Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:One thing I noticed in looking at the sanctions letters and motions is that Freedman has a new attorney (to me) attorney on the case, Ellyn Garofalo. She had previously worked for the Stuart Liner of the Liner Freedman firm for 15 years, and had most recently spent 3 years at a midsized LA firm, Carlton Fields. https://news.bloomberglaw.com/business-and-practice/lawyer-to-the-stars-jumps-to-california-boutique-liner-freedman

What I thought was interesting was that she previously practiced at Venable, and it looks like she left there shortly before Baldridge came on. So they may not know one another, particularly, or have worked together, but they may know some of the same people and know of one another, and/or Garofalo may be involved in the subpoena/quash negotiations with Baldridge/Venable.

Dude, we discussed this before. It’s not normal to stalk associate attorneys. Sure, freedman is one thing bc he puts himself out there, but a regular attorney is not someone you should be posting about. Do not continue to do this

Anonymous wrote:One thing I noticed in looking at the sanctions letters and motions is that Freedman has a new attorney (to me) attorney on the case, Ellyn Garofalo. She had previously worked for the Stuart Liner of the Liner Freedman firm for 15 years, and had most recently spent 3 years at a midsized LA firm, Carlton Fields. https://news.bloomberglaw.com/business-and-practice/lawyer-to-the-stars-jumps-to-california-boutique-liner-freedman

What I thought was interesting was that she previously practiced at Venable, and it looks like she left there shortly before Baldridge came on. So they may not know one another, particularly, or have worked together, but they may know some of the same people and know of one another, and/or Garofalo may be involved in the subpoena/quash negotiations with Baldridge/Venable.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I thought NAG was in house.

NAG is very dodgy about her legal credentials, I suspect because they aren't what she is letting people assume they are.

It makes her hard to trust, IMO.

I suspect bc she doesn’t want randos stalking her. Would you?

Whenever you put your filmed image online, you start to run the risk of that. Not sure why she’s filming herself instead of just putting the filings themselves on TikTok with her voice.

That said, I don’t want her stalked, or doxxed. But she created this problem herself with the videos.

She can say and film whatever she wants to online. But if she won’t even say where she’s licensed, others have no reason necessarily to trust what she’s saying, as some have found. She’s the one putting herself out there and apparently wanting a following, so those are her choices.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I thought NAG was in house.

NAG is very dodgy about her legal credentials, I suspect because they aren't what she is letting people assume they are.

It makes her hard to trust, IMO.

I suspect bc she doesn’t want randos stalking her. Would you?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I thought NAG was in house.

NAG is very dodgy about her legal credentials, I suspect because they aren't what she is letting people assume they are.

It makes her hard to trust, IMO.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I thought NAG was in house.

NAG is very dodgy about her legal credentials, I suspect because they aren't what she is letting people assume they are.

It makes her hard to trust, IMO.

As opposed to you, anonymous poster, who has been completely forthcoming.

When I write on legal issues, which I did for 6 years as a subject matter expert for a legal publisher, my name was on everything I wrote and my CV was publicly available so that people could check my credentials.

Actually.

Be angry? Are you twelve?

It takes real guts to complain about someone else’s lack of transparency will hiding behind one’s own anonymity.


Great, create a dcum account, use only that to post, and share your resume. Or don’t complain about others not sharing their credentials.

DP, but there’s a clear diffeeence between anonymous posting on Dcum and holding yourself out as some kind of legal expert commentator on tiktok, but be angry.

Be angry? Are you twelve?

It takes real guts to complain about someone else’s lack of transparency will hiding behind one’s own anonymity

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I thought NAG was in house.

NAG is very dodgy about her legal credentials, I suspect because they aren't what she is letting people assume they are.

It makes her hard to trust, IMO.

As opposed to you, anonymous poster, who has been completely forthcoming.

When I write on legal issues, which I did for 6 years as a subject matter expert for a legal publisher, my name was on everything I wrote and my CV was publicly available so that people could check my credentials.

Actually.

Be angry? Are you twelve?

It takes real guts to complain about someone else’s lack of transparency will hiding behind one’s own anonymity.


Great, create a dcum account, use only that to post, and share your resume. Or don’t complain about others not sharing their credentials.

DP, but there’s a clear diffeeence between anonymous posting on Dcum and holding yourself out as some kind of legal expert commentator on tiktok, but be angry.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I thought NAG was in house.

NAG is very dodgy about her legal credentials, I suspect because they aren't what she is letting people assume they are.

It makes her hard to trust, IMO.

As opposed to you, anonymous poster, who has been completely forthcoming.

When I write on legal issues, which I did for 6 years as a subject matter expert for a legal publisher, my name was on everything I wrote and my CV was publicly available so that people could check my credentials.

Actually.

Great, create a dcum account, use only that to post, and share your resume. Or don’t complain about others not sharing their credentials.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I thought NAG was in house.

NAG is very dodgy about her legal credentials, I suspect because they aren't what she is letting people assume they are.

It makes her hard to trust, IMO.

As opposed to you, anonymous poster, who has been completely forthcoming.

When I write on legal issues, which I did for 6 years as a subject matter expert for a legal publisher, my name was on everything I wrote and my CV was publicly available so that people could check my credentials.

Actually.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I thought NAG was in house.

NAG is very dodgy about her legal credentials, I suspect because they aren't what she is letting people assume they are.

It makes her hard to trust, IMO.

As opposed to you, anonymous poster, who has been completely forthcoming.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I thought NAG was in house.

NAG is very dodgy about her legal credentials, I suspect because they aren't what she is letting people assume they are.

It makes her hard to trust, IMO.

Anonymous wrote:I thought NAG was in house.

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.