Lively v. Baldoni 10 - Lawyer MJ Morley Breaks Down the Law in Jones v. Abel, Part 2

Transcript

This transcript was generated automatically and may contain errors — the audio is the record.

0:00:26 Thomas: To Gavel Gavel. This is episode 10. Wow, the big 1 -0 of Lively v. Baldoni. I'm Thomas. That over there is Lydia. How you doing?

0:00:31 Lydia: Double digits. I'm here. I spoke before you introduced me. Apologies.

0:00:39 Thomas: So I was very confused. I was like, I don't know who that is yet.

0:00:43 Lydia: Intruder.

0:00:46 Thomas: Time for part two with MJ. You can find on some app that I don't know about. Sorry that I'm not one of the youths. Threads is that one.

0:00:50 Lydia: Threads. Yeah. Connected with Instagram.

0:00:55 Thomas: Is, MJ is great, and we're here for the second part of the legal analysis of the Stephanie Jones complaint against Abel and others. Like I teased last time, some really interesting stuff in these later causes of action that we are excited to see how they play out. So without further ado, let's just get on over to it. Of course, we'll take our usual ad break. You can skip that by going to patreon .com slash gavelpod. Support the show. Get the goodies. Get this stuff early. All kinds of good reasons.

0:01:23 Lydia: Chunks.

0:01:26 Thomas: Right, chunks. That's what we call our patrons now.

0:01:28 Lydia: Give me a new merch drop.

0:01:29 Thomas: Any merch would be a new merch shop. Right. This, we will get back with MJ. More with MJ

0:01:45 Lydia: Cause of action, breach of contract. But now we're talking Wayfair agreement. And this is against defendants Wayfair Studios and Justin Baldoni. Kind of reiterating that same sort of language that we heard in the ABLE employment agreement cause of Action. It continues under the Wayfair agreement in exchange for services provided by Jonesworks. Wayfair and Baldoni agreed to pay Jonesworks a sum of twenty five thousand dollars per month. Additionally, Wayfair and Baldoni agreed, among other things, that during the term of the contract and for one year following its expiration or termination, they would not solicit or attempt to solicit for employment any officer, employee, or agent of Jones Works or to employ or attempt employee or otherwise induce or attempt induce any employee of Jones works to terminate such employees employment or engagement with Jones works without prior written consent. Important. May 2024, the Wayfair agreement automatically renewed. No time in the required 90 days before the automatic renewal did either party provide notice of termination, nor did Wayfair or Baldoni provide notice any material breach of the Wayfaire agreement. The agreement has therefore not validly terminated, and Wayfairy and Baldoni are obligated to pay JonesWorks $25 ,000 per month through May 6, 2025, and are similarly obligated

0:03:05 Lydia: On or about August 30, 2024, a representative of Wayfair informed Jones that Wayfair and Baldoni would no longer require JonesWorks services and thereafter refused to pay all amounts owed under the Wayfair agreement. Wayfair and Baldoni have breached the Wayfair agreement through their actions as described in this complaint, including by, among other things, one, failing to pay the amounts contractually owed under the agreement, two, soliciting and inducing Abel to depart Jones Works, and three, employing Abel following her departure from Jones Works. Works has substantially performed the Wayfair agreement or was excused from doing so because of the actions of Wayfair and Baldoni. Wayfair and Baldoni's breaches of the Wayfairy Agreement approximately and directly caused monetary damages to Jones and Jones Works in an amount to be determined at trial.

0:03:48 MJ: So this is, you know, a standard breach of contract case you kind of just look at this cause of action. I think that they could have brought this separate and apart, from right, any of the other things here if they wanted, if Jonesworks wanted to go after Wayfair and Justin Baldoni for this. Could, right? An agreement. The agreement had a term. Very clearly outline the existence of that valid contract. They outline the terms of the contract. Sure we'll see in whatever response papers filed, they'll probably have, you know, some arguments as to how Jones work may have reached the agreement or why they're not responsible there. But that happens in a lot lot of contract disputes. I think they,

0:04:32 Thomas: And remember that thing that I thought was a really bad email. That was Jamie Heath being like, Hey, I don't want to hear from this Stephanie Jones, Jones works thing anymore. Like enough of that. Which seems real bad.

0:04:43 Lydia: They were a client.

0:04:44 Thomas: Yeah.

0:04:46 MJ: Only did they breach the agreement, so they stopped paying the $25 ,000 per month. They refused to pay anything after August 2024. They poached an employee, they allege, right? Though that contract that they had specifically forbade them from doing so, and most contracts would have that in there. That's also a violation of the non -solicitation clause they had.

0:05:05 Thomas: Kind of damages might we be looking at for this? Is it all going to be just related to the 25 ,000 a month that

0:05:11 MJ: They're asking for the back pay, right, through have the $25 ,000 per month dating back to August 2024 that they want to go through May 2025. they can show other financial harm, they might be entitled to more compensation. Don't know the contract, but if the contract allows for interest on unpaid amounts or attorney's fees, that's something to consider.

0:05:34 MJ: Because, I attorney's fee clauses in anything, any type of service contract like this, so that if you have to sue on it, you you might get your fees back.

0:05:45 Lydia: Now fourth cause of action. Now we have on the flip side, tortious interference with contract regarding the Wayfair agreement against Jennifer Abel and Melissa Nathan. Repeating some of the same material from the previous causes of action on the details there. The new stuff that's added, Abel and Nathan were aware of the Wayfarer agreement and each induced, encouraged, and procured Wayfarers and Baldoni's breach of the wayfarer's agreement without justification, including by encouraging Wayfaring Baldoni to cease paying Jonesworks and instead hire Abel Nathan and by encouraging wayfaring baldoni to violate the non -solicitation provision of the agreement.

0:06:44 Thomas: I insane? Didn't we do this one? What is the breach was that the second cause of action?

0:06:45 Lydia: Did the other side. It was against Wayfair, Baldoni and Nathan against.

0:06:50 Thomas: So it's a lot of the same like language. Okay.

0:06:53 Lydia: And that they also have approximately indirectly caused monetary damages to Jones and Jones works in an amount to be determined at trial. So here we're getting the punitive stuff again. What's feeling your on on how this one's looking.

0:07:04 MJ: I think this is a pretty strong claim. You might argue. I don't know. No, I mean. I think it's just a good claim because they it is right. They against Melissa Nathan. Allegedly, you know, they kind it up very well. Know who was a party to the agreement. Know that Melissa. Mess up all of their names. So we know that Abel and Nathan were aware of the Wayfarer agreement. It does seem from the text that we have seen so far that they encouraged Justin to go and work with Abel in her own agency and continue working with Nathan. Does seem like it was planned throughout the yeah, I think it's a good argument. They. A contract, they were required to pay money for that contract. You when you look at it, you could definitely say that they stopped paying under the contract because were encouraged to do so. Right. Have stopped working with Jones work, for Jennifer Abel and Melissa Nathan's actions?

0:08:00 Thomas: That an element of it? Did they have to be like the entire cause?

0:08:04 MJ: Don't have to be the entire cause. But when you look at this one, I to establish a claim for tortious interference in New York, you have the existence of the valid contract here. We definitely know. I don't know that we definitely know we assume that. Abel would know about this contract considering she was the main person on that account, right? So you would assume that she knows everything about it. Then we need that intentional inducement to breach the contract, which we haven't had discovery yet. And I think that they put kind good language in here showing. They encouraged and procured their breach of the agreement by them to cease paying Joan Works and instead to hire them.

0:08:44 Thomas: This just seems pretty solid. Who knows? You never know if there's some different version of the facts. But hard yeah, to get around that one on

0:08:52 MJ: When I read these lawsuits, I think the arguments in the other one are, you sounds terrible to say more enjoyable to read, right. And watch it play out this one. I'm just like, Oh my gosh, I wouldn't want to be involved in this one side. Like, and that's something about lawsuits. Like they're not fun for anyone. Right. It's, I mean, you guys know that, right? It's terrible and invasive. And for Jones works to bring this lawsuit means she, probably felt she had no other choice.

0:09:10 Thomas: Either side or on the. Sure.

0:09:27 Lydia: Cause of action. Yeah.

0:09:28 Thomas: One's interesting. Faithless servant.

0:09:30 Lydia: Faithless servant against Jen Abel. And, you need some lessons on this, but let me read through a couple of the points here. Abel was an employee at Jones Works from July 2020 through August 21st, 2024, and during that period owed of loyalty. Breached her duty of loyalty to Jonesworks through her actions as described in this complaint, including by, among other things, one, acting against the best interests of Jonesworks, including By working to undermine and damage Jones and Jonesworks business and reputation to accessing, using and taking for her own purposes and against the company's interests. Jonesworks proprietary. Well, I think it's supposed to say proprietary, but it says propriety, documents and information. And three, soliciting, inducing and encouraging Jones Works employees and clients to terminate their relationships with Jones Works. This conduct was intended to and did, in fact, advance own interests to the detriment of Jones and Jones Works, the foregoing breaches were willful, wanton and in bad faith. Abel faithless service approximately and directly caused monetary damages to Jones Works in an amount to be proven at trial.

0:10:31 Thomas: Yeah, what's faithless servant? And is it duplicative? And different than just the other breach?

0:10:37 MJ: Yeah, I mean, it's really interesting. And honestly, I haven't actually seen it. So I had to read case law on it. But

0:10:43 Thomas: Let me ask you this. Typically in lawsuits, by you're getting to the fifth and sixth and seventh causes, are you kind of just tacking on stuff that's like loose? You lead with the good stuff, right?

0:10:54 MJ: Lead with the good stuff. Yeah, definitely. We do see breach of fiduciary duty tacked on a lot. Faithless servant. Mean off the top of my head. No, I don't think I've ever been. I don't think I've seen it move past a motion to dismiss if it has been in there. When you look at the case law, I mean, it does actually kind of fit here. So under New York law, it basically says that an employee who engages in disloyal conduct forfeits their right to compensation during that period of disloyality. That the disloyalty must be substantial. So misconduct isn't enough. The doesn't technically need to prove financial loss, just that the employee acted in bad faith. So it's, I designed to punish an employee who kind of breaches their duty of loyalty and prevents them from profiting from their misconduct.

0:11:42 Thomas: Yeah, I mean, if she was working with this client. For a long period of time against Jones' interests and kind of stealing the client and also doing things that Jones didn't approve of, bringing on Melissa Nathan. Like, I mean, that kind of seems like it fits. But it's interesting that you haven't seen this one. And don't I know. I mean what do you think? Is it likely to get dismissed or do you this will survive?

0:12:05 MJ: Know. I would say that, you do a good job arguing, right? That she worked against the company's best interest, that she took company documents and that she encouraged employees and clients to leave Jones work. Does have a duty of loyalty. Didn't act in the company. Best interest.

0:12:08 Thomas: Mm -hmm. Oh,

0:12:22 Lydia: I mean, she coordinated with the journalist at Business Insider for that expose on Stephanie Jones. I was like in direct violation of her contract. And

0:12:31 Thomas: Yeah. When you're working for Jonesworks and you're helping take down. That's also something that is somewhat relevant to us that you're not necessarily allowed to try to take down your own company that you work for while you owe a fiduciary duty.

0:12:44 MJ: Well, I talked to someone else who does this law and said, you know, have you ever heard this? Been practicing a lot longer than I have. And he actually wrote blog about it somewhat recently and said it's, you see it.

0:12:57 Thomas: Faithless servant one specifically.

0:12:59 MJ: And that you see

0:13:04 Lydia: OK. Interesting.

0:13:04 Thomas: Because then it's worth trying to recoup that salary, I guess, for that time period. Also says, yeah, monetary damages. Because So it seemed like from what you said, it was about getting that salary back. Like, hey, I'm not going to be paying you for five, three months to like work against me. But is there also other I guess you try to tack on. But it also seems duplicative, like a lot of this stuff. How much can you tack on damages for the same conduct, but just with a different cause of action?

0:13:19 Lydia: Take me down. Yeah.

0:13:30 MJ: I think the way that this actually works is, and this is honestly from a conversation, is that it kind of alleviates the burden of proving the damages of what happened, but it allows you to recover past wages or compensation in cases of employee disloyalty.

0:13:48 Thomas: OK.

0:13:48 Lydia: That's interesting.

0:13:49 Thomas: So it's kind of like isolating that part and making it a little easier just in itself. Maybe if they're successful.

0:13:56 Lydia: The very least, you would get this back kind of thing if they're successful.

0:13:59 MJ: That's what kind I got from that conversation.

0:14:02 Thomas: That kind of makes sense. So, yeah, we'll be interested to see how that goes.

0:14:05 MJ: That I read involved a very highly paid, like millions of dollars of commissions that the individual kind of took for himself to another business. It definitely still exists. I'm not sure that she was paid commissions or how that worked, but it's interesting.

0:14:22 Thomas: Did get. Yeah. On this complaint, she was entitled to percentages of profits and stuff.

0:14:27 Lydia: I so we're getting close here. Sixth cause of action, breach of fiduciary duty against defendant Jennifer Abel. We've talked about this a little bit, but digging into some more specifics. Was an employee at Jones Works from July 2020 through August 21st. And during that period owed Jones Works a fiduciory duty of loyalty, fidelity and allegiance to act at all times in the best interest of company and to to do no act which might injure the business interests or reputation of Jones Works, citing the employment agreement itself. Breached her fiduciary duties to Jones Works through her actions as described in this complaint, including by, among other things, against the best interests of Jones undermine and damage Jones and Jonesworks business and reputation, accessing, using, and taking for her own purposes and against the company's interests, Jonesworks proprietary documents and information, and soliciting, inducing, and encouraging Jonesworks employees and clients to terminate their relationships with Jonesworks. Abel's breaches of her fiduciary duties, approximately indirectly, cause monetary damages to Jonesworks in an amount to be proven at trial.

0:15:27 MJ: We've definitely seen these as tagalongs in most cases involving a non -compete agreement. Yeah. What it actually looks like, proving it and establishing damages there, I really know. I feel like, and this is in full transparency, we just kind of, it's just there. It's part of it.

0:15:46 Thomas: What percentage of cases go all the way to trial where you figure those things out? You know, a lot of this is like for for a settlement kind of thing.

0:15:53 MJ: You know, the most contentious one that I have been involved in settled. A couple of weeks before trial. Can't imagine going to trial on that, but yeah, I think not what I understand, not every employer does owe this heightened duty. But they're saying that she did because she was in this position and

0:16:11 Thomas: She signed a thing saying, yeah, yeah. It seems pretty solid.

0:16:13 MJ: She signed a thing exactly that she signed that employment agreement saying that she owed that she duty and an obligation not to harm them. And she did. Be harder for her to argue, right, that she was just a regular employee and they have kind of lined up what she did act against the best interest of the company. And they do a good job doing that, right? So if she was a fiduciary, if they can establish that the actions that she did were kind of even more serious than just the basic breach of contract.

0:16:23 Lydia: Man, so interesting.

0:16:42 Thomas: And I again, contributing to that article taking down Stephanie Jones while she works for Jones Works. Like that seem like something that you can just do without breaching your employment contract to me.

0:16:54 MJ: No, and with that. And I think, you there's a motion and this claim is thrown out, right, they still have the claim for the breach of contact. They would just kind of lose that heightened legal standard here.

0:17:13 Thomas: Right. Couple more.

0:17:14 Lydia: Yep. Seventh cause of action, defamation against Jen Abel. September and December 2024, Abel made statements to certain third parties, including participants in the public relations industry in which she and Jones work, asserting, among other things, that Jones had doctored and falsified text messages purporting to be from Abel and was attempting to distribute them to third parties in order to harm Abel in a false light.

0:17:35 Thomas: Holy shit. I think I missed that. This was where the doctoring thing was. Wow.

0:17:41 Lydia: So I'm guessing, yeah, because Abel turned over her phone. So then for those few months, basically trying to let anybody know that if you get texts from Stephanie Jones that she says are for me, they're not like she faked all of them.

0:17:54 Thomas: Well, but could this also apply to like the New York Times thing? Like their whole defense was doctored statements, doctored, doctured statements, which we'll get to. Is that.

0:18:03 Lydia: Maybe. And it's not just the emoji.

0:18:05 Thomas: I mean, but does that rise to the level of defamation? Okay, sorry. Finish the thing and then we'll...

0:18:09 Lydia: And then we'll discuss. Statements are false and untrue. These in that they tended to cause harm to Jones & Jones Works' reputation and business interests. Abel made these statements with knowledge that they were false, with reckless disregard for their truth of falsity, or at a minimum, negligently. Abels' statements enjoyed no privilege or authorization. Ables' false and defamatory statements caused harm to the Jones &

0:18:44 Thomas: To make of this one? This

0:18:45 MJ: This is a one big that I first time I read it, I definitely looked over it. There's a lot going on here, right? So, I saying... To win a defamation claim, I but I there are of two kind standards. The standard of proof depends on whether she's a private figure or a public figure, which isn't very straightforward. But either way, we need to establish that false statement published to a third party, harm to her reputation, and either negligence or actual malice if she's private or a you kind of go through this analysis, if that she was a private figure, then we just have to show that Abel was negligent and to take kind of reasonable care, they say, before making these statements. She's public, we have to shows that this was done with actual malice. She knew that it was false and she didn't care about it.

0:19:31 Thomas: Is directly the Facebook posts, right? I

0:19:34 MJ: What I find confusing is I know. Maybe she was also making because of the between September. Right. What was happening starting in September? And

0:19:42 Thomas: Sorry, I meant among other things. Yeah, not just that, but... But, like, don't you... So I'm wondering, because problems we're seeing in the other ones is specificity. Is this specific enough with the statements?

0:19:45 MJ: I don'T know that it's specific enough about statements. Yeah, that's a good point.

0:19:56 Thomas: Asserting that Jones had doctored and falsified text messages. So let's say if Abel texted some other PR firm, somebody because participants in the public relations industry or like another potential client or something, I don't know, texted, hey, Jones doctored these messages. This specific enough for to refer to that and for that to be pled properly or

0:20:19 MJ: I think when you look at it without considering the industry, you're like, how is that defamation? But when you consider that they're in PR and how important it probably is their credibility, you know, talking to other people. If she went out and said that Jones was altering text messages, that she was faking kind evidence almost like if she was striking directly at her credibility within her profession. Um, think that strengthens Joan's work case and Joan's case here.

0:20:47 Thomas: Seems tough, though, because I can imagine Abel saying, I have a good faith belief that they were doctored because there's an emoji missing or whatever. You know, so this seems tricky.

0:20:58 MJ: I I think, I that emoji argument so much. I get in fights over it.

0:21:02 Thomas: We'll get there.

0:21:03 MJ: Um. Yeah, I think this is a stretch. And as you kind of said, as we get to the end, we might just be adding things on here. But it's also worth putting it in too, right? We know these are written for PR. And if we're saying, okay, Abel's been lying to everyone in the industry about how I work, you see that having a pretty damaging effect,

0:21:24 Thomas: And I think she's referring to the website to the Stephanie Jones leaks thing, but I don't know if there's anything defamatory. And I don' t know if, again, if this is specific enough to be tied to that.

0:21:33 Lydia: Yeah well and it could also be that like you friend or something reached out like heard through the grapevine or something like Jen Abel saying this stuff about you Steph thought should know.

0:21:42 Thomas: We should add in this defamation against John Doe's one through 10 as well.

0:21:47 Lydia: Just tacking in that eighth cause of action, which is defamation to, as of now, unknown defendants, John Doe's 1 through 10. And this is specific to the website. So here it's laid out that John Does 1 through10 published the websites. The websites were viewed by numerous third parties, including on information and belief residents of New York County. Website's included numerous statements regarding Jones and Jonesworks, including the following. A. Jones bullied Jonesworks employees. B, Jones & Jones Works interfered with the employment prospects of former Jones Works employees. Jones and Jones Works leaked confidential client information. D, Jones &Jones Works coerce clients into taking actions that are not in those clients' best interests. JonesandJonesWorks interfere with their clients' ability to do business. False statements included accusing Jones of, quote, years of nonstop verbal and emotional abuse and horrific treatment in the workplace.

0:22:40 Thomas: And these are quotes.

0:22:40 Lydia: Yeah. Jones, quote, doesn't understand how to truly do PR outside of leaking her own client secrets. Jones quote does not fight for her clients, but she does fight with them, crying, screaming, keeping them hostage. Stephanie Jones takes clients hostage. Not only does she break confidentiality, she willingly does, regardless of the possible damage this kind of behavior might cause, implying that Jones was, quote hacking the defamatory websites. These statements are false. Yeah, it was an update from October saying that, you know someone with an IP address in Connecticut is trying to get into our site and hacking is illegal and blah, blah, yeah, who knows.

0:23:15 Thomas: Weird.

0:23:17 Lydia: These statements Are false. The false statements published on the websites are defamatory per se, and that they tended to cause harm to Jones and Jones works reputations and business interests. Does one through 10 made these statements with knowledge that they were false with reckless disregard for their truth or falsity or at a minimum negligently. False statements published on the websites enjoyed no privilege or authorization. The false payments published on websites caused harm to the reputations of Jones and Jones works in the public relations industry and among potential clients. And the defamatory statements published. On the websites approximately and directly caused harm. To the reputeations and business interests of Jones. And Jones works.

0:23:51 Thomas: This is interesting, how does this work? I mean, she doesn't know who did this, but this is the John does one through ten thing. This survive emotion? When do you have to identify who this is?

0:24:03 MJ: This is actually kind of a really cool part of the law that, and it's terrible to say that when normally you see these because of internet harassment, right?

0:24:12 Thomas: Yeah.

0:24:12 MJ: Anonymous internet harassment which is what we see here. They're using this as a tool, right. They're suing these unidentified individuals who they believe were responsible for creating and publishing these websites. They can do that by using these placeholders until they identify who actually. It um the reason that you do that is one you're preserving the claim right if you don't know who the other party is you're moving forward before that statute of limitations expires um and once you have the lawsuit filed then you can use like we've talked about subpoenas right so you can subpoena the website host domain registrars um ISPs, sometimes it involves like Facebook and Google and subpoenaing those companies is a nightmare anyways, but now they have a case and they have cause of action and they can demand this identifying information about who created or controlled this site.

0:25:03 Thomas: Oh, and like, who can oppose that? It's almost like, would anyone even oppose this? Because then they would be admitting it was.

0:25:11 MJ: Mean, and that's something you have to think about too, right? If there's someone involved in any of these lawsuits that might have had something to do with that, I'm sure they are doing it through, you all of the ways you can protect yourself on the internet. But Jones can try to get and demand, you don't think so.

0:25:29 Thomas: Guess I'm asking in a motion to dismiss from Abel, would it even address this cause of action? Yeah.

0:25:37 MJ: I mean, I don' think you would, right? You're not technically named there. So that'll be interesting to see how they do that.

0:25:42 Thomas: Yeah, because I could imagine someone wanting to argue, hey, these things either A, are true, or B, I have a reasonable cause to believe them. I'm just quoting a source. Then anyone who has to do that kind of has to step into the John Doe role.

0:26:00 Lydia: I Or, yeah, like the only way I could see is like being like this should be removed because it's irrelevant to the rest of the complaint.

0:26:08 Thomas: I guess.

0:26:08 Lydia: And like, I don't know, that's probably like the best they could do.

0:26:10 Thomas: Does that's a good question. Does Jones need to tie this to Abel or Nathan in any way?

0:26:16 MJ: Right now, But right. I think putting it in here suggests that, and I think we know from kind of the language of the complaint that they anticipate that there might be some involvement somewhere. It in there is kind of, I putting them on notice that they're looking for it.

0:26:31 Thomas: Talk about specificity. We got some specificity here in terms of the statements. So that is that is very interesting.

0:26:39 Lydia: And it also backdates to faithless servant potential, right? That if Jen Abel was involved in doing this website, that website went live in May. You know, we're backdating even more to when if can be proved that she was affiliated with this website where she was, you

0:26:55 Thomas: Oh, right. More salary. She's getting back.

0:26:59 MJ: That's point. A really interesting cause of action.

0:27:03 Thomas: Back to the seventh defamation against Jennifer Abel. That one. How are you feeling about that surviving emotion is missed because that one seems. Weak but I don't know well

0:27:14 MJ: Of have gone back and forth on that one. I mean, I think they're pleading that it was a false statement, right? If you're saying specifically that she doctored evidence, I don't think you can claim that that's an opinion. There's not really room for an opinion defense there, right?

0:27:29 Lydia: Yeah.

0:27:29 MJ: If she actually said she doctored evidence, to right, harm my reputation. Right there. Seems to be a fact. Claims Abel made these statements to people in the PR industry. So it's clear enough, but I would push back saying it's very vague because there's no specific names of is listed and it doesn't necessarily need to be there, but it is pretty vague. They try to do is make a defamation per se argument, which is harder to make. They're saying it's um per se because it when statements damage a person's profession and they're I think that argument is that because PR and after this, all of these cases, this is rich of me to say, but it's about credibility, right? And trust and falsely accusing someone who runs a PR company of fabricating messages is serious. So that defamation per se argument would kind of mean she doesn't have to prove damages. Harm is presumed. There are so many things going on here. I'm sure, you Abel will argue she's a public figure. Jones will argue. She's a private figure. See. We're going to see how this one comes out.

0:28:25 Thomas: Very interesting Yeah, there's a lot to be disputed. I am really interested in the motion to dismiss, and wait to talk about that. We it. Went We through it. Is there anything else, broad strokes, anything else you think we need to know about this?

0:28:57 MJ: I would just say, I mean, I'm that you guys know this, but when you look at the attorneys that are signing these documents, like these are big firms. These are very impressive lawyers that know what they're doing. But I'm very interested to see how the parties respond and whether they are all filing individually, as I anticipate the Blake Lively side will, or whether Justin Baldoni is going to and his team will respond in a group type pleading.

0:29:22 Thomas: Feel like this Jones versus Abel, Nathan. One seems the most likely to settle to me based on my not being an expert in anything. But now we're just like looking at it's like this. This seems tough. Like this seems like you're going to settle. Where's the other ones? I don't know. It feels like almost everything settles. But this one, it seems like they would do the motion to dismiss and see what they can get there. And then after that, I feel like you got to settle this. Right. I mean, what do you think?

0:29:51 MJ: I think it's in everyone's best interest, probably in this one, to settle it because they're. Whatever information comes out in this one will ultimately probably be part of document production in the other one, right? Because the parties are also kind I have to imagine that there's some pretty damaging information on both sides here that come out if they go through discovery in a trial.

0:30:12 Thomas: Yeah. Me Let ask that broad question. What? What? The public get to see and win, if anything, on that? Because we have the protective order. We don't have to get into detail on that. But like assuming there's document production that's not marked confidential or attorney's eyes only. We only see that in like I don't know if it's in a if of motion somewhere or and a like. Deposition like when would we ever see any of this this production like the public if if at all yeah

0:30:36 MJ: Is a great question and something I get yelled at on the internet for saying a lot. The way discovery works is like the attorneys are exchanging, you data files through a system, not even through email because they're so big and they're loaded into a review platform and they are reviewed. And the only time that we are going to see anything in discovery is if it is attached as an exhibit to a motion for summary judgment or there is a fight over something in discovery. And that document is attached. So even the requests that they send to each other, we're not going to see those. I we might because of a line in a letter that suggests the Baldoni parties served like 300 document demands on, I think, Leslie Sloan. Is the type of thing that you would write to the judge and be like, this is nuts. We're not producing. We're not responding to 300 requests. So then we would see what they've requested of them. A non -party comes in and says, you know, they've subpoenaed all of these documents from us, this is overly broad, then we'll see those requests. But we're not seeing like. The one I see commonly is like, oh my gosh, I can't wait to read Taylor deposition transcript. I'm like, are you nuts? Like, we're not

0:31:51 MJ: Reading that. Yeah.

0:31:51 Lydia: One's getting that.

0:31:54 Thomas: The debt not even the depositions because I know sometimes there's like video depositions and like sometimes we do see depositions knowing

0:32:00 MJ: And not be filed on the docket unless, again, it's a motion for summary judgment. And even in those, when I've been in federal court, they've said, I only want the relevant pages, right? So you're not. You're uploading your hundreds of page deposition transcript. Uploading like the page that you want the judge to look at. And then the next page that You want the Judge to look At.

0:32:22 Thomas: Parties though I feel like anything real bad we're gonna get some sort of motion including it just for fun right I mean

0:32:30 MJ: Agree. And I actually recorded a, I maybe a TikTok video on that being like, of the way everyone has operated so far, if there is something scandalous or salacious that is not marked attorney's eyes only or highly confidential or even confidential, they're going to figure out a way to put it on the docket.

0:32:50 Thomas: If this goes all the way to trial? Does the transcripts of depositions become any sort of public record or what?

0:32:56 MJ: Won't see everything, but we would see probably what will be used as trial exhibits. Sometimes those are public on the docket. They're not. So that'll be interesting to see what I know how they'll handle it with the designations.

0:33:10 Thomas: Right. Because once you once get to trial, those aren't really going to like if you're using it, it's out. Right.

0:33:14 MJ: So it'll be, the lines about we're never settling and all these things we hear. I mean, I know that you guys have been through a lawsuit. I'm sorry that you had to deal with that because it is so bad.

0:33:24 Lydia: Thank you. Yeah.

0:33:26 Thomas: Apology accepted.

0:33:28 MJ: Strongly discourage my clients from suing. I really do because it's so difficult, even when you're in the right, right.

0:33:33 Thomas: It's awful. Yep.

0:33:35 MJ: And you're litigating even if you win it still sucks to have to pay your attorney money for what you know what I mean it's just it all feels gross the

0:33:44 Thomas: There's no part of it that's good.

0:33:45 MJ: System is broken um sucks so a weird thing to say for a lawyer but I just seen too many people be destroyed by litigation so I know it's going to be a hard year or so for everyone involved um

0:33:56 Lydia: You think, though, if this goes to trial, because we're in federal court, we're there's no audio, there'S no video of trial or anything like that. Got like the transcripts for the Trump trial, but that was because like that was an exception.

0:34:06 Thomas: Well, it was criminal, right?

0:34:08 Lydia: Well, Southern District of New York.

0:34:10 Thomas: It's a criminal trial. Yeah.

0:34:11 Lydia: I guess my question is that, you think that like like that? Southern

0:34:14 Thomas: This going to be on court TV?

0:34:15 Lydia: District of New York. Well, no, I'm wondering if Southern District Of New York is going to like, know, see you this as like a matter of public interest or something and make that exception of, you Know, making transcripts available of court proceedings or any idea on that.

0:34:27 MJ: Now they're still kind of following the normal rules, right? Conference they posted like the notice that the transcript would go up in a certain amount of days. Don't see this ever being televised, like the federal rules of, I just, I don' t see that happening. I know there are some weird rules that courts where they'll like try it um think that's happening in the southern district I'm actually pretty sure they prohibit video um or anything uh then I mean we had a discovery fight and he posted a dial in number for people to listen to it so I think it'll be interesting to see what happens um can't imagine they would broadcast an entire trial that way but me I mean maybe I know I the second circuit might allow like live stream audios but but that's are arguments right that's not a trial um yeah transcripts might be available later right

0:35:00 Thomas: Interesting. Yeah. Doubtful. Point taking that even I any that seems like no way anyone settling like still they often settle but like. Just yeah, I mean, and it makes sense because there's so many reasons to settle and it just gets more and more of the cost and all that. I wonder what it would take in this case. Like, I really wonder with Ryan Reynolds and Blake Lively what they feel they have been put through. I don't know. People with a ton of money, where money is not the issue, I don't think, unless there's something we really don't know about their financial situation. For either side, it seems like money's not the taking that out of the equation. Just, I still feel like this might go all the way. I don'T know. We'll see.

0:35:57 Lydia: Know if they would be able to come to terms that are satisfactory to both sides there. I just really don't now.

0:36:03 Thomas: Unless there's just something that's so embarrassing that they just have to not get it out. You know, like they just

0:36:09 Lydia: The swinger parties or something.

0:36:12 Thomas: Which, yeah, I mean, that's the real thing. Like, it is horrible to have personal stuff just out to the world. It's a really, really terrible component of this. And I could imagine that being, a you real determining factor here.

0:36:24 MJ: I think it impacts relationships. It impacts mental health. It's going to impact their ability to work. Judges have a strange of encouraging settlement, too. I'm once they're through discovery, the judge will kind step in and possibly make all the attorneys come and all the parties come and spend a day where he tries to encourage them to settle. We've had that happen in federal court, like a mandatory in -person mediation where basically the judge yelled at both sides separately all day and tried to get us to settle.

0:36:54 Thomas: I went through attempted thing with an retired judge, but actual the judge, does like, that? Wow.

0:36:59 MJ: So required us to go to mediation and then we had a whole day mandatory. We didn't settle there. We settled, you know, a week or so after. But judges can make it clear to you, you they think is strong about your case and what is weak and

0:37:12 Lydia: Yeah, yeah. And, like, get over yourself. Just, yeah, I was

0:37:13 Thomas: Was a it was a really fascinating process that I would love to talk about that happened to us. But me, I guess Lydia wasn't there. But but but I didn't know the judge would actually do that. That's but I mean, it's all all of that is because the system is just overloaded at all times. Right. They're just like really trying to not have to go all the way with this stuff.

0:37:31 MJ: And I I think at a certain point um can kind of see where a case is going to come out right sometimes both sides are just so buried and will say I I can promise you that the attorneys on these cases are fully bought into their client's position right and they are going to live and breathe this fight, for um, as long as it happens and it will become, you big, part of their lives. Sometimes you need someone to come in and be like, you're going to lose on this. You're to lose this. And I can tell you that. You need to stop wasting your money. Because it, it gets to the point where there's just no, um. No justice, right? Some point, just the lawyers are winning. And when you get to that point, it's like, what are we doing here? But

0:38:03 Thomas: Very on. Just the lawyers are winning. Yeah, it'S pretty, pretty early in the process.

0:38:16 MJ: Well, I this lawsuit, I that the judge is going to get mad at someone if he's not already.

0:38:23 Thomas: Whole thing or this Jones one?

0:38:24 MJ: Whole thing. I'm sorry. Jones one has been tame so far compared to the other one. The amended timeline, the disputes, I think those are just going to continue. They didn't agree to have a magistrate judge involved. So that means Judge Lyman is going to have to handle every single little discovery fight.

0:38:43 Thomas: I missed that. I guess we haven't gotten there yet.

0:38:46 MJ: I can tell you that federal judges hate discovery fights. And if you go in front of them and say, wants to produce screenshots for text messages and there's no metadata and that's not proper. The judge is going to be so annoyed with everyone. Right.

0:38:59 Thomas: I thought that would happen. Well, we can't get ahead of it. We're still going in docket order. So we're way back in the timeline. So thank you so much for taking so much of your time for real. Hey, throw out. Where can people find you? I know you mentioned that where you're covering it. That out and anywhere else that people should go to follow you.

0:39:06 MJ: And the right way to do the story. So I love the way you're doing it.

0:39:21 MJ: You can find me. I am on all social media at more with MJ and we will have a website with that domain name shortly as well.

0:39:30 Thomas: Excellent. Thank you so much again. Really enjoyable. I loved it. Learned a lot. And we would love to talk to you again if you have the time.

0:39:34 Lydia: Learned a lot. Yeah.

0:39:38 MJ: Of course. It was a pleasure speaking with both of you. Thank you so much for including me in this. I can't wait to listen.

0:39:43 Lydia: Until