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]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]

Lively’s team seems to be playing cute with their words again. They say these creators were listed in a supplement of creators who have spoken negatively about Blake, and then BL’s lawyers say “apparently at the behest of tag”. That “apparently” is doing a whole lot. From what I understand tag’s actual answer to the interrogatory was “none”.

BL’s lawyers made a mistake by subpoenaing these content creators and now they’re trying to do PR clean up with this really unprofessional motion. First of all they’re basically undermining the AEO in their motion because of the level of detail they’re sharing. Second, they’re blaming wayfarer for their own sloppiness and failure to challenge the AEO before sending the subpoenas. They’re trying to blame WF for Blake’s latest round of negative PR when really this is her lawyers’ fault. [/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