Blake Lively- Jason Baldoni and NYT - False Light claims

Anonymous
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:I thought it was notable that there was no mention of the attorney work product privilege in the Venable opposition. Only relevance and burdensome, both of which can easily be addressed by narrowing a request.


I thought the reason they didn't assert A-C privilege is that the subpoena sought communications from Lively's lawyers. In that case the privilege wouldn't be Taylor's or Venable's to assert. But Lively's lawyers did assert it in their motion to intervene.


There cannot be attorney client pricing with a third party, only attorney word product. I do think that Venable could have raised that if they were working together with Lively.
Anonymous
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:I thought it was notable that there was no mention of the attorney work product privilege in the Venable opposition. Only relevance and burdensome, both of which can easily be addressed by narrowing a request.


I thought the reason they didn't assert A-C privilege is that the subpoena sought communications from Lively's lawyers. In that case the privilege wouldn't be Taylor's or Venable's to assert. But Lively's lawyers did assert it in their motion to intervene.


There cannot be attorney client pricing with a third party, only attorney word product. I do think that Venable could have raised that if they were working together with Lively.


Attorney work product
Anonymous
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:I thought it was notable that there was no mention of the attorney work product privilege in the Venable opposition. Only relevance and burdensome, both of which can easily be addressed by narrowing a request.


I thought the reason they didn't assert A-C privilege is that the subpoena sought communications from Lively's lawyers. In that case the privilege wouldn't be Taylor's or Venable's to assert. But Lively's lawyers did assert it in their motion to intervene.


There cannot be attorney client pricing with a third party, only attorney word product. I do think that Venable could have raised that if they were working together with Lively.


Attorney work product


And attorney client privilege
Anonymous
Anonymous wrote:At this point it's pretty wild to me that either:

1) Michael Gottlieb tried to extort Taylor Swift and is not lying about it publicly

OR

2) Bryan Freedman has alleged a blatant and consequential lie about another attorney in a filing to a judge.

W.O.W.

And my husband wonders why I bother following this case. Come on! This is drama.


Yup this is huge either way. He says he's working with Taylor's lawyers so there has to be some truth to it, but the question is how much.
Anonymous
Anonymous wrote:This is it

https://people.com/blake-lively-threatened-taylor-swift-support-justin-baldoni-claims-11733062


Headline is written to be unfavorably to Blake. First few words paint her as villain.

If the story was to paint Justin and BF as the bad guys, it would be worded differently.
Anonymous
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:At this point it's pretty wild to me that either:

1) Michael Gottlieb tried to extort Taylor Swift and is not lying about it publicly

OR

2) Bryan Freedman has alleged a blatant and consequential lie about another attorney in a filing to a judge.

W.O.W.

And my husband wonders why I bother following this case. Come on! This is drama.


Yup this is huge either way. He says he's working with Taylor's lawyers so there has to be some truth to it, but the question is how much.


If I had to guess now, it would be that Lively did request that Taylor delete messages as a CYA at some point, but that the allegation against Gottlieb is entirely invented (either by the source or creatively by Freedman). Just because that makes the most sense to me based on what I know about the people involved.

Though this would still make the Venable subpoena weird -- I just struggle to believe that a Lively request for Taylor to delete messages was delivered through lawyers at either Wilkie or Venable. I just don't buy that a lawyer at either firm would touch something like that with a ten foot pole. I would assume Lively herself reached out, but then a subpoena to Venable wouldn't touch that.
Anonymous
Headline from People:

Blake Lively Threatened to Leak Taylor Swift Texts If Singer Didn't Publicly Support Her, Claim Justin Baldoni's Lawyers


If Blake was behind the story it would have been something else like Justin Baldoni’s outrageous claims about Blake and Taylor.

Anonymous
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:This is it

https://people.com/blake-lively-threatened-taylor-swift-support-justin-baldoni-claims-11733062


Headline is written to be unfavorably to Blake. First few words paint her as villain.

If the story was to paint Justin and BF as the bad guys, it would be worded differently.


Agree headline is bad for Blake.

Text reads as more neutral to me. Everything is couched and Gottlieb's denial is in the first paragraph. Also in the bullet points at the top, they highlight that Swift has "slammed" the subpoena in her recent statement, which I don't think is favorable to JB's side.
Anonymous
Anonymous wrote:Headline from People:

Blake Lively Threatened to Leak Taylor Swift Texts If Singer Didn't Publicly Support Her, Claim Justin Baldoni's Lawyers


If Blake was behind the story it would have been something else like Justin Baldoni’s outrageous claims about Blake and Taylor.



I mean, for sure Freedman was the one to get this story out there. I'm actually impressed Gottlieb got his denial in TMZ so fast -- their side is learning a bit about how fast Freedman works and that you need to get to certain outlets very quickly.

I wonder about the timing of the Lively/Salma Hayek photos in People. It's interesting to me that Lively's team had a clearly planted piece in People just this morning, about something that happened yesterday, right before this came out. I wonder how much lead time Freedman gave People on the news and I wonder if Lively's team had any warning it was happening.
Anonymous
People is the preferred media outlet for both Taylor and Blake. No way would People run this story without some type of ok from Taylor. People doesn’t care about Justin or BF.
Anonymous
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:At this point it's pretty wild to me that either:

1) Michael Gottlieb tried to extort Taylor Swift and is not lying about it publicly

OR

2) Bryan Freedman has alleged a blatant and consequential lie about another attorney in a filing to a judge.

W.O.W.

And my husband wonders why I bother following this case. Come on! This is drama.


Yup this is huge either way. He says he's working with Taylor's lawyers so there has to be some truth to it, but the question is how much.


If I had to guess now, it would be that Lively did request that Taylor delete messages as a CYA at some point, but that the allegation against Gottlieb is entirely invented (either by the source or creatively by Freedman). Just because that makes the most sense to me based on what I know about the people involved.

Though this would still make the Venable subpoena weird -- I just struggle to believe that a Lively request for Taylor to delete messages was delivered through lawyers at either Wilkie or Venable. I just don't buy that a lawyer at either firm would touch something like that with a ten foot pole. I would assume Lively herself reached out, but then a subpoena to Venable wouldn't touch that.


This is what i am thinking because i don't believe Gottlieb told threated Taylor or told her she needed to delete the messages. Now Gottlieb may have warned them that the discovery would uncover Taylor's personal messages but not as leverage to try and get taylor to make a public statement. That's ridiculous. Sounds more like Blake trying to blackmail Taylor and bringing up Gottlieb's name on her own.
Anonymous
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:This is it

https://people.com/blake-lively-threatened-taylor-swift-support-justin-baldoni-claims-11733062


Headline is written to be unfavorably to Blake. First few words paint her as villain.

If the story was to paint Justin and BF as the bad guys, it would be worded differently.


Agree headline is bad for Blake.

Text reads as more neutral to me. Everything is couched and Gottlieb's denial is in the first paragraph. Also in the bullet points at the top, they highlight that Swift has "slammed" the subpoena in her recent statement, which I don't think is favorable to JB's side.


Just because Taylor may be turning on Blake doesn’t mean she won’t also make jabs at Justin. It’s not a good day for Blake.
Anonymous
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:Headline from People:

Blake Lively Threatened to Leak Taylor Swift Texts If Singer Didn't Publicly Support Her, Claim Justin Baldoni's Lawyers


If Blake was behind the story it would have been something else like Justin Baldoni’s outrageous claims about Blake and Taylor.



I mean, for sure Freedman was the one to get this story out there. I'm actually impressed Gottlieb got his denial in TMZ so fast -- their side is learning a bit about how fast Freedman works and that you need to get to certain outlets very quickly.

I wonder about the timing of the Lively/Salma Hayek photos in People. It's interesting to me that Lively's team had a clearly planted piece in People just this morning, about something that happened yesterday, right before this came out. I wonder how much lead time Freedman gave People on the news and I wonder if Lively's team had any warning it was happening.


I am sure she knows Taylor's lawyers is negotiating with his side.
Anonymous
I am more interested how Taylor will respond. These are serious claims that Taylor’s side can quickly clean up by denying Blake tried to blackmail her.
Forum Index » Entertainment and Pop Culture
Go to: