Blake Lively- Jason Baldoni and NYT - False Light claims
![[Post New]](/jforum/templates/default/images/icon_minipost_new.gif){kind=icon}
Anonymous
Lol nice try |
Anonymous
She gave Blake’s request for sanctions a 98% chance of failing. Failing!! |
Anonymous
Oh like the one you posted pretending to be a paranoid Baldoni supporter who was concerned about tracking? Funny. |
Anonymous
Dp. To clarify for those who don’t know, the legal fees here would almost certainly be limited to those stemming *directly* from the letter that was stricken. So a tiny drop in the bucket of the fees incurred in this ridiculous litigation. It’s almost like this PP is trying to make this seem like a huge deal for Baldoni. When it’s not. |
Anonymous
You have made this assertion a few times but it sure isn’t true. Sad. |
Anonymous
Yeah, NAG didn’t think Liman would strike Freedman’s filings either and thought it was weird he did (and she oddly blamed Hudson for raising it in the first place when once again she was simply doing the perfectly normal thing of notifying a judge of related proceedings going on in a different jurisdiction!). So while I actually agree that I don’t think Liman will grant sanctions on this motion, NAG’s 98% odds are not exactly something anyone should be placing bets on. |
Anonymous
Righto |
Anonymous
Idk when everyone who actually knows Blake is distancing themselves from her, that says something. Not even the godmother to her children believes her. That has to sting. Plus Taylor Swift (godmother to Blake’s children) is notorious for standing up for women who are wronged. See Sophie Turner—Taylor even let Sophie stay in her NYC apartment for free! Then she won’t even be seen in public with Blake after her Sexual harassment lawsuit? Come on. That’s a pretty big statement that Taylor thinks Blake is lying. |
Anonymous
That claim was made once pages ago. You must be here all day… And the original post was made once (by you or your PR twin) many pages ago, but you continue to bring it up as evidence that those who don’t support blake are ‘bonkers’ or ‘crazy’. Look, we aren’t dumb. |
Anonymous
Nobody is reading your shit, nut job. |
Anonymous
Oh, sure, now accuse Lively fans of writing your stupidest posts, as a ruse. Lame. I feel sorry for the Baldoni supporter who wrote that, because you all are totally deserting her, in her foreign hideout, and wherever she is she probably needs your support. (It really wasn't me, since she explicitly said she was posting from another country and I'm right here in the DMV, but whatevs.) I guess you have nothing substantive to post today despite this motion for sanctions and MTC. Looks like the MTC involves the 2-years-too-late investigation by a private investigator of Lively's sexual harassment claims, which Baldoni is claiming is privileged, at least until they decide to use the results of the investigation themselves at trial, lol. The fact that Wayfarer didn't bother to begin to conduct an investigation into this until TWO YEARS after the events happened certainly says something about its HR department, but I guess that's not a shocker since they've been sued for discrimination and unlawful termination before. |
Anonymous
|
As scintillating as "you're a bot!" "no, you're a bot!" is...
Not sure if this is really the move for Lively. Liman seemed pissed at Freedman last week, where you could see how this was the best time to possibly get sanctions if you're ever going to try... OTOH, this is also producing more of the pointless bickering that Liman was pissed about, so I am not sure that they are doing themselves a great favor. It's basically another MTD which is what Wayfarer's attorneys argued in their letter response (it's the last exhibit). What I also think is interesting in Wayfarer's response is they basically shrug it off with "we'll just amend" and again pretty much imply they take for granted the judge will just let them know how to replead and allow them to do it (the Lively motion argues this "wait and see" approach means claims should be dismissed with prejudice). So maybe this is less about really getting sanctions and more about providing fodder to push for things to get dismissed wit prejudice (and honestly, I don't think Liman needs them to do that on his behalf!) and getting Freedman's MSG deposition statement into the record, which, whatever, that's fine but Lively's attorneys come off as kind of legal nerds who are playing checkers by the rules while Freedman is throwing Swift's name out there in an irresponsible way but one which gets a lot of the media attention he wants. Even if they get the sanctions which is unlikely, it's like, ok, and...? |
Anonymous
There’s a lot of spin happening with the lively attorneys today which means this is all for PR to cover their own bad behavior. First they’re trying to make it seem like the sanctions motion is due to the witness tampering claim, though it’s not, and there’s already press running this narrative (surely with their encouragement). The second spin is on the motion to compel, which the independent firm doing the investigation has rightly called out as an attempt to obstruct and tamper with witnesses (a pattern on their part). The investigation isn’t actually into Lively’s claims but rather into the investigation is trying to determine if there was ever a need to investigate and whether or not WF is negligent in not doing so. So to call it a too late investigation of Lively’s claims is more spin. They say the side making the most noise is usually losing and Lively’s team has been making a lot of noise. |
Anonymous
Wow! I wouldn't phrase it that way but I also do not read PP's entreaties to settle seriously at this point; they read more like hopeful birthday candle wishes than reasoned and substantive advice. |
Anonymous
PP here and no, the fees wouldn't be related to the stricken letter at all, as the sanctions request is not for the letter. They are asking for sanctions related to group pleading issue which, they say, is resulting in these plaintiffs having frivolous claims against Lively. They are explicitly asking for fees related to the motion for sanctions, which I agree would not be much. However, I suspect they will also argue that by failing to either amend their complaint in a timely way, or respond to the safe harbor letters sent in April, these plaintiffs have forced Lively to incur additional expenses. These may be related specifically to discovery, and may be why they also filed some discovery-related motions as well. They are also arguing that awarding fees for a Rule 11 is not meant to simply compensate the filer, but to serve as a deterrent for filing frivolous claims. So they will argue that in order to properly deter this kind of thing (I think they will argue that the group pleading was essentially intentional in order to harass and prolong litigation), the fees awarded can't just be nominal. They are also going out of their way to cite Freedman's statements to press that may be particularly offensive to the court, because they want to make it appear that Wayfarer/Freedman are taking great liberties with court time and goodwill in order to encourage a more painful punishment in order to rein them back in. I'm not saying she'll get any of this. Just recounting what is argued in the motion and speculating a bit based on the arguments and case law they are bringing in here. It is their intention to make this painful for Wayfarer here, not to just score a little procedural victory. |