Blake Lively- Jason Baldoni and NYT - False Light claims

Anonymous
I think the source has to be either Scott Swift, Tree, or maybe Travis. Lively is screwed, which I'm not unhappy about.
Anonymous
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:Bryan Freedman filing standing behind the allegations in his letter and now filing a sworn affidavit:

Opposition to motion to strike: https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.nysd.634304/gov.uscourts.nysd.634304.219.0.pdf

Sworn affidavit: https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.nysd.634304/gov.uscourts.nysd.634304.219.1.pdf

wut? this just keeps getting more crazy.


Also this has got to be tree as the source!!!! I don't see any of the laywers speaking and I definitely don't see Travis calling.


Or potentially Taylor’s dad Scott Swift. He can get pretty pissed about things impacting her.


Scott's kind of a pyscho but I don't think he'll do this without speaking to Taylor or tree first. I don't see this being a tabloid journalist either since Freedman is willingly to give up the source name. It may not be anyone close to her family/friends/team and be one of the lawyers assistant.



I don’t think a member of the legal team would be described as someone with “very close” ties to Taylor. And definitely not a tabloid journalist.
Anonymous
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:This might be a dumb question, if so sorry. For the lawyers on the thread.

Do you have to use a subpoena to get evidence and information in a civil case? Or could you just... ask for it? If the person wants to give it to you?

A lot of the conflict in this case revolves around subpoenas that involve parties handing over info they were fine sharing. Like Stephanie Jones seems happy to have handed over Jennifer Abel's texts. I get that maybe she wanted a subpoena because otherwise she may have violated obligations to her former employee or client. But would Lively's team be in trouble if Jones just gave them the texts without a subpoena? Would they not be allowed to use them in court then?

It seems like I've seen other cases where parties had access to info that they got without a subpoena. Like I know someone who got custody of her kids from her ex because she had copies of emails that her former MIL had sent to her ex detailing some bad things her ex was doing. She didn't subpoena the emails, she got them off a shared device when they were still married. But she was still allowed to use them.

So when do you have to subpoena something and when can you just get it another way? I don't get it.


I’ll let other lawyers chime in, but the rules of evidence are much squishier in family court ime. And I’ll bet those emails had to be authenticated or at least conceded as real by the father.


Her ex-MIL testified and I think verified the emails were real. It was super messy.

But couldn't the same happen here? Couldn't Stephanie Jones, or the security people who extracted the texts, or even Jennifer Abel (I guess under duress) testify to those texts being real?

Also: if you get something like that via subpoena, does that mean you don't have to "authenticate" them?


Family court is a different animal. You can’t compare the two
Anonymous
Liman coming in hard and granting the motion to strike for both Freedman's letter AND his opposition to the MTS with his affidavit. BOTH! And cautioning Freedman that "Counsel is advised that future misuse of the Courts docket may be met with sanctions. SO ORDERED."
Anonymous
What would be the legal reason that BL's attorney would want TS to speak publicly?
Anonymous
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:If the source is from Taylor or known to her and with her permission, wouldn’t Venable have known and therefore not moved to quash the original subpoena?


Yes and they still haven't moved to moot the motion to quash as Freedman said they would.

I am super curious about Venable's current position here. Let's assume this is the sequence of events:

1) Freedman subpoenas Venable, it's super broad and vague
2) Venable files motion to quash
3) Lively files motion to intervene and the letter to SDNY informing the court of MOI
4) Freedman reaches out to Venable with more specificity, perhaps revealing what he's just revealed in his affidavit
5) Venable agrees to work together and says they'll moot their motion to quash

That all makes sense to me. But did Venable know Freedman was going to go public with his letter to SDNY? And say in the letter that Venable plans to moot their motion? If not, they may have been blindsided and may have gone back to being annoyed with Freedman. Especially when you remember that was their original poster -- annoyance by Venable and Swift to be dragged into this via subpoenas at all.

If they are mad about Freedman's showboating, what's their next move?


But wouldn't it weird this mutual friend told Freedman but didn't tell the Venable laywers what they were doing? Maybe Venable and Freedman still had disagreements over the discovery which is why it was filed regardless of them working together


They definitely didn't tell Venable what they were doing because the source spoke to Freedman in mid-February and he sat on the info for two months before issuing the subpoena to Venable. And Venable's first response was "we have no idea what you are talking about and are not involved in this case at all."

So I don't think Venable knew about Freedman's source until at least after their motion to quash was filed.

It also seems like Taylor didn't know about the source either because she responded so strongly to the subpoena directed at her and said very unflattering things about JB's legal team (the thing about accusing them of using her name for "clickbait"). If she had given tacit permission for someone to share that info with Freedman all the way back in February, wouldn't she just be complying with the subpoena? And not saying negative things about Freedman in the press?

It seems like Venable and Taylor only found out about these allegations and the source around the same time the rest of us did.



Some of what you are taking on face value is window dressing designed to keep Taylor above the fray.

Freedman said he has known about phone call since February but didn’t learn of the letter until more recently. He states there has been multiple calls with the source.
Anonymous
Anonymous wrote:Liman coming in hard and granting the motion to strike for both Freedman's letter AND his opposition to the MTS with his affidavit. BOTH! And cautioning Freedman that "Counsel is advised that future misuse of the Courts docket may be met with sanctions. SO ORDERED."


!!!!

I guess Liman was no impressed by that affidavit.
Anonymous
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:If the source is from Taylor or known to her and with her permission, wouldn’t Venable have known and therefore not moved to quash the original subpoena?


Yes and they still haven't moved to moot the motion to quash as Freedman said they would.

I am super curious about Venable's current position here. Let's assume this is the sequence of events:

1) Freedman subpoenas Venable, it's super broad and vague
2) Venable files motion to quash
3) Lively files motion to intervene and the letter to SDNY informing the court of MOI
4) Freedman reaches out to Venable with more specificity, perhaps revealing what he's just revealed in his affidavit
5) Venable agrees to work together and says they'll moot their motion to quash

That all makes sense to me. But did Venable know Freedman was going to go public with his letter to SDNY? And say in the letter that Venable plans to moot their motion? If not, they may have been blindsided and may have gone back to being annoyed with Freedman. Especially when you remember that was their original poster -- annoyance by Venable and Swift to be dragged into this via subpoenas at all.

If they are mad about Freedman's showboating, what's their next move?


But wouldn't it weird this mutual friend told Freedman but didn't tell the Venable laywers what they were doing? Maybe Venable and Freedman still had disagreements over the discovery which is why it was filed regardless of them working together


They definitely didn't tell Venable what they were doing because the source spoke to Freedman in mid-February and he sat on the info for two months before issuing the subpoena to Venable. And Venable's first response was "we have no idea what you are talking about and are not involved in this case at all."

So I don't think Venable knew about Freedman's source until at least after their motion to quash was filed.

It also seems like Taylor didn't know about the source either because she responded so strongly to the subpoena directed at her and said very unflattering things about JB's legal team (the thing about accusing them of using her name for "clickbait"). If she had given tacit permission for someone to share that info with Freedman all the way back in February, wouldn't she just be complying with the subpoena? And not saying negative things about Freedman in the press?

It seems like Venable and Taylor only found out about these allegations and the source around the same time the rest of us did.


Of that statement she made, the least important part was the stuff about clickbait. Of course she’s going to think that people want her involved bc she’s a celebrity, that’s not surprising. The subtle implication is that *both* sides dragged her in because of her status.

The rest of her statement had the real import. She didn’t back up her friend, implied she’s a liar, dissed the film and her involvement.
Anonymous
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:Liman coming in hard and granting the motion to strike for both Freedman's letter AND his opposition to the MTS with his affidavit. BOTH! And cautioning Freedman that "Counsel is advised that future misuse of the Courts docket may be met with sanctions. SO ORDERED."


!!!!

I guess Liman was no impressed by that affidavit.


He's sick of them and I don't blame him
Anonymous
There are rumors on Reddit that the source may be Pia Malihi, a PR person who used to work for Travis and was employed by Jonesworks. And that the "mutual friend" who connected her to Freedman was Jen Able, who worked with Malihi at Jonesworks.

One problem with this: Malihi no longer works for Travis and never worked for Taylor directly. Also she was apparently filed during the whole "relationship contract" mess with Travis and Taylor.

So maybe she's not the source. Or maybe she is the source but was delivering like fifth-hand information to Freedman without Taylor's knowledge.
Anonymous
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:Liman coming in hard and granting the motion to strike for both Freedman's letter AND his opposition to the MTS with his affidavit. BOTH! And cautioning Freedman that "Counsel is advised that future misuse of the Courts docket may be met with sanctions. SO ORDERED."


!!!!

I guess Liman was no impressed by that affidavit.


Doesn’t matter, the genie is out of the bottle.
Anonymous
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:Liman coming in hard and granting the motion to strike for both Freedman's letter AND his opposition to the MTS with his affidavit. BOTH! And cautioning Freedman that "Counsel is advised that future misuse of the Courts docket may be met with sanctions. SO ORDERED."


!!!!

I guess Liman was no impressed by that affidavit.


Doesn’t matter, the genie is out of the bottle.


Exactly. Freedman is no dummy
Anonymous
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:Liman coming in hard and granting the motion to strike for both Freedman's letter AND his opposition to the MTS with his affidavit. BOTH! And cautioning Freedman that "Counsel is advised that future misuse of the Courts docket may be met with sanctions. SO ORDERED."


!!!!

I guess Liman was no impressed by that affidavit.


It would've meant more if the source went on record about what happened.
Anonymous
Wow, Liman's order striking all Freedman's filings on this is aggressive. Here's some key quotes (emphasis mine, ellipses are for citations which I know no one here wants to read):

The Letter is improper and must be stricken. It is irrelevant to any issue before this Court and does not request any action from this Court... It concerns a subpoena proceeding in the District of Columbia over which this Court has no authority. The sole purpose of the Letter is to “promote public scandal” by advancing inflammatory accusations, on information and belief, against Lively and her counsel.

It transparently invites a press uproar by suggesting that Lively and her counsel attempted to “extort” a well-known celebrity. Retaining the Letter on the docket would be of no use to the Court and would allow the Court’s docket to serve as a “reservoir[] of libelous statements for press consumption.”


And this was particularly interesting. Here's Liman offering a bit of a warning to the press covering Freedman's allegations:

The same is true for the Wayfarer Parties’ subsequent submission at Dkt. No. 219, which the Court will strike sua sponte for the same reasons. The Second Circuit has noted that court filings may be abused to make potentially defamatory statements without the threat of liability, given that under New York law, “absolute immunity from liability for defamation exists for oral or written statements made . . . in connection with a proceeding before a court.” It has advised the press accordingly that “although the act of filing a document with a court might be thought to lend that document additional credibility, in fact, allegations appearing in such documents might be less credible than those published elsewhere.”


Liman is pissed. Which Freedman had to know he would be.

I think Freedman is getting desperate, knows his case is a loser, and is willing to risk the ire of the court in order to drag the whole thing deep into the mud in the hopes of forcing a settlement before this baby gets to depos and trial where the public may become aware of how bad their case is.
Anonymous
So Liman has deprived Gottlieb of an opportunity to rebut Freedman’s affidavit.
Forum Index » Entertainment and Pop Culture
Go to: