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]Ha, well it gets twistier. Blake and Ryan have filed a motion to intervene regarding the Venable subpoena:

https://acrobat.adobe.com/id/urn:aaid:sc:US:4f4a0fce-d675-4742-aaa1-e333765df77c

And here they make the confidentiality argument I made above -- that any communications between Lively's lawyers and Venable would of course be attorney work product covered by attorney-client privilege.

Truly: what on earth.[/quote]

Perhaps not Taylor then.  I don’t understand this motion at all, if Venable wasn’t represented Lively and there is no joint defense agreement in place (none is mentioned and it would have to be), communication with Venable would not be protected by any attorney client privilege.[/quote]

They specifically ask for communications between Gottlieb (Lively's attorney) and Venable. That would be privileged as attorney work product related to Gottlieb's work for Lively.

I also think that if Lively or Reynolds personally communicated with Venable about anything related to Swift, this would privileged due to attorney-client relationship between Venable and Swift. But Swift would have to assert that privilege, it's not something Lively can assert on her behalf.[/quote]

The privilege is waived by sharing with Venable, a third party.   Same for the Swift scenario once Lively or Reynolds are introduced.  This is exactly why joint defense agreements exist, to prevent such waivers.  Sucks for Blake that she didn’t have one here.[/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