Blake Lively- Jason Baldoni and NYT - False Light claims

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

I think part of the strategy here is to make a showy motion for sanctions against Freedman in part to beg the question: if the VanZan lawsuit was such a miscarriage of justice, why haven't they filed for sanctions against Lively and Manatt? By filing this motion, they can now respond to accusations of wrongdoing on VanZan with "so file for sanctions."

Maybe. It's complicated by the fact that it's a different court. IMO, they likely made misrepresentations in that court to get the subpoena, which ultimately formed the basis of the federal lawsuit, but not sure that gives Liman the right to sanction them for what was done in another court. But certainly, it's weird that Freedman brings Vanzan up in all of these sideways arguments (including crime-fraud to rebut a motion to compel) without really addressing it directly. At least, he could stop complaining that it hasn't been turned over, and file a motion to compel (unless he's being shifty and never even asked for it just so he could continue to complain that he never got it).

I don't think there will be a satisfactory conclusion to this for either side.

I think Freedman plays the PR game well and likes to have the last laugh. My theory is that he hasn’t moved for more serious action on vanzan yet because he’s known since April 23 that these sanctions from Lively’s team were coming and he’d only just found about vanzan. Now that the required wait time has passed and lively has formally filed her motion, I think we’ll be hearing from freedman on vanzan, and Taylor witness tampering for that matter, in short order. Lively should enjoy her moment of positive headlines because they won’t last long.

Yeah, true. I said earlier it feels like her lawyers are playing checkers. Their motions are very nice and proper, but they are losing the PR strategy really badly to Freedman, who doesn't care if he gets spanked by the judge once in a while or blows off deadlines. It's like Lisa Simpson going up against Bart.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I think the timing of Freedman's docket freakout last week is interesting because he know those Safe Harbor motions were filed 4/23, so he knew full well these sanctions motions were coming today. What did he do in advance of that to make himself some showy headlines, hmm? He launched his Taylor Swift show. I guess having Swift's name still in the headlines takes some of the heat from these sanction motions off him and his firm. Surely this factored into his docket sheet shenanigans calculus: You think you will try to sanction me? Wait until I accuse you of extortion of Taylor Swift!

Meanwhile, Freedman still isn't filing his own motions to compel on anything, including the subpoena. Why is that? I do not understand his reasoning there. Is he just underwater and only filing documents with actual deadlines (and sometimes not even those)?

The Taylor stuff came in response to motions filed by Gottlieb (motion to intervene in DC and letter to Liman).

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

I think part of the strategy here is to make a showy motion for sanctions against Freedman in part to beg the question: if the VanZan lawsuit was such a miscarriage of justice, why haven't they filed for sanctions against Lively and Manatt? By filing this motion, they can now respond to accusations of wrongdoing on VanZan with "so file for sanctions."

Maybe. It's complicated by the fact that it's a different court. IMO, they likely made misrepresentations in that court to get the subpoena, which ultimately formed the basis of the federal lawsuit, but not sure that gives Liman the right to sanction them for what was done in another court. But certainly, it's weird that Freedman brings Vanzan up in all of these sideways arguments (including crime-fraud to rebut a motion to compel) without really addressing it directly. At least, he could stop complaining that it hasn't been turned over, and file a motion to compel (unless he's being shifty and never even asked for it just so he could continue to complain that he never got it).

I don't think there will be a satisfactory conclusion to this for either side.

I think Freedman plays the PR game well and likes to have the last laugh. My theory is that he hasn’t moved for more serious action on vanzan yet because he’s known since April 23 that these sanctions from Lively’s team were coming and he’d only just found about vanzan. Now that the required wait time has passed and lively has formally filed her motion, I think we’ll be hearing from freedman on vanzan, and Taylor witness tampering for that matter, in short order. Lively should enjoy her moment of positive headlines because they won’t last long.

Yeah, true. I said earlier it feels like her lawyers are playing checkers. Their motions are very nice and proper, but they are losing the PR strategy really badly to Freedman, who doesn't care if he gets spanked by the judge once in a while or blows off deadlines. It's like Lisa Simpson going up against Bart.

And we know that Freedman is very patient. He’s been sitting on the Taylor lead since Valentine’s Day. When he finally goes for the jugular on vanzan, it’s going to be diabolical.

[Anonymous]

Freedman can write a much better complaint after getting the benefit of seeing the judge’s decision to the motions to dismiss, so I understand why he wants to wait for that. The judge is really behind on issuing his decision, which isn’t necessarily surprising, given that criminal cases and emergency motions are a higher priority. I just don’t think the motion for sanctions is going to do anything other than annoy the judge. It’s completely duplicative of the mtd arguments and is therefore just “clutter” that he already indicated he doesn’t like.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Freedman can write a much better complaint after getting the benefit of seeing the judge’s decision to the motions to dismiss, so I understand why he wants to wait for that. The judge is really behind on issuing his decision, which isn’t necessarily surprising, given that criminal cases and emergency motions are a higher priority. I just don’t think the motion for sanctions is going to do anything other than annoy the judge. It’s completely duplicative of the mtd arguments and is therefore just “clutter” that he already indicated he doesn’t like.

Why do you think the judge is behind? It took him a year to rule on the Bravo MTD. I think everyone just needs to accept that it’s going to be a while before we hear anything on the MTDs. He may even decide to call a hearing before ruling.

[Anonymous]

All of this rationalizing by the Baldoni supporters about how things will turn out just fine for Freedman.

Eh. One think I will say is that Liman specifically warned Freedman, several times, that he should amend his complaint. Freedman explicitly ignored him. He was warned his timeline didn't comport with the federal rules, and Freedman ignored him.

One thing I will say is that Baldoni supporting lawyers here have previously argued that federal judges regularly allow liberal leave to amend and that Baldoni should expect the same in this case. I don't think no nonsense Liman is going to play here, and I noted earlier that Second Circuit precedent that Lively cited in the sanctions motion explaining that Liman certainly can dismiss with prejudice where parties have previously been warned to amend and failed to do so. Liman is running a tight ship and Freedman has basically ignored all of these warnings at his own (well, really his clients') peril. Claims are going to get dismissed and they are not coming back.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Freedman can write a much better complaint after getting the benefit of seeing the judge’s decision to the motions to dismiss, so I understand why he wants to wait for that. The judge is really behind on issuing his decision, which isn’t necessarily surprising, given that criminal cases and emergency motions are a higher priority. I just don’t think the motion for sanctions is going to do anything other than annoy the judge. It’s completely duplicative of the mtd arguments and is therefore just “clutter” that he already indicated he doesn’t like.

Why do you think the judge is behind? It took him a year to rule on the Bravo MTD. I think everyone just needs to accept that it’s going to be a while before we hear anything on the MTDs. He may even decide to call a hearing before ruling.

Because most judges try to decide these motions quickly so that the parties can proceed with discovery knowing which claims survive and which need to be replied. Google says average time to decision on motion to dismiss in federal court ranges from 22 to 116 days, which is consistent with my experience as a litigator.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Freedman can write a much better complaint after getting the benefit of seeing the judge’s decision to the motions to dismiss, so I understand why he wants to wait for that. The judge is really behind on issuing his decision, which isn’t necessarily surprising, given that criminal cases and emergency motions are a higher priority. I just don’t think the motion for sanctions is going to do anything other than annoy the judge. It’s completely duplicative of the mtd arguments and is therefore just “clutter” that he already indicated he doesn’t like.

Why do you think the judge is behind? It took him a year to rule on the Bravo MTD. I think everyone just needs to accept that it’s going to be a while before we hear anything on the MTDs. He may even decide to call a hearing before ruling.

Because most judges try to decide these motions quickly so that the parties can proceed with discovery knowing which claims survive and which need to be replied. Google says average time to decision on motion to dismiss in federal court ranges from 22 to 116 days, which is consistent with my experience as a litigator.

Just did the same search and it said 22 to “over” 116 days. I think the bravo case is a good comparison. Liman is the judge, it’s a Hollywood feud, and one of the claims is hostile work environment. Bravo filed their MTD last May. The hearing was in November and the ruling wasn’t until March…

[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.

And this is how I know you are paid, and that you track us.

[Anonymous]

I think NAG is someone who's neutral who has naturally shifted to Justin's side because he's more believable, and she can sniff out Blake's BS. It's not because she wants to cater to the JB side. But I'm trusting her less on her analysis of the procedural elements since her predictions seem to be off. BBwellactually on TikTok apparently used to be a federal court clerk and I think has a better understanding of things, but she doesn't post much about the case.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I think NAG is someone who's neutral who has naturally shifted to Justin's side because he's more believable, and she can sniff out Blake's BS. It's not because she wants to cater to the JB side. But I'm trusting her less on her analysis of the procedural elements since her predictions seem to be off. BBwellactually on TikTok apparently used to be a federal court clerk and I think has a better understanding of things, but she doesn't post much about the case.

It isn’t that her predictions are off, it’s that Liman is an atypical judge. He’s a Trump appointees after all.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Freedman can write a much better complaint after getting the benefit of seeing the judge’s decision to the motions to dismiss, so I understand why he wants to wait for that. The judge is really behind on issuing his decision, which isn’t necessarily surprising, given that criminal cases and emergency motions are a higher priority. I just don’t think the motion for sanctions is going to do anything other than annoy the judge. It’s completely duplicative of the mtd arguments and is therefore just “clutter” that he already indicated he doesn’t like.

Why do you think the judge is behind? It took him a year to rule on the Bravo MTD. I think everyone just needs to accept that it’s going to be a while before we hear anything on the MTDs. He may even decide to call a hearing before ruling.

Because most judges try to decide these motions quickly so that the parties can proceed with discovery knowing which claims survive and which need to be replied. Google says average time to decision on motion to dismiss in federal court ranges from 22 to 116 days, which is consistent with my experience as a litigator.

Just did the same search and it said 22 to “over” 116 days. I think the bravo case is a good comparison. Liman is the judge, it’s a Hollywood feud, and one of the claims is hostile work environment. Bravo filed their MTD last May. The hearing was in November and the ruling wasn’t until March…

That’s way too slow . .

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

And this is how I know you are paid, and that you track us.

lolol!!! See!!! It's the Baldoni fan "you track us" poster again!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Freedman can write a much better complaint after getting the benefit of seeing the judge’s decision to the motions to dismiss, so I understand why he wants to wait for that. The judge is really behind on issuing his decision, which isn’t necessarily surprising, given that criminal cases and emergency motions are a higher priority. I just don’t think the motion for sanctions is going to do anything other than annoy the judge. It’s completely duplicative of the mtd arguments and is therefore just “clutter” that he already indicated he doesn’t like.

Why do you think the judge is behind? It took him a year to rule on the Bravo MTD. I think everyone just needs to accept that it’s going to be a while before we hear anything on the MTDs. He may even decide to call a hearing before ruling.

Because most judges try to decide these motions quickly so that the parties can proceed with discovery knowing which claims survive and which need to be replied. Google says average time to decision on motion to dismiss in federal court ranges from 22 to 116 days, which is consistent with my experience as a litigator.

Just did the same search and it said 22 to “over” 116 days. I think the bravo case is a good comparison. Liman is the judge, it’s a Hollywood feud, and one of the claims is hostile work environment. Bravo filed their MTD last May. The hearing was in November and the ruling wasn’t until March…

That’s way too slow . .

Southern district of New York is one of the busiest courts in the country. It’s going to be a while, unless the judge gets sick of these two and just wants to get it over with lol.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

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.

So, when do the Lively supporters think Taylor Swift is going to get subpoenaed?

That’s what I care about!