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]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]

Adding, including work product.  After further reflection, my guess is that Gottlieb et al has been sending love letters to Taylor specifying how they are trying to protect her in the litigation, which would primarily be the protective order.  Absent a joint defense agreement, such correspondence would be entirely discoverable.  And no mention of a joint defense agreement, and I could think of many reasons Taylor would not have wanted one.[/quote]

No, it would not. That's the definition of attorney work product. If Gottlieb communicated with Venable in an effort to coordinate on subpoena's, that is attorney work product directly related to Gottlieb's representation of Lively and is privileged. You do not need a joint defense agreement, especially in a situation where (1) Lively is both a plaintiff and and a defendant, and (2) Taylor is not even a party to the case.

There are extremely narrow circumstances in which you could get attorney work product like this. One of them is the crime-fraud exception that is being alleged regarding Jonesworks. But there's no allegation that any crime or fraud was committed in these supposed communications between Gottlieb and Venable.[/quote]

I don’t know what you are blabbering about, work product privilege can be waived by sharing with a third party.  They don’t need to show crime fraud, just that the parties’ interests weren’t aligned.[/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