Blake Lively- Jason Baldoni and NYT - False Light claims

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote: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.”

Completely wild. I need one of these judges to please rule on some of this stuff or hold a hearing or something, because the level of vitriol at what is still a fairly early stage of litigation, is insane. I don't even know who is right on the law at this point or who might be pissing the judge off more (truly, no idea), I just know things seem to be boiling over to crazy levels. I've been involved with some heated litigation in my day but this is next level.

[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:

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.

DP, but why would some random person on DCUM be able to produce that level of detail? The parties are in the middle of discovery, and we haven't seen anything they have produced or are in the process of producing except a handful of interrogatories. Of course no one here knows.

But also no one here has proof of Lively plotting with Reynolds or anyone else to steal the movie, or of Lively disclosing she is lying about the SH in order to extort Baldoni. Those are also just unproven allegations at this point. I don't expect anyone here to produce evidence of this stuff.

Some of you have really gone off the deep end.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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.”

Completely wild. I need one of these judges to please rule on some of this stuff or hold a hearing or something, because the level of vitriol at what is still a fairly early stage of litigation, is insane. I don't even know who is right on the law at this point or who might be pissing the judge off more (truly, no idea), I just know things seem to be boiling over to crazy levels. I've been involved with some heated litigation in my day but this is next level.

It is pretty crazy. Can they really keep this up until March 2026. They need to settle for their sake and ours lol

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Same. It's strange this is such an important "question." I guess "no" but I've also never seen a Doe suit brought about in this way from a random LLC.

[Anonymous]

BF got a win today in the Menendez case. The brothers were resentenced to 50 years to life with the option of parole.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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.”

Completely wild. I need one of these judges to please rule on some of this stuff or hold a hearing or something, because the level of vitriol at what is still a fairly early stage of litigation, is insane. I don't even know who is right on the law at this point or who might be pissing the judge off more (truly, no idea), I just know things seem to be boiling over to crazy levels. I've been involved with some heated litigation in my day but this is next level.

Why would you assume vitriol would not be present? Did you hear the words and context behind those MTD? Do you understand that no longer having TS in their orb/khalessi world is huge for Lively? Did the CIA hire not warn you enough that they would go scorched earth? Didn’t anything from the 17 point list, the berating at the apartment, the exaggerated porn, kissing, and breastfeeding lies leave you outraged like many of us?

Why would you think they’d get to litigation and play nice? There is $400M on the line that RR does not want to pay, and lots of other downfall if they lose. Those two would burn Hollywood down if needed for a win in court.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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.”

Completely wild. I need one of these judges to please rule on some of this stuff or hold a hearing or something, because the level of vitriol at what is still a fairly early stage of litigation, is insane. I don't even know who is right on the law at this point or who might be pissing the judge off more (truly, no idea), I just know things seem to be boiling over to crazy levels. I've been involved with some heated litigation in my day but this is next level.

Why would you assume vitriol would not be present? Did you hear the words and context behind those MTD? Do you understand that no longer having TS in their orb/khalessi world is huge for Lively? Did the CIA hire not warn you enough that they would go scorched earth? Didn’t anything from the 17 point list, the berating at the apartment, the exaggerated porn, kissing, and breastfeeding lies leave you outraged like many of us?

Why would you think they’d get to litigation and play nice? There is $400M on the line that RR does not want to pay, and lots of other downfall if they lose. Those two would burn Hollywood down if needed for a win in court.

Why are you always so angry?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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.”

Completely wild. I need one of these judges to please rule on some of this stuff or hold a hearing or something, because the level of vitriol at what is still a fairly early stage of litigation, is insane. I don't even know who is right on the law at this point or who might be pissing the judge off more (truly, no idea), I just know things seem to be boiling over to crazy levels. I've been involved with some heated litigation in my day but this is next level.

Why would you assume vitriol would not be present? Did you hear the words and context behind those MTD? Do you understand that no longer having TS in their orb/khalessi world is huge for Lively? Did the CIA hire not warn you enough that they would go scorched earth? Didn’t anything from the 17 point list, the berating at the apartment, the exaggerated porn, kissing, and breastfeeding lies leave you outraged like many of us?

Why would you think they’d get to litigation and play nice? There is $400M on the line that RR does not want to pay, and lots of other downfall if they lose. Those two would burn Hollywood down if needed for a win in court.

First: chill.

Second: I was talking about the lawyers. You are talking about the parties. Usually at this stage, there is more politeness and professionalism between the lawyers. And I wasn't saying it was wrong (or right), more that it's over the top and it is making me want either some court rulings or a hearing to clarify whose arguments are winning out because I no longer have a good sense of how the litigation is going for either side, what ch si much mudslinging happening on both sides

[Anonymous]

I’m not angry. This whole entire litigation is driven by anger and hostility. Baseless accusations. Sham operations. Feigned harm. Don’t blame me, blame the case.

I’m actually very nice. I’m disgusted with many aspects of the case and how they contort and lessen/depress the letter of the law.

[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:

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.

DP, but why would some random person on DCUM be able to produce that level of detail? The parties are in the middle of discovery, and we haven't seen anything they have produced or are in the process of producing except a handful of interrogatories. Of course no one here knows.

But also no one here has proof of Lively plotting with Reynolds or anyone else to steal the movie, or of Lively disclosing she is lying about the SH in order to extort Baldoni. Those are also just unproven allegations at this point. I don't expect anyone here to produce evidence of this stuff.

Some of you have really gone off the deep end.

Different poster/mostly lurker jumping in. Look, it doesn't take a genius to notice that Blake and Ryan clearly have more firepower and much more media influence than Justin Baldoni, whose name we recently learned. Its implausible on its face that he was running a smear campaign against his own lead actress (which would only result in reduced sales). He has neither the motive, means, nor influence to do that. And meanwhile, back in reality, she *actually* got a NYT reporter to run a hit piece with altered texts to... run a smear campaign against Baldoni. We don't need discovery. We have eyes, ears, and a brain.

[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:

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.

DP, but why would some random person on DCUM be able to produce that level of detail? The parties are in the middle of discovery, and we haven't seen anything they have produced or are in the process of producing except a handful of interrogatories. Of course no one here knows.

But also no one here has proof of Lively plotting with Reynolds or anyone else to steal the movie, or of Lively disclosing she is lying about the SH in order to extort Baldoni. Those are also just unproven allegations at this point. I don't expect anyone here to produce evidence of this stuff.

Some of you have really gone off the deep end.

Different poster/mostly lurker jumping in. Look, it doesn't take a genius to notice that Blake and Ryan clearly have more firepower and much more media influence than Justin Baldoni, whose name we recently learned. Its implausible on its face that he was running a smear campaign against his own lead actress (which would only result in reduced sales). He has neither the motive, means, nor influence to do that. And meanwhile, back in reality, she *actually* got a NYT reporter to run a hit piece with altered texts to... run a smear campaign against Baldoni. We don't need discovery. We have eyes, ears, and a brain.

Yeah, because when you hire the same PR people who smeared Amber Heard to “bury them” in the same kind of “untraceable” PR campaign that worked wonders for Johnny Depp, it’s really the three emojis that the tech program couldn’t reproduce that prove your total innocence and goodwill.

[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:

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.

DP, but why would some random person on DCUM be able to produce that level of detail? The parties are in the middle of discovery, and we haven't seen anything they have produced or are in the process of producing except a handful of interrogatories. Of course no one here knows.

But also no one here has proof of Lively plotting with Reynolds or anyone else to steal the movie, or of Lively disclosing she is lying about the SH in order to extort Baldoni. Those are also just unproven allegations at this point. I don't expect anyone here to produce evidence of this stuff.

Some of you have really gone off the deep end.

Different poster/mostly lurker jumping in. Look, it doesn't take a genius to notice that Blake and Ryan clearly have more firepower and much more media influence than Justin Baldoni, whose name we recently learned. Its implausible on its face that he was running a smear campaign against his own lead actress (which would only result in reduced sales). He has neither the motive, means, nor influence to do that. And meanwhile, back in reality, she *actually* got a NYT reporter to run a hit piece with altered texts to... run a smear campaign against Baldoni. We don't need discovery. We have eyes, ears, and a brain.

It's very arrogant to think "we don't need discovery." Most of us barely know anything about what really happened here.

[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:

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.

DP, but why would some random person on DCUM be able to produce that level of detail? The parties are in the middle of discovery, and we haven't seen anything they have produced or are in the process of producing except a handful of interrogatories. Of course no one here knows.

But also no one here has proof of Lively plotting with Reynolds or anyone else to steal the movie, or of Lively disclosing she is lying about the SH in order to extort Baldoni. Those are also just unproven allegations at this point. I don't expect anyone here to produce evidence of this stuff.

Some of you have really gone off the deep end.

Different poster/mostly lurker jumping in. Look, it doesn't take a genius to notice that Blake and Ryan clearly have more firepower and much more media influence than Justin Baldoni, whose name we recently learned. Its implausible on its face that he was running a smear campaign against his own lead actress (which would only result in reduced sales). He has neither the motive, means, nor influence to do that. And meanwhile, back in reality, she *actually* got a NYT reporter to run a hit piece with altered texts to... run a smear campaign against Baldoni. We don't need discovery. We have eyes, ears, and a brain.

It's very arrogant to think "we don't need discovery." Most of us barely know anything about what really happened here.

DP. I don’t think anyone literally thinks we don’t need any discovery ever. But clearly a lot has come out about this case, so many people feel like they have a good sense of things. Fair or not. Relax.

[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:

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.

DP, but why would some random person on DCUM be able to produce that level of detail? The parties are in the middle of discovery, and we haven't seen anything they have produced or are in the process of producing except a handful of interrogatories. Of course no one here knows.

But also no one here has proof of Lively plotting with Reynolds or anyone else to steal the movie, or of Lively disclosing she is lying about the SH in order to extort Baldoni. Those are also just unproven allegations at this point. I don't expect anyone here to produce evidence of this stuff.

Some of you have really gone off the deep end.

Different poster/mostly lurker jumping in. Look, it doesn't take a genius to notice that Blake and Ryan clearly have more firepower and much more media influence than Justin Baldoni, whose name we recently learned. Its implausible on its face that he was running a smear campaign against his own lead actress (which would only result in reduced sales). He has neither the motive, means, nor influence to do that. And meanwhile, back in reality, she *actually* got a NYT reporter to run a hit piece with altered texts to... run a smear campaign against Baldoni. We don't need discovery. We have eyes, ears, and a brain.

It's very arrogant to think "we don't need discovery." Most of us barely know anything about what really happened here.

DP. I don’t think anyone literally thinks we don’t need any discovery ever. But clearly a lot has come out about this case, so many people feel like they have a good sense of things. Fair or not. Relax.

The PP literally said "we don't need discovery."

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Not sure if it’s been brought up here yet, but apparently RR had an active LLC called Boone Hall (the name of the plantation where they got married). Internet sleuths dug it up and it’s been making the rounds on social media. Looks like he dissolved it today.

There’s more on this today. Turns out parts of the movie the notebook was filmed at Boone Hall plantation (allie’s family’s summer home). RR has gone on for years about how much he loves the notebook. It’s been part of an ongoing lighthearted rivalry with Ryan gosling (remember the infamous RR and Andrew Garfield kiss when Ryan Gosling won an award over RR). RR also reenacted the “kiss in the rain” scene with Conan.

So the internet sleuths are doubling down that RR and BL’s apology about the plantation wedding wasn’t sincere, and not just because they held an LLC in its name for many years. They’re also pointing out that they lied in the apology when they said “at the time what we saw was a wedding venue on Pinterest” and then went on to say but now they understand the pain of the place. But it seems really unlikely given RR’s obsession with the notebook and BL’s obsession with antebellum that they learned about this place on Pinterest.