Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think he SHed her and I think he and the others worked together to try and smear her name so that if she went public with allegations, people would be predisposed to distrust her.

And it worked.

I also think they are still doing it.

Why would he SH the star of his directorial debut and Ryan Reynolds wife? Post me too era. With cameras and witnesses all around? That doesn't make any sense.

PP here. I don't think Baldoni decided to SH Lively. I don't think it was intentional. I think he's weird and has boundary issues and didn't understand that the things he was doing were not okay. I also think that like a lot of actors/directors/celebs (including Blake Lively) that he has narcissistic tendencies and when Lively (and others) started to complain about his and Heath's behavior, they were not really capable of taking responsibility or changing course.

But they did take responsibility and change course from the outset of the 17 point demand list and she reportedly had no further issues.

But I think Wayfarer doubled down on their behavior by going after her with TAG last August, and this is what precipitated the lawsuit. I also think that while Baldoni's and Heath's onset behavior was harassing but not poorly intentioned, the retaliation campaign *was* very intentional and they knew exactly what they were doing -- they wanted to discredit Blake and destroy her reputation. It was vindictive.

I know a lot of y'all don't see it that way. That's fine. But it's how I see it.

What was the retaliation campaign? Was there a plan executed? I keep hearing about a campaign but no evidence of an actual materialized plan.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Notactuallygolden seems like she's had it. She liked a comment on her videos indicating they think Blake and Co took the risk to obtain those text messages because they thought the NYT would be a mic drop but never expected or wanted it to go this far.

I was surprised she came out against Freedman for the Madison Square Garden comments considering Blake is alleging SH. I like that she doesn't pull punches on either side.

I think because it was a stupid comment on his part and plays right into her accusations that he is more into attracting publicity than the seriousness of the case. They're going to use those comments against him in court.

Taylor filed a motion to quash her subpoena, as expected.

Anonymous wrote:Can someone give me a TLDR on the current situation??

Freedman finally brought up Vanzan to the court in a response to a motion from jones. Liman gave jones until midnight to reply and we’re speculating there will be some sort of action from Liman this week, such as calling an evidentiary hearing.

Can someone give me a TLDR on the current situation??

Scarjo’s directorial debut “Eleanor the Great” is premiering at Cannes and already has Oscar buzz. A nice Indian boy has Oscar buzz too. Wayfarer is quietly making moves. No flooding the zone. No publicity stunts. Just making art.

Trying to think through this. I don't think the judge will care that they "ambushed" Jones with the crime-fraud exception, but he will care about the quality of the arguments. Stripping the attorney-client privilege (or in this case work product prepared by the IT firm in anticipation of litigation) is a big deal and it's not enough to just throw terms around. He's going to look at Wayfarer's arguments in their letter motion critically.

I'm sure part of Freedman's strategy is PR, part of it is to actually get the documents, but I also think part of this is testing the waters to see how Liman reacts to the Vanzan stuff and calling it a cyber crime. The arguments in the letter motion are similar to Abel's new claims in Jones v Abel so this where Freedman can see how sympathetic Liman will be on this.

Anonymous wrote:The most likely thing it means is that we will see action on the motion by the Court this week.

It’s a really serious accusation so I think you’re right. He won’t sit on it like some of the other motions.

The most likely thing it means is that we will see action on the motion by the Court this week.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The underlying issue in the request to respond is that Jones' lawyers are saying Wayfarer "ambushed" them with the crime-fraud argument, which they say should have been raised in the meet and conference prior to the motion to quash.

Jones also argued that the crime-fraud argument has no merit and was added for PR reasons and not for legal reasons.

I personally have no idea how any of this works so I don't know who is right. It seems a bit passive,-aggressive for Liman to say "yeah you can respond but you have to do it today." On the other hand he has repeatedly refused to grant extensions or only granted very short ones, so maybe his deal is just that he is stingy with time.

Out lawyered by BF.

It could also mean he’s ready to rule in their favor anyway, so doesn’t want to delay things.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Ok here’s some breaking news. Stephanie Jones asked the judge if they could reply to BF’s response to their motion to quash the Edgewood subpoena, in which BF asserts the crime fraud exception. Get this, Liman apparently said sure but you only have until midnight tonight. He sounds mad if you ask me. Buckle up kids, it’s getting spicy.

I disagree that’s he’s mad. It’s a 3 page reply brief that they had the weekend to prepare already. Liman is just running a tight ship as per usual. The time Liman gave for this 3 pg reply letter is consistent with the tight timeline Liman is generally keeping in this case. Note that he didn’t deny permission to file the reply for failure to show good cause lol.

Apples and oranges but nice way to get a dig in there.

Anonymous wrote:Ok here’s some breaking news. Stephanie Jones asked the judge if they could reply to BF’s response to their motion to quash the Edgewood subpoena, in which BF asserts the crime fraud exception. Get this, Liman apparently said sure but you only have until midnight tonight. He sounds mad if you ask me. Buckle up kids, it’s getting spicy.

I disagree that’s he’s mad. It’s a 3 page reply brief that they had the weekend to prepare already. Liman is just running a tight ship as per usual. The time Liman gave for this 3 pg reply letter is consistent with the tight timeline Liman is generally keeping in this case. Note that he didn’t deny permission to file the reply for failure to show good cause lol.

Sounds like the parties are not working well together in discovery. I wonder if Liman is going to yell at all of them.

Anonymous wrote:The underlying issue in the request to respond is that Jones' lawyers are saying Wayfarer "ambushed" them with the crime-fraud argument, which they say should have been raised in the meet and conference prior to the motion to quash.

Jones also argued that the crime-fraud argument has no merit and was added for PR reasons and not for legal reasons.

I personally have no idea how any of this works so I don't know who is right. It seems a bit passive,-aggressive for Liman to say "yeah you can respond but you have to do it today." On the other hand he has repeatedly refused to grant extensions or only granted very short ones, so maybe his deal is just that he is stingy with time.

Out lawyered by BF.

Anonymous wrote:The underlying issue in the request to respond is that Jones' lawyers are saying Wayfarer "ambushed" them with the crime-fraud argument, which they say should have been raised in the meet and conference prior to the motion to quash.

Jones also argued that the crime-fraud argument has no merit and was added for PR reasons and not for legal reasons.

I personally have no idea how any of this works so I don't know who is right. It seems a bit passive,-aggressive for Liman to say "yeah you can respond but you have to do it today." On the other hand he has repeatedly refused to grant extensions or only granted very short ones, so maybe his deal is just that he is stingy with time.

Well it’s a little hypocritical for jones to claim they ambushed her when she still hasn’t turned over the subpoena.