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][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous]New big move filing from Garofalo to compel documents from third party VanZan:  https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.nysd.635782/gov.uscourts.nysd.635782.69.0.pdf

Garofalo declaration:  https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.nysd.635782/gov.uscourts.nysd.635782.70.0.pdf

Jones v. Abel docket showing the rest of the exhibits:  https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/69581767/jones-v-abel/[/quote]

Just read this motion and agree with a pp that it is compelling.  This was filed in. Jones v. Abel, which is also in front of Liman.  [/quote]

Yes this seems well written and (though I didn't read the cases) well sourced.  I'm interested to see how Gottlieb's team responds.  I support Lively but haven't really understood the issues behind this subpoena from the start, though I acknowledge that it seems shady if you are suing John Does to avoid giving notice to the real targets of your lawsuit.  I am just happy that issue is finally being brought in front of the court in a proper way instead of being sat on for additional months and buried haplessly in a footnote in a nearly non-related filing.  Freedman didn't seem to understand how to handle it but it seems to me like Garofalo does.  Good for her.[/quote]

Responding to self in noting that one thing missing from Garofalo's motion is the email reflecting the correspondence and negotiations between the attorneys about Garofalo's subpoena.  All we know about the timing is that Garofalo served her subpoena seeking documents on April 21, 2025 (the same day as the Hollywood Reporter article where Gottlieb said their subpoena was aboveboard and fine).  So, for example, this subpoena was served two months later than the subpoena that was served on Case and Koslow that was at issue in yesterday's hearing -- that Case and Koslow subpoena was served on February 28, 2025.  So Bender and Breed went through an additional two months of negotiations together -- four total rather than the two at issue here -- before Bender served a motion to compel when Breed suddenly raised new objections to the dates and group text production at the last minute.

I suspect that's the reason Garofalo didn't attach the normal email showing negotiations between the parties -- there had been less time to negotiate over the issues as the other MTCs that had come before the court since she only issued the subpoena two months ago.  I don't fault her at all for filing the MTC (at least, not before seeing what the email negotiations look like), because Garofalo certainly wants and seems entitled to these materials. I also think it was smart to file this MTC right after Lively got a win on a MTC other third party materials.  But, it's not crazy that a third party has not produced materials yet, two months after a subpoena is issued, before the date for substantial discovery has happened, especially if many of those same materials were requested from a party in the case, imho.  I think Garofalo is perhaps not being as forthright as she could be by not producing the customary email of negotiations (I bet we will see that in VanZan's response) and thus that she is hiding the ball a little about the timing and the content of the negotiations because those facts aren't that good for her.[/quote]

The mental gymnastics required to get around the fact the Lively defendants and Jones have been playing hide the ball with the Van Zan subpoena since day one.[/quote]

Please name what I said above that is untrue.  I'm just making observations based on the pleadings; this third party subpoena was only issued two months ago, not four months like the other third party subpoena that was it issue in the MTC hearing yesterday. I agree Garofalo should be given the materials, but let's acknowledge that the time period is not the same and we can't see the negotiations.[/quote]

DP. I guess VanZan itself has the argument that it shouldn't have to turn over material that can be obtained by a party, but what's the excuse from Jones? I'm sure they asked her too. What do you make of Garafalo's argument that given they assert this whole thing was a sham, they need the discovery from both sides to make sure nothing is missing?[/quote]

Lively is not a party in the Joneswork litigation.[/quote]

That's why I wrote "but what's the excuse from Jones? I'm sure they asked her too." The "both sides" is VanZan and Jones.[/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