Blake Lively- Jason Baldoni and NYT - False Light claims

[Anonymous]

Yeah, Blake stands only to lose by settling, and it’s also just not her personality type. If she wins in court, no matter how small the victory, we will never hear the insufferable end of it from those two. But maybe some good will come of it in that it could reshape the law to make aspects of these cases more clear.

[Anonymous]

I’m kind of surprised that the judge decided the discovery issues concerning Baldoni’s damages documents before Blake’s MTD. Because if Blake were to have the success on that motion that at least one of her supporters is predicting, there would be no need for such documents to be exchanged.

[Anonymous]

What Livrly supporters don’t quite get is that Blake’s reputation is toast. Yesterday was devastating for her and her case. Even if she wins down the road, all trust in her has disappeared. So many red flags were there from the beginning.

Baldoni will actually be okay, or better than okay. Everyone sees exactly who Blake is and will give him another shot, more projects and work going forward. If he loses the case, I wouldn’t blame it on him having a weak case, but instead point to power and influence winning the day, as it often does.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Blake will not settle. She has nothing to lose by proceeding because while public sentiment is against her, industry sentiment continues to support her. If she can ride it out until trial and then convince people she had a legitimate reason to sue, that's the best case scenario for her.

Settling now locks in the public perception that she is in the wrong. She doesn't believe she's in the wrong, so she's not going to do that.

Also, while people here are dismissive of it, Blake is in a good position legally right now, even if the PR game is not cutting her way. She has the upper hand with discovery right now, and in his motion to strike, Judge Liman indicated a heightened level of frustration with Freedman that may spill over into additional matters. Liman also showed very limited patience with Freedman straying from the claims already outlined in the complaints, indicating that Freedman is not going to have a long leash within the litigation to bring embarrassing but otherwise irrelevant info.

I agree Blake is fighting for her life on the PR front, but when you look at the whole picture, that's all the more reason why settling right now doesn't make sense. Her best bet is to double down on her Hollywood support, keep fighting legally, and hope that if both those things continue to break her way, public sentiment will shift.

This is a major stretch. She is not in a good position legally right now. Her original claims look like a sham, the defamation claims against her look decent, and a trial loss would be devastating, as well as long winded and painful, and likely more expensive.

The discovery stuff is nothing. There are no big ‘wins’ on her side, and Liman is probably annoyed at the entire case being so heated and public, but that’s got very little to do with the ultimate claims. He kicked the discovery letter issue to DC and freeman/Baldoni very VERY much won by making it clear why he needed the subpoena (people were arguing over him subpoening Taylor’s law firm and he made a huge splash explaining why and went to the mat on it with his affidavit). Limans chastising the letter meant very little and it also gives him yet another opportunity to see how Blake’s side plays dirty. I highly doubt the judge has a favorite of either side, and whatever that could be won’t change much.

Baldoni is killing it here. Blake is an idiot not to try to resolve this. A jury could be extremely extremely generous to him

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Blake will not settle. She has nothing to lose by proceeding because while public sentiment is against her, industry sentiment continues to support her. If she can ride it out until trial and then convince people she had a legitimate reason to sue, that's the best case scenario for her.

Settling now locks in the public perception that she is in the wrong. She doesn't believe she's in the wrong, so she's not going to do that.

Also, while people here are dismissive of it, Blake is in a good position legally right now, even if the PR game is not cutting her way. She has the upper hand with discovery right now, and in his motion to strike, Judge Liman indicated a heightened level of frustration with Freedman that may spill over into additional matters. Liman also showed very limited patience with Freedman straying from the claims already outlined in the complaints, indicating that Freedman is not going to have a long leash within the litigation to bring embarrassing but otherwise irrelevant info.

I agree Blake is fighting for her life on the PR front, but when you look at the whole picture, that's all the more reason why settling right now doesn't make sense. Her best bet is to double down on her Hollywood support, keep fighting legally, and hope that if both those things continue to break her way, public sentiment will shift.

I agree with this. I think settling before the MTDs are decided would be crazy. After that, it depends on what they’re finding from discovery, I guess.

Settling before the MTD is her best chance to settle before this gets crazy expensive. She could settle now for 7 figures. After she loses the MTD? That number is going to jump

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I’m kind of surprised that the judge decided the discovery issues concerning Baldoni’s damages documents before Blake’s MTD. Because if Blake were to have the success on that motion that at least one of her supporters is predicting, there would be no need for such documents to be exchanged.

I think the judge has been giving signals all along as to which claims will survive. He stayed discovery in NYT but denied the other requests. When BL was asking for AEO he warned it would all come out at trial anyway. The issues in dispute are mostly issues of fact and not law, which means the jury has to decide. If MTDs are granted for things like group pleading, they’ll amend.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I’m kind of surprised that the judge decided the discovery issues concerning Baldoni’s damages documents before Blake’s MTD. Because if Blake were to have the success on that motion that at least one of her supporters is predicting, there would be no need for such documents to be exchanged.

Good point.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I’m kind of surprised that the judge decided the discovery issues concerning Baldoni’s damages documents before Blake’s MTD. Because if Blake were to have the success on that motion that at least one of her supporters is predicting, there would be no need for such documents to be exchanged.

I think the judge has been giving signals all along as to which claims will survive. He stayed discovery in NYT but denied the other requests. When BL was asking for AEO he warned it would all come out at trial anyway. The issues in dispute are mostly issues of fact and not law, which means the jury has to decide. If MTDs are granted for things like group pleading, they’ll amend.

Dp. I totally agree except with the clarification that I think he stayed discovery on the NYT case because fair report is a major legal issue, but that ultimately there are enough questions of fact that the defamation claims will survive in some form.

[Anonymous]

Motion to Quash isn't mooted yet somehow, i thought freedman said that was a'coming.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Motion to Quash isn't mooted yet somehow, i thought freedman said that was a'coming.

Let’s say it doesn’t come. And?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Motion to Quash isn't mooted yet somehow, i thought freedman said that was a'coming.

Let’s say it doesn’t come. And?

That means Venable is still fighting the subpoena and isn't working with Freedman as he claimed. It means both that he's lying and that Taylor's camp knows it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Motion to Quash isn't mooted yet somehow, i thought freedman said that was a'coming.

Let’s say it doesn’t come. And?

That means Venable is still fighting the subpoena and isn't working with Freedman as he claimed. It means both that he's lying and that Taylor's camp knows it.

Why does it mean he’s lying? About the reasons he’s seeking a subpoena?

If he’s lying, why isn’t TS making a statement?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Motion to Quash isn't mooted yet somehow, i thought freedman said that was a'coming.

Let’s say it doesn’t come. And?

That means Venable is still fighting the subpoena and isn't working with Freedman as he claimed. It means both that he's lying and that Taylor's camp knows it.

Why does it mean he’s lying? About the reasons he’s seeking a subpoena?

If he’s lying, why isn’t TS making a statement?

He’s not lying. Gottlieb all but confirmed it with that coded statement he made to People that the conversation didn’t happen “as described”.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I don’t think they should settle when that means paying Baldoni money. Isn’t most of his case going to vanish with the motions to dismiss, whereas none of hers is even really challenged? I think if they are able to get bad facts out about the actual bad actions take. By the PR team etc then people will start to see their side more. That was her reason for filing the suit in the first place, so let’s see what’s in the discovery.

If they do settle once discovery rolls in, maybe that signals to me that discovery resulted in a nothingburger.

What MTD?

Most of Baldoni’s claims against Lively have been challenged by the parties in motions to dismiss. Freedman just fought over coughing up various financials for his clients and lost except in terms of tax returns mostly. The fact that he fought these doc requests could also be signaling they can’t really show $400M in lost profits. Baldoni alone made $50M in profits off the movie and frankly doesn’t ever have to work again. If a lot of his claims get dismissed and the damages he is claiming go down, not sure there is a reason to settle unless Sarowitz is going to fork over a bunch of cash to Lively.

Freedman actually had agreed to give them most of those documents in his response (but had not turned them over yet) and then mostly won the categories still in dispute.

I actually don’t think that’s quite right, though I understand how you’d want to posture it that way. I thought Freedman was only agreeing to provide some limited number of docs of his own choosing that dealt with those issues, and not the full range that was required from the doc requests, and the Willkie lawyers called him on that in their response (and the judge enforced Willkie’s language). Otherwise, there wouldn’t be a dispute on those issues and the judge would not have ordered Freedman to so produce (which he did).

Again none of these issues are a big deal and don’t mean a thing for the ultimate case. Focusing on them as ‘wins’ or ‘losses’ shows you don’t understand litigation.

Right, right, getting spanked by your judge like that is “playing the long game,” I know. Let’s see how it plays out for him.

Baldoni and wayfarer having to turn over docs is not getting spanked. It’s part of the deal

I was referring to all the comments yesterday about how Liman striking all of Freedman’s filings from the docket this week and threatening him with sanctions was just Freedman “playing the long game.”

Well, they’re right.

And frankly, the short game. It was a very bad week for Blake on the pr front.

Agree. And people who keep saying Baldoni/freedman ‘got spanked’ are delusional and spinning. Baldoni has won, this was another nail in the coffin and BL should settle this as soon as she can. I understand she wants to try to get some little procedural ‘wins’ in so it looks like she has some leverage (‘oh the protective order was closer to what she wanted! ‘Oh the judge wrote Freedman a snippy response and kicked it to Dc!’). But that’s all piddly stuff.

My question is what happens to the NYT if Blake settles…

No word from the journalist, right?

Btw I heard freedman’s source was Taylor’s lawyer. HE used the term extort.

The “journalist” Twohey should just cut the pretense and join seeking arrangements. Unprofessional and unethical hack for hire.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Motion to Quash isn't mooted yet somehow, i thought freedman said that was a'coming.

Let’s say it doesn’t come. And?

That means Venable is still fighting the subpoena and isn't working with Freedman as he claimed. It means both that he's lying and that Taylor's camp knows it.

No, it means they are working out discovery issues privately just as he said they would. This issue is devastating to BL and she walked right into it by filing the motion to quash in NY.