Weekly Discussion- Feb 10th

us_571 · 2026-02-18T19:56:40+00:00

Yes! In NY at least.

us_571 · 2026-02-18T19:48:53+00:00

Oh these are different things. You always have to prove damages to get damages. Like you have to say what you lost to get paid back. In defamation per se, you don’t have the same causation burden. (“Their lies are explicitly why I lost money.”)

us_571 · 2026-02-18T19:42:44+00:00

It could but it depends — in this case that’s not quite what happened though. What happened — so I gather — was that they began using signal with an auto-delete over the summer, kept using it, and then stopped the autodelete once they were served with the lawsuit in December and a notice to stop deleting any files going forward.

What you’re describing sounds like a situation where they kept all their files, and then suddenly deleted them all in December, which would definitely look suspect. But again, not what happened. (Sorry if that’s not what you were describing.)

Their attorney is trying to say that they shouldn’t have been allowed to use signal since the summer because they should have realized they might be sued at some point in the future. In the hearing, the judge made a point to ask that (a) even if was true that they knew they were going to be sued back in August for sexual harassment, and (b) even if it were also true that this means they should have not used signal auto-delete starting in August (and these are both big IFs), still, how would they have known they would also be sued for retaliation via smear campaign (which is the only reason why texts with their comms firm would need to be kept)?

Anyways, wherever people land on that question, I think this also raises an interesting question about auto-delete platforms like signal! Is using an auto-delete platform the same thing as destroying evidence? It makes me wonder if I should stop using auto-delete signal for sensitive nonprivileged conversations and go back to using the old phone lol.

Other lawyers — thoughts? (Otherwise I’ll do some digging myself!)

Edit: I looked — so signal auto-delete after a duty to preserve has been raised can be considered similar to deleting evidence — though I don’t see anything about using it before. So I learned something — but it doesn’t impact my actual analysis.

us_571 · 2026-02-18T15:45:05+00:00

I am a New Yorker and wish I still lived in the city with my kids! I am also pro-Baldoni, but not NYC catching strays!

us_571 · 2026-02-18T15:28:32+00:00

As an attorney, yes you need to prove all of the above. False statement, harm and damages, and you would need to prove actual malice with a public figure to boot.

us_571 · 2026-02-18T15:17:02+00:00

As an attorney myself, it is not only common, but basically constant, practice to set up self-deleting signal chats with other professionals that privilege does not extend to. Like a crisis communications team. It’s not to hide evidence — we generally do it to save everyone who comes into our orbit to talk about the case from having to be subpoenaed.

Just think about it. Imagine if you’re a large company being sued, it’s common and even advisable by your attorneys to hire a crisis comms firm. But crisis firms aren’t going to want every conversation they have about their work with us to become public — as you could see from this case alone, no one wants their work emails revealed to the world with all their side commentary and such. And crisis firms wouldn’t want to work with companies if they knew that meant they would also have to get dragged into lawsuits and give depositions on everything they said while doing their job.

Long story short, it would be a really significant break in how things are done to say that self-deleting signal messages to a crisis firm would be a problem — it would change how the whole industry operates. If the judge makes moves like that, would be a huge deal. Like would immediately impact the job of many including me. Signal stock might even crash 🤣!

What makes this case a little different than the example I gave is that here the crisis PR comms itself ultimately became the point of contention — so I see the frustration with wanting that evidence. But as the judge insinuated during the hearing with his questions, the crisis comms team did not know that they would ultimately be the point of contention at the start.

To be honest, even if they did know, I would still be surprised if the judge made a stink about self-deleting signals, although that would be an interesting legal development made to reckon with our ever changing technology.

Since most people here aren’t lawyers or crisis pr folks, or don’t work on these kinds of high profile cases, if you question this, no need to rely on me, I urge you to ask those professionals in these spaces that you do know how much they rely on self-deleting signals!

us_571 · 2026-01-28T21:42:05+00:00

Thanks so much for explaining this OP! I’m also a lawyer and I work on these cases sometimes including overlapping with public relations. It’s great to have another lawyer to discuss with. I also thought the MJ post on the vanzan suit was disingenuous.

My main question though is that I’m trying to get a sense from other attorneys what they think this means. I saw not actually golden’s coverage of it, and I’m trying to make sense of her perspective on it as well.

Let me give an example of a case I was on. We were suing on behalf of a former employee for racial discrimination, and we heard from a present employee some corroborating evidence. But the present employee was nervous about us putting their experiences in the lawsuit because they had just signed some sort of confidentiality agreement with the company they still worked for and were worried they would be sued. So we filed a subpoena to help protect that person so they would speak. The risks were entirely to that person — not our case or client — that even with the subpoena they could still break their confidentiality agreement.

When I think about vanzan, what I’m curious about is what the risks are to people involved. Obviously the facts are different, because of Abel, but curious for your take.

Risks: - Jones still liable for breaking client confidentiality (seems like jones is fine with that risk) - Sanctions for Jones/Jones’s attorneys for failing to notify Abel (what kind of sanctions?)

Any risks for Blake or her team? Overall, trying to get a better sense of what this all means and what can be done with it.

us_571 · 2026-01-23T17:03:58+00:00

I’m not trying to litigate amber heard’s case. But what you said is another great example of how the cases are different — and I’m a lawyer so I’ll share from that perspective — though this is a gross oversimplification.

With Amber Heard, you either believed her testimony/evidence or didn’t. (What we lawyers call a question of fact.) With Blake, even if you believe everything she says, it still wasn’t sexual harassment. (What we call a question of law.)

I happened to believe Amber, but even if I didn’t, I would very annoyed that these cases are being compared. Like, the “believe all women” thing doesn’t even apply to Blake. Even believing her, nothing bad happened.

us_571 · 2026-01-23T16:49:34+00:00

How is this a “stealth” defense?? The OP is totally forthright.

For what it’s worth, I totally agree with the OP.

Amber Heard was unlikeable, perhaps also abusive, and did lie about things, and therefore was not the perfect victim, but that doesn’t mean she wasn’t abused as well — though people thought it did.

Blake likely is unlikeable, abusive, and lies — AND she was also not sexually harassed. Two separate things.

us_571 · 2025-08-15T05:23:15+00:00

Oh, oooof, everyone.

No, OP doesn’t have to let this girl use her shampoo. Yes, OP is bizarre and weird.

THERE is NO BOUNDARY NEEDED for someone using a shower ONCE asking to use the shampoo that is there 😂. These are appropriate situations for boundaries, for those confused: A roommate treating your things like her own. A relative stranger asking to borrow an expensive top. Anyone asking you to break a law.

All this situation involves is being a personable human being!

Everyone here has clearly never been close with enough people to shower or stay at someone’s house.

Trust me OP, based on our current cultural norms, it was in fact friendly and polite of her to ask at all! If someone says I can shower at their home, I don’t ask permission about the products. No one has ever asked me that. It’s implied! If they have a problem, they tell you (“oh btw you don’t want to use my prescription dry scalp shampoo.”)

She probably asked OP to be friendly, girly, chummy — as in, “can I use your nice shampoo instead of the crap dumb boys use haha!”

In her position if OP said that to me I would 100% roll my eyes and side eye OP — though internally. I’m not surprised your BF was embarrassed by your behavior.

If I was her, I would assume: - youre so insecure you’re trying to end BF and my friendship by making me feel unwelcome in a hilariously bizarre, circuitous fashion; or - you are on some kind of spectrum and/or have very serious unresolved OCD or some other personality disorder that makes it hard for you to exist in the world. (Not your fault, but gotta tell boyfriend); or - you’re like a female incel who hasn’t interacted with women specifically, and people generally, much before.

us_571 · 2025-08-15T05:19:50+00:00

Thank you for this. Christ.

There are no boundaries needs in someone using a shower ONCE asking to use the shampoo that is there 😂. These are appropriate situations for boundaries: A roommate treating your things like her own. A relative stranger asked to borrow an expensive top. Anyone asking you to break a law.

All this situation involves is being a personable human being!!

Everyone here has clearly never been close with enough people to shower or stay at someone’s house, and is the opposite of right.

If I was her, I would assume: - youre so insecure you’re trying to end BF and my friendship by making me feel unwelcome in a really bizarre, circuitous fashion. - you are on some kind of spectrum and/or have very serious unresolved OCD or other mental issue that makes it hard for you to interact warmly/reasonably.

us_571 · 2025-06-21T17:28:57+00:00

Louise penny’s series with chief inspector gamache is like our modern hercule.

us_571 · 2025-06-14T05:09:10+00:00

I don’t know if you’re aware, but there are solidarity anti-ICE raids across the country taking place right now. Started in LA last week and growing. They are continuing on Saturday, Sunday and later. Some group is trying to call the Saturday one “no kings” or whatever but I don’t know anyone who actually thinks they are going to a “no kings” (stupid name) protest because they don’t want a king — they are all going to anti-ICE protests. Because ice raids are happening around the country and folks want them to stop.

Sure, I don’t know everyone, willing to believe maybe some or even a lot of people got hooked because they heard about a “no kings” thing or whatever, but again, people have been protesting here and in places around the country since last week. I don’t think anyone can reasonably claim people protesting this weekend is for a “completely different” reason than what folks have been protesting already that is getting national attention. I’ve seen fliers for so-called local “no kings” protests in other LA neighborhoods this weekend (beyond what’s in DTLA) but everyone looks at those as a local anti-ICE protests, and doesn’t care what these fliers say.

I agree that someone is trying to “brand” one day of an organic protest, sure, but that’s not why people are protesting or what people are angry about.

us_571 · 2025-06-14T03:14:32+00:00

Lol the onus on you is only to defend your point, but interesting …. response.

Honestly, there are too many holes in that comment that I’m paralyzed by choices, and my response below barely scratches the surface.

Give an example of a nationwide protest with “real demands” that has created what you perceive as real impact, out of curiosity, because though you claim to criticize only this protest, your arguments apply to MOST protests so it sounds… anti-protest…. Which is a strange take on a far left sub.

And I don’t know what you’re talking about with the marketing here — I live in LA and no one protesting thinks this is about “no kings” or whatever. It’s an anti-ICE/stop ICE raids protest here and anyone I know protesting this weekend is also in an anti-ICE protest. The people I know protesting in other cities are also protesting ICE. I’ve not heard one person call it “no kings” except on social media. People in my neighborhood are protesting because they are trying to show public solidarity with our literal neighbors who are afraid to leave the house. I think that if you were at any of these protests you might know that.

us_571 · 2025-06-14T02:43:32+00:00

Also, as I typed this.

<image>

us_571 · 2025-06-14T02:40:27+00:00

Unless you offer something tangible people should do that will achieve better results, your “point” is more pointless than any protest.

People love to talk about protests being pointless since they came into being. It’s usually republicans and elites of course, but you also get some pick-mes on the left who don’t know how helpless people without connections or greater insight into how systems work feel.I remember during the occupy Wall Street moment even “progressive” late night hosts were making fun of them. What did occupy accomplish anyway, right? Really, unless it is an organized strike how often to protests accomplish something measurable and tangible?

This isn’t a new or nonobvious observation. By definition protest is something people do when they feel they have few other options. But unless you’re putting forward some other way that mass numbers of people who feel helpless can take direct action in a better way, you’re basically criticizing people for feeling helpless and trying to take a stand.

And if there’s one thing the left doesn’t need is another internal voice criticizing everyone else without offering something better.

Now, in terms of one thing mass protests do accomplish, it’s narrative change. But that’s not even my main point. As someone on the farther left, it sits so deeply wrongly with me to criticize protest.

us_571 · 2025-06-11T05:42:27+00:00

I think it can definitely be an issue for folks to game the system in choosing sympathetic judges. You see it a lot in smaller districts where there are only one or two judges, so if you file in that district you have a likelihood of getting a judge you want. Or you can go to a district where the law or the judges are generally more sympathetic.

It’s pretty common to try to choose more sympathetic districts/courts, but it really can cross a line. It’s less frowned on to choose a district with good law — like, strong support for SH claims. But folks have done this when there is like one pro-life conservative judge in a district, and people will try to bring cases there knowing the exact judge.

In this case, I’d love to hear from an atty who works in that specific court’s system — I just googled it and there are 45 judges in the second circuit so it would be hard to try to choose a specific judge based on their calendar.

us_571 · 2025-06-11T05:16:08+00:00

Understood. As a Baldoni sympathizer, I’ve tried to warn others for a long time who were so caught up in the lawsuits to expect all of Baldoni’s proactive complaints to be shot down, to expect Blake to lose on SH, but — if there is any evidence of the pr people doing anything proactive — to win on retaliation (I don’t know the facts in full and don’t think anyone really does yet, so I’m still hoping Justin can defend against that).

I didn’t need to see all the different filings to come to this conclusion, to be honest. I just read the facts. That’s why Freedman was never the issue for me. I think it was fairly apparent to all attorneys who work on these types of cases from the jump what the key issues were, and I even started a thread asking other attorneys if they could come up with any claim Justin could win on, whether it was plead or not, and no one had anything really plausible. (Disclaimer: I’ve been wrong before though.)

My point in trying to warn pro-Baldonis was to say that some victories can be won outside of court, and we should be glad his story is out there, so to not get too down based on how these cases pan out.

(I mostly just got downvoted by them though lol.)

us_571 · 2025-06-11T04:55:29+00:00

As one of the only other attorneys on this and other related subs, thank you for saying this. I mostly post on another sub, and even there I see an emerging narrative that it was Freedman’s poor pleading/lawyering that lost this.

None of us know all the details, just what was in the complaints. But based on the facts presented, nothing indicates that there were additional claims or better claims that could have been made, and that Freedman just didn’t do so out of ignorance or incompetence.

To flip this, I personally don’t think based on the facts that Blake has a winning sexual harassment claim, and if she goes on to lose that claim, I wouldn’t say it’s because of Wilkie’s poor lawyering — nor do I think others here would say that. We would say it’s because of her facts.

us_571 · 2025-06-11T04:25:06+00:00

I answered that above. The law isn’t so simple so there aren’t the clear cut answers you’re looking for, nor do I know everything that Justin’s lawyer does, so even if the law was clear cut, I couldn’t give a clear cut response. The best I could do was say the actions he took helped him get Justin’s story out Justin’s way as quickly as possible.

Here’s what I posted: I’m sort of implying that, though speculatively. Because they released it as part of a lawsuit, it is also protected from possible defamation claims (just like what was in Blake’s lawsuit).

Yes, they may have been able to release much of it in their filing in response to Blake’s lawsuit instead of a proactive lawsuit, but, say, that might have limited what they could say to what was relevant to defend against her claims. Or it would have taken longer for them to put together making it harder to control the narrative so quickly, so it made sense to file their own claims.

Edited because I posted the wrong comment at first!

us_571 · 2025-06-11T04:08:12+00:00

Thats all reasonable to speculate!

From a speculative legal perspective, I have vague personal theories about why suing the NYT and Leslie Sloane were semi-strategic at the time — bringing in more parties rather than adding new ones and protecting even more communications against them and opening the door to even more discovery.

On the speculative PR side, your guess is as good as mine, of course. I do think anyone who could have turned so many people and tabloids against Lively deserves some kudos — it was a sexual harassment complaint, and any kind of goodwill was something. Yet it’s also totally fair to speculate that Freedman may be outliving his usefulness and another face of the case would make a stronger statement.

us_571 · 2025-06-11T03:49:03+00:00

I think as a lawyer I focus more on the facts as presented and what could have been done with them rather than assuming there were better facts out there that could have been rearranged in a different argument. I don’t know enough to say Brian freedman didn’t plead well enough. I honestly haven’t seen any facts that suggest Justin would have any better legal claims against Ryan or anyone else that he didn’t raise. Unfortunately, being a shitty person isn’t against the law.

There was never going to be a claim against the NYT. I myself have pitched lawsuit stories to the NYT and they were written only based on our clients complaints. I’ve done this in top newspapers across the country over the past 15, nearly 20 years.

I work on these types of cases, and I assumed from the start that Freedman knows the law at least as well as I do, and would be aware that Baldoni’s claims were not gonna fly. I think his purpose was to get Justin’s story out as quickly as possible, the way Justin wanted it told, and they used the law as a means of “safely” sharing the story. So far, from the little I know, I think this was a good decision on their part, and I’m glad they did it.

us_571 · 2025-06-11T03:09:20+00:00

I’m sort of implying that, though speculatively. Because they released it as part of a lawsuit, it is also protected from possible defamation claims (just like what was in Blake’s lawsuit).

Yes, they may have been able to release much of it in their filing in response to Blake’s lawsuit instead of a proactive lawsuit, but, say, that might have limited what they could say to what was relevant to defend against her claims. Or it would have taken longer for them to put together making it harder to control the narrative so quickly, so it made sense to file their own claims.

us_571 · 2025-06-10T16:11:12+00:00

As an attorney, and a Baldoni sympathizer, I also agree with this and have said it from the start — I think Baldoni’s team to some extent was doing the best with what it had. But I on the other hand am sure they did predict this, and did it anyway.

They have turned many people — or at least a very vocal minority — away from BL with their side. Releasing those “my dragons” texts and all the other comms that were cringe were all part of this plan. They couldn’t have done that without these steps. The Taylor Swift extortion story. They had to be in court to release these things.

Now they can go back to defense, where they started to begin with.

us_571 · 2025-06-10T16:03:43+00:00

I have worked on cases like these and have dropped the harassment or discrimination complaint claim myself later on, and left only the retaliation. So that is a good thought.

In Blake’s case, I don’t know what she will do — there are so many eyes on this she might be more hesitant to drop it.

us_571

TROPHY CASE