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]Interestingly, the subpoena still has not been produced.  Get the popcorn, because this will be addressed by the Court.[/quote]

Why would Freedman mention this in a letter rather than file a motion to compel?[/quote]

DP - I think because he’s using it in his legal arguments now and citing it as needed. Most recently he cited it as the reason he shouldn’t have to answer questions about Baldoni’s neurodivergence and why the crime fraud exception should apply to the Jones case.

On the neurodivergence stuff, the argument is Blake’s lawyers only know Justin’s private medical information because of the sham lawsuit and subpoena so they shouldn’t be able to use it to establish the basis for further discovery on that topic. Additionally, the texts on Justin’s neurodivergence were outside of the scope of what the judge allowed when Blake’s lawyers filed that overbroad subpoena for phone records a few months ago asking for 2.5 years of data, so there’s no way they would’ve gotten that information through a subpoena in the current case.

On the crime fraud stuff, they’re arguing they should be able to pierce through Jones’ attorney client privilege and get documents from the security company that extracted the texts from Jen Abel’s phone. The basis for this is they’re arguing attorney client privilege doesn’t apply if your lawyer helps you commit a crime, which is what they’re alleging was the case with the phone. Sounds like the judge will almost certainly have to call an evidentiary hearing on this one, so I imagine Freedman is betting the judge will force them to produce the hearing at that time.[/quote]

I find the neurodivergence interesting because I swear I'd read about it before, either in the complaints or one of the articles, about him considering using it to explain awkward behavior. So it is not completely random medical information that got mixed in, but actually relevant to the crisis PR. IIRC under the PO, there were some limitations in marking things AEO if they concerned parties and were relevant. But of course this is not under the PO because they got it in a shady way and that looks bad for them, but it is stuff they probably otherwise could have gotten in this case.[/quote]

You have and it was, but Bryan freedman is saying it shouldn’t have been. Does that makes sense?[/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