Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

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.

I don’t think Lively is going to get this discovery. But admissibility is not the standard for discovery. Discovery is broader.

lol no not that broad. You don’t get to do discovery for inadmissible evidence.

You actually can get discovery that is questionable on admissibility. Judges are not making determinations on admissibility during fact discovery/motions to compel.

I don’t think Lively is getting the PP’s fishing expedition, but the judges is looking at relevance, burden, etc not admissibility.

The past tactics he uses would not be a fishing expedition. The way some users are saying it has zero relevance is actually incredibly suspicious.

yes it would be. The 2nd Circuit is pretty clear on this.

“Au fond, a fishing expedition is indeed permissible and legitimate when the information sought pertains to the subject matter of the case and seems reasonably calculated that discovery would lead to permissible evidence as to claims or defenses. Oppenheimer Fund, Inc. v. Sanders, 437 U.S. 340, 351 (1978). Although this requirement “has been construed broadly,” the information sought must be relevant to an actual claim or defense. Id. at 351-54 (denying discovery of the list of potential plaintiffs in a class action suit because the evidence was not reasonably calculated to be admissible to support any raised claim or defense).”

https://casetext.com/case/walsh-v-top-notch-home-designs-corp

they can ask Wallace what he did with respect to *Lively* in the engagement he had with Baldoni’s PR firm. Asking him all about his other clients is irrelevant and an obvious fishing expedition to get damaging/embarassing but inadmissible evidence.

The argument for seeking discovery on other clients is to show that Nathan and Abel (and potentially Baldoni) *knew* that Wallace does the kind of astroturfing Lively is accusing him of doing here.

The theory of the case, which Lively's lawyers could lay out in a motion to compel, would be that Nathan and Abel famously worked for Johnny Depp during his trial against Amber Heard, where there is extensive evidence of astroturfing. Baldoni must have been aware of this work when he hired them because it is the single most high profile celebrity conflict of the last few years. If Wallace provided astroturfing services to Nathan and Abel in the Depp case, and if Baldoni was aware they had done so and hired them in part because they had this capability via Wallace, this would be directly relevant to the issue of whether Baldoni was hiring this team for his own beneficial PR or to smear Lively online.

I'm not saying this is what happened -- I have no idea. I'm saying that this is a sound argument for a judge to grant Lively's lawyers some leeway during discovery to find evidence that would prove the above theory. That's the entire point of discovery -- to get the evidence so the parties know whether they have a case at all, or what arguments they can or want to make at trial. I especially think that if the motions to compel are very carefully written to request discovery related only to Wallace's prior work for Nathan and Abel clients (especially communications between Wallace and Nathan/Abel about the nature of his work) and limited perhaps to a relatively narrow time period or even limited only to the Depp/Heard case as that is what Baldoni and his team were most likely to be aware prior to engaging the team, the judge would be willing to grant it.

The posters who think discovery has no reasonable limits are the same folks pushing Blake’s request for a gag order a few weeks ago and who also think she is going to add Freedman as a party. None of these things happened or are going to happen in the real world

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.

His history of astroturfing is completely relevant. Her defense is that he was hired and help create bots for Justin. Have you guys ever been in a discovery. They aren't always directly relevant to the claims. That's why it's always said discoveries are a killer.

fishing expedition. What do his past clients have to do with Baldoni? Nothing admissible there. They can ask what he did for Baldoni, the terms of engagement with Baldoni, etc.

You don't think his past tactics are going to come up?? Seriously? Its not a fishing expedition in the slightest. Discoveries are extremely extensive for a reason. They don't and aren't going to focus on just Baldoni. That goes for Baldoni discoveries against Blake as well. Thinking otherwise is naive.

“Discoveries are clearly extensive for a reason.” Yes, you are clearly an expert on discoveries. The rest of us are actual litigators.

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 other poster was likely you, but in any case, fishing expeditions are not allowed on discovery.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

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.

I don’t think Lively is going to get this discovery. But admissibility is not the standard for discovery. Discovery is broader.

lol no not that broad. You don’t get to do discovery for inadmissible evidence.

You actually can get discovery that is questionable on admissibility. Judges are not making determinations on admissibility during fact discovery/motions to compel.

I don’t think Lively is getting the PP’s fishing expedition, but the judges is looking at relevance, burden, etc not admissibility.

The past tactics he uses would not be a fishing expedition. The way some users are saying it has zero relevance is actually incredibly suspicious.

+1 though I don't think it's suspicious so much as reflects this weird approach to this case where whoever you believe dictates your opinion even on legal procedural matters. It's really reductive and I don't get it because these are just discussions of legal strategy and viability of certain motions or approaches.

It's just boring. If your take is "I agree with X party and therefore everything their legal team does is genius and correct and sure to be successful, and everything the other side's legal team does is stupid and misguided and has no legal foundation," then there is no reason in a discussion at all.

I'm a lawyer and like talking about the legal stuff. I don't really consider myself team anyone.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

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.

I don’t think Lively is going to get this discovery. But admissibility is not the standard for discovery. Discovery is broader.

lol no not that broad. You don’t get to do discovery for inadmissible evidence.

You actually can get discovery that is questionable on admissibility. Judges are not making determinations on admissibility during fact discovery/motions to compel.

I don’t think Lively is getting the PP’s fishing expedition, but the judges is looking at relevance, burden, etc not admissibility.

The past tactics he uses would not be a fishing expedition. The way some users are saying it has zero relevance is actually incredibly suspicious.

yes it would be. The 2nd Circuit is pretty clear on this.

“Au fond, a fishing expedition is indeed permissible and legitimate when the information sought pertains to the subject matter of the case and seems reasonably calculated that discovery would lead to permissible evidence as to claims or defenses. Oppenheimer Fund, Inc. v. Sanders, 437 U.S. 340, 351 (1978). Although this requirement “has been construed broadly,” the information sought must be relevant to an actual claim or defense. Id. at 351-54 (denying discovery of the list of potential plaintiffs in a class action suit because the evidence was not reasonably calculated to be admissible to support any raised claim or defense).”

https://casetext.com/case/walsh-v-top-notch-home-designs-corp

they can ask Wallace what he did with respect to *Lively* in the engagement he had with Baldoni’s PR firm. Asking him all about his other clients is irrelevant and an obvious fishing expedition to get damaging/embarassing but inadmissible evidence.

I started feeling awful for Blake Lively yesteray, but then I remember she started it by encouraging the cast to unfollow Justin so she could feed speculation on social media. She was playing with fire here.

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.

His history of astroturfing is completely relevant. Her defense is that he was hired and help create bots for Justin. Have you guys ever been in a discovery. They aren't always directly relevant to the claims. That's why it's always said discoveries are a killer.

fishing expedition. What do his past clients have to do with Baldoni? Nothing admissible there. They can ask what he did for Baldoni, the terms of engagement with Baldoni, etc.

You don't think his past tactics are going to come up?? Seriously? Its not a fishing expedition in the slightest. Discoveries are extremely extensive for a reason. They don't and aren't going to focus on just Baldoni. That goes for Baldoni discoveries against Blake as well. Thinking otherwise is naive.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Above poster, I am not a lawyer, but I fund this conversation interesting. Would you please explain why if some podcasters said the NYT did have risk, then why won’t others come out in support of the ‘beloved’ NYT. What am I missing. I agree with poster that indicated there is a difference between the NYT not having the filing, which is what NYT said correct? But having information that was in the filing likely from someone on BL’s ‘team’.

See the post a few above. It’s a touchy time in media and for first amendment law. The NYT is the elite of this little world. I find it curious and a bit noteworthy that people in this world who really know the law aren’t coming out strong to defend them.

“Touchy times” doesn’t mean Baldoni is anywhere close to a plausible pleading. The relative silence on this case probably means that the 1A experts are not super interested in this case because it’s one of the many cases filed against the Times. It’s nowhere near the interest as the Palin case (or Dominion case) because it is weak.

Not disagreeing with your overarching point, but I feel like lawyers are more likely to follow political cases more closely more than celebrity-related ones, or at least celebrity ones featuring two actors who are actually not that big.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

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.

I don’t think Lively is going to get this discovery. But admissibility is not the standard for discovery. Discovery is broader.

lol no not that broad. You don’t get to do discovery for inadmissible evidence.

You actually can get discovery that is questionable on admissibility. Judges are not making determinations on admissibility during fact discovery/motions to compel.

I don’t think Lively is getting the PP’s fishing expedition, but the judges is looking at relevance, burden, etc not admissibility.

The past tactics he uses would not be a fishing expedition. The way some users are saying it has zero relevance is actually incredibly suspicious.

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.

His history of astroturfing is completely relevant. Her defense is that he was hired and help create bots for Justin. Have you guys ever been in a discovery. They aren't always directly relevant to the claims. That's why it's always said discoveries are a killer.

fishing expedition. What do his past clients have to do with Baldoni? Nothing admissible there. They can ask what he did for Baldoni, the terms of engagement with Baldoni, etc.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Above poster, I am not a lawyer, but I fund this conversation interesting. Would you please explain why if some podcasters said the NYT did have risk, then why won’t others come out in support of the ‘beloved’ NYT. What am I missing. I agree with poster that indicated there is a difference between the NYT not having the filing, which is what NYT said correct? But having information that was in the filing likely from someone on BL’s ‘team’.

See the post a few above. It’s a touchy time in media and for first amendment law. The NYT is the elite of this little world. I find it curious and a bit noteworthy that people in this world who really know the law aren’t coming out strong to defend them.

“Touchy times” doesn’t mean Baldoni is anywhere close to a plausible pleading. The relative silence on this case probably means that the 1A experts are not super interested in this case because it’s one of the many cases filed against the Times. It’s nowhere near the interest as the Palin case (or Dominion case) because it is weak.

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.

His history of astroturfing is completely relevant. Her defense is that he was hired and help create bots for Justin. Have you guys ever been in a discovery. They aren't always directly relevant to the claims. That's why it's always said discoveries are a killer.

Anonymous wrote:Yikes at the really angry and defensive Baldoni supporting attorney in here who needs to roundly insult anyone who mildly disagrees with her. Are you all right? It's okay to take a break if you need one.

You aren't allowed to even suggest different theories without them jumping down your neck

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

The arrogance of some lawyers on here astounds me. You’re a lawyer but clearly not a publishing lawyer, and you are coming out with a position when you don’t even know defamation basics, while I do and know about vetting. You are confusing fair report as Baldonis claim when it is the exact opposite.

NYT piece was worded to say they didn’t have the complaint. Which might be true. But it ultimately doesn’t protect them bc it’s likely going to come out that they’d been working with Blake all along, which goes to the heart of their defamation defense that they just happened to be reporting on a legal filing and matter of public interest- eg, a fair report.

DP lol at you throwing shade about “publishing lawyers.” Plenty of us here have enough background in defamation and 1A to know that the case against the NYT is very, very weak. This is not actually a super complex area of the law. And not that the top legal minds are rushing to the newspapers to comment on this, but I have not seen any article quoting a lawyer arguing that he has a strong claim - only the opposite.

https://www.businessinsider.com/can-justin-baldoni-win-lawsuit-new-york-times-lawyer-analysis-2025-1

Pp Omg you again with your 1A nonsense. You don’t know this area of the law, so please stop. Now you’ll start going on about actual malice. The other piece of defamation law you sort of remember from your media law 101 training.

And I’ll repeat what i told you earlier after you were going on about actual malice, this entire thread started bc of a podcast with 2 lawyers who said NYT had risk. You likely aren’t seeing knowledgable people speaking out bc no one likes to openly bet against the beloved NYT (which btw, every defense side firm lawyer hopes to work for bc the work is great and they pay their bills) but the chatter is that yes, this story was off and baldoni is coming out strong.

Lol I wrote 1A because I know it triggers you, a member of the elite “publishing law” bar (read - did doc review on a libel case one time).