Latest news with #Does
Yahoo
3 days ago
- General
- Yahoo
Saskatchewan court orders SaskTel to relinquish info related to 'victimsvoicesregina' Instagram account
A court has ordered SaskTel to hand over information that a man was seeking in an effort to identify people he says are responsible for defaming him on a former Instagram account known as 'victimsvoicesregina.' The bottom-line decision from the Saskatchewan Court of Appeal was made on May 8, but the court's published reasons for that ruling were recently made available online. The decision is from a panel comprising Justice Georgina Jackson, Justice Meghan McCreary and Justice Keith Kilback. It lays out how Ryan Boldt filed a lawsuit in 2021 against Meta Platforms, Inc., as well as three unknown individuals listed within the court documents as Jane Doe, Betty Doe and Sally Doe (the Does). Meta owns and operates social media platforms such as Facebook and Instagram. The appeal decision indicates that Boldt alleges 'the defendant, Betty Doe, created a false and defamatory story that she was sexually harassed by Mr. Boldt in the course of her employment.' He further asserts, according to the decision, that this story was then given to Jane and Sally, who were the administrators of the victimsvoicesregina account, on which it was published 'without taking any steps to verify the accuracy of the Post or the associated comments made by others on the page.' In 2020, the victimsvoicesregina Instagram account posted many stories of alleged sexual assault and harassment that were said to have taken place within the city. 'Mr. Boldt claims that he suffered damages because of the defamatory Post, which he quantifies at $1,000,000,' the decision states, noting he also seeks punitive and aggravated damages. However, it goes on to say that Boldt doesn't know the true identities of the Does. For the lawsuit to proceed against them, they have to be formally notified of it, which would require Boldt to determine who they are. For that purpose, he's gone through the courts in an effort to gain information from SaskTel, Telus Communications Inc., and Access Communications Co-operative Limited. The decision notes a 'cyber security investigator' was hired on Boldt's behalf. The investigator wrote an affidavit stating that, through information provided by Facebook Inc., he learned that the Does accessed the victimsvoicesregina Instagram account through those internet service providers. Stories of the Year: Survivors' Stories shed light on Regina's problem with sexual violence Boldt sought a court order directing the companies to provide 'Identifying Documents' relating to specific activity from certain IP addresses (numeric addresses assigned to devices connected to the Internet). He was looking for documents containing: 'account holder name(s); account holder address(es); account holder billing information; account holder email addresses; physical addresses related to IP addresses; and any other identifying information.' The appeal decision states that while Telus and Access took 'no position' with respect to Boldt's application for such an order, SaskTel opposed it, arguing among other things that the documents were subject to solicitor-client privilege. Boldt narrowed his application to seek only those documents contained within a SaskTel legal file relating to another case. The decision notes this was presumably done because SaskTel stated it didn't 'possess, have custody of, or control of' any such documents other than those which might be on that file. A lower court judge had previously dismissed Boldt's application, finding that the documents were subject to solicitor-client privilege, but Telus and Access were ordered to disclose their documents. On appeal, the three judges of Saskatchewan's highest court decided the lower court judge's decision with regard to SaskTel contained multiple legal errors. SaskTel did not tender evidence to establish the documents would be covered by privilege, and the onus was on the telecommunications company to do so, according to the appeal decision. Further, even if the information was privileged, that would not have legally precluded its disclosure, so long as certain conditions could be met, the appeal decision states. The appeal judges ordered SaskTel to give Boldt the documents. However, the decision goes on to specify that the documents 'shall be held by him and his solicitors in the strictest confidence and shall be used by them only for this specific litigation in which they were obtained.' The Regina Leader-Post reached out to Boldt through his lawyer, Madlin Lucyk. She advised that Boldt was not interested in providing any comment. bharder@ The Regina Leader-Post has created an Afternoon Headlines newsletter that can be delivered daily to your inbox so you are up to date with the most vital news of the day. Click here to subscribe. With some online platforms blocking access to the journalism upon which you depend, our website is your destination for up-to-the-minute news, so make sure to bookmark and sign up for our newsletters so we can keep you informed. Click here to subscribe.
Yahoo
21-04-2025
- Entertainment
- Yahoo
Justin Baldoni Damns Blake Lively For 'Abuse' & 'Sham Lawsuit' Seeking Texts, Smear Campaign Evidence; 'Nothing To Hide,' Actress' Lawyers Declare
Five months after Blake Lively filed her sexual harassment and retaliation complaint with California's Civil Rights Department against her It Ends With Us co-star and director Justin Baldoni, his Wayfarer Studios and inner circle, a previously unrevealed subpoena seeking lawsuit from the actress peels back some of the questions about when she knew about an alleged online smear campaign against her, and how did she know it? In partial response, we now know that Lively gain the info in the late summer and early fall of last year in a targeted shadow suit of sorts, and the information came from Joneswork boss Stephanie Jones. More from Deadline Hugh Jackman Shares "One Little Gripe" About Making 'Deadpool & Wolverine' Hit With Ryan Reynolds Menendez Brothers Resentencing Now Off Until Next Month As Lawyers & Judge Look Over Parole Board Report Ordered By Gavin Newsom Judge Denies L.A. DA Motion To Delay Menendez Brothers' Resentencing Hearing; Defense Lawyer Accuses Prosecution Of Playing Politics With Case Eventually revealing a treasure trove of what look on the surface like incriminating and unpalatable texts and other correspondence from Baldoni's Melissa Nathan and Jennifer Abel-led PR team, the September 27 filing has been kept under the radar until the past week. Lively's name nor that of spouse Ryan Reynolds doesn't appear anywhere on the New York state court suit against 10 unnamed 'Does.' Instead, the plaintiff is a 'Vanzan,' a company we now know formed in Delaware in 2010 with Lively as the CEO and every other officer. 'The DOE Defendants have undertaken direct efforts to contravene these agreements and instead have participated, and may continue to participate, in efforts to harm Plaintiff, including by: failing to act in Plaintiff's best interests, taking actions to their personal benefit at Plaintiff's expense, failing to freely communicate with Plaintiff regarding matters that impact Plaintiff's business and reputation, and disclosing to third parties and failing to keep strictly confidential Plaintiff's confidential and/or private information,' says the complaint from Manatt, Phelp & Phillips, who are one of the firms representing Lively, Reynolds and their PR chief Leslie Sloane in the open suits against Baldoni and his inner circle. While has long since been insisted by Jones and Team Blake that Abel's former boss handed over her ex-Joneswork right-handed lady's cell and other devices upon receiving a subpoena request from Lively's lawyers, the origin of that subpoena has never been known. In fact, Baldoni lead attorney Bryan Freedman has in the past as the legal conflict between the It Ends With Us stars has enlarged and become more bitter openly doubted the existence of such a subpoena. With a clear tone of more to come, Freedman's not doubting that subpoena anymore. Nor what it all means. 'Ms. Lively's and Mr. Reynolds' company Vanzan had nothing to do with this case and they knew it,' Freedman told Deadline today. 'This sham lawsuit was designed to obtain subpoena power without oversight or scrutiny, and in doing so denied my clients the ability to contest the propriety, nature, and scope of the subpoena. Having filed more than his fair share of Doe suits over the years and taken slings and arrows for his tactics, Freedman added Monday: 'There is nothing normal about this. Officers of the court have a duty of candor to the court and an obligation not to file fictitious lawsuits that have no basis in fact or law. A party with no connection to these proceedings asserting a breach of contract against another party they claim not to be able to identify does not qualify. This was done in bad faith and constitutes a flagrant abuse of process.' On the other side, Lively's primary lawyers, Esra Hudson, and Mike Gottlieb not only acknowledge the Doe lawsuit but strongly assert it as above board and the best way to get to the heart of the online attacks on their client that marred the summer 2024 premiere of the domestic violence themed IEWU. 'There is nothing untoward here—just conscientious and thorough investigation,' the duo tells Deadline. 'The Lively parties acted upon reliable information, and employed common tools such as Doe lawsuits and civil subpoenas that are entirely lawful and appropriate for pursuing claims and uncovering the identity of unknown perpetrators of unlawful activities, Hudson and Gottlieb go on to say, pointing out what the result was. 'This lawsuit unearthed the Wayfarer Parties' documented plan – in their own words, in their own text messages—to 'destroy' Blake Lively, a plan which they executed without transparency, disclosure, or notice to Ms. Lively or the public, instead acting in a way they thought would be 'untraceable'. We have absolutely nothing to hide – Ms. Lively voluntarily disclosed the subpoena in her first filing knowing that it would ultimately be produced to the Wayfarer Parties in discovery, and that is precisely what will happen as Ms. Lively's claims move forward in the proper litigation process.' In a now deleted Facebook post not long after Lively took the sexual harassment and smear campaign allegations public, Abel admitted she and Nathan 'were prepared for it, as it's our job to be ready for any scenario, but we didn't have to implement anything, because the internet was doing the work for us' attacking the Gossip Girl vet. Still, the attacks on Lively last year were reminiscent of the successful online vilification of Amber Heard during Johnny Depp's 2022 Nathan-assisted $50 million defamation case against the Aquaman star. In the immediate fallout in this case, as well as public staining, Lively also saw a IEWU premiere timed launched of hair and liquor products damaged by the online attacks, a first for the lucrative A Simple Favor star. With the multimillion-dollar case set for a March 9, 2026 trial start date, Lively, Deadpool's Reynolds, Sloane and the New York Times (who published its Nathan and Abel text heavy 'We Can Bury Anyone: Inside a Hollywood Smear Machine exposé one day after Lively's December 20 CRD filing) are all trying to get themselves dismissed from WME-dumbed and career destroyed Baldoni's $400 million defamation and extortion suit. Wrapped in the First Amendment, it looks pretty certain the Grey Lady will soon be allowed out of the case that's in Judge Lewis J. Liman's courtroom. To Jones, who has her own suit with Abel, we don't know yet how Lively's team learned about the material that she had in her possession, though it seems there was some knowledge gleamed in late August. What we do know is that how that knowledge was gleamed will come out in declarations and testimony by Jones in the court case. We also know that Jones received that Doe subpoena on October 1. Naming Lively, Reynolds, various companies and entities of the couple's, the subpoena 'concerns, refers, relates and applies to any and all electronic records, data, documents, and communications in Your possession, custody or control collected from a cellular telephone containing the requested information' from December 1, 2022 onward. That material was handed over not long afterwards and the Vanzan suit was withdrawn on December 19, one day before Lively's filing with the Golden State's Civil Rights Department. There is no doubt that the subpoena to Jones, who was losing one of her key employees and more than a few clients as Abel opened her own PR shop, saw a plethora of communications that certainly indicated a coordinated attack on Lively to preempt any revelations about alleged misconduct by Baldoni. Mindful of this latest twist, perhaps it is would not be a bad idea to remember the words of Judge Liman back in early March when he cautioned lawyers on all side to put this 'feud between PR firms' in context. The Daily Mail were first to report the Vanzan lawsuit fling Best of Deadline 'The Last Of Us': Differences Between HBO Series & Video Game Across Seasons 1 And 2 'Ransom Canyon' Book Vs. Show Differences: From Quinn & Staten's Love Story To Yancy Grey's Plot Everything We Know About Netflix's 'Ransom Canyon' So Far
BBC News
20-03-2025
- Sport
- BBC News
Does Pickford get the praise he deserves?
Does Jordan Pickford get the credit he deserves?The Everton goalkeeper is once again on duty with England, this time under Thomas fan Peter MacFarlane told BBC Radio Merseyside Pickford gets a rough deal form fans generally."I don't thin Everton would be a Premier League club but I think Bramley-Moore Dock Stadium wouldn't exist without Jordan Pickford," MacFarlane told BBC Radio Merseyside's Phil all of your Everton audio from BBC Radio Merseyside here
