Blake Lively- Jason Baldoni and NYT - False Light claims

[Anonymous]

Can both parties drop their cases and move on? Lots more important stuff in the world happening now. Like LA fires and rebuilding, plane crashes and heartaches. Lots of people losing jobs and worried about paying bills

[Anonymous]

Blake didn’t get anything she wanted today including demanding freedman not question her in her depo. I’m not sure what you are talking about PP.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Blake didn’t get anything she wanted today including demanding freedman not question her in her depo. I’m not sure what you are talking about PP.

She was never going to get that. They wanted a hearing to highlight Freedman's aggressive comments about her in the press. They got it. The judge told both parties to be careful about litigating the case in the press and threatened to move up the date if they did.

Yes Lively lost the motion but I would not describe that as a "bad day in court." Sometimes you file motions just to get an argument on the record and I think this was one of those times. Gag orders are rare and they were never going to get the judge to say Freedman can't depose Lively (I've literally never heard of that happening). I doubt Lively or her lawyers expected to win this one and losing it has no bearing on the case. It doesn't change anything.

[Anonymous]

Oh and also Freedman announced they are dropping the case they filed in California and consolidating in NY where Lively filed her case. To the extent that this is more convenient for Lively/Reynolds and is their choice of venue (and a less familiar venue for Freedman) that's actually a real win.

[Anonymous]

Not getting anything you asked the Judge for and paying your lawyers $bank$ = bad day in court for Blake.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Not getting anything you asked the Judge for and paying your lawyers $bank$ = bad day in court for Blake.

Winning the venue battle matters.

I don't think Reynolds and Lively care that much about lawyer costs.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Not getting anything you asked the Judge for and paying your lawyers $bank$ = bad day in court for Blake.

Winning the venue battle matters.

I don't think Reynolds and Lively care that much about lawyer costs.

Freedman did this to move the case along faster. What are you talking about winning a battle???

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Blake didn’t get anything she wanted today including demanding freedman not question her in her depo. I’m not sure what you are talking about PP.

She was never going to get that. They wanted a hearing to highlight Freedman's aggressive comments about her in the press. They got it. The judge told both parties to be careful about litigating the case in the press and threatened to move up the date if they did.

Yes Lively lost the motion but I would not describe that as a "bad day in court." Sometimes you file motions just to get an argument on the record and I think this was one of those times. Gag orders are rare and they were never going to get the judge to say Freedman can't depose Lively (I've literally never heard of that happening). I doubt Lively or her lawyers expected to win this one and losing it has no bearing on the case. It doesn't change anything.

Oh please, she wanted that gag order.

[Anonymous]

The judge has already determined that Lively is a diva and denied all her motions. That is the definition of a bad day in court. Expect more of the same to come.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Not getting anything you asked the Judge for and paying your lawyers $bank$ = bad day in court for Blake.

Winning the venue battle matters.

I don't think Reynolds and Lively care that much about lawyer costs.

Freedman did this to move the case along faster. What are you talking about winning a battle???

There was a story someone posted up thread about why Freedman wanted the case in California. Even if he did it to expedite, it's still a loss. It means Freedman has to travel to NY for all the hearings and will lose certain advantages to being in a familiar court.

[Anonymous]

All right, so what do you guys think will be the final outcome of this case? No cheating with answers like "it's too soon to tell"!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The speed at which many people have reversed course after the Blake Lively complaint was released and are re-siding with Justin is honestly a little surprising to me. Like they're actually going through Justin's long-ass document and believing him.

I find all of Justin's rebuttals credible, but I wonder if it goes to show that many people really do not like Blake and were waiting just waiting to turn on her once they got some receipts. This is why the effort to restore her reputation baffles me -- they're willing to go through hell with this lawsuit, but they don't offer any sort of counter-PR campaign to actually make her look good?

Why don't they circulate stories about how nice she is? There have to be people out there who had good experiences with her (I remember in her early GG days, there were, so I do not believe Blake is a sociopath). Why didn't they have her apologize to that Norwegian journalist? It's just shocking and shows a total lack of humility.

That interview with that Noweigian journalist with the mocking of the baby bump and the sarcastic side convo with Parker Posey was just horrid. There are multiple interviews out there displaying what a smug woman child Blake actually is. Is she trying to be funny? And no, I would say the same about a smug man child as well, so I am not a misogynist. I was really indifferent to Blake Lively prior to seeing that interview, I now see her as entitled nepo baby brat that she is. There was absolutely no excuse for her behaving that way. It was disgraceful. This debacle with Justin just reinforces my negative opinion of her.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Not getting anything you asked the Judge for and paying your lawyers $bank$ = bad day in court for Blake.

Winning the venue battle matters.

I don't think Reynolds and Lively care that much about lawyer costs.

Freedman did this to move the case along faster. What are you talking about winning a battle???

There was a story someone posted up thread about why Freedman wanted the case in California. Even if he did it to expedite, it's still a loss. It means Freedman has to travel to NY for all the hearings and will lose certain advantages to being in a familiar court.

Given that all the motions were decided in his favor it’s clear that Lively has no home court advantage. I really can’t believe her lawyers actually made the request to bar Freedman from deposing her. Such a bad look for both her and them. They obviously can’t control her.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The speed at which many people have reversed course after the Blake Lively complaint was released and are re-siding with Justin is honestly a little surprising to me. Like they're actually going through Justin's long-ass document and believing him.

I find all of Justin's rebuttals credible, but I wonder if it goes to show that many people really do not like Blake and were waiting just waiting to turn on her once they got some receipts. This is why the effort to restore her reputation baffles me -- they're willing to go through hell with this lawsuit, but they don't offer any sort of counter-PR campaign to actually make her look good?

Why don't they circulate stories about how nice she is? There have to be people out there who had good experiences with her (I remember in her early GG days, there were, so I do not believe Blake is a sociopath). Why didn't they have her apologize to that Norwegian journalist? It's just shocking and shows a total lack of humility.

That interview with that Noweigian journalist with the mocking of the baby bump and the sarcastic side convo with Parker Posey was just horrid. There are multiple interviews out there displaying what a smug woman child Blake actually is. Is she trying to be funny? And no, I would say the same about a smug man child as well, so I am not a misogynist. I was really indifferent to Blake Lively prior to seeing that interview, I now see her as entitled nepo baby brat that she is. There was absolutely no excuse for her behaving that way. It was disgraceful. This debacle with Justin just reinforces my negative opinion of her.

PP Yeah, I don't think people fully appreciate just how much that video killed her reputation in comparison to the other stuff.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Not getting anything you asked the Judge for and paying your lawyers $bank$ = bad day in court for Blake.

Winning the venue battle matters.

I don't think Reynolds and Lively care that much about lawyer costs.

Freedman did this to move the case along faster. What are you talking about winning a battle???

There was a story someone posted up thread about why Freedman wanted the case in California. Even if he did it to expedite, it's still a loss. It means Freedman has to travel to NY for all the hearings and will lose certain advantages to being in a familiar court.

Given that all the motions were decided in his favor it’s clear that Lively has no home court advantage. I really can’t believe her lawyers actually made the request to bar Freedman from deposing her. Such a bad look for both her and them. They obviously can’t control her.

With how she behaved on the set of IEWU, its obvious it's a consistent pattern of behavior with her.