking the red carpet were right. Crazy times.

Yes there was someone who thought he would be subpoenaed because he was at the premiere where Reynolds allegedly called Baldoni a predator in conversation with a WME exec. I was like "are they going to subpoena the hundreds of people at that premiere? there's no indication Jackman was even present for that conversation."

But now I think they just might try to subpoena everyone who attended the Deadpool/Wolverine premiere this summer.

Especially the ones who are major celebrities.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I also think it's weird for Freedman to subpoena all communications with a particular attorney/firm. It's weird to assume there won't be a common interest agreement in place, and/or to make that a big issue for discovery. And the fact that he's doing this to Taylor Swift suggests to me that he wants to put pressure on the Swift/Lively relationship in order to annoy Lively and in order to make Swift annoyed at Lively, and in order to make public, at some point, whatever information he finds out about the relationship.

It doesn't seem like something that would actually help Baldoni beat SH allegations, or the retaliation claim. I don't think I've ever in my legal career asked for someone's communications with another law firm. But Freedman's gotta have something to go talk to Candace Owens about, right?

It’s not weird to ask. If there’s a joint defense or similar, so be it. Why would freedman assume this without asking?

How many doc requests have you served that asked a third party for communications with another law firm that represented a party in the case? I have never had the occasion to make such an ask before. Not a single one.

Dp, but my guess is that they asked Blake for all correspondence with Taylor related to IEWU and they objected on the grounds of attorney client privilege/work product, which then led to the current subpoena. Or Freedman got a tip there is something noteworthy in that correspondence. I don’t think he did it without a reason.

#1, that doesn't make any sense because there are going to be text messages or other communications between the two that don't involve attorneys. So right off the bat, you're making things up to make this make sense. And #2, you don't answer my question. I assume the answer is zero, because like any normal attorney you don't go around subpoenaing other attorneys' communications with law firms that oppose you in a litigation, hoping to catch them out but also showing yourself to be a complete tool.

Why are you so angry? Let it play out and then complain if there is a reason. This will be decided relatively quickly.

I'm not angry. I don't understand why Baldoni fans aren't recognizing some of the stuff Freedman is doing as mistakes or bad lawyering. I've never seen interrogatory responses like he sent (late!) that come nowhere near answering the question and say instead he's willing to meet and confer, for vast majority of the responses. Never. And I've never seen another lawyer subpoena a third party for communications with a law firm that represents the opposition, and in a case like this involving Taylor Swift it seems he just wants to embarrass her and/or cause friction with Lively through the litigation, because that's a good story for him. I'm involved with plenty of discovery and this is not normal. I don't understand why you aren't saying that.

You are always angry.

You seem nice.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'm beginning to think the people who thought Hugh Jackman would be subpoenaed just for walking the red carpet were right. Crazy times.

Yes there was someone who thought he would be subpoenaed because he was at the premiere where Reynolds allegedly called Baldoni a predator in conversation with a WME exec. I was like "are they going to subpoena the hundreds of people at that premiere? there's no indication Jackman was even present for that conversation."

But now I think they just might try to subpoena everyone who attended the Deadpool/Wolverine premiere this summer.

Especially the ones who are major celebrities.

Obviously.

Someone recently in the thread was claiming that "of course" Swift would be deposed because that's just the natural progression after a subpoena for documents.

The whole thing is a clown show.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I also think it's weird for Freedman to subpoena all communications with a particular attorney/firm. It's weird to assume there won't be a common interest agreement in place, and/or to make that a big issue for discovery. And the fact that he's doing this to Taylor Swift suggests to me that he wants to put pressure on the Swift/Lively relationship in order to annoy Lively and in order to make Swift annoyed at Lively, and in order to make public, at some point, whatever information he finds out about the relationship.

It doesn't seem like something that would actually help Baldoni beat SH allegations, or the retaliation claim. I don't think I've ever in my legal career asked for someone's communications with another law firm. But Freedman's gotta have something to go talk to Candace Owens about, right?

It’s not weird to ask. If there’s a joint defense or similar, so be it. Why would freedman assume this without asking?

How many doc requests have you served that asked a third party for communications with another law firm that represented a party in the case? I have never had the occasion to make such an ask before. Not a single one.

Dp, but my guess is that they asked Blake for all correspondence with Taylor related to IEWU and they objected on the grounds of attorney client privilege/work product, which then led to the current subpoena. Or Freedman got a tip there is something noteworthy in that correspondence. I don’t think he did it without a reason.

#1, that doesn't make any sense because there are going to be text messages or other communications between the two that don't involve attorneys. So right off the bat, you're making things up to make this make sense. And #2, you don't answer my question. I assume the answer is zero, because like any normal attorney you don't go around subpoenaing other attorneys' communications with law firms that oppose you in a litigation, hoping to catch them out but also showing yourself to be a complete tool.

Why are you so angry? Let it play out and then complain if there is a reason. This will be decided relatively quickly.

I'm not angry. I don't understand why Baldoni fans aren't recognizing some of the stuff Freedman is doing as mistakes or bad lawyering. I've never seen interrogatory responses like he sent (late!) that come nowhere near answering the question and say instead he's willing to meet and confer, for vast majority of the responses. Never. And I've never seen another lawyer subpoena a third party for communications with a law firm that represents the opposition, and in a case like this involving Taylor Swift it seems he just wants to embarrass her and/or cause friction with Lively through the litigation, because that's a good story for him. I'm involved with plenty of discovery and this is not normal. I don't understand why you aren't saying that.

Yes, we know, you already gave us several pages of posts about eight interrogatories. And I said then, as I say now, there is truly nothing less consequential.


Taylor is directly mentioned in Baldoni’s complaint. There was no way she was not going to be the subject of a subpoena.

Please directly answer my original question: How many times have you subpoenaed a third party's legal counsel for their communications with a law firm representing parties who opposed you in that case?

I assume BF wants to make sure there’s been no witness tampering. The communications between BL and her lawyers and Taylor and her lawyers aren’t privileged. I’m unclear why you’ve been debating back and forth all day? Is it just because they should start with asking the parties first? That’s just a matter of sequencing. I imagine they don’t trust Blake’s team to give them everything, so they’ll eventually ask Taylor’s team anyway.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I also think it's weird for Freedman to subpoena all communications with a particular attorney/firm. It's weird to assume there won't be a common interest agreement in place, and/or to make that a big issue for discovery. And the fact that he's doing this to Taylor Swift suggests to me that he wants to put pressure on the Swift/Lively relationship in order to annoy Lively and in order to make Swift annoyed at Lively, and in order to make public, at some point, whatever information he finds out about the relationship.

It doesn't seem like something that would actually help Baldoni beat SH allegations, or the retaliation claim. I don't think I've ever in my legal career asked for someone's communications with another law firm. But Freedman's gotta have something to go talk to Candace Owens about, right?

It’s not weird to ask. If there’s a joint defense or similar, so be it. Why would freedman assume this without asking?

How many doc requests have you served that asked a third party for communications with another law firm that represented a party in the case? I have never had the occasion to make such an ask before. Not a single one.

Dp, but my guess is that they asked Blake for all correspondence with Taylor related to IEWU and they objected on the grounds of attorney client privilege/work product, which then led to the current subpoena. Or Freedman got a tip there is something noteworthy in that correspondence. I don’t think he did it without a reason.

#1, that doesn't make any sense because there are going to be text messages or other communications between the two that don't involve attorneys. So right off the bat, you're making things up to make this make sense. And #2, you don't answer my question. I assume the answer is zero, because like any normal attorney you don't go around subpoenaing other attorneys' communications with law firms that oppose you in a litigation, hoping to catch them out but also showing yourself to be a complete tool.

Why are you so angry? Let it play out and then complain if there is a reason. This will be decided relatively quickly.

I'm not angry. I don't understand why Baldoni fans aren't recognizing some of the stuff Freedman is doing as mistakes or bad lawyering. I've never seen interrogatory responses like he sent (late!) that come nowhere near answering the question and say instead he's willing to meet and confer, for vast majority of the responses. Never. And I've never seen another lawyer subpoena a third party for communications with a law firm that represents the opposition, and in a case like this involving Taylor Swift it seems he just wants to embarrass her and/or cause friction with Lively through the litigation, because that's a good story for him. I'm involved with plenty of discovery and this is not normal. I don't understand why you aren't saying that.

Yes, we know, you already gave us several pages of posts about eight interrogatories. And I said then, as I say now, there is truly nothing less consequential.


Taylor is directly mentioned in Baldoni’s complaint. There was no way she was not going to be the subject of a subpoena.

Please directly answer my original question: How many times have you subpoenaed a third party's legal counsel for their communications with a law firm representing parties who opposed you in that case?

I assume BF wants to make sure there’s been no witness tampering. The communications between BL and her lawyers and Taylor and her lawyers aren’t privileged. I’m unclear why you’ve been debating back and forth all day? Is it just because they should start with asking the parties first? That’s just a matter of sequencing. I imagine they don’t trust Blake’s team to give them everything, so they’ll eventually ask Taylor’s team anyway.

Why can’t you answer my extremely simple question? lol

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I also think it's weird for Freedman to subpoena all communications with a particular attorney/firm. It's weird to assume there won't be a common interest agreement in place, and/or to make that a big issue for discovery. And the fact that he's doing this to Taylor Swift suggests to me that he wants to put pressure on the Swift/Lively relationship in order to annoy Lively and in order to make Swift annoyed at Lively, and in order to make public, at some point, whatever information he finds out about the relationship.

It doesn't seem like something that would actually help Baldoni beat SH allegations, or the retaliation claim. I don't think I've ever in my legal career asked for someone's communications with another law firm. But Freedman's gotta have something to go talk to Candace Owens about, right?

It’s not weird to ask. If there’s a joint defense or similar, so be it. Why would freedman assume this without asking?

How many doc requests have you served that asked a third party for communications with another law firm that represented a party in the case? I have never had the occasion to make such an ask before. Not a single one.

Dp, but my guess is that they asked Blake for all correspondence with Taylor related to IEWU and they objected on the grounds of attorney client privilege/work product, which then led to the current subpoena. Or Freedman got a tip there is something noteworthy in that correspondence. I don’t think he did it without a reason.

#1, that doesn't make any sense because there are going to be text messages or other communications between the two that don't involve attorneys. So right off the bat, you're making things up to make this make sense. And #2, you don't answer my question. I assume the answer is zero, because like any normal attorney you don't go around subpoenaing other attorneys' communications with law firms that oppose you in a litigation, hoping to catch them out but also showing yourself to be a complete tool.

Why are you so angry? Let it play out and then complain if there is a reason. This will be decided relatively quickly.

I'm not angry. I don't understand why Baldoni fans aren't recognizing some of the stuff Freedman is doing as mistakes or bad lawyering. I've never seen interrogatory responses like he sent (late!) that come nowhere near answering the question and say instead he's willing to meet and confer, for vast majority of the responses. Never. And I've never seen another lawyer subpoena a third party for communications with a law firm that represents the opposition, and in a case like this involving Taylor Swift it seems he just wants to embarrass her and/or cause friction with Lively through the litigation, because that's a good story for him. I'm involved with plenty of discovery and this is not normal. I don't understand why you aren't saying that.

Yes, we know, you already gave us several pages of posts about eight interrogatories. And I said then, as I say now, there is truly nothing less consequential.


Taylor is directly mentioned in Baldoni’s complaint. There was no way she was not going to be the subject of a subpoena.

Please directly answer my original question: How many times have you subpoenaed a third party's legal counsel for their communications with a law firm representing parties who opposed you in that case?

I assume BF wants to make sure there’s been no witness tampering. The communications between BL and her lawyers and Taylor and her lawyers aren’t privileged. I’m unclear why you’ve been debating back and forth all day? Is it just because they should start with asking the parties first? That’s just a matter of sequencing. I imagine they don’t trust Blake’s team to give them everything, so they’ll eventually ask Taylor’s team anyway.

Why can’t you answer my extremely simple question? lol

I should’ve said I’m not PP.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I also think it's weird for Freedman to subpoena all communications with a particular attorney/firm. It's weird to assume there won't be a common interest agreement in place, and/or to make that a big issue for discovery. And the fact that he's doing this to Taylor Swift suggests to me that he wants to put pressure on the Swift/Lively relationship in order to annoy Lively and in order to make Swift annoyed at Lively, and in order to make public, at some point, whatever information he finds out about the relationship.

It doesn't seem like something that would actually help Baldoni beat SH allegations, or the retaliation claim. I don't think I've ever in my legal career asked for someone's communications with another law firm. But Freedman's gotta have something to go talk to Candace Owens about, right?

It’s not weird to ask. If there’s a joint defense or similar, so be it. Why would freedman assume this without asking?

How many doc requests have you served that asked a third party for communications with another law firm that represented a party in the case? I have never had the occasion to make such an ask before. Not a single one.

Dp, but my guess is that they asked Blake for all correspondence with Taylor related to IEWU and they objected on the grounds of attorney client privilege/work product, which then led to the current subpoena. Or Freedman got a tip there is something noteworthy in that correspondence. I don’t think he did it without a reason.

Exactly.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I also think it's weird for Freedman to subpoena all communications with a particular attorney/firm. It's weird to assume there won't be a common interest agreement in place, and/or to make that a big issue for discovery. And the fact that he's doing this to Taylor Swift suggests to me that he wants to put pressure on the Swift/Lively relationship in order to annoy Lively and in order to make Swift annoyed at Lively, and in order to make public, at some point, whatever information he finds out about the relationship.

It doesn't seem like something that would actually help Baldoni beat SH allegations, or the retaliation claim. I don't think I've ever in my legal career asked for someone's communications with another law firm. But Freedman's gotta have something to go talk to Candace Owens about, right?

It’s not weird to ask. If there’s a joint defense or similar, so be it. Why would freedman assume this without asking?

How many doc requests have you served that asked a third party for communications with another law firm that represented a party in the case? I have never had the occasion to make such an ask before. Not a single one.

Dp, but my guess is that they asked Blake for all correspondence with Taylor related to IEWU and they objected on the grounds of attorney client privilege/work product, which then led to the current subpoena. Or Freedman got a tip there is something noteworthy in that correspondence. I don’t think he did it without a reason.

Exactly.

A few responses here trying to justify it but still not a single person even answering the very simple question directly, much less actually saying they have ever had the occasion to do this extremely unusual thing themselves. Got it.

[Anonymous]

Just say, “no, I haven’t ever done this.” Just admit it.