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]Interesting developments regarding the seal on TAG's disclosure of content creators they were in contact with.

If the CCs who have been subpoenaed (or that Google and X have been subpoenaed regarding, more accurately) were on TAG's disclosure of CCs they'd been in contact with, but some of the CCs are saying they've never spoken to TAG or Wallace or anyone in Baldoni's camp, this raises a possibility I had not considered before but would be quite juicy if true:

What if TAG made contact with CCs via fake personas or without identifying themselves as a PR firm? What if they leaked things to CCs or fed them stories anonymously or under the guise of someone else? They would still be required to disclose these contacts in discovery (and it would likely come out in emails/texts disclosed, or if anyone from TAG was deposed, unless they tried to cover it up, but that's a very dangerous game). But the CCs might not realize they'd been contacted.

If TAG's list of CCs they contacted is unsealed and these CCs who are now being subpoenaed but claim they've never spoken to TAG are on it, this is going to be a wild ride. PR is a super sleezy business, so I wouldn't be surprised if that's where this is headed.[/quote]

That's an interesting theory. I think the interrogatory included "indirect" contact. If there were ever something that would turn those creators against JB, this could be it. I would have to go back and find those emails they had about this, because I remember WF arguing they wanted to limit it to content creators over a certain amount of followers which made me wonder if there were a lot under that threshold.

Another possibility is that the Popcorn Planet guy was on the list but some of the other ladies aren't. PP is the one that had the google doc with Freedman's statement (or something) and is on the subpoena, so he apparently does have some contact with WF side.

I don't know how far AEO extends so why couldn't Lively just write in her letter "Of the 16 subpoenas, 13 were on that list" or something. It makes me think Lively is still playing games with the truth.
[/quote]

It's definitely possible that Lively is using this AEO designation issue to try and just turn the page on the bad press she's getting regarding the CC subpoenas. Certainly that's part of the goal no matter what.

But FWIW, I do not think you could make that comment about "of the 16 subpoenas, 13 were on the list" without violating the AEO designation. That is far too identifying of the contents of the documents under seal. Also, we don't know if it's really only a portion. If all of the CCs they've been subpoenaing subscriber info regarding are on TAG's list, then of course they are not allowed to just say that as it would essentially reveal the contents of the doc under seal.[/quote]

DP, but yeah, I also came in here to say that I think saying “of the 16 subpoenas, 13 were on the list” also would violate the AEO confidentiality by in effect making direct public statements about who was on the list.

That’s why Hudson in effect had to make all her statements in the letter hypothetical, “for example, if …” etc. Which Baldoni supporters are taking as her just making stuff up to shift blame.  Which would be stupid if her to do if nothing she is saying is true, since this info will inevitably be revealed. [/quote]

You could also argue that the subpoenas themselves were improper use of AEO info if they did indeed use names provided pursuant to that interrogatory.  As someone pointed out last night, they should have challenged the designation far earlier.[/quote]

I don’t think that was required to send the subpoenas out since there is no clear tie between the subpoena and the name on the TAG response.  Also it would have added like 2-3 weeks to getting the subpoenaes out, which at this point they really can’t afford. [/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