Thread by @innercitypress

OK - now at Liner Freedman v. Blake Lively, case about Lively's subpoena on Bryan Freedman's firm which represents Justin Baldoni (and is trying to quash the subpoena). Inner City Press wrote the book  and will live tweet, thread belowamazon.com/dp/B0DWC8BH55

2:10 pm
All rise!
Judge: I'll hear on the motion to quash the subpoena.
For Liner Freedman, Ellyn S Garofalo: The Lively parties cite cases where opposition counsel was involved in resolved lawsuits or were involved in the matters are issue. Not the case here

Liner Freedman's Garofalo: Here, they allege an "untraceable" smear campaign. Whether the Liner firm has any relevant documents about communications with content creators is in dispute-
Judge: One might say if there's a dispute, there can be discovery, if relevant

Judge Liman: Part of the allegation is an untraceable smear campaign against Ms. Lively after her allegations of sexual harassment - how can she prove it up without discovery?
Liner's Garofalo: Ms. Lively has extensively exercised discovery, against 107 creators

Judge: So it is your position they should go to the content creators?
Liner's Garofalo: Some of them have filed motions to quash-
Judge: If those motions are well founded, isn't it more appropriate to go to the horse's mouth so to speak: Liner?

Liner's Garofalo: Maybe it's untraceable because it never happened. The Liner firm was not formally retained until December 21, 2024, the day after Ms. Lively filed her CRD complaint.
Judge: When did privilege begin?
Garofalo: Dec 20, 2024

Judge: Wasn't there an earlier date, communications in anticipation of litigation?
Liner's Garofalo: One text, December 16, I believe. There is nothing more. If the Court denies the motion to quash, on Categories 1-4 the answer would be, None

Judge: Then why are you fighting about Requests 1-4?
Liner's Garafalo: Cutting to the chase, the Liner firm certainly did not pay content creators. But Requests 5 to 8, we have significant issues. They are over-broad, sweep in attorney-client information

Liner's Garofalo: The request is not limited-
Judge Liman: They say they are not requesting privileged information.
Garofalo: I suspect we will be back in front of your Honor again.
Judge Liman: Why shouldn't I order production of all non-privileged information?

Liner's Garafolo: The "smear campaign" - or spike in negative publicity about Ms. Lively - began in 2024. Her last possible complaint was in January 2024. The smear campaign because in August 2024. There is no proximity - it was 9 months later

Liner's Garofalo: So it doesn't comply with California retaliation.
Judge Liman: That's for a motion to dismiss, or in limine.
Garofalo: Or judgment on the pleadings. Request 6 is for communications with newspapers or online news source. Mr. Freedman has spoken

Liner's Garofalo: In public, Mr. Freeman speaks to the media. This request for content creators, it's too amorphous, anyone with a few followers.
Judge Liman: There is law in this circuit about subpoenas to media organizations
Garofalo: Mr. Freedman spoke to TMZ

Liner's Garofalo: Ms. Lively is asking for the source of Mr. Freedman's knowledge - this is a request for attorney / client information.
Judge Liman: They say they seek the communications of the Liner firm with third parties, not the client.

Judge Liman: There's a claim in this case that Mr. Freedman made false and defamatory statements
Liner's Garofalo: The question is whether the statements were true
Judge Liman: Attorneys sometimes talk to a number of people, not just their clients

Liner's Garofalo: This is covered by the work-product privilege. This is discovery from opposing counsel - it's disfavored in this District. They want all mobile phone records about Mr. Freedman's statements. We have 20 lawyers - not as big as Willkie Farr, but

Liner's Garofalo: Do they want us to collect and redact a year of phone records to cull out a single call that may have been with a member of the media.
Judge Liman: Do I apply California law?
Garofalo: I understand the breadth of Rule 26

Judge Liman: A retainer agreements between a lawyer and third parties, is it privileged?
Liner's Garafalo: Here, they do not exist. They are subpoena-ing Liner law firm bank accounts.
Judge: Let me hear from the Lively parties

Lively's lawyer Michael Gottlieb (of Willkie Farr) Ms. Lively's retaliation and defamation claims allege specific acts by Mr. Freedman and his firm. We allege the campaign was run by Wallace, the fixer from Street Relations, close with Mr. Freedman

Lively's lawyer Gottlieb: We plead 8 specific defamatory statments by Mr. Freedman on behalf of the Wayfarer Parties, with actual malice - he falsely accused her of perjury, essentially. Para 293 says Freedman appears on any show that will have him

Judge Liman: Your request would like up Hickman case information. How can it be that?
Lively's lawyer Gottlieb: We offered to meet and confer and narrow - we could do that today. On Request 7, we were never interested in client-as-source, that's privileged

Judge: What of conversation with other people on the movie set, to find out of they say harassment happening or not?
Lively's lawyer Gottlieb: If it was for public statements, it's not privileged. We have to be able to allege mental state, so we need discovery

Lively's lawyer Gottlieb: We are interested in, and requesting about, the use of trolls and paid communications. We want to know the number of outlets who received these claims and were exposed to them. Ms. Lively was promised she would not be retaliated against

Judge Liman: The public has an interest
Lively's lawyer Gottlieb: We could exclude transcripts of public interviews.
Judge: Request 6 should be limited to the statements in Paragraph 299. What say you?
Gottlieb: Mr. Freedman has continued to make statements.

Judge: If you can't find them on the Internet, how are they retaliatory?
Lively's lawyer Gottlieb: We got a document in this case, a text chain with Mr. Freedman introducing the Wayfarer parties to his client, who then attacked Ms. Lively and the NYT online

Lively's lawyer Gottlieb: We have subpoena-ed Perez Hilton - who now claims the reporter's privileged. We'll litigate it, that will come before the court at another time. There is no reason the Liner firm should not provide its communications with Hilton

Livery's lawyer Gottlieb: Mr. Freedman has been on Megyn Kelly, another client... There is Candace Owens, who is also asserting the reporter's privilege.
Judge: If Numbers 1 to 4 are no longer at issue, you have won, Mr. Gottlieb.
Gottlieb: Motion to compel

Lively's lawyer Gottlieb: His list of clients may be one reason the Wayfarer Parties chose Mr. Freedman as their lawyer...
Liner lawyer Garofalo: Apparently he wants us to log communications - in ways they don't, I don't think. Gottlieb told us of her allegations

Liner lawyer Garofalo: It's just innuendo: Mr. Freeman represents someone, they have their opinion about Ms. Lively. Merely calling something she doesn't like defamatory doesn't make it defamatory. The engagement letters have zero to do with this

Liner's lawyer Garofalo: Mr. Lively is way out on a limb here. Allegations are not facts. And anyway, there is a litigation privilege. There is disfavor for discovery with respect to opposing counsel. We can't produce documents that don't exist

Judge Liman: Do you disagree that your client, the Wayfarer Parties, are entitled to all agreements the Liner firm has made with third parties
Liner lawyer Garofalo: They would not be entitled to prior agreements with Mr. Perez Hilton

Judge: Mr. Gottlieb, I did order one of the parties on the Wayfarer side to disclose every content creator with whom they spoke. Have you requested that, in a way that would cover the Liner firm?
Gottlieb: Interrogatory 5, we think there will be a supplement.

Judge: I'll get you an answer as soon as I can. Adjourned
If like, support:
paypal.com/paypalme/matth…
venmo.com/u/Matthew-Lee-…
buymeacoffee.com/innercitypress
Extras, like on X for Subscribers: matthewrussellleeicp.substack.com
Docs: patreon.com/MatthewRussell…
amazon.com/dp/B0DWC8BH55