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]See this makes me think Wayfarer should have at least tried to dismiss some of Lively's claims. [/quote]

Replying to myself. Though I personally find Wallace slimy, I hope that he managed to reschedule his depo or avoided revealing his client list, kudos to the poster who pointed out Liman made him give it up even though it was dubious whether he even had jurisdiction.[/quote]

Someone try and justify this. Liman is corrupt.[/quote]

Per the case management hearing yesterday, Wallace’s team confirmed they had completed all their production so I assume it included his client list. He should have been granted a stay for discovery while this was decided. That seems like a bad call for Liman.

But still relieved it was dismissed for now.[/quote]

The client list is relevant whether Wallace is a party or not, [b]if Wallace's prior clients were used to induce Baldoni and Wayfarer to hire TAG and Wallace. [/b]There is already some evidence in the email/text trail that Abel and Nathan talked up work for prior clients in order to convince Baldoni that they could deliver what he wanted -- if that work included references to work for Depp against Amber Heard, that is relevant to the question of whether Baldoni hired them simply to bolster his own rep or to go after Lively. And that's true even if Wallace isn't a party to the case.[/quote]

I liken this to the google subpoenas. The bolded statement is key to me. If there is actually anything documented where they discussed prior clients, that is fair game (and Lively should have sent interrogatories asking about that), but I think the entire client list was too broad and another judge may have ruled differently. The entire client list is pretty far removed from Blake's case.

It takes many steps to get from the client list to relevant evidence:
-Review client list
-Try to figure out what the PR crisis in each case was about and who the relevant celebrities would have been
-Go back in time, review the social media of those celebrities during the presumed relevant period
-Identify social media accounts that seeded negative content about the relevant celebrities
-Compare those to the list of social media accounts that seeded negative content about Lively
-Subpoena those accounts to unmask who operates them
-Request discovery from the account holders, Wayfarer and Wallace has to what, if any, communication they had that shows there was any connection there with regard to Lively's case

That's extremely tangential, and the client list will also capture other clients who are not celebrities who hired Wallace for confidential matters, or other celebrities with entirely different types of issues (like Bam Margera), or clients who were also bashed by the same content creators but not at the request of Wallace or Wayfarer. It's really a stretch.[/quote]

No, you don't have to do any of that at this stage. It's just discovery. If they have the client list and it includes work that appears to have involved smearing prominent women online, they can use that list in depositions and in additional research and discovery to see (1) if Wallace's prior work on these engagements induced Baldoni to hire them, which goes directly to whether Baldoni hired TAG/Wallace simply for repetitional rehabilitation or hired them explicitly to smear Lively, and (2) to demonstrate a pattern of work that targeted prominent women in similar ways using similar methods.

It's not a stretch at all. Given the evidence already shows that Wallace's prior work was relevant to him being hired and to encouraging Baldoni/Wayfarer to have faith in his abilities, that makes his prior work relevant to this case and thus his client list is fair game. It's under seal, not public, and they'll have a chance to redact any irrelevant names or engagements before it actually gets entered into the record, if it is. So there's no violation of privacy here and it's a reasonable bit of relevant evidence at this information gathering stage, and likely essential to depositions of all the Wayfarer parties. [/quote]

Stop playing lawyer, it’s not convincing.[/quote]

+1. Wallace should have been granted a stay while the decision was pending as the NYT was granted.[/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