Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I also think it's weird for Freedman to subpoena all communications with a particular attorney/firm. It's weird to assume there won't be a common interest agreement in place, and/or to make that a big issue for discovery. And the fact that he's doing this to Taylor Swift suggests to me that he wants to put pressure on the Swift/Lively relationship in order to annoy Lively and in order to make Swift annoyed at Lively, and in order to make public, at some point, whatever information he finds out about the relationship.

It doesn't seem like something that would actually help Baldoni beat SH allegations, or the retaliation claim. I don't think I've ever in my legal career asked for someone's communications with another law firm. But Freedman's gotta have something to go talk to Candace Owens about, right?

It’s not weird to ask. If there’s a joint defense or similar, so be it. Why would freedman assume this without asking?

How many doc requests have you served that asked a third party for communications with another law firm that represented a party in the case? I have never had the occasion to make such an ask before. Not a single one.

Dp, but my guess is that they asked Blake for all correspondence with Taylor related to IEWU and they objected on the grounds of attorney client privilege/work product, which then led to the current subpoena. Or Freedman got a tip there is something noteworthy in that correspondence. I don’t think he did it without a reason.

#1, that doesn't make any sense because there are going to be text messages or other communications between the two that don't involve attorneys. So right off the bat, you're making things up to make this make sense. And #2, you don't answer my question. I assume the answer is zero, because like any normal attorney you don't go around subpoenaing other attorneys' communications with law firms that oppose you in a litigation, hoping to catch them out but also showing yourself to be a complete tool.

Why are you so angry? Let it play out and then complain if there is a reason. This will be decided relatively quickly.

I'm not angry. I don't understand why Baldoni fans aren't recognizing some of the stuff Freedman is doing as mistakes or bad lawyering. I've never seen interrogatory responses like he sent (late!) that come nowhere near answering the question and say instead he's willing to meet and confer, for vast majority of the responses. Never. And I've never seen another lawyer subpoena a third party for communications with a law firm that represents the opposition, and in a case like this involving Taylor Swift it seems he just wants to embarrass her and/or cause friction with Lively through the litigation, because that's a good story for him. I'm involved with plenty of discovery and this is not normal. I don't understand why you aren't saying that.

Yes, we know, you already gave us several pages of posts about eight interrogatories. And I said then, as I say now, there is truly nothing less consequential.


Taylor is directly mentioned in Baldoni’s complaint. There was no way she was not going to be the subject of a subpoena.

Please directly answer my original question: How many times have you subpoenaed a third party's legal counsel for their communications with a law firm representing parties who opposed you in that case?

I assume BF wants to make sure there’s been no witness tampering. The communications between BL and her lawyers and Taylor and her lawyers aren’t privileged. I’m unclear why you’ve been debating back and forth all day? Is it just because they should start with asking the parties first? That’s just a matter of sequencing. I imagine they don’t trust Blake’s team to give them everything, so they’ll eventually ask Taylor’s team anyway.

Why can’t you answer my extremely simple question? lol

Why haven't any of you ever answered my question? 633 pages in, multiple request, numerous drawn out expositories, and documentation of a coordinated plan STILL haven't been produced.

I think you have asked this maybe three times? I'd need to go back to he documents themselves, and I can't do that now. But you already know what I am going to say. They made a plan to hire a PR firm to deal with the social media fallout Baldoni was receiving and/or expected to receive. There were two pricing tiers, and it's not clear which one they chose, but Wayfarer apparently chose one of them, which led to subcontracting out Jed Wallace to, at minimum, monitor social media, and led his PR reps to do more than that. The two plan options were discussed at length elsewhere in this thread, these texts are not a surprise. Are you disputing that they created these plans and that Baldoni/Wayfarer picked one of them. Note that the plans don't include everything that the PR reps etc did -- the PR reps explicitely said that we can't put in writing exactly what we will do, but you know that we can bury them.

Like, this isn't a surprise. You're disputing how far Baldoni and his PR reps went. But they clearly had a plan, and Wayfarer hired people to follow through on those plans.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:A video of Taylor Swift at one of her infamous 4th of July parties leaked: https://x.com/TSUpdating/status/1922352255195324886

Taylor's camp trying to divert attention from the lawsuit, or is this a vid from Blake and Ryan trying to warn her that they have more on her?

I'm truly amazed at how you can read into things.

-Blake, thinking Justin sexually harassed her

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:A video of Taylor Swift at one of her infamous 4th of July parties leaked: https://x.com/TSUpdating/status/1922352255195324886

Taylor's camp trying to divert attention from the lawsuit, or is this a vid from Blake and Ryan trying to warn her that they have more on her?

I'm truly amazed at how you can read into things.

Anonymous wrote:I didn’t answer the question because I was out having a real life. I don’t think I ever have issued a subpoena to a law firm, but I also have never tried a case where the other party filed sham litigation to deprive my client of his right to object to a subpoena for his texts, or where the other party used the NY Times to peddle lies. So, generally this lawsuit is pretty atypical.

Anonymous wrote:A video of Taylor Swift at one of her infamous 4th of July parties leaked: https://x.com/TSUpdating/status/1922352255195324886

Taylor's camp trying to divert attention from the lawsuit, or is this a vid from Blake and Ryan trying to warn her that they have more on her?

Anonymous wrote:I didn’t answer the question because I was out having a real life. I don’t think I ever have issued a subpoena to a law firm, but I also have never tried a case where the other party filed sham litigation to deprive my client of his right to object to a subpoena for his texts, or where the other party used the NY Times to peddle lies. So, generally this lawsuit is pretty atypical.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I also think it's weird for Freedman to subpoena all communications with a particular attorney/firm. It's weird to assume there won't be a common interest agreement in place, and/or to make that a big issue for discovery. And the fact that he's doing this to Taylor Swift suggests to me that he wants to put pressure on the Swift/Lively relationship in order to annoy Lively and in order to make Swift annoyed at Lively, and in order to make public, at some point, whatever information he finds out about the relationship.

It doesn't seem like something that would actually help Baldoni beat SH allegations, or the retaliation claim. I don't think I've ever in my legal career asked for someone's communications with another law firm. But Freedman's gotta have something to go talk to Candace Owens about, right?

It’s not weird to ask. If there’s a joint defense or similar, so be it. Why would freedman assume this without asking?

How many doc requests have you served that asked a third party for communications with another law firm that represented a party in the case? I have never had the occasion to make such an ask before. Not a single one.

Dp, but my guess is that they asked Blake for all correspondence with Taylor related to IEWU and they objected on the grounds of attorney client privilege/work product, which then led to the current subpoena. Or Freedman got a tip there is something noteworthy in that correspondence. I don’t think he did it without a reason.

#1, that doesn't make any sense because there are going to be text messages or other communications between the two that don't involve attorneys. So right off the bat, you're making things up to make this make sense. And #2, you don't answer my question. I assume the answer is zero, because like any normal attorney you don't go around subpoenaing other attorneys' communications with law firms that oppose you in a litigation, hoping to catch them out but also showing yourself to be a complete tool.

Why are you so angry? Let it play out and then complain if there is a reason. This will be decided relatively quickly.

I'm not angry. I don't understand why Baldoni fans aren't recognizing some of the stuff Freedman is doing as mistakes or bad lawyering. I've never seen interrogatory responses like he sent (late!) that come nowhere near answering the question and say instead he's willing to meet and confer, for vast majority of the responses. Never. And I've never seen another lawyer subpoena a third party for communications with a law firm that represents the opposition, and in a case like this involving Taylor Swift it seems he just wants to embarrass her and/or cause friction with Lively through the litigation, because that's a good story for him. I'm involved with plenty of discovery and this is not normal. I don't understand why you aren't saying that.

Yes, we know, you already gave us several pages of posts about eight interrogatories. And I said then, as I say now, there is truly nothing less consequential.


Taylor is directly mentioned in Baldoni’s complaint. There was no way she was not going to be the subject of a subpoena.

Please directly answer my original question: How many times have you subpoenaed a third party's legal counsel for their communications with a law firm representing parties who opposed you in that case?

I assume BF wants to make sure there’s been no witness tampering. The communications between BL and her lawyers and Taylor and her lawyers aren’t privileged. I’m unclear why you’ve been debating back and forth all day? Is it just because they should start with asking the parties first? That’s just a matter of sequencing. I imagine they don’t trust Blake’s team to give them everything, so they’ll eventually ask Taylor’s team anyway.

Why can’t you answer my extremely simple question? lol

Why haven't any of you ever answered my question? 633 pages in, multiple request, numerous drawn out expositories, and documentation of a coordinated plan STILL haven't been produced.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I didn’t answer the question because I was out having a real life. I don’t think I ever have issued a subpoena to a law firm, but I also have never tried a case where the other party filed sham litigation to deprive my client of his right to object to a subpoena for his texts, or where the other party used the NY Times to peddle lies. So, generally this lawsuit is pretty atypical.

DP. Amen

Anonymous wrote:I didn’t answer the question because I was out having a real life. I don’t think I ever have issued a subpoena to a law firm, but I also have never tried a case where the other party filed sham litigation to deprive my client of his right to object to a subpoena for his texts, or where the other party used the NY Times to peddle lies. So, generally this lawsuit is pretty atypical.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I also think it's weird for Freedman to subpoena all communications with a particular attorney/firm. It's weird to assume there won't be a common interest agreement in place, and/or to make that a big issue for discovery. And the fact that he's doing this to Taylor Swift suggests to me that he wants to put pressure on the Swift/Lively relationship in order to annoy Lively and in order to make Swift annoyed at Lively, and in order to make public, at some point, whatever information he finds out about the relationship.

It doesn't seem like something that would actually help Baldoni beat SH allegations, or the retaliation claim. I don't think I've ever in my legal career asked for someone's communications with another law firm. But Freedman's gotta have something to go talk to Candace Owens about, right?

It’s not weird to ask. If there’s a joint defense or similar, so be it. Why would freedman assume this without asking?

How many doc requests have you served that asked a third party for communications with another law firm that represented a party in the case? I have never had the occasion to make such an ask before. Not a single one.

Dp, but my guess is that they asked Blake for all correspondence with Taylor related to IEWU and they objected on the grounds of attorney client privilege/work product, which then led to the current subpoena. Or Freedman got a tip there is something noteworthy in that correspondence. I don’t think he did it without a reason.

#1, that doesn't make any sense because there are going to be text messages or other communications between the two that don't involve attorneys. So right off the bat, you're making things up to make this make sense. And #2, you don't answer my question. I assume the answer is zero, because like any normal attorney you don't go around subpoenaing other attorneys' communications with law firms that oppose you in a litigation, hoping to catch them out but also showing yourself to be a complete tool.

Why are you so angry? Let it play out and then complain if there is a reason. This will be decided relatively quickly.

I'm not angry. I don't understand why Baldoni fans aren't recognizing some of the stuff Freedman is doing as mistakes or bad lawyering. I've never seen interrogatory responses like he sent (late!) that come nowhere near answering the question and say instead he's willing to meet and confer, for vast majority of the responses. Never. And I've never seen another lawyer subpoena a third party for communications with a law firm that represents the opposition, and in a case like this involving Taylor Swift it seems he just wants to embarrass her and/or cause friction with Lively through the litigation, because that's a good story for him. I'm involved with plenty of discovery and this is not normal. I don't understand why you aren't saying that.

Yes, we know, you already gave us several pages of posts about eight interrogatories. And I said then, as I say now, there is truly nothing less consequential.


Taylor is directly mentioned in Baldoni’s complaint. There was no way she was not going to be the subject of a subpoena.

Please directly answer my original question: How many times have you subpoenaed a third party's legal counsel for their communications with a law firm representing parties who opposed you in that case?

I assume BF wants to make sure there’s been no witness tampering. The communications between BL and her lawyers and Taylor and her lawyers aren’t privileged. I’m unclear why you’ve been debating back and forth all day? Is it just because they should start with asking the parties first? That’s just a matter of sequencing. I imagine they don’t trust Blake’s team to give them everything, so they’ll eventually ask Taylor’s team anyway.

Why can’t you answer my extremely simple question? lol

Anonymous wrote:Just say, “no, I haven’t ever done this.” Just admit it.

Dp, but my guess is that they asked Blake for all correspondence with Taylor related to IEWU and they objected on the grounds of attorney client privilege/work product, which then led to the current subpoena. Or Freedman got a tip there is something noteworthy in that correspondence. I don’t think he did it without a reason.