Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I’m an old and don’t have TikTok. In case there are others like me, I wanted to share this Reddit post because it has embedded TikTok videos of women sharing their experiences working with Justin. #7 is partially compelling (and there’s additional info in the comments).

https://www.reddit.com/r/JustinBaldoni/comments/1i9f5kk/women_castcrew_share_their_own_stories_to_support

Old person. Give more context when you link. That’s a DCUM rule, no?

Is it good bad?

Old person here. Sorry, thought the link made it clear. These are women offering positive experiences. This is nothing to do with the legality of the case, but I've seen people remark on here that nobody has come forward to support him, so I thought I'd post since it's all in one place and easy to scroll through.

Anonymous wrote:I’m an old and don’t have TikTok. In case there are others like me, I wanted to share this Reddit post because it has embedded TikTok videos of women sharing their experiences working with Justin. #7 is partially compelling (and there’s additional info in the comments).

https://www.reddit.com/r/JustinBaldoni/comments/1i9f5kk/women_castcrew_share_their_own_stories_to_support

Old person. Give more context when you link. That’s a DCUM rule, no?

Is it good bad?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:DP. So, wait, the Baldoni supporters don’t think any discovery will be allowed on whether Jed Wallace has astroturfed in the past, besides on Lively’s case? No dep questions because “it isn’t relevant at all for these claims”? I’m not sure they’ll get a bunch of RFPs about it like the other PP was suggesting but I think saying it isn’t relevant at all is wishful thinking. Another DP above explained more carefully how and why Wallace’s astroturfing info from other cases could come in.

“The supporters” lulz.

Right, maybe I should have said Lively haters. The Tik Tok posts, though, so *shrug*

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:DP. So, wait, the Baldoni supporters don’t think any discovery will be allowed on whether Jed Wallace has astroturfed in the past, besides on Lively’s case? No dep questions because “it isn’t relevant at all for these claims”? I’m not sure they’ll get a bunch of RFPs about it like the other PP was suggesting but I think saying it isn’t relevant at all is wishful thinking. Another DP above explained more carefully how and why Wallace’s astroturfing info from other cases could come in.

+1, the work Wallace had done for Nathan and Abel in the past would be directly relevant to what they hired Wallace to do on Baldoni's behalf. I don't think they would be allowed a "fishing expedition" to inquire about any work Wallace had ever done for anyone else, but I do think they would be allowed to ask what the working relationship between Nathan/Abel and Wallace had been in the past, and especially whether this was provided to Baldoni to induce him to hire them or to subcontract Wallace.

I'm not saying they'll find anything, and the answer on all sides might be "we've never hired Wallace to astroturf against someone and didn't in this case" in which case it's all moot. But the idea that Lively's lawyers won't even be allowed to inquire about the sort of work Wallace has done for this particular PR/crisis team is silly. It's not even really a stretch to say it's relevant.

FRE 404 baby

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:There is no way Jed is going to survive discovery. They're going to tear into his previous clients and astroturfing. Maybe he's looking for a quick settlement.

Why would that be relevant? Wouldn’t they be able to figure out what he did or didn’t do re: Blake?

Because they can say he has history of astroturfing, therefore get access to his messages/documents with past clients to lay out that history. That stuff wouldn't be protect. Just like the discovery will extend to Blake's famous friends and her companies, it will extend to Jed's clients. Discovery will be brutal.

Astroturfing other people isn’t relevant to the claims here. Jed would fight discovery requests here and I’d be surprised if a judge allows it.

It would if they were using it to establish that Nathan and Abel knew Wallace did that kind of work -- it could be used against Nathan and Abel, and potentially Baldoni, if not Wallace.

Which, since they worked for Johnny Depp, might mean subpoenaing any work Wallace might have done for Depp, to establish what Nathan and Abel expected when Wallace was hired.

If Wallace truly did no astroturfing for Baldoni maybe none of this matters. But if it turns out he did any, Nathan/Abel/Baldoni might argue that it was not authorized or not what they expected. Wallace's prior work for their team would then become relevant.

This isn’t relevant at all for these claims. It’s a classic fishing expedition.

+100000
No way would a judge allow this.

Yep. Always amusing to see “I never said I was a lawyer” try and flex on relevance.

lol yes. The rule on the inadmissibility of character evidence and past crimes is like the only thing I remember from Evidence.

Anonymous wrote:DP. So, wait, the Baldoni supporters don’t think any discovery will be allowed on whether Jed Wallace has astroturfed in the past, besides on Lively’s case? No dep questions because “it isn’t relevant at all for these claims”? I’m not sure they’ll get a bunch of RFPs about it like the other PP was suggesting but I think saying it isn’t relevant at all is wishful thinking. Another DP above explained more carefully how and why Wallace’s astroturfing info from other cases could come in.

It’s pretty basic in the law of evidence that you don’t get to introduce evidence of a party’s past acts or “character” unless it has been put into play by the party himself or some other narrow exceptions.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:DP. So, wait, the Baldoni supporters don’t think any discovery will be allowed on whether Jed Wallace has astroturfed in the past, besides on Lively’s case? No dep questions because “it isn’t relevant at all for these claims”? I’m not sure they’ll get a bunch of RFPs about it like the other PP was suggesting but I think saying it isn’t relevant at all is wishful thinking. Another DP above explained more carefully how and why Wallace’s astroturfing info from other cases could come in.

+1, the work Wallace had done for Nathan and Abel in the past would be directly relevant to what they hired Wallace to do on Baldoni's behalf. I don't think they would be allowed a "fishing expedition" to inquire about any work Wallace had ever done for anyone else, but I do think they would be allowed to ask what the working relationship between Nathan/Abel and Wallace had been in the past, and especially whether this was provided to Baldoni to induce him to hire them or to subcontract Wallace.

I'm not saying they'll find anything, and the answer on all sides might be "we've never hired Wallace to astroturf against someone and didn't in this case" in which case it's all moot. But the idea that Lively's lawyers won't even be allowed to inquire about the sort of work Wallace has done for this particular PR/crisis team is silly. It's not even really a stretch to say it's relevant.

You are incredibly naive if you think a judge is going to order discovery on other clients.

Anonymous wrote:DP. So, wait, the Baldoni supporters don’t think any discovery will be allowed on whether Jed Wallace has astroturfed in the past, besides on Lively’s case? No dep questions because “it isn’t relevant at all for these claims”? I’m not sure they’ll get a bunch of RFPs about it like the other PP was suggesting but I think saying it isn’t relevant at all is wishful thinking. Another DP above explained more carefully how and why Wallace’s astroturfing info from other cases could come in.

I don’t know about a bunch of Baldoni supporters. But as one of the many lawyers on this thread who has had to file motions to compel discovery or oppositions and then argue them, yes, I believe discovery about other clients/issues will get shut down as a fishing expedition.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Did not see it discussed here but the New York Times said Baldoni’s assertion that NYT had Lively’s complaint in advance, based on “internet sleuth” metadata, was inaccurate. NYT noted that the metadata was automatically generated and not something that accurately represented the date they received the complaint. So NYT is doubling down on not having received the complaint weeks in advance, which seems like something the NYT attorneys would require them to have hammered down tight first — suggesting that this assertion that made big waves for Baldoni last week is a nothingburger.

I agree that they say all that but if you read closely they conclude with saying they did not POST the complaint in advance. They are vague on when they got it, although they say the metadata is not the right date.

I can understand why you might want to see it that way, but I don’t read that as an accurate interpretation of the NYT’s statement at all. The NYT says that it received and posted the complaint after it was filed and calls Baldoni’s assertion that the NYT received the complaint in advance of filing is a “bogus claim.”

From the NYT spokesperson: "The Baldoni/Wayfarer legal filings are rife with inaccuracies about The New York Times, including, for example, the bogus claim that The Times had early access to Ms. Lively's state civil rights complaint. . . . The [internet] sleuths [Baldoni relies on] have noted that a version of the Lively state complaint published by The Times carries the date 'December 10' even though the complaint wasn't filed until more than a week later," the spokesperson continued. "The problem: that date is generated by Google software and is unrelated to the date when The Times received it and posted it. A look at the metadata from the posted document correctly shows it was posted after Ms. Lively filed it with the California Civil Rights Department."

https://www.justjared.com/2025/02/01/the-new-york-times-fires-back-at-justin-baldoni-bogus-claim-they-had-early-access-to-blake-livelys-complaint/

I personally just don’t think the NYT would lie about this when it has so much at stake, or that the NYT lawyers would allow them to release an inaccurate statement on it, but ymmv. So, to me, lots of flash from Baldoni on something that is likely to turn out to be a total nothingburger.

Np and lawyer. I don’t think they lied in their statement, but I think it was carefully worded to be slightly misleading. They clearly worked with Blake well before she filed her complaint and this issue goes straight to the heart of their best defamation defense- Fair report.

I also think that their first PR statement- how they ‘meticulously reported’ this story or something like that will bite them in the ass. How do you ‘meticulously’ report a story and not speak to the other side???

PP you are responding to and also a lawyer, and we are going to have to agree to disagree on this NYT statement I excerpted above. Baldoni asserted with great fanfare that NYT had Lively’s complaint weeks in advance — based on metadata — and NYT has come out to say the metadata is automatically generated and Baldoni is incorrect. I believe NYT here when it says they didn’t have the complaint. I don’t think they’re being slightly misleading in saying they didn’t have it. That detail got Baldoni a ton of press last week and he appears to have been completely wrong about it (because I don’t think NYT would double down on this if they actually had it first). Also lots of chatter in this thread about how that salacious earlier assertion spelled doom for Lively. Huh. But apparently, Baldoni got it wrong.

Baldoni is certainly a public figure and if you think he has a strong defamation case against the NYT here under the “Fair Report” part of the test, we are going to have to agree to disagree again here.

Anonymous wrote:I’m an old and don’t have TikTok. In case there are others like me, I wanted to share this Reddit post because it has embedded TikTok videos of women sharing their experiences working with Justin. #7 is partially compelling (and there’s additional info in the comments).

https://www.reddit.com/r/JustinBaldoni/comments/1i9f5kk/women_castcrew_share_their_own_stories_to_support

I’m just going to tack on this Instagram post:

This was a video I sent to @justinbaldoni and @emilybaldoni. If you don’t know, we lost our home in the Altadena fire 🔥 a couple weeks ago. In the first 6 days, we slept in 5 different beds hopping around hotels and Air bnbs. Then I got a text from @justinbaldoni and @emilybaldoni offering their home to us. I don’t know them that well so I declined, didn’t feel comfortable with it. But he insisted since they were going to Hawaii to get away from their own shitstorm they’re currently going through. I told them I was with another family with two kids. He said bring them. So for the last week and a half two families have been staying in their home. And it has truly been a miracle and a gift. It has given us space, breath, and some peace. Kids are playing and laughing. We are sharing meals and able to reset and figure out our next steps. Their home has been and continues to be healing in so many ways.

Listen, no one is telling me to post this. Not him or his team. I am posting this is because it’s my experience of them. And as a therapist, character and values can not be compartmentalized. They are revealed in everyday life and ripple into all areas. I don’t know what happened on movie sets and board rooms. I was not there. But I do know how one kind and compassion family has helped us. And if you watch the video, this isn’t just about the offering of a home. The way they show up in the world has checked me in the way that I show up. So now I’m running my men’s group here this Sunday (what I used to run in my garage) to create the same space Justin and Emily to a dozen other men. And that is the power of the human exchange. Because we are all catalysts. What if Justin is the catalyst to cripple cancel culture, giving “It ends with us” a whole new meaning. I HOPE YOU SHARE THIS. Not to take a side. To get rid of how fast we throw stones on the internet and destroy real lives. All sides.

I’m an old and don’t have TikTok. In case there are others like me, I wanted to share this Reddit post because it has embedded TikTok videos of women sharing their experiences working with Justin. #7 is partially compelling (and there’s additional info in the comments).

https://www.reddit.com/r/JustinBaldoni/comments/1i9f5kk/women_castcrew_share_their_own_stories_to_support

Anonymous wrote:DP. So, wait, the Baldoni supporters don’t think any discovery will be allowed on whether Jed Wallace has astroturfed in the past, besides on Lively’s case? No dep questions because “it isn’t relevant at all for these claims”? I’m not sure they’ll get a bunch of RFPs about it like the other PP was suggesting but I think saying it isn’t relevant at all is wishful thinking. Another DP above explained more carefully how and why Wallace’s astroturfing info from other cases could come in.

+1, the work Wallace had done for Nathan and Abel in the past would be directly relevant to what they hired Wallace to do on Baldoni's behalf. I don't think they would be allowed a "fishing expedition" to inquire about any work Wallace had ever done for anyone else, but I do think they would be allowed to ask what the working relationship between Nathan/Abel and Wallace had been in the past, and especially whether this was provided to Baldoni to induce him to hire them or to subcontract Wallace.

I'm not saying they'll find anything, and the answer on all sides might be "we've never hired Wallace to astroturf against someone and didn't in this case" in which case it's all moot. But the idea that Lively's lawyers won't even be allowed to inquire about the sort of work Wallace has done for this particular PR/crisis team is silly. It's not even really a stretch to say it's relevant.

Anonymous wrote:DP. So, wait, the Baldoni supporters don’t think any discovery will be allowed on whether Jed Wallace has astroturfed in the past, besides on Lively’s case? No dep questions because “it isn’t relevant at all for these claims”? I’m not sure they’ll get a bunch of RFPs about it like the other PP was suggesting but I think saying it isn’t relevant at all is wishful thinking. Another DP above explained more carefully how and why Wallace’s astroturfing info from other cases could come in.

“The supporters” lulz.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:There is no way Jed is going to survive discovery. They're going to tear into his previous clients and astroturfing. Maybe he's looking for a quick settlement.

Why would that be relevant? Wouldn’t they be able to figure out what he did or didn’t do re: Blake?

Because they can say he has history of astroturfing, therefore get access to his messages/documents with past clients to lay out that history. That stuff wouldn't be protect. Just like the discovery will extend to Blake's famous friends and her companies, it will extend to Jed's clients. Discovery will be brutal.

Astroturfing other people isn’t relevant to the claims here. Jed would fight discovery requests here and I’d be surprised if a judge allows it.

It would if they were using it to establish that Nathan and Abel knew Wallace did that kind of work -- it could be used against Nathan and Abel, and potentially Baldoni, if not Wallace.

Which, since they worked for Johnny Depp, might mean subpoenaing any work Wallace might have done for Depp, to establish what Nathan and Abel expected when Wallace was hired.

If Wallace truly did no astroturfing for Baldoni maybe none of this matters. But if it turns out he did any, Nathan/Abel/Baldoni might argue that it was not authorized or not what they expected. Wallace's prior work for their team would then become relevant.

This isn’t relevant at all for these claims. It’s a classic fishing expedition.

+100000
No way would a judge allow this.

Yep. Always amusing to see “I never said I was a lawyer” try and flex on relevance.

DP. So, wait, the Baldoni supporters don’t think any discovery will be allowed on whether Jed Wallace has astroturfed in the past, besides on Lively’s case? No dep questions because “it isn’t relevant at all for these claims”? I’m not sure they’ll get a bunch of RFPs about it like the other PP was suggesting but I think saying it isn’t relevant at all is wishful thinking. Another DP above explained more carefully how and why Wallace’s astroturfing info from other cases could come in.