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]Adding that smart lawyers always get an agreement to protect the work product privilege.  It doesn’t have to be a joint defense agreement, can also be called a common interest agreement.  In any case, it is clear that Blake’s lawyers did not do that here or it would have been argued in both motions.[/quote]

It can also just be an agreement to maintain confidentiality, which could even take the form of a standard disclaimer at the bottom of an email that states the communication is confidential, which most lawyers use when communicating about clients for this explicit reason. I feel confident any written communications between Gottlieb and Venable about this case would contain such disclaimers.

Also, what Lively has filed is just a motion to intervene, and she is claiming A-C privilege as the premise. She has not filed a motion to quash because she is not a party to the subpoena -- she needs permission from the court to weigh in on the subpoena at all. If the judge grants the motion to intervene, I expect we will see a more substantive motion to quash based on A-C privilege which will outline this more fully.[/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