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.

+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

For discovery, you look at FRCP not FRE.

But they are directly related. you cannot get discovery of evidence that is wholly unrelated to any admissible evidence. The admissibility language in FRCP 26 (b)(1) does not license a fishing expedition for entire areas that clearly would be inadmissible. I think it’s intended to cover discovery of possibly inadmissible evidence that may lead to the discovery of admissible evidence - like hearsay or unauthenicated documents.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

What they knew about his other clients is irrelevant, all that matter is what he did for them with respect to Blake.

No it's not at all lol. Again super suspicious you think the discoveries are just going to be about said parties and not extend.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Ruh-roh, the queen of extended adolescence doesn’t want to be Khaleesi’s dragon anymore.

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/tvshowbiz/article-14333583/Blake-Lively-legal-battle-Justin-Baldoni-friendship-Taylor-Swift-ruined.html

I don't know if I necessarily believe the Daily Mail has sources about this, and I strongly believe Taylor Swift and Blake do have an authentic relationship, as naive as that might sound. But yeah, how can you not believe Taylor is at least a little annoyed by being dragged into this?

It could also get worse for her. This Reddit post said Blake was planning to go to the NYTimes MONTHS ago: https://www.reddit.com/r/ColleenHoover/comments/1eqwna5/ok_i_know_a_lot_of_the_inside_drama_for_iewu_and/

And in that post, they state "T swift finds out that the original composer for the movie is someone she worked with in the past that was mean to her, and she says it's either me or him"

More dirty laundry about Swift will probably get brought up the longer this battle goes on.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:+1
Plus Blake specifically thanked her in the movie.
And there are texts with Justin and Blake and between Justin and that other producer where they talk about how Taylor was pressuring Justin to consider using Blake’s rewrites of rooftop scene (that were actually Ryan’s rewrites, if you believe Blake’s red carpet interviews where she gives Ryan props for writing 90% of the rooftop scene)

I also saw interview with the Young Lilly where she gushed about how Taylor had hand-picked her.
How would Taylor have handpicked her if she had never met Justin before the night they were all at Blake and Ryan’s apartment?

That's what the Taylor source from TMZ is denying. Blake must have told her that, but why?? Blake herself didn't have anything to do with casting. Maybe she's a pathological liar because that's odd.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Did y’all read about the music situation for the film?
There’s an interview/podcast out there with the music creator from Deadpool saying that he stepped in at the last minute as the music creator for IEWU at Blake’s request and had to score the entire movie in less than two weeks—and that he assumed they had a different music guy who quit or was let go but he “didn’t know” what the story was.
Definitely seems to corroborate the
b allegations that they wanted to use Taylor’s song in the movie and she said yes, but then when she found out that original song guy was some guy she had “bad blood” with from a prior project, Taylor allegedly refused to let them use her song unless he was removed from the project because she allegedly didn’t want her name to appear with his.
So Blake allegedly had them fire this other guy and she went to the Deadpool music guy in the 11th hour and asked him to do the score and that’s how he got the gig.

Her hands are allllll over this movie and it seems that Taylor assisted with the takeover of the film—whether she intended to or not.

I suspect that the SA claim was a necessary last resort that Blake and Ryan intended to use to try to wrestle the movie rights away from Baldoni. He wouldn’t sell and they knew the contract between Baldoni and the book author had a morality clause such that an SA claim could void the contract.

+1. If you think these two uneducated idiots cooked this up on their own I have a bridge to sell you. This was methodically planned.

Anonymous wrote:Did y’all read about the music situation for the film?
There’s an interview/podcast out there with the music creator from Deadpool saying that he stepped in at the last minute as the music creator for IEWU at Blake’s request and had to score the entire movie in less than two weeks—and that he assumed they had a different music guy who quit or was let go but he “didn’t know” what the story was.
Definitely seems to corroborate the
b allegations that they wanted to use Taylor’s song in the movie and she said yes, but then when she found out that original song guy was some guy she had “bad blood” with from a prior project, Taylor allegedly refused to let them use her song unless he was removed from the project because she allegedly didn’t want her name to appear with his.
So Blake allegedly had them fire this other guy and she went to the Deadpool music guy in the 11th hour and asked him to do the score and that’s how he got the gig.

Her hands are allllll over this movie and it seems that Taylor assisted with the takeover of the film—whether she intended to or not.

I suspect that the SA claim was a necessary last resort that Blake and Ryan intended to use to try to wrestle the movie rights away from Baldoni. He wouldn’t sell and they knew the contract between Baldoni and the book author had a morality clause such that an SA claim could void the contract.

Anonymous wrote:+1
Plus Blake specifically thanked her in the movie.
And there are texts with Justin and Blake and between Justin and that other producer where they talk about how Taylor was pressuring Justin to consider using Blake’s rewrites of rooftop scene (that were actually Ryan’s rewrites, if you believe Blake’s red carpet interviews where she gives Ryan props for writing 90% of the rooftop scene)

I also saw interview with the Young Lilly where she gushed about how Taylor had hand-picked her.
How would Taylor have handpicked her if she had never met Justin before the night they were all at Blake and Ryan’s apartment?

Anonymous wrote:Did y’all read about the music situation for the film?
There’s an interview/podcast out there with the music creator from Deadpool saying that he stepped in at the last minute as the music creator for IEWU at Blake’s request and had to score the entire movie in less than two weeks—and that he assumed they had a different music guy who quit or was let go but he “didn’t know” what the story was.
Definitely seems to corroborate the
b allegations that they wanted to use Taylor’s song in the movie and she said yes, but then when she found out that original song guy was some guy she had “bad blood” with from a prior project, Taylor allegedly refused to let them use her song unless he was removed from the project because she allegedly didn’t want her name to appear with his.
So Blake allegedly had them fire this other guy and she went to the Deadpool music guy in the 11th hour and asked him to do the score and that’s how he got the gig.

Her hands are allllll over this movie and it seems that Taylor assisted with the takeover of the film—whether she intended to or not.

I suspect that the SA claim was a necessary last resort that Blake and Ryan intended to use to try to wrestle the movie rights away from Baldoni. He wouldn’t sell and they knew the contract between Baldoni and the book author had a morality clause such that an SA claim could void the contract.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Did y’all read about the music situation for the film?
There’s an interview/podcast out there with the music creator from Deadpool saying that he stepped in at the last minute as the music creator for IEWU at Blake’s request and had to score the entire movie in less than two weeks—and that he assumed they had a different music guy who quit or was let go but he “didn’t know” what the story was.
Definitely seems to corroborate the
b allegations that they wanted to use Taylor’s song in the movie and she said yes, but then when she found out that original song guy was some guy she had “bad blood” with from a prior project, Taylor allegedly refused to let them use her song unless he was removed from the project because she allegedly didn’t want her name to appear with his.
So Blake allegedly had them fire this other guy and she went to the Deadpool music guy in the 11th hour and asked him to do the score and that’s how he got the gig.

Her hands are allllll over this movie and it seems that Taylor assisted with the takeover of the film—whether she intended to or not.

I suspect that the SA claim was a necessary last resort that Blake and Ryan intended to use to try to wrestle the movie rights away from Baldoni. He wouldn’t sell and they knew the contract between Baldoni and the book author had a morality clause such that an SA claim could void the contract.

This is bananas!!!!

Anonymous wrote:Did y’all read about the music situation for the film?
There’s an interview/podcast out there with the music creator from Deadpool saying that he stepped in at the last minute as the music creator for IEWU at Blake’s request and had to score the entire movie in less than two weeks—and that he assumed they had a different music guy who quit or was let go but he “didn’t know” what the story was.
Definitely seems to corroborate the
b allegations that they wanted to use Taylor’s song in the movie and she said yes, but then when she found out that original song guy was some guy she had “bad blood” with from a prior project, Taylor allegedly refused to let them use her song unless he was removed from the project because she allegedly didn’t want her name to appear with his.
So Blake allegedly had them fire this other guy and she went to the Deadpool music guy in the 11th hour and asked him to do the score and that’s how he got the gig.

Her hands are allllll over this movie and it seems that Taylor assisted with the takeover of the film—whether she intended to or not.

I suspect that the SA claim was a necessary last resort that Blake and Ryan intended to use to try to wrestle the movie rights away from Baldoni. He wouldn’t sell and they knew the contract between Baldoni and the book author had a morality clause such that an SA claim could void the contract.