Reply to Blake Lively- Jason Baldoni and NYT

Forum Index » Entertainment and Pop Culture

Reply to "Blake Lively- Jason Baldoni and NYT - False Light claims "

Subject:

Emoticons





More smilies

Text Color: Font: Close Marks

[quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous]I think Ellyn Garofalo has been subbed into the game and is moving to quash a new subpoena filed on Freedman's law firm, Liner Freedman Taitelman Cooley, having filed a new motion to Quash Subpoena in C.D. Cal. (so different case number than Liman's docket).  They've filed a joint stip. laying out each side's version of the facts.  Lively is asking the court to transfer the issue back to Liman (noting Liner Freedman has a NY office).  Liner Freedman says the asks are way too intrusive, asking for the law firms contacts and communications with media outlets, digital providers, and even the law firm's financial and telephone records.

From the affidavit, it looks like this subpoena was served back on May 20.[/quote]

Here is the docket for this CD Cal proceeding:  https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/70536155/liner-freedman-taitelman-coolet-llp-v-lively/[/quote]

Thanks! I had asked earlier if Lively would now subpoena Freedmans texts with DM. So I guess they are.[/quote]

Seriously, that was prescient!  I don't know whether they will succeed in getting this discovery.  But what I appreciate about Lively's lawyers is that they do not sit on their hands when important questions are raised with them, but they figure out how to raise the issues with the respective court.  Here, Lively's attys show the text from Nathan to Abel saying they will start a Signal thread between themselves and Wallace, "Just in case you need him to connect you to Bryan because they're very close" and list this as a reason why they are seeking Freedman's communications.

I think this subpoena was filed about a week after Freedman's docs were struck on the docket in Liner's case and Freedman filed his affidavit re extortion, so if this is reactionary to that, it's perhaps not so great.  It's actually possible that Lively's subpoena came first, since Bender says they tried to serve Liner Freedman by email but they did not respond.[/quote]

The question being asked by Lively's attorneys here is really, did Freedman help plan the smear campaign?  And Garofalo is saying basically you can't ask us that, and our communications with the PR firms should be privileged.  [/quote]

Responding to myself here to note again that I don’t think Lively should be trying to move this back to NY tbh. Liman has said he doesn’t want this case to be about the attorneys, he has been very reluctant to require anyone to turn over privileged docs, and he struck Freedman’s affidavit accusing Gottlieb of extortion in a heartbeat. In some ways this filing isn’t much different than that, just a murkier misdeed, maybe.

I mean, they’re not totally wrong, I understand why they want and need to ask for those communications. Not sure they will get this on the evidence they have here, and would be surprised (though not shocked) if *Liman,* who seems pretty conservative in the discovery ledges he’ll walk out on, would grant this.

They’ve requested hearing in CD Cal which is set for July 10 at 8:30 am. [/quote]

Options

	Disable HTML in this message
	Disable BB Code in this message
	Disable smilies in this message

Review message

Search Recent Topics Hottest Topics