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]So Wallace has filed for a protective order from Lively's request for his client list from 2023 to now (!!!). Wallace has offered a breakdown of the types of clients, but not their names, and i think even that is too generous. I don't buy his "I'm just a country bumpkin from rural Texas helping families with substance abuse issues" but that request is way too broad. IMO the most she should be able to get is any clients or work spotlighted in his pitch to TAG, essentially anyone discussed by him with any of the Wayfarer parties, only limited as to what they were told by Wallace about those clients. I'd be shocked if Liman didn't rule against Lively here.

Motion
https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.nysd.634304/gov.uscourts.nysd.634304.380.0.pdf

Email chain https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.nysd.634304/gov.uscourts.nysd.634304.380.1.pdf
[/quote]

I thought that is what the AOC PO is for.  Not sure Lively will get all of this, but I think it will be more that PP above is suggesting.  I think this is this is why they (at Lively's insistence) created a category that is for attorneys eyes only.[/quote]

PP. I just don't think it meets the relevance threshold unless it's tied to the case. If relevant in some way, then AEO. If Wallace said we'll do what we did for Depp, fine. If Lively says I want the names of everyone you worked with so I can look for a pattern, I think it gets denied.[/quote]

PP above was wrong ("I'd be shocked if Liman didn't rule against Lively here" in first post), but I was right.  Lively gets to test whether Wallace ran similar smears for other clients and whether the data shows similarities.

Kind of Peggy Olson telling Don Draper he never said "thank you" to her and Don responding, "That's what the money is for."  Here, that's what the protective order is for, as the judge wraps up his order by saying.[/quote]

That PP was just sharing that opinion, and in a very calm, reasonable way, but nowhere in that post did they "laugh" at you. Continue on with your inaccurate retellings about this thread, though, I want you to continue upping the ante for my amusement. Soon it's going to be, "I said Liman was going to grant another one of Blake Lively's requests, so JB supporters set my house on fire and cackled manically in my face while they were doing it." [/quote]

Thank you.[/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