Blake Lively- Jason Baldoni and NYT - False Light claims

[Anonymous]

O. M. G.

[Anonymous]

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

Look, I agree with you on this point - it's bizarre to subpoena her lawyer - but please let's not do this again like with the PO.

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.

There's no attorney client privilege between Lively and Swift. If there are objections like that, then they could move to quash the subpoena, or if they simply refuse to comply, Freedman could file a motion to compel (that's premature if she was only served on May 8th).

[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

Why haven't any of you ever answered my question? 633 pages in, multiple request, numerous drawn out expositories, and documentation of a coordinated plan STILL haven't been produced.

[Anonymous]

I didn’t answer the question because I was out having a real life. I don’t think I ever have issued a subpoena to a law firm, but I also have never tried a case where the other party filed sham litigation to deprive my client of his right to object to a subpoena for his texts, or where the other party used the NY Times to peddle lies. So, generally this lawsuit is pretty atypical.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I didn’t answer the question because I was out having a real life. I don’t think I ever have issued a subpoena to a law firm, but I also have never tried a case where the other party filed sham litigation to deprive my client of his right to object to a subpoena for his texts, or where the other party used the NY Times to peddle lies. So, generally this lawsuit is pretty atypical.

DP. Amen

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I didn’t answer the question because I was out having a real life. I don’t think I ever have issued a subpoena to a law firm, but I also have never tried a case where the other party filed sham litigation to deprive my client of his right to object to a subpoena for his texts, or where the other party used the NY Times to peddle lies. So, generally this lawsuit is pretty atypical.

DP. Amen

DP who thinks we should stop engaging with this poster and see how much more unhinged she becomes.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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

Why haven't any of you ever answered my question? 633 pages in, multiple request, numerous drawn out expositories, and documentation of a coordinated plan STILL haven't been produced.

I think you have asked this maybe three times? I'd need to go back to he documents themselves, and I can't do that now. But you already know what I am going to say. They made a plan to hire a PR firm to deal with the social media fallout Baldoni was receiving and/or expected to receive. There were two pricing tiers, and it's not clear which one they chose, but Wayfarer apparently chose one of them, which led to subcontracting out Jed Wallace to, at minimum, monitor social media, and led his PR reps to do more than that. The two plan options were discussed at length elsewhere in this thread, these texts are not a surprise. Are you disputing that they created these plans and that Baldoni/Wayfarer picked one of them. Note that the plans don't include everything that the PR reps etc did -- the PR reps explicitely said that we can't put in writing exactly what we will do, but you know that we can bury them.

Like, this isn't a surprise. You're disputing how far Baldoni and his PR reps went. But they clearly had a plan, and Wayfarer hired people to follow through on those plans.

[Anonymous]

A video of Taylor Swift at one of her infamous 4th of July parties leaked: https://x.com/TSUpdating/status/1922352255195324886

Taylor's camp trying to divert attention from the lawsuit, or is this a vid from Blake and Ryan trying to warn her that they have more on her?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I didn’t answer the question because I was out having a real life. I don’t think I ever have issued a subpoena to a law firm, but I also have never tried a case where the other party filed sham litigation to deprive my client of his right to object to a subpoena for his texts, or where the other party used the NY Times to peddle lies. So, generally this lawsuit is pretty atypical.

Great point.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:A video of Taylor Swift at one of her infamous 4th of July parties leaked: https://x.com/TSUpdating/status/1922352255195324886

Taylor's camp trying to divert attention from the lawsuit, or is this a vid from Blake and Ryan trying to warn her that they have more on her?

I'm truly amazed at how you can read into things.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I didn’t answer the question because I was out having a real life. I don’t think I ever have issued a subpoena to a law firm, but I also have never tried a case where the other party filed sham litigation to deprive my client of his right to object to a subpoena for his texts, or where the other party used the NY Times to peddle lies. So, generally this lawsuit is pretty atypical.

I just wanted to say thank you, fwiw. It's a straight answer. I appreciate it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:A video of Taylor Swift at one of her infamous 4th of July parties leaked: https://x.com/TSUpdating/status/1922352255195324886

Taylor's camp trying to divert attention from the lawsuit, or is this a vid from Blake and Ryan trying to warn her that they have more on her?

I'm truly amazed at how you can read into things.

-Blake, thinking Justin sexually harassed her

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:A video of Taylor Swift at one of her infamous 4th of July parties leaked: https://x.com/TSUpdating/status/1922352255195324886

Taylor's camp trying to divert attention from the lawsuit, or is this a vid from Blake and Ryan trying to warn her that they have more on her?

I'm truly amazed at how you can read into things.

-Blake, thinking Justin sexually harassed her

Touche.

[Anonymous]

BF just wrote a letter to judge Liman in response to all of the various motions to compel Blake has submitted to Liman regarding nonparties in other districts. BF basically says sorry judge but you don’t have jurisdiction over these subpoenas and lively should stop running and crying to you anyways because she hasn’t produced a single document either. He ends the short letter with his new favorite zinger, Van Sham, saying “all that is known, though not disclosed by Lively, is that she improperly obtained defendant Jennifer Abel’s documents from Joneswork LLC pursuant to a so-called ‘subpoena’ issued in a sham lawsuit filed without notice to any of the Wayfarer parties.”

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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

Why haven't any of you ever answered my question? 633 pages in, multiple request, numerous drawn out expositories, and documentation of a coordinated plan STILL haven't been produced.

I think you have asked this maybe three times? I'd need to go back to he documents themselves, and I can't do that now. But you already know what I am going to say. They made a plan to hire a PR firm to deal with the social media fallout Baldoni was receiving and/or expected to receive. There were two pricing tiers, and it's not clear which one they chose, but Wayfarer apparently chose one of them, which led to subcontracting out Jed Wallace to, at minimum, monitor social media, and led his PR reps to do more than that. The two plan options were discussed at length elsewhere in this thread, these texts are not a surprise. Are you disputing that they created these plans and that Baldoni/Wayfarer picked one of them. Note that the plans don't include everything that the PR reps etc did -- the PR reps explicitely said that we can't put in writing exactly what we will do, but you know that we can bury them.

Like, this isn't a surprise. You're disputing how far Baldoni and his PR reps went. But they clearly had a plan, and Wayfarer hired people to follow through on those plans.

What plan was it? What were the plan options? Monitoring social media isn't a "hate" campaign. Hiring a PR firm isn't a "hate" campaign. You keep saying a plan, a plan, with no details to what precise plan it would be. We can bury them doing what? I specifically requested the text messages outlining a coordinated plan from beginning to end about what the retaliation campaign was, would it would entail and do, what the targets were, how many troll farms to hire, how many social media organizations to post from, what news organizations to contact, etc. and 633 pages in, there have been zero produced proving that. This is the focal point of the lawsuit and you can't even prove the main characters of this suit put this "plan" into motion. The text messages actually state the opposite that the internet was doing the work for them. This is completely ridiculous.