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]

I'm PP you're responding to and all we know about Jones is what Garofalo says in her letter brief about the issue (she does not address the Jones RFPs in any way in her sworn declaration).  Garofalo says of Jones in the brief that:  "Here, Abel did request the
bulk of the documents from Jones in March 2025, but Jones has 'failed thus far to comply.'"  Even here, Breen (for Case and Koslow) had the requests for an extra month than Jones did -- February 2025 compared to March.  And from this single sentence of description, it's impossible to tell what Garofalo means by "comply."  Has Jones produced none of the documents?  Or has Jones produced some but not all of them? It does seem like Jones should provide the requested info afaict.  Like I said in my original comment, Garofalo's letter brief seemed well written and well sourced to me.  I don't even really know what the arguments against providing the info would be, so am interested in seeing the substantive response to this motion.  My main point above was in pointing out the fact that the email negotiations were not attached and the request was only made 2 months ago, so the fact that VanZan hasn't produced these docs yet and is also pointing at Jones isn't crazy to me.  That said, it does make sense to me that Garofalo would at least want to try to get the docs from VanZan as well as from Jones (especially the info like shareholders that only VanZan has), and I think it was a good idea for Garofalo to file this MTC.  I don't know what the judge would decide on the duplicative discovery issue -- Liman did allow it to the limited extent it was requested with Breed, which seemed to involve a limited number of documents.  I'm not clear how many "documents" are involved here -- I guess to me it would matter how many documents were involved if you are going to require duplicative discovery, but if feasible I do think some amount of duplicative discovery should be allowed to "check" at least a partial production from one set to another.[/quote]

PP. Thanks for responding. We'll see how Jones responds, but kind of hoping Liman calls a hearing on this to hammer down on those issues you identify - what Jones has provided, and whether duplicative responses are necessary. Lively has different attorneys than VanZan so that would be interesting as they would apparently not be invited so an opportunity for Garafalo/Freedman to control narrative.[/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