Anonymous wrote:Reddit also shows the Jamie Heath birth video that Blake claimed was pornography. I won’t post it here but wow. A family cuddling their newborn, with the birthing mom (Heath’s wife) being covered by a blanket throughout most of video. Music of Maxwell (I think) playing in the background, somewhat spiritual, a song about a woman’s worth.

And this was claimed by Blake as being pornographic—Justin and Jamie attempting to show her porn?

Wow. More receipts by Baldoni. Another fabrication by Blake.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Ha, well it gets twistier. Blake and Ryan have filed a motion to intervene regarding the Venable subpoena:

https://acrobat.adobe.com/id/urn:aaid:sc:US:4f4a0fce-d675-4742-aaa1-e333765df77c

And here they make the confidentiality argument I made above -- that any communications between Lively's lawyers and Venable would of course be attorney work product covered by attorney-client privilege.

Truly: what on earth.

Perhaps not Taylor then. I don’t understand this motion at all, if Venable wasn’t represented Lively and there is no joint defense agreement in place (none is mentioned and it would have to be), communication with Venable would not be protected by any attorney client privilege.

They specifically ask for communications between Gottlieb (Lively's attorney) and Venable. That would be privileged as attorney work product related to Gottlieb's work for Lively.

I also think that if Lively or Reynolds personally communicated with Venable about anything related to Swift, this would privileged due to attorney-client relationship between Venable and Swift. But Swift would have to assert that privilege, it's not something Lively can assert on her behalf.

The privilege is waived by sharing with Venable, a third party. Same for the Swift scenario once Lively or Reynolds are introduced. This is exactly why joint defense agreements exist, to prevent such waivers. Sucks for Blake that she didn’t have one here.

Did you go to law school in the Caymans or is this just AI babble? What?

Taylor isn't a defendant in any case, it wouldn't make sense for her to have a "joint defense agreement" with Lively.

And no, attorney work product is not "waived" if you communicate with another law firm on behalf of your client, as long as the communication is kept confidential by all parties and is done in anticipation of or related to litigation.

Anonymous wrote:Interesting new take on Reddit about the NYT and how potentially one of their board members is a major investor in RR ventures. Reddit opened a can of worms!

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Ha, well it gets twistier. Blake and Ryan have filed a motion to intervene regarding the Venable subpoena:

https://acrobat.adobe.com/id/urn:aaid:sc:US:4f4a0fce-d675-4742-aaa1-e333765df77c

And here they make the confidentiality argument I made above -- that any communications between Lively's lawyers and Venable would of course be attorney work product covered by attorney-client privilege.

Truly: what on earth.

Perhaps not Taylor then. I don’t understand this motion at all, if Venable wasn’t represented Lively and there is no joint defense agreement in place (none is mentioned and it would have to be), communication with Venable would not be protected by any attorney client privilege.

Adding, including work product. After further reflection, my guess is that Gottlieb et al has been sending love letters to Taylor specifying how they are trying to protect her in the litigation, which would primarily be the protective order. Absent a joint defense agreement, such correspondence would be entirely discoverable. And no mention of a joint defense agreement, and I could think of many reasons Taylor would not have wanted one.

No, it would not. That's the definition of attorney work product. If Gottlieb communicated with Venable in an effort to coordinate on subpoena's, that is attorney work product directly related to Gottlieb's representation of Lively and is privileged. You do not need a joint defense agreement, especially in a situation where (1) Lively is both a plaintiff and and a defendant, and (2) Taylor is not even a party to the case.

There are extremely narrow circumstances in which you could get attorney work product like this. One of them is the crime-fraud exception that is being alleged regarding Jonesworks. But there's no allegation that any crime or fraud was committed in these supposed communications between Gottlieb and Venable.

I don’t know what you are blabbering about, work product privilege can be waived by sharing with a third party. They don’t need to show crime fraud, just that the parties’ interests weren’t aligned.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Ha, well it gets twistier. Blake and Ryan have filed a motion to intervene regarding the Venable subpoena:

https://acrobat.adobe.com/id/urn:aaid:sc:US:4f4a0fce-d675-4742-aaa1-e333765df77c

And here they make the confidentiality argument I made above -- that any communications between Lively's lawyers and Venable would of course be attorney work product covered by attorney-client privilege.

Truly: what on earth.

Perhaps not Taylor then. I don’t understand this motion at all, if Venable wasn’t represented Lively and there is no joint defense agreement in place (none is mentioned and it would have to be), communication with Venable would not be protected by any attorney client privilege.

Adding, including work product. After further reflection, my guess is that Gottlieb et al has been sending love letters to Taylor specifying how they are trying to protect her in the litigation, which would primarily be the protective order. Absent a joint defense agreement, such correspondence would be entirely discoverable. And no mention of a joint defense agreement, and I could think of many reasons Taylor would not have wanted one.

No, it would not. That's the definition of attorney work product. If Gottlieb communicated with Venable in an effort to coordinate on subpoena's, that is attorney work product directly related to Gottlieb's representation of Lively and is privileged. You do not need a joint defense agreement, especially in a situation where (1) Lively is both a plaintiff and and a defendant, and (2) Taylor is not even a party to the case.

There are extremely narrow circumstances in which you could get attorney work product like this. One of them is the crime-fraud exception that is being alleged regarding Jonesworks. But there's no allegation that any crime or fraud was committed in these supposed communications between Gottlieb and Venable.

I don’t know what you are blabbering about, work product privilege can be waived by sharing with a third party. They don’t need to show crime fraud, just that the parties’ interests weren’t aligned.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Ha, well it gets twistier. Blake and Ryan have filed a motion to intervene regarding the Venable subpoena:

https://acrobat.adobe.com/id/urn:aaid:sc:US:4f4a0fce-d675-4742-aaa1-e333765df77c

And here they make the confidentiality argument I made above -- that any communications between Lively's lawyers and Venable would of course be attorney work product covered by attorney-client privilege.

Truly: what on earth.

Perhaps not Taylor then. I don’t understand this motion at all, if Venable wasn’t represented Lively and there is no joint defense agreement in place (none is mentioned and it would have to be), communication with Venable would not be protected by any attorney client privilege.

They specifically ask for communications between Gottlieb (Lively's attorney) and Venable. That would be privileged as attorney work product related to Gottlieb's work for Lively.

I also think that if Lively or Reynolds personally communicated with Venable about anything related to Swift, this would privileged due to attorney-client relationship between Venable and Swift. But Swift would have to assert that privilege, it's not something Lively can assert on her behalf.

The privilege is waived by sharing with Venable, a third party. Same for the Swift scenario once Lively or Reynolds are introduced. This is exactly why joint defense agreements exist, to prevent such waivers. Sucks for Blake that she didn’t have one here.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Ha, well it gets twistier. Blake and Ryan have filed a motion to intervene regarding the Venable subpoena:

https://acrobat.adobe.com/id/urn:aaid:sc:US:4f4a0fce-d675-4742-aaa1-e333765df77c

And here they make the confidentiality argument I made above -- that any communications between Lively's lawyers and Venable would of course be attorney work product covered by attorney-client privilege.

Truly: what on earth.

Perhaps not Taylor then. I don’t understand this motion at all, if Venable wasn’t represented Lively and there is no joint defense agreement in place (none is mentioned and it would have to be), communication with Venable would not be protected by any attorney client privilege.

Adding, including work product. After further reflection, my guess is that Gottlieb et al has been sending love letters to Taylor specifying how they are trying to protect her in the litigation, which would primarily be the protective order. Absent a joint defense agreement, such correspondence would be entirely discoverable. And no mention of a joint defense agreement, and I could think of many reasons Taylor would not have wanted one.

No, it would not. That's the definition of attorney work product. If Gottlieb communicated with Venable in an effort to coordinate on subpoena's, that is attorney work product directly related to Gottlieb's representation of Lively and is privileged. You do not need a joint defense agreement, especially in a situation where (1) Lively is both a plaintiff and and a defendant, and (2) Taylor is not even a party to the case.

There are extremely narrow circumstances in which you could get attorney work product like this. One of them is the crime-fraud exception that is being alleged regarding Jonesworks. But there's no allegation that any crime or fraud was committed in these supposed communications between Gottlieb and Venable.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Ha, well it gets twistier. Blake and Ryan have filed a motion to intervene regarding the Venable subpoena:

https://acrobat.adobe.com/id/urn:aaid:sc:US:4f4a0fce-d675-4742-aaa1-e333765df77c

And here they make the confidentiality argument I made above -- that any communications between Lively's lawyers and Venable would of course be attorney work product covered by attorney-client privilege.

Truly: what on earth.

Perhaps not Taylor then. I don’t understand this motion at all, if Venable wasn’t represented Lively and there is no joint defense agreement in place (none is mentioned and it would have to be), communication with Venable would not be protected by any attorney client privilege.

Adding, including work product. After further reflection, my guess is that Gottlieb et al has been sending love letters to Taylor specifying how they are trying to protect her in the litigation, which would primarily be the protective order. Absent a joint defense agreement, such correspondence would be entirely discoverable. And no mention of a joint defense agreement, and I could think of many reasons Taylor would not have wanted one.

But is that type of stuff relevant to the claims in the lawsuit?

Yes of course, attempts to influence a witness.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Ha, well it gets twistier. Blake and Ryan have filed a motion to intervene regarding the Venable subpoena:

https://acrobat.adobe.com/id/urn:aaid:sc:US:4f4a0fce-d675-4742-aaa1-e333765df77c

And here they make the confidentiality argument I made above -- that any communications between Lively's lawyers and Venable would of course be attorney work product covered by attorney-client privilege.

Truly: what on earth.

Perhaps not Taylor then. I don’t understand this motion at all, if Venable wasn’t represented Lively and there is no joint defense agreement in place (none is mentioned and it would have to be), communication with Venable would not be protected by any attorney client privilege.

They specifically ask for communications between Gottlieb (Lively's attorney) and Venable. That would be privileged as attorney work product related to Gottlieb's work for Lively.

I also think that if Lively or Reynolds personally communicated with Venable about anything related to Swift, this would privileged due to attorney-client relationship between Venable and Swift. But Swift would have to assert that privilege, it's not something Lively can assert on her behalf.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Ha, well it gets twistier. Blake and Ryan have filed a motion to intervene regarding the Venable subpoena:

https://acrobat.adobe.com/id/urn:aaid:sc:US:4f4a0fce-d675-4742-aaa1-e333765df77c

And here they make the confidentiality argument I made above -- that any communications between Lively's lawyers and Venable would of course be attorney work product covered by attorney-client privilege.

Truly: what on earth.

Perhaps not Taylor then. I don’t understand this motion at all, if Venable wasn’t represented Lively and there is no joint defense agreement in place (none is mentioned and it would have to be), communication with Venable would not be protected by any attorney client privilege.

Adding, including work product. After further reflection, my guess is that Gottlieb et al has been sending love letters to Taylor specifying how they are trying to protect her in the litigation, which would primarily be the protective order. Absent a joint defense agreement, such correspondence would be entirely discoverable. And no mention of a joint defense agreement, and I could think of many reasons Taylor would not have wanted one.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Ha, well it gets twistier. Blake and Ryan have filed a motion to intervene regarding the Venable subpoena:

https://acrobat.adobe.com/id/urn:aaid:sc:US:4f4a0fce-d675-4742-aaa1-e333765df77c

And here they make the confidentiality argument I made above -- that any communications between Lively's lawyers and Venable would of course be attorney work product covered by attorney-client privilege.

Truly: what on earth.

Perhaps not Taylor then. I don’t understand this motion at all, if Venable wasn’t represented Lively and there is no joint defense agreement in place (none is mentioned and it would have to be), communication with Venable would not be protected by any attorney client privilege.

Adding, including work product. After further reflection, my guess is that Gottlieb et al has been sending love letters to Taylor specifying how they are trying to protect her in the litigation, which would primarily be the protective order. Absent a joint defense agreement, such correspondence would be entirely discoverable. And no mention of a joint defense agreement, and I could think of many reasons Taylor would not have wanted one.

But is that type of stuff relevant to the claims in the lawsuit?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Ha, well it gets twistier. Blake and Ryan have filed a motion to intervene regarding the Venable subpoena:

https://acrobat.adobe.com/id/urn:aaid:sc:US:4f4a0fce-d675-4742-aaa1-e333765df77c

And here they make the confidentiality argument I made above -- that any communications between Lively's lawyers and Venable would of course be attorney work product covered by attorney-client privilege.

Truly: what on earth.

Perhaps not Taylor then. I don’t understand this motion at all, if Venable wasn’t represented Lively and there is no joint defense agreement in place (none is mentioned and it would have to be), communication with Venable would not be protected by any attorney client privilege.