Blake Lively- Jason Baldoni and NYT - False Light claims

[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.

[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:

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.

I feel sorry for her. She walked into a trap.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote: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.

Nothing to lose? They’re bleeding millions every month this goes on. Ryan will be signing autographs at conventions in Oklahoma City if this continues.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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”.

He’s not lying. Some posters might not appreciate what his personal affidavit to the court meant. He was willing to risk his career over this issue. There is something here.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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”.

This is code for "I talked to Baldridge but it didn't happen that way." There's nothing wrong with him talking to Baldridge (Taylor's lawyer). I'm sure they were in touch over a variety of matters, including the PO Lively sought (and got) to protect people like Taylor in the event she was drawn into discovery. Gottlieb may have asked if Taylor would be willing to put out a statement. But Gottlieb has firmly denied that he tried to extort anyone, and it would honestly be psychotic for him to try to extort TS through Baldridge (also at all but especially bad to do it to another lawyer who could, of course, report the ethics violation).

It's a preposterous story.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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.

Nothing to lose? They’re bleeding millions every month this goes on. Ryan will be signing autographs at conventions in Oklahoma City if this continues.

The lawyers and PR shills are the ones who have to lose if this settles.