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]Case and Koslow continue to produce amazing hijinks in this litigation.

New MTCs from Gottlieb seek to compel Case and Koslow to produce documents they put on their privilege log which Gottlieb argues are not really priv.

First of all, Case and Koslow both inadvertently produced many of her privileged documents in her document production, which the Lively attorneys discovered, and so stopped reading and reviewing the production on the same day in order to inform Case and Koslow, who re-produced and clawed back documents as privileged.

The docs on Case's log now include docs going back to August 2024, with Freedman, and also documents between Case and her father, and attorney, dating back to August 2024 (where it appears Case was discussing more then her own potential liability).

Case MTC:  https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.nysd.634304/gov.uscourts.nysd.634304.585.0.pdf

Koslow MTC:  https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.nysd.634304/gov.uscourts.nysd.634304.586.0.pdf

Roeser declaration:  https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.nysd.634304/gov.uscourts.nysd.634304.587.0.pdf[/quote]

This looks like it could become a really big deal. Jed Wallace is on a lot of the communications in question too, which is both interesting in its own right (given the degree to which JW has downplayed what he did for Wayfarer) and could also break privilege and result in these communications becoming evidence, as he was not represented by the attorneys in question.[/quote]

What I don't get is why Wayfarer simply adopted Case and Koslows privilege log instead of submitting their own. Is that strategy or lack of resources?

I also don't understand why Garafolo said at the hearing that Wayfarer only asserts privilege as of, IIRC, the day before the CRD was published. I feel like they'd have a decent argument they were anticipating litigation around the time of the film premiere (when they were texting about " if her concerns should come to light") and certainly by the date Jones got Abel's phone and said she was going to get sued (i don't remember the date offhand).

I feel like asserting privilege as early as possible would protect Wayfarer and not really seeing their rationale. [/quote]

Notactuallygolden's last four videos and comments says this is a strategy from Wayfarer. She detailed in her last summary judgement part 3 video that Lively may lose her case because of missing elements, even if she has all the evidence. 
https://www.tiktok.com/@notactuallygolden/video/7536310833832316215

She also addresses the Liman criticism saying that Liman grants Lively's team what they want more often simply because they ask for it. She agrees to the comments saying Judges often know in advance which party has the stronger case and is harsher on them, giving them the other side an abundance of fairness, only to ultimately rule in the stronger case favor.
https://www.tiktok.com/@notactuallygolden/video/7536299301547379982
[/quote]

PP. Thank you for the links. I agree with NAG that Wayfarer can win some summary judgment claims, but I was referring specifically to their strategy in saying they only claim attorney client privilege as of the CRD, not their strategy for their whole case. NAG has alluded (and I agree) that they should have tried to at least dismiss her claim that Wayfarer has been committing ongoing defamation through their attorney Freedman. It has created a mess for them in discovery because it gave Lively the opportunity to seek documents from after the CRD was filed and also documents from their law firm (which the judge denied some, but not all).

For me, Wayfarer's strategy seems kinda backwards here... I thought they would be vigorously fighting to assert the attorney client privilege prior to the CRD, and then they should have tried to get the claims for after the CRD dismissed as soon as possible (motion to dismiss, not waiting for summary judgment). [/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