Blake Lively- Jason Baldoni and NYT - False Light claims

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:So it’s pretty clear the lively posters don’t have jobs, unless of course this is their job. Who has this kind of time in the middle of the day on a workday to write paragraph after paragraph.

lol, didn’t appear to be stopping you today until 2:15 when these filings dropped. So many posts!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:This inside baseball is pointless. Just bilking the clients on both sides to drag this on until settlement. Zzzz.

Totally

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:For those of you posting a lot - do you care more about the celeb aspect of this case or the legal aspects?

Legal, but the movie-making aspects of it are fun. Less the celeb angle than thinking about these legal issues within the context of Hollywood and film making -- it's more interesting to look at a workplace conflict that happened in a creative workplace with creative people than if this were, say, a paper company. But I'd be interested in the legal aspects even if it were a paper company.

Definitely legal. But it’s more fun to talk about legal issues involving hot actors filming a dancing scene than it would be an accounting firm and tax meetings.

Add in Taylor Swift and it’s a party!

[Anonymous]

Some more info on the motion for sanctions (I had time to skim it):

- You have to give 21 days notice for a Rule 11 sanctions motion, and they did. All the plaintiffs/attorneys were notified via letter on April 23rd of the potential Rule 11 violation. So Freedman et al have known about this for weeks.

- According to the motion, they didn't reply to these letters, called safe harbor letters. They also didn't take the opportunity to amend their complaint in response to the safe harbor letters. So they likely knew this motion was dropping today (exactly 21 days later).

- Hudson uses the motion to get a bunch of Freedman's statements to the press on the record, which is smart. Especially that Madison Square Garden comment, which the court probably won't like since it specifically references doing a deposition for a paying crowd (this is what the judge I clerked for would have called "unseemly").

- Hudson also repeatedly references Freedman's letter last week that was stricken and the fact that the judge's order noted that future violations would incur sanctions. That Freedman letter sure is looking like a gift to Lively's lawyers right now, unless Freedman is playing some 3-dimensional chess I don't understand. It primed Liman to be more amenable to this motion.

It's a solid motion with strong legal support. I don't know how Liman will view it. Prior to last week, I would say that he'd probably deem it premature, that he'd want to rule on the MTDs first. Now I'm not so sure -- the order to strike last week was very aggressively written, indicating real disgust with Freedman's tactics there. That, combined with the MSG statement and totally ignoring the deadline to request amendment even after Liman denied the request for extension is making me think this has a good shot.

Then the question will be what he awards. Just an FYI for the uninitiated, but rewards of attorneys fees are often extremely contested and can drag on for long after a court case concludes, because the lawyers will argue about whether the fees are appropriate. I work in an area where we wind up having to look at these conflicts extensively and they can be quite involved.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:This is big: Lively has filed a motion for sanctions against all Wayfarer parties except Baldoni, and against their lawyers.

It's a Rule 11 motion saying that the claims by these plaintiffs against Lively have no basis in law or fact and were brought only to harass Lively and prolong litigation and increase legal costs.

They've attached separate letters addressing the frivolous claims as to each individual plaintiff. Right now only the Abel letter is on Court Listener.

I haven't been through it all yet but presumably they are going through each claim in the amended complaint and identifying the lack of legal basis and the failure to present any facts to back up each claim as to each plaintiff. This is all going back to that group pleading issue from the MTDs, only a step further because now they are saying that by refusing to amend their complaint to address the group pleading issues, and proceeding with discovery as though these are valid claims by all plaintiffs against all defendants, this has become an abuse of the court system.

The motion seeks attorneys fees and other costs incurred by Lively in defending these claims, a formal reprimand by the court and "any additional" sanctions the court sees fit to impose.

Here's the motion: https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.nysd.634304/gov.uscourts.nysd.634304.223.0.pdf

Here's the letter regarding Abel: https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.nysd.634304/gov.uscourts.nysd.634304.106.1.pdf

This is a ridiculously inappropriate motion, particularly given the MTF are still pending. Let’s see what Liman does with it

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Some more info on the motion for sanctions (I had time to skim it):

- You have to give 21 days notice for a Rule 11 sanctions motion, and they did. All the plaintiffs/attorneys were notified via letter on April 23rd of the potential Rule 11 violation. So Freedman et al have known about this for weeks.

- According to the motion, they didn't reply to these letters, called safe harbor letters. They also didn't take the opportunity to amend their complaint in response to the safe harbor letters. So they likely knew this motion was dropping today (exactly 21 days later).

- Hudson uses the motion to get a bunch of Freedman's statements to the press on the record, which is smart. Especially that Madison Square Garden comment, which the court probably won't like since it specifically references doing a deposition for a paying crowd (this is what the judge I clerked for would have called "unseemly").

- Hudson also repeatedly references Freedman's letter last week that was stricken and the fact that the judge's order noted that future violations would incur sanctions. That Freedman letter sure is looking like a gift to Lively's lawyers right now, unless Freedman is playing some 3-dimensional chess I don't understand. It primed Liman to be more amenable to this motion.

It's a solid motion with strong legal support. I don't know how Liman will view it. Prior to last week, I would say that he'd probably deem it premature, that he'd want to rule on the MTDs first. Now I'm not so sure -- the order to strike last week was very aggressively written, indicating real disgust with Freedman's tactics there. That, combined with the MSG statement and totally ignoring the deadline to request amendment even after Liman denied the request for extension is making me think this has a good shot.

Then the question will be what he awards. Just an FYI for the uninitiated, but rewards of attorneys fees are often extremely contested and can drag on for long after a court case concludes, because the lawyers will argue about whether the fees are appropriate. I work in an area where we wind up having to look at these conflicts extensively and they can be quite involved.

For those that aren’t attorneys, it is not a strong motion. Rule 11 is rarely invoked.

[Anonymous]

Not actually golden agrees the motion is odd given the case circumstances. https://www.tiktok.com/t/ZP86WY8Cc/

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Some more info on the motion for sanctions (I had time to skim it):

- You have to give 21 days notice for a Rule 11 sanctions motion, and they did. All the plaintiffs/attorneys were notified via letter on April 23rd of the potential Rule 11 violation. So Freedman et al have known about this for weeks.

- According to the motion, they didn't reply to these letters, called safe harbor letters. They also didn't take the opportunity to amend their complaint in response to the safe harbor letters. So they likely knew this motion was dropping today (exactly 21 days later).

- Hudson uses the motion to get a bunch of Freedman's statements to the press on the record, which is smart. Especially that Madison Square Garden comment, which the court probably won't like since it specifically references doing a deposition for a paying crowd (this is what the judge I clerked for would have called "unseemly").

- Hudson also repeatedly references Freedman's letter last week that was stricken and the fact that the judge's order noted that future violations would incur sanctions. That Freedman letter sure is looking like a gift to Lively's lawyers right now, unless Freedman is playing some 3-dimensional chess I don't understand. It primed Liman to be more amenable to this motion.

It's a solid motion with strong legal support. I don't know how Liman will view it. Prior to last week, I would say that he'd probably deem it premature, that he'd want to rule on the MTDs first. Now I'm not so sure -- the order to strike last week was very aggressively written, indicating real disgust with Freedman's tactics there. That, combined with the MSG statement and totally ignoring the deadline to request amendment even after Liman denied the request for extension is making me think this has a good shot.

Then the question will be what he awards. Just an FYI for the uninitiated, but rewards of attorneys fees are often extremely contested and can drag on for long after a court case concludes, because the lawyers will argue about whether the fees are appropriate. I work in an area where we wind up having to look at these conflicts extensively and they can be quite involved.

For those that aren’t attorneys, it is not a strong motion. Rule 11 is rarely invoked.

Blake is flailing and desperate, so this makes sense.

It follows the desperation in her insta post about “spice girls” to divert SEO from Ice Spice unfollowing her. She’s grasping at anything and everything.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Some more info on the motion for sanctions (I had time to skim it):

- You have to give 21 days notice for a Rule 11 sanctions motion, and they did. All the plaintiffs/attorneys were notified via letter on April 23rd of the potential Rule 11 violation. So Freedman et al have known about this for weeks.

- According to the motion, they didn't reply to these letters, called safe harbor letters. They also didn't take the opportunity to amend their complaint in response to the safe harbor letters. So they likely knew this motion was dropping today (exactly 21 days later).

- Hudson uses the motion to get a bunch of Freedman's statements to the press on the record, which is smart. Especially that Madison Square Garden comment, which the court probably won't like since it specifically references doing a deposition for a paying crowd (this is what the judge I clerked for would have called "unseemly").

- Hudson also repeatedly references Freedman's letter last week that was stricken and the fact that the judge's order noted that future violations would incur sanctions. That Freedman letter sure is looking like a gift to Lively's lawyers right now, unless Freedman is playing some 3-dimensional chess I don't understand. It primed Liman to be more amenable to this motion.

It's a solid motion with strong legal support. I don't know how Liman will view it. Prior to last week, I would say that he'd probably deem it premature, that he'd want to rule on the MTDs first. Now I'm not so sure -- the order to strike last week was very aggressively written, indicating real disgust with Freedman's tactics there. That, combined with the MSG statement and totally ignoring the deadline to request amendment even after Liman denied the request for extension is making me think this has a good shot.

Then the question will be what he awards. Just an FYI for the uninitiated, but rewards of attorneys fees are often extremely contested and can drag on for long after a court case concludes, because the lawyers will argue about whether the fees are appropriate. I work in an area where we wind up having to look at these conflicts extensively and they can be quite involved.

I'm a Lively supporter who agrees with a lot of this except the part about the repeated references to the strikes last week. If Lively cite to that that too much, they could make the judge regret striking the doc, lol.

I'll just reiterate what I said above -- I like this motion because it attempts to get Freedman to do what he has basically deferred doing despite multiple entreaties from the judge: provide a factual basis for his weakest claims before the MTD is decided. I don't know that Lively will actually win any sanctions here, but the motion and letters can provide an even stronger basis for the judge to dismiss these claims with prejudice when he decides the MTD. In that way, at minimum, the motion gets these issues before the judge in a strategic way and shows Liman that Freedman had plenty of opportunities to fix this problem and yet declined to do so.

It's hard to say how Liman will respond to this. He's extremely no nonsense and might reject it outright as premature. I think he will hold it until he considers the MTDs, and will probably decline to award sanctions, but that he may cite to this motion in dismissing claims with prejudice.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Some more info on the motion for sanctions (I had time to skim it):

- You have to give 21 days notice for a Rule 11 sanctions motion, and they did. All the plaintiffs/attorneys were notified via letter on April 23rd of the potential Rule 11 violation. So Freedman et al have known about this for weeks.

- According to the motion, they didn't reply to these letters, called safe harbor letters. They also didn't take the opportunity to amend their complaint in response to the safe harbor letters. So they likely knew this motion was dropping today (exactly 21 days later).

- Hudson uses the motion to get a bunch of Freedman's statements to the press on the record, which is smart. Especially that Madison Square Garden comment, which the court probably won't like since it specifically references doing a deposition for a paying crowd (this is what the judge I clerked for would have called "unseemly").

- Hudson also repeatedly references Freedman's letter last week that was stricken and the fact that the judge's order noted that future violations would incur sanctions. That Freedman letter sure is looking like a gift to Lively's lawyers right now, unless Freedman is playing some 3-dimensional chess I don't understand. It primed Liman to be more amenable to this motion.

It's a solid motion with strong legal support. I don't know how Liman will view it. Prior to last week, I would say that he'd probably deem it premature, that he'd want to rule on the MTDs first. Now I'm not so sure -- the order to strike last week was very aggressively written, indicating real disgust with Freedman's tactics there. That, combined with the MSG statement and totally ignoring the deadline to request amendment even after Liman denied the request for extension is making me think this has a good shot.

Then the question will be what he awards. Just an FYI for the uninitiated, but rewards of attorneys fees are often extremely contested and can drag on for long after a court case concludes, because the lawyers will argue about whether the fees are appropriate. I work in an area where we wind up having to look at these conflicts extensively and they can be quite involved.

For those that aren’t attorneys, it is not a strong motion. Rule 11 is rarely invoked.

Blake is flailing and desperate, so this makes sense.

It follows the desperation in her insta post about “spice girls” to divert SEO from Ice Spice unfollowing her. She’s grasping at anything and everything.

This is what the spam on here and other social media is about. They're trying to manipulate Google SEO. Frankly, Jeff should be deleting all of the verbose spam in this thread.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Some more info on the motion for sanctions (I had time to skim it):

- You have to give 21 days notice for a Rule 11 sanctions motion, and they did. All the plaintiffs/attorneys were notified via letter on April 23rd of the potential Rule 11 violation. So Freedman et al have known about this for weeks.

- According to the motion, they didn't reply to these letters, called safe harbor letters. They also didn't take the opportunity to amend their complaint in response to the safe harbor letters. So they likely knew this motion was dropping today (exactly 21 days later).

- Hudson uses the motion to get a bunch of Freedman's statements to the press on the record, which is smart. Especially that Madison Square Garden comment, which the court probably won't like since it specifically references doing a deposition for a paying crowd (this is what the judge I clerked for would have called "unseemly").

- Hudson also repeatedly references Freedman's letter last week that was stricken and the fact that the judge's order noted that future violations would incur sanctions. That Freedman letter sure is looking like a gift to Lively's lawyers right now, unless Freedman is playing some 3-dimensional chess I don't understand. It primed Liman to be more amenable to this motion.

It's a solid motion with strong legal support. I don't know how Liman will view it. Prior to last week, I would say that he'd probably deem it premature, that he'd want to rule on the MTDs first. Now I'm not so sure -- the order to strike last week was very aggressively written, indicating real disgust with Freedman's tactics there. That, combined with the MSG statement and totally ignoring the deadline to request amendment even after Liman denied the request for extension is making me think this has a good shot.

Then the question will be what he awards. Just an FYI for the uninitiated, but rewards of attorneys fees are often extremely contested and can drag on for long after a court case concludes, because the lawyers will argue about whether the fees are appropriate. I work in an area where we wind up having to look at these conflicts extensively and they can be quite involved.

For those that aren’t attorneys, it is not a strong motion. Rule 11 is rarely invoked.

Blake is flailing and desperate, so this makes sense.

It follows the desperation in her insta post about “spice girls” to divert SEO from Ice Spice unfollowing her. She’s grasping at anything and everything.

This is what the spam on here and other social media is about. They're trying to manipulate Google SEO. Frankly, Jeff should be deleting all of the verbose spam in this thread.

There are plenty of Baldoni fan clubs on reddit. Don't see why this needs to be one too.

[Anonymous]

Wut? There are a lot more weird spammy comments in this thread coming from the Baldoni side that are just basically insult hit posts against Lively and how she better settle soon. So weird.

What is SEO? Is that Search Engine something? I don't think DCUM is a significant factor in most search engine result hits etc. But this fits with Team Baldoni's absolute bonkers conspiracy theories posted in this thread about Lively supporters.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Some more info on the motion for sanctions (I had time to skim it):

- You have to give 21 days notice for a Rule 11 sanctions motion, and they did. All the plaintiffs/attorneys were notified via letter on April 23rd of the potential Rule 11 violation. So Freedman et al have known about this for weeks.

- According to the motion, they didn't reply to these letters, called safe harbor letters. They also didn't take the opportunity to amend their complaint in response to the safe harbor letters. So they likely knew this motion was dropping today (exactly 21 days later).

- Hudson uses the motion to get a bunch of Freedman's statements to the press on the record, which is smart. Especially that Madison Square Garden comment, which the court probably won't like since it specifically references doing a deposition for a paying crowd (this is what the judge I clerked for would have called "unseemly").

- Hudson also repeatedly references Freedman's letter last week that was stricken and the fact that the judge's order noted that future violations would incur sanctions. That Freedman letter sure is looking like a gift to Lively's lawyers right now, unless Freedman is playing some 3-dimensional chess I don't understand. It primed Liman to be more amenable to this motion.

It's a solid motion with strong legal support. I don't know how Liman will view it. Prior to last week, I would say that he'd probably deem it premature, that he'd want to rule on the MTDs first. Now I'm not so sure -- the order to strike last week was very aggressively written, indicating real disgust with Freedman's tactics there. That, combined with the MSG statement and totally ignoring the deadline to request amendment even after Liman denied the request for extension is making me think this has a good shot.

Then the question will be what he awards. Just an FYI for the uninitiated, but rewards of attorneys fees are often extremely contested and can drag on for long after a court case concludes, because the lawyers will argue about whether the fees are appropriate. I work in an area where we wind up having to look at these conflicts extensively and they can be quite involved.

For those that aren’t attorneys, it is not a strong motion. Rule 11 is rarely invoked.

Blake is flailing and desperate, so this makes sense.

It follows the desperation in her insta post about “spice girls” to divert SEO from Ice Spice unfollowing her. She’s grasping at anything and everything.

This is what the spam on here and other social media is about. They're trying to manipulate Google SEO. Frankly, Jeff should be deleting all of the verbose spam in this thread.

There are plenty of Baldoni fan clubs on reddit. Don't see why this needs to be one too.

I’m just waiting for Taylor to make a definitive statement. She is a master at timing and showing the media exactly how she feels without saying a single word.

When she finally takes a stand it’s going to be epic, and I’m here for it!

[Anonymous]

Also, Esra Hudson has filed another motion to compel as I noted earlier, but it's not free yet. It involves doc requests.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Wut? There are a lot more weird spammy comments in this thread coming from the Baldoni side that are just basically insult hit posts against Lively and how she better settle soon. So weird.

What is SEO? Is that Search Engine something? I don't think DCUM is a significant factor in most search engine result hits etc. But this fits with Team Baldoni's absolute bonkers conspiracy theories posted in this thread about Lively supporters.

Dp. Not spammy at all. That’s me. Lawyer with some experience in this area who can see how poorly this is going. I would advise my client to work towards settlement but her litigators are obviously too busy billing to give her good advice

And as always, whenever someone makes a good point, they are ‘crazy’ or ‘bonkers’ in your estimation.

Look, we can all see where the spam is coming from…