Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The Lively letter specifically invokes Liman’s individual rules 1.C and 4.C which relate respectively to letter motions and discovery disputes. It doesn’t just make the judge aware of the dispute in another court, it goes on to set forth all the basis for all of Lively’s objections to the subpoena. Pursuant to Liman’s own rules, any party not in agreement with arguments put forth in a letter filed pursuant to his Rule 1.C should so inform the Court within 2 days. https://nysd.uscourts.gov/sites/default/files/practice_documents/LJL%20Liman%20Individual%20Practices%20in%20Civil%20Cases_updated%209.26.24.pdf

Adding only letters seeking relief of some type are to be submitted under 1.C. Letters simply to notify the Court of an occurrence are to be filed under 1.B.

I see what you're saying in citing to 1.C. If you actually look at the docket entries, though, it's clear that the Governski's letter was not filed as a motion. All the prior letter motions by Lively actually say LETTER MOTION in the title and not just letter, and the letters themselves are clearly styled as motions that will require a response. The docket link also lists the corresponding doc as a MOTION.

43 Jan 27, 2025 LETTER MOTION for Conference RE: Mr. Freedman's Extrajudicial Conduct addressed to Judge Lewis J. Liman from Michael J. Gottlieb dated 1/27/2025.

190 Apr 30, 2025 LETTER MOTION to Compel Wayfarer Parties to respond to interrogatories 3, 4, 5, and 7 and request for production no. 32 addressed to Judge Lewis J. Liman from Sigrid S. McCawley dated April 30, 2025.

200 May 9, 2025 LETTER MOTION to Compel Wayfarer Studios LLC and Tera Hanks, Mitz Toskovic, Ahmed Musiol, Ashmi Elizabeth Dang, Shekinah Reese, Jariesse Blackmon, AJ Marbory, Dion Suleman, and Jennifer Benson to produce relevant, non-privileged material in response to subpoenas, addressed to Judge Lewis J. Liman from Esra A. Hudson dated May 9, 2025. Document filed by Blake Lively.

But Governski's letter re the DC case is simply entered as a LETTER, not a motion, and the docket provides a link to a letter and not a motion. You are correct that Governski cites to 4.C (perhaps to permit a response), but the letter is not styled as a motion (as the others above are) and does not seek any relief or action from the judge. The docket entry itself properly identified the doc for what it was, which was not in any way a motion:

213 May 13, 2025 LETTER addressed to Judge Lewis J. Liman from Meryl C. Governski dated 5/13/2025 re: Wayfarer Parties' Subpoena to Venable LLP. Document filed by Blake Lively, Ryan Reynolds..(Governski, Meryl) (Entered: 05/13/2025)

Main Doc­ument: Letter [PDF]

I understand what you're saying about 4.C and how it could have caused confusion here, though. But the docket entries themselves are clear, as is the styling and the substance of this letter, and Governski clearly was not in any way asking Liman to insert himself into the D.D.C. dispute.

Opposing Counsel is going to look at the substance of what was actually served, not a docket entry, If Governski intended a letter of notice, she filed it under the wrong rules. It was her error, not Freedman’s.

And the substance of what was actually served was a document that was not styled as a motion, did not call itself a motion, did not seek any kind of relief or other action from Liman, and to any seasoned litigator read like one of hundreds of letters filed to notify the court of related proceedings in another jurisdiction requiring no action.

I grant you the one thing you are slightly right about is the 1.C citation, so thank you for actually explaining wtf you were on about. But the letter clearly isn’t a letter motion. And Freedman didn’t cite to Governski’s citation to 1.C in his Friday response to the motion to strike, which also might have at least explained to Judge Liman why he responded. Governski filed a corrected version of the letter shortly after the first one, which on CourtListener just shows up as the same letter afaict, so I wonder whether her correction fixed the 1.C issue and it just isn’t reflected on Court listener.

But any seasoned litigator reading the Governski letter knows what it is and that it requires no response.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Let’s just go right to Freedman’s letter. He specifically states his filing is responsive and wants to address the contention that the DC subpoena is not seeking relevant info. I’m not going to argue about the plain language of his filing:

We write in response to the letter filed by Plaintiff/Consolidated Defendant Blake Lively (“Ms.
Lively”) and Consolidated Defendant Ryan Reynolds (together, the “Lively Defendants”)
regarding their requested intervention in an action in the United States District Court for the
District of Columbia seeking to quash the Wayfarer Parties’ subpoena (the “Subpoena”) to
Venable LLP (“Venable”) (Dkt. 213).
. . . .
However, the Lively Defendants’
insistence that the Subpoena seeks irrelevant information is wrong. The Subpoena aims to obtain
discovery relating to witness tampering and evidence spoliation.

No. Just answer my question about your familiarity with letters like Governski’s. It will let me know whether you know what you’re talking about.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The Lively letter specifically invokes Liman’s individual rules 1.C and 4.C which relate respectively to letter motions and discovery disputes. It doesn’t just make the judge aware of the dispute in another court, it goes on to set forth all the basis for all of Lively’s objections to the subpoena. Pursuant to Liman’s own rules, any party not in agreement with arguments put forth in a letter filed pursuant to his Rule 1.C should so inform the Court within 2 days. https://nysd.uscourts.gov/sites/default/files/practice_documents/LJL%20Liman%20Individual%20Practices%20in%20Civil%20Cases_updated%209.26.24.pdf

Adding only letters seeking relief of some type are to be submitted under 1.C. Letters simply to notify the Court of an occurrence are to be filed under 1.B.

I see what you're saying in citing to 1.C. If you actually look at the docket entries, though, it's clear that the Governski's letter was not filed as a motion. All the prior letter motions by Lively actually say LETTER MOTION in the title and not just letter, and the letters themselves are clearly styled as motions that will require a response. The docket link also lists the corresponding doc as a MOTION.

43 Jan 27, 2025 LETTER MOTION for Conference RE: Mr. Freedman's Extrajudicial Conduct addressed to Judge Lewis J. Liman from Michael J. Gottlieb dated 1/27/2025.

190 Apr 30, 2025 LETTER MOTION to Compel Wayfarer Parties to respond to interrogatories 3, 4, 5, and 7 and request for production no. 32 addressed to Judge Lewis J. Liman from Sigrid S. McCawley dated April 30, 2025.

200 May 9, 2025 LETTER MOTION to Compel Wayfarer Studios LLC and Tera Hanks, Mitz Toskovic, Ahmed Musiol, Ashmi Elizabeth Dang, Shekinah Reese, Jariesse Blackmon, AJ Marbory, Dion Suleman, and Jennifer Benson to produce relevant, non-privileged material in response to subpoenas, addressed to Judge Lewis J. Liman from Esra A. Hudson dated May 9, 2025. Document filed by Blake Lively.

But Governski's letter re the DC case is simply entered as a LETTER, not a motion, and the docket provides a link to a letter and not a motion. You are correct that Governski cites to 4.C (perhaps to permit a response), but the letter is not styled as a motion (as the others above are) and does not seek any relief or action from the judge. The docket entry itself properly identified the doc for what it was, which was not in any way a motion:

213 May 13, 2025 LETTER addressed to Judge Lewis J. Liman from Meryl C. Governski dated 5/13/2025 re: Wayfarer Parties' Subpoena to Venable LLP. Document filed by Blake Lively, Ryan Reynolds..(Governski, Meryl) (Entered: 05/13/2025)

Main Doc­ument: Letter [PDF]

I understand what you're saying about 4.C and how it could have caused confusion here, though. But the docket entries themselves are clear, as is the styling and the substance of this letter, and Governski clearly was not in any way asking Liman to insert himself into the D.D.C. dispute.

Opposing Counsel is going to look at the substance of what was actually served, not a docket entry, If Governski intended a letter of notice, she filed it under the wrong rules. It was her error, not Freedman’s.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Re: The NAG discussion here. I don't think she's out of her depth. I just think she's willing to offer predictions compared to other content creators, which is fun for us, but riskier and makes her more vulnerable to her audience when she gets those things wrong. If she were to just stick to explaining why judges made certain decisions after the fact, she wouldn't appear unknowledgeable.

Her predictions don't bother me. I just find it weird when she says things that don't really make sense for someone who supposedly litigates in federal court regularly. Her reaction to the Lively "courtesy letter" was really weird to me. That's a really standard thing when you have cases involving diversity jurisdiction because it's not uncommon to have subpoenas out in other jurisdictions and to want to keep the judge apprised. So when NAG acted like this was a really unorthodox thing for Lively's lawyers to do, it just set off my spidey sense like hmm, this person might be pretending to more authority than she really as.

The thing is, she's right about a lot of the law and procedure, so if she's faking experience in federal court she's actually doing a pretty good job. But if the actual situation is that she has a different kind of experience or maybe is a more recent law grad or something, I wish she'd just say that and be honest. It's okay to say "I'm basing this off my read of the FRCP, not personal experience" or to acknowledge that you may not know how common a certain practice is. But NAG has presented herself as an experienced litigator in fed court and I'm not sure that's the case.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Re: The NAG discussion here. I don't think she's out of her depth. I just think she's willing to offer predictions compared to other content creators, which is fun for us, but riskier and makes her more vulnerable to her audience when she gets those things wrong. If she were to just stick to explaining why judges made certain decisions after the fact, she wouldn't appear unknowledgeable.

Her predictions don't bother me. I just find it weird when she says things that don't really make sense for someone who supposedly litigates in federal court regularly. Her reaction to the Lively "courtesy letter" was really weird to me. That's a really standard thing when you have cases involving diversity jurisdiction because it's not uncommon to have subpoenas out in other jurisdictions and to want to keep the judge apprised. So when NAG acted like this was a really unorthodox thing for Lively's lawyers to do, it just set off my spidey sense like hmm, this person might be pretending to more authority than she really as.

The thing is, she's right about a lot of the law and procedure, so if she's faking experience in federal court she's actually doing a pretty good job. But if the actual situation is that she has a different kind of experience or maybe is a more recent law grad or something, I wish she'd just say that and be honest. It's okay to say "I'm basing this off my read of the FRCP, not personal experience" or to acknowledge that you may not know how common a certain practice is. But NAG has presented herself as an experienced litigator in fed court and I'm not sure that's the case.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The Lively letter specifically invokes Liman’s individual rules 1.C and 4.C which relate respectively to letter motions and discovery disputes. It doesn’t just make the judge aware of the dispute in another court, it goes on to set forth all the basis for all of Lively’s objections to the subpoena. Pursuant to Liman’s own rules, any party not in agreement with arguments put forth in a letter filed pursuant to his Rule 1.C should so inform the Court within 2 days. https://nysd.uscourts.gov/sites/default/files/practice_documents/LJL%20Liman%20Individual%20Practices%20in%20Civil%20Cases_updated%209.26.24.pdf

Adding only letters seeking relief of some type are to be submitted under 1.C. Letters simply to notify the Court of an occurrence are to be filed under 1.B.

I see what you're saying in citing to 1.C. If you actually look at the docket entries, though, it's clear that the Governski's letter was not filed as a motion. All the prior letter motions by Lively actually say LETTER MOTION in the title and not just letter, and the letters themselves are clearly styled as motions that will require a response. The docket link also lists the corresponding doc as a MOTION.

43 Jan 27, 2025 LETTER MOTION for Conference RE: Mr. Freedman's Extrajudicial Conduct addressed to Judge Lewis J. Liman from Michael J. Gottlieb dated 1/27/2025.

190 Apr 30, 2025 LETTER MOTION to Compel Wayfarer Parties to respond to interrogatories 3, 4, 5, and 7 and request for production no. 32 addressed to Judge Lewis J. Liman from Sigrid S. McCawley dated April 30, 2025.

200 May 9, 2025 LETTER MOTION to Compel Wayfarer Studios LLC and Tera Hanks, Mitz Toskovic, Ahmed Musiol, Ashmi Elizabeth Dang, Shekinah Reese, Jariesse Blackmon, AJ Marbory, Dion Suleman, and Jennifer Benson to produce relevant, non-privileged material in response to subpoenas, addressed to Judge Lewis J. Liman from Esra A. Hudson dated May 9, 2025. Document filed by Blake Lively.

But Governski's letter re the DC case is simply entered as a LETTER, not a motion, and the docket provides a link to a letter and not a motion. You are correct that Governski cites to 4.C (perhaps to permit a response), but the letter is not styled as a motion (as the others above are) and does not seek any relief or action from the judge. The docket entry itself properly identified the doc for what it was, which was not in any way a motion:

213 May 13, 2025 LETTER addressed to Judge Lewis J. Liman from Meryl C. Governski dated 5/13/2025 re: Wayfarer Parties' Subpoena to Venable LLP. Document filed by Blake Lively, Ryan Reynolds..(Governski, Meryl) (Entered: 05/13/2025)

Main Doc­ument: Letter [PDF]

I understand what you're saying about 4.C and how it could have caused confusion here, though. But the docket entries themselves are clear, as is the styling and the substance of this letter, and Governski clearly was not in any way asking Liman to insert himself into the D.D.C. dispute.

Anonymous wrote:Re: The NAG discussion here. I don't think she's out of her depth. I just think she's willing to offer predictions compared to other content creators, which is fun for us, but riskier and makes her more vulnerable to her audience when she gets those things wrong. If she were to just stick to explaining why judges made certain decisions after the fact, she wouldn't appear unknowledgeable.

Anonymous wrote:Have we talked about the following footnote addressing Freedman in each of the safe harbor letters? Maybe this is what set Freedman off. This footnote doesn’t make it into the motion for sanctions itself, just the letters, but it’s basically a brutal personal attack (and imho likely does completely betray Freedman’s very real MO):

“We are concerned that you are [harassing Ms. Lively] in an attempt to bolster your own career and reputation at Ms. Lively’s expense. Debusmann Jr., Who Is Bryan Freedman, the Lawyer Who Represents Don Lemon and Tucker Carlson?, BBC (Apr, 27, 2023) (“What I realized is that if I wanted to be an entertainment lawyer, I had to sue entertainers. No one would hire you until you built a reputation … So I started to focus on going after entertainers, and defeating established entertainment litigators … in things that were high profile so that someone would write something about it.”).

Freedman’s rep is based on his prior success in bullying entertainers into settlements. Lively is undergoing a pain cave right now, but if she can make it through to the other side, it could disrupt bottom feeders like Freedman in a way that helps others moving forward.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The Lively letter specifically invokes Liman’s individual rules 1.C and 4.C which relate respectively to letter motions and discovery disputes. It doesn’t just make the judge aware of the dispute in another court, it goes on to set forth all the basis for all of Lively’s objections to the subpoena. Pursuant to Liman’s own rules, any party not in agreement with arguments put forth in a letter filed pursuant to his Rule 1.C should so inform the Court within 2 days. https://nysd.uscourts.gov/sites/default/files/practice_documents/LJL%20Liman%20Individual%20Practices%20in%20Civil%20Cases_updated%209.26.24.pdf

Adding only letters seeking relief of some type are to be submitted under 1.C. Letters simply to notify the Court of an occurrence are to be filed under 1.B.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Let’s just go right to Freedman’s letter. He specifically states his filing is responsive and wants to address the contention that the DC subpoena is not seeking relevant info. I’m not going to argue about the plain language of his filing:

We write in response to the letter filed by Plaintiff/Consolidated Defendant Blake Lively (“Ms.
Lively”) and Consolidated Defendant Ryan Reynolds (together, the “Lively Defendants”)
regarding their requested intervention in an action in the United States District Court for the
District of Columbia seeking to quash the Wayfarer Parties’ subpoena (the “Subpoena”) to
Venable LLP (“Venable”) (Dkt. 213).
. . . .
However, the Lively Defendants’
insistence that the Subpoena seeks irrelevant information is wrong. The Subpoena aims to obtain
discovery relating to witness tampering and evidence spoliation.

No. Just answer my question about your familiarity with letters like Governski’s. It will let me know whether you know what you’re talking about.