Blake Lively- Jason Baldoni and NYT - False Light claims

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Will Blake’s team get the protected order on the high profile witnesses granted?

In other words the conniver used her and hubby’s A-list friends to intimidate and bully Justin and the studio and now she wants to shield them from the fallout after Justin didn’t roll over? This is too funny.

Again this is a good example of how the rhetoric on this thread reminds me so much of the Amber Heard rhetoric. Why say "the conniver"? It's clear from the rest of the comment that you don't like Lively and are glad she lost the motion. I don't understand why the name calling is necessary. It makes it seem like some of you are just gleeful at the opportunity to call a woman names. Can you imagine a man called "the conniver"? This is very misogynist language. You can make your point without it.

I have the same problem with PP's language and other similar language in this thread. It's just so overblown into woman hating. Make your point rationally and calm down.

Is this a new crisis PR angle being floated?

Justin must have hired and/or inspired sexist MAGA influencers to smear Blake because…of her affiliation with Taylor Swift. Yeah, yeah, that’s it!

Very pathetic and desperate. Instead of blowing money on crisis PR maybe Blake and Ryan should ask their lawyers how to untangle this and walk it all back.

I am a DP and you sound crazy.

PP is correct that there's nothing wrong with posting that you don't believe Lively or agree with Baldoni or whatever, but when the people saying that also use this extremely charged, often misogynist language, it destroys the tenor of the conversation on here and totally undermines whatever valid point you might be making.

Like whenever I look at this thread I find myself feeling stressed because of the intensity of some of the posting and how angry it is and the name calling and rudeness (of Lively/Reynolds but also of other posters, even when they aren't even posting anything sympathetic to Lively, it's so weird).

Similarly, earlier today I clicked a link for a Perez Hilton video about this whole thing and it had the exact same vibe -- just extremely nasty and rude in this aggressive way that is very unpleasant. I was actually interested in the subject he was talking about (about Lively getting people fired on the set) but I turned it off because I can't listen to someone talk like that.

The thread isn't always like that but it's especially bad today -- I can't tell if it's one or two posters doing it but I really dislike it and wish you would stop. You don't have to be antagonistic. You can just disagree and focus on the content of the disagreement, instead of content nasty language and personal attacks.

You can’t be serious. But if you are, the solution is obviously to avoid things that stress you out.

With everything going on in the world, this thread is what it's giving PP stress? Okay then - easy fix at least.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I’ve seen conflicting articles about whether Freedman can depose Lively. Or maybe they’re both saying the same thing—that Freedman won’t be allowed to depose her but that otherwise she cannot choose?

From NBC News:
Both sides say they want to move forward with discovery, and Freedman has said he is ready to depose Lively. She and her team are adamantly against that plan. Liman said that Freedman will not be allowed to depose her but that otherwise “she doesn’t get to choose her interrogator.”

https://www.nbcnews.com/news/amp/rcna190529

From US Weekly:
Days before the hearing, Lively and her husband, Ryan Reynolds, allegedly objected to being deposed by Baldoni’s lawyer, Bryan Freedman, per court documents obtained by Us Weekly. Since neither Lively nor Baldoni’s lawyers could agree on the matter, they requested the court to weigh in on Monday. “I don’t think you’re going to be the one who chooses who takes Ms. Lively’s deposition,” Judge Liman told Lively’s lawyers on Monday.

https://www.usmagazine.com/celebrity-news/news/blake-lively-and-justin-baldonis-trial-may-be-moved-up-judge-warns

People are confusing what is being asked here.

Freedman has asked to depose Lively *immediately.* He made the argument that Lively should make herself available to be deposed now, even though normally depositions wouldn't start until after answers had been filed to both complaints and a plan for discovery had been agreed to (likely in a couple months).

Lively objected to this and said she doesn't want to be deposed now and it can happen when discovery happens.

The judge actually agreed with Lively on this and rejected Freedman's request to depose Lively now ahead of discovery.

I don't think Lively ever requested that she not be deposed by Freedman at all. I think that was essentially a rumor that got started by non-lawyers looking at legal pleadings and misunderstanding them.

Then why did the Judge specifically address it today? You are claiming the Judge addressed a rumor lol?

The judge addressed whether Freedman could depose Lively immediately. He said no, he couldn't.

You are leaving out information. “Liman said that Freedman will not be allowed to depose her but that otherwise “she doesn’t get to choose her interrogator.”

https://www.nbcnews.com/news/amp/rcna190529

You keep trying to spin things from today and it’s really weird.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The speed at which many people have reversed course after the Blake Lively complaint was released and are re-siding with Justin is honestly a little surprising to me. Like they're actually going through Justin's long-ass document and believing him.

I find all of Justin's rebuttals credible, but I wonder if it goes to show that many people really do not like Blake and were waiting just waiting to turn on her once they got some receipts. This is why the effort to restore her reputation baffles me -- they're willing to go through hell with this lawsuit, but they don't offer any sort of counter-PR campaign to actually make her look good?

Why don't they circulate stories about how nice she is? There have to be people out there who had good experiences with her (I remember in her early GG days, there were, so I do not believe Blake is a sociopath). Why didn't they have her apologize to that Norwegian journalist? It's just shocking and shows a total lack of humility.

That interview with that Noweigian journalist with the mocking of the baby bump and the sarcastic side convo with Parker Posey was just horrid. There are multiple interviews out there displaying what a smug woman child Blake actually is. Is she trying to be funny? And no, I would say the same about a smug man child as well, so I am not a misogynist. I was really indifferent to Blake Lively prior to seeing that interview, I now see her as entitled nepo baby brat that she is. There was absolutely no excuse for her behaving that way. It was disgraceful. This debacle with Justin just reinforces my negative opinion of her.

So I guess the Baldoni proposal video to his wife is adorbs and not smug, since you're not mentioning it at all.

Not the person you are responding to, but the video looks like it was done to be funny. Not a big deal.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I’ve seen conflicting articles about whether Freedman can depose Lively. Or maybe they’re both saying the same thing—that Freedman won’t be allowed to depose her but that otherwise she cannot choose?

From NBC News:
Both sides say they want to move forward with discovery, and Freedman has said he is ready to depose Lively. She and her team are adamantly against that plan. Liman said that Freedman will not be allowed to depose her but that otherwise “she doesn’t get to choose her interrogator.”

https://www.nbcnews.com/news/amp/rcna190529

From US Weekly:
Days before the hearing, Lively and her husband, Ryan Reynolds, allegedly objected to being deposed by Baldoni’s lawyer, Bryan Freedman, per court documents obtained by Us Weekly. Since neither Lively nor Baldoni’s lawyers could agree on the matter, they requested the court to weigh in on Monday. “I don’t think you’re going to be the one who chooses who takes Ms. Lively’s deposition,” Judge Liman told Lively’s lawyers on Monday.

https://www.usmagazine.com/celebrity-news/news/blake-lively-and-justin-baldonis-trial-may-be-moved-up-judge-warns

People are confusing what is being asked here.

Freedman has asked to depose Lively *immediately.* He made the argument that Lively should make herself available to be deposed now, even though normally depositions wouldn't start until after answers had been filed to both complaints and a plan for discovery had been agreed to (likely in a couple months).

Lively objected to this and said she doesn't want to be deposed now and it can happen when discovery happens.

The judge actually agreed with Lively on this and rejected Freedman's request to depose Lively now ahead of discovery.

I don't think Lively ever requested that she not be deposed by Freedman at all. I think that was essentially a rumor that got started by non-lawyers looking at legal pleadings and misunderstanding them.

Then why did the Judge specifically address it today? You are claiming the Judge addressed a rumor lol?

The judge addressed whether Freedman could depose Lively immediately. He said no, he couldn't.

You are leaving out information. “Liman said that Freedman will not be allowed to depose her but that otherwise “she doesn’t get to choose her interrogator.”

https://www.nbcnews.com/news/amp/rcna190529

You keep trying to spin things from today and it’s really weird.

Freedman made a request to depose Lively and it was denied. That's not spin. The judge rejected Freedman's request.

No one ever thought Lively was going to be able to refuse to be deposed by Freedman at all, including Lively's legal team. They were making point about Freedman's attacks against Lively's "character" in the press. But they did not make a formal request that she never be deposed by Freedman.

It's actually weird to read this ruling as being a loss by Lively when the actual thing Baldoni's team wanted was rejected.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I’ve seen conflicting articles about whether Freedman can depose Lively. Or maybe they’re both saying the same thing—that Freedman won’t be allowed to depose her but that otherwise she cannot choose?

From NBC News:
Both sides say they want to move forward with discovery, and Freedman has said he is ready to depose Lively. She and her team are adamantly against that plan. Liman said that Freedman will not be allowed to depose her but that otherwise “she doesn’t get to choose her interrogator.”

https://www.nbcnews.com/news/amp/rcna190529

From US Weekly:
Days before the hearing, Lively and her husband, Ryan Reynolds, allegedly objected to being deposed by Baldoni’s lawyer, Bryan Freedman, per court documents obtained by Us Weekly. Since neither Lively nor Baldoni’s lawyers could agree on the matter, they requested the court to weigh in on Monday. “I don’t think you’re going to be the one who chooses who takes Ms. Lively’s deposition,” Judge Liman told Lively’s lawyers on Monday.

https://www.usmagazine.com/celebrity-news/news/blake-lively-and-justin-baldonis-trial-may-be-moved-up-judge-warns

People are confusing what is being asked here.

Freedman has asked to depose Lively *immediately.* He made the argument that Lively should make herself available to be deposed now, even though normally depositions wouldn't start until after answers had been filed to both complaints and a plan for discovery had been agreed to (likely in a couple months).

Lively objected to this and said she doesn't want to be deposed now and it can happen when discovery happens.

The judge actually agreed with Lively on this and rejected Freedman's request to depose Lively now ahead of discovery.

I don't think Lively ever requested that she not be deposed by Freedman at all. I think that was essentially a rumor that got started by non-lawyers looking at legal pleadings and misunderstanding them.

Then why did the Judge specifically address it today? You are claiming the Judge addressed a rumor lol?

The judge addressed whether Freedman could depose Lively immediately. He said no, he couldn't.

You are leaving out information. “Liman said that Freedman will not be allowed to depose her but that otherwise “she doesn’t get to choose her interrogator.”

https://www.nbcnews.com/news/amp/rcna190529

You keep trying to spin things from today and it’s really weird.

Freedman made a request to depose Lively and it was denied. That's not spin. The judge rejected Freedman's request.

No one ever thought Lively was going to be able to refuse to be deposed by Freedman at all, including Lively's legal team. They were making point about Freedman's attacks against Lively's "character" in the press. But they did not make a formal request that she never be deposed by Freedman.

It's actually weird to read this ruling as being a loss by Lively when the actual thing Baldoni's team wanted was rejected.

You leaving out key info is a spin and you are not to be trusted.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I’ve seen conflicting articles about whether Freedman can depose Lively. Or maybe they’re both saying the same thing—that Freedman won’t be allowed to depose her but that otherwise she cannot choose?

From NBC News:
Both sides say they want to move forward with discovery, and Freedman has said he is ready to depose Lively. She and her team are adamantly against that plan. Liman said that Freedman will not be allowed to depose her but that otherwise “she doesn’t get to choose her interrogator.”

https://www.nbcnews.com/news/amp/rcna190529

From US Weekly:
Days before the hearing, Lively and her husband, Ryan Reynolds, allegedly objected to being deposed by Baldoni’s lawyer, Bryan Freedman, per court documents obtained by Us Weekly. Since neither Lively nor Baldoni’s lawyers could agree on the matter, they requested the court to weigh in on Monday. “I don’t think you’re going to be the one who chooses who takes Ms. Lively’s deposition,” Judge Liman told Lively’s lawyers on Monday.

https://www.usmagazine.com/celebrity-news/news/blake-lively-and-justin-baldonis-trial-may-be-moved-up-judge-warns

People are confusing what is being asked here.

Freedman has asked to depose Lively *immediately.* He made the argument that Lively should make herself available to be deposed now, even though normally depositions wouldn't start until after answers had been filed to both complaints and a plan for discovery had been agreed to (likely in a couple months).

Lively objected to this and said she doesn't want to be deposed now and it can happen when discovery happens.

The judge actually agreed with Lively on this and rejected Freedman's request to depose Lively now ahead of discovery.

I don't think Lively ever requested that she not be deposed by Freedman at all. I think that was essentially a rumor that got started by non-lawyers looking at legal pleadings and misunderstanding them.

Then why did the Judge specifically address it today? You are claiming the Judge addressed a rumor lol?

The judge addressed whether Freedman could depose Lively immediately. He said no, he couldn't.

You are leaving out information. “Liman said that Freedman will not be allowed to depose her but that otherwise “she doesn’t get to choose her interrogator.”

https://www.nbcnews.com/news/amp/rcna190529

You keep trying to spin things from today and it’s really weird.

Freedman made a request to depose Lively and it was denied. That's not spin. The judge rejected Freedman's request.

No one ever thought Lively was going to be able to refuse to be deposed by Freedman at all, including Lively's legal team. They were making point about Freedman's attacks against Lively's "character" in the press. But they did not make a formal request that she never be deposed by Freedman.

It's actually weird to read this ruling as being a loss by Lively when the actual thing Baldoni's team wanted was rejected.

You leaving out key info is a spin and you are not to be trusted.

Many people reported this ruling as "Lively motion to not be deposed by Freedman denied." That's a wild mischaracterization. It was Baldoni's request that was denied. Lively's team just made an argument that Freedman shouldn't be allowed to depose Lively when he is regularly impugning her character in the press. Since the judge denied the request to depose Lively now, the question of who will do it is moot.

I know you will tell me I'm "spinning" this but I'm actually just describing what happened.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I’ve seen conflicting articles about whether Freedman can depose Lively. Or maybe they’re both saying the same thing—that Freedman won’t be allowed to depose her but that otherwise she cannot choose?

From NBC News:
Both sides say they want to move forward with discovery, and Freedman has said he is ready to depose Lively. She and her team are adamantly against that plan. Liman said that Freedman will not be allowed to depose her but that otherwise “she doesn’t get to choose her interrogator.”

https://www.nbcnews.com/news/amp/rcna190529

From US Weekly:
Days before the hearing, Lively and her husband, Ryan Reynolds, allegedly objected to being deposed by Baldoni’s lawyer, Bryan Freedman, per court documents obtained by Us Weekly. Since neither Lively nor Baldoni’s lawyers could agree on the matter, they requested the court to weigh in on Monday. “I don’t think you’re going to be the one who chooses who takes Ms. Lively’s deposition,” Judge Liman told Lively’s lawyers on Monday.

https://www.usmagazine.com/celebrity-news/news/blake-lively-and-justin-baldonis-trial-may-be-moved-up-judge-warns

NBC doesn't word things very clearly, but I think the judge is rejecting Freedman's request to depose Lively right away, not that he doesn't have the ability to depose her at all.

Got it. Thank you!

[Anonymous]

I was trying to find that part in his timeline where he talks about the first AD being fired. It says they were pressured by Sony to fire her because Blake wasn’t responding well to her. I couldn’t find anything about the second one.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I was trying to find that part in his timeline where he talks about the first AD being fired. It says they were pressured by Sony to fire her because Blake wasn’t responding well to her. I couldn’t find anything about the second one.

Yeah, it just says she was "let go" along with the first. I want more details about that.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I’ve seen conflicting articles about whether Freedman can depose Lively. Or maybe they’re both saying the same thing—that Freedman won’t be allowed to depose her but that otherwise she cannot choose?

From NBC News:
Both sides say they want to move forward with discovery, and Freedman has said he is ready to depose Lively. She and her team are adamantly against that plan. Liman said that Freedman will not be allowed to depose her but that otherwise “she doesn’t get to choose her interrogator.”

https://www.nbcnews.com/news/amp/rcna190529

From US Weekly:
Days before the hearing, Lively and her husband, Ryan Reynolds, allegedly objected to being deposed by Baldoni’s lawyer, Bryan Freedman, per court documents obtained by Us Weekly. Since neither Lively nor Baldoni’s lawyers could agree on the matter, they requested the court to weigh in on Monday. “I don’t think you’re going to be the one who chooses who takes Ms. Lively’s deposition,” Judge Liman told Lively’s lawyers on Monday.

https://www.usmagazine.com/celebrity-news/news/blake-lively-and-justin-baldonis-trial-may-be-moved-up-judge-warns

People are confusing what is being asked here.

Freedman has asked to depose Lively *immediately.* He made the argument that Lively should make herself available to be deposed now, even though normally depositions wouldn't start until after answers had been filed to both complaints and a plan for discovery had been agreed to (likely in a couple months).

Lively objected to this and said she doesn't want to be deposed now and it can happen when discovery happens.

The judge actually agreed with Lively on this and rejected Freedman's request to depose Lively now ahead of discovery.

I don't think Lively ever requested that she not be deposed by Freedman at all. I think that was essentially a rumor that got started by non-lawyers looking at legal pleadings and misunderstanding them.

You are incorrect, the request was definitely made.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I’ve seen conflicting articles about whether Freedman can depose Lively. Or maybe they’re both saying the same thing—that Freedman won’t be allowed to depose her but that otherwise she cannot choose?

From NBC News:
Both sides say they want to move forward with discovery, and Freedman has said he is ready to depose Lively. She and her team are adamantly against that plan. Liman said that Freedman will not be allowed to depose her but that otherwise “she doesn’t get to choose her interrogator.”

https://www.nbcnews.com/news/amp/rcna190529

From US Weekly:
Days before the hearing, Lively and her husband, Ryan Reynolds, allegedly objected to being deposed by Baldoni’s lawyer, Bryan Freedman, per court documents obtained by Us Weekly. Since neither Lively nor Baldoni’s lawyers could agree on the matter, they requested the court to weigh in on Monday. “I don’t think you’re going to be the one who chooses who takes Ms. Lively’s deposition,” Judge Liman told Lively’s lawyers on Monday.

https://www.usmagazine.com/celebrity-news/news/blake-lively-and-justin-baldonis-trial-may-be-moved-up-judge-warns

People are confusing what is being asked here.

Freedman has asked to depose Lively *immediately.* He made the argument that Lively should make herself available to be deposed now, even though normally depositions wouldn't start until after answers had been filed to both complaints and a plan for discovery had been agreed to (likely in a couple months).

Lively objected to this and said she doesn't want to be deposed now and it can happen when discovery happens.

The judge actually agreed with Lively on this and rejected Freedman's request to depose Lively now ahead of discovery.

I don't think Lively ever requested that she not be deposed by Freedman at all. I think that was essentially a rumor that got started by non-lawyers looking at legal pleadings and misunderstanding them.

Then why did the Judge specifically address it today? You are claiming the Judge addressed a rumor lol?

The judge addressed whether Freedman could depose Lively immediately. He said no, he couldn't.

You are leaving out information. “Liman said that Freedman will not be allowed to depose her but that otherwise “she doesn’t get to choose her interrogator.”

https://www.nbcnews.com/news/amp/rcna190529

You keep trying to spin things from today and it’s really weird.

Freedman made a request to depose Lively and it was denied. That's not spin. The judge rejected Freedman's request.

No one ever thought Lively was going to be able to refuse to be deposed by Freedman at all, including Lively's legal team. They were making point about Freedman's attacks against Lively's "character" in the press. But they did not make a formal request that she never be deposed by Freedman.

It's actually weird to read this ruling as being a loss by Lively when the actual thing Baldoni's team wanted was rejected.

You leaving out key info is a spin and you are not to be trusted.

With respect to the gag order request, the judge said he saw nothing wrong with Freedman’s behavior with respect to press thus far.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I’ve seen conflicting articles about whether Freedman can depose Lively. Or maybe they’re both saying the same thing—that Freedman won’t be allowed to depose her but that otherwise she cannot choose?

From NBC News:
Both sides say they want to move forward with discovery, and Freedman has said he is ready to depose Lively. She and her team are adamantly against that plan. Liman said that Freedman will not be allowed to depose her but that otherwise “she doesn’t get to choose her interrogator.”

https://www.nbcnews.com/news/amp/rcna190529

From US Weekly:
Days before the hearing, Lively and her husband, Ryan Reynolds, allegedly objected to being deposed by Baldoni’s lawyer, Bryan Freedman, per court documents obtained by Us Weekly. Since neither Lively nor Baldoni’s lawyers could agree on the matter, they requested the court to weigh in on Monday. “I don’t think you’re going to be the one who chooses who takes Ms. Lively’s deposition,” Judge Liman told Lively’s lawyers on Monday.

https://www.usmagazine.com/celebrity-news/news/blake-lively-and-justin-baldonis-trial-may-be-moved-up-judge-warns

People are confusing what is being asked here.

Freedman has asked to depose Lively *immediately.* He made the argument that Lively should make herself available to be deposed now, even though normally depositions wouldn't start until after answers had been filed to both complaints and a plan for discovery had been agreed to (likely in a couple months).

Lively objected to this and said she doesn't want to be deposed now and it can happen when discovery happens.

The judge actually agreed with Lively on this and rejected Freedman's request to depose Lively now ahead of discovery.

I don't think Lively ever requested that she not be deposed by Freedman at all. I think that was essentially a rumor that got started by non-lawyers looking at legal pleadings and misunderstanding them.

Then why did the Judge specifically address it today? You are claiming the Judge addressed a rumor lol?

The judge addressed whether Freedman could depose Lively immediately. He said no, he couldn't.

You are leaving out information. “Liman said that Freedman will not be allowed to depose her but that otherwise “she doesn’t get to choose her interrogator.”

https://www.nbcnews.com/news/amp/rcna190529

You keep trying to spin things from today and it’s really weird.

Freedman made a request to depose Lively and it was denied. That's not spin. The judge rejected Freedman's request.

No one ever thought Lively was going to be able to refuse to be deposed by Freedman at all, including Lively's legal team. They were making point about Freedman's attacks against Lively's "character" in the press. But they did not make a formal request that she never be deposed by Freedman.

It's actually weird to read this ruling as being a loss by Lively when the actual thing Baldoni's team wanted was rejected.

You leaving out key info is a spin and you are not to be trusted.

Many people reported this ruling as "Lively motion to not be deposed by Freedman denied." That's a wild mischaracterization. It was Baldoni's request that was denied. Lively's team just made an argument that Freedman shouldn't be allowed to depose Lively when he is regularly impugning her character in the press. Since the judge denied the request to depose Lively now, the question of who will do it is moot.

I know you will tell me I'm "spinning" this but I'm actually just describing what happened.

Dp, and agree with op, your spin is not an accurate recounting of what occurred. Per usual with you.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I’ve seen conflicting articles about whether Freedman can depose Lively. Or maybe they’re both saying the same thing—that Freedman won’t be allowed to depose her but that otherwise she cannot choose?

From NBC News:
Both sides say they want to move forward with discovery, and Freedman has said he is ready to depose Lively. She and her team are adamantly against that plan. Liman said that Freedman will not be allowed to depose her but that otherwise “she doesn’t get to choose her interrogator.”

https://www.nbcnews.com/news/amp/rcna190529

From US Weekly:
Days before the hearing, Lively and her husband, Ryan Reynolds, allegedly objected to being deposed by Baldoni’s lawyer, Bryan Freedman, per court documents obtained by Us Weekly. Since neither Lively nor Baldoni’s lawyers could agree on the matter, they requested the court to weigh in on Monday. “I don’t think you’re going to be the one who chooses who takes Ms. Lively’s deposition,” Judge Liman told Lively’s lawyers on Monday.

https://www.usmagazine.com/celebrity-news/news/blake-lively-and-justin-baldonis-trial-may-be-moved-up-judge-warns

People are confusing what is being asked here.

Freedman has asked to depose Lively *immediately.* He made the argument that Lively should make herself available to be deposed now, even though normally depositions wouldn't start until after answers had been filed to both complaints and a plan for discovery had been agreed to (likely in a couple months).

Lively objected to this and said she doesn't want to be deposed now and it can happen when discovery happens.

The judge actually agreed with Lively on this and rejected Freedman's request to depose Lively now ahead of discovery.

I don't think Lively ever requested that she not be deposed by Freedman at all. I think that was essentially a rumor that got started by non-lawyers looking at legal pleadings and misunderstanding them.

You are incorrect, the request was definitely made.

Only in the context of Baldon's request. It went like this:

Baldoni's lawyer: We want to depose Lively immediately.
Lively's lawyer: No, and based on how Baldoni's lawyer is behaving in the press, we don't think he should get to depose Lively at all.
Judge: No you may not depose Lively. But also btw Lively doesn't get to decide who the lawyer is who deposes her if/when that happens. Which is not now because I am rejecting the request to depose her now.

I have seen numerous reports that totally leave out the context of Baldoni requesting to depose Lively and reporting this as Lively randomly insisting that Freedman not depose her. Which is totally misleading. Lively didn't make a distinct request here -- her team was just responding to Baldoni's request for a deposition, which was denied.

I suspect that Lively's lawyers used this as an other opportunity to criticize how Freedman is conducting himself in the press. But to characterize that as Lively just randomly saying "I don't want this guy deposing me" is a total misrepresentation. It's not what happened.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I’ve seen conflicting articles about whether Freedman can depose Lively. Or maybe they’re both saying the same thing—that Freedman won’t be allowed to depose her but that otherwise she cannot choose?

From NBC News:
Both sides say they want to move forward with discovery, and Freedman has said he is ready to depose Lively. She and her team are adamantly against that plan. Liman said that Freedman will not be allowed to depose her but that otherwise “she doesn’t get to choose her interrogator.”

https://www.nbcnews.com/news/amp/rcna190529

From US Weekly:
Days before the hearing, Lively and her husband, Ryan Reynolds, allegedly objected to being deposed by Baldoni’s lawyer, Bryan Freedman, per court documents obtained by Us Weekly. Since neither Lively nor Baldoni’s lawyers could agree on the matter, they requested the court to weigh in on Monday. “I don’t think you’re going to be the one who chooses who takes Ms. Lively’s deposition,” Judge Liman told Lively’s lawyers on Monday.

https://www.usmagazine.com/celebrity-news/news/blake-lively-and-justin-baldonis-trial-may-be-moved-up-judge-warns

People are confusing what is being asked here.

Freedman has asked to depose Lively *immediately.* He made the argument that Lively should make herself available to be deposed now, even though normally depositions wouldn't start until after answers had been filed to both complaints and a plan for discovery had been agreed to (likely in a couple months).

Lively objected to this and said she doesn't want to be deposed now and it can happen when discovery happens.

The judge actually agreed with Lively on this and rejected Freedman's request to depose Lively now ahead of discovery.

I don't think Lively ever requested that she not be deposed by Freedman at all. I think that was essentially a rumor that got started by non-lawyers looking at legal pleadings and misunderstanding them.

Then why did the Judge specifically address it today? You are claiming the Judge addressed a rumor lol?

The judge addressed whether Freedman could depose Lively immediately. He said no, he couldn't.

You are leaving out information. “Liman said that Freedman will not be allowed to depose her but that otherwise “she doesn’t get to choose her interrogator.”

https://www.nbcnews.com/news/amp/rcna190529

You keep trying to spin things from today and it’s really weird.

Freedman made a request to depose Lively and it was denied. That's not spin. The judge rejected Freedman's request.

No one ever thought Lively was going to be able to refuse to be deposed by Freedman at all, including Lively's legal team. They were making point about Freedman's attacks against Lively's "character" in the press. But they did not make a formal request that she never be deposed by Freedman.

It's actually weird to read this ruling as being a loss by Lively when the actual thing Baldoni's team wanted was rejected.

You leaving out key info is a spin and you are not to be trusted.

Many people reported this ruling as "Lively motion to not be deposed by Freedman denied." That's a wild mischaracterization. It was Baldoni's request that was denied. Lively's team just made an argument that Freedman shouldn't be allowed to depose Lively when he is regularly impugning her character in the press. Since the judge denied the request to depose Lively now, the question of who will do it is moot.

I know you will tell me I'm "spinning" this but I'm actually just describing what happened.

Dp, and agree with op, your spin is not an accurate recounting of what occurred. Per usual with you.

Per usual? You don't know me.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I’ve seen conflicting articles about whether Freedman can depose Lively. Or maybe they’re both saying the same thing—that Freedman won’t be allowed to depose her but that otherwise she cannot choose?

From NBC News:
Both sides say they want to move forward with discovery, and Freedman has said he is ready to depose Lively. She and her team are adamantly against that plan. Liman said that Freedman will not be allowed to depose her but that otherwise “she doesn’t get to choose her interrogator.”

https://www.nbcnews.com/news/amp/rcna190529

From US Weekly:
Days before the hearing, Lively and her husband, Ryan Reynolds, allegedly objected to being deposed by Baldoni’s lawyer, Bryan Freedman, per court documents obtained by Us Weekly. Since neither Lively nor Baldoni’s lawyers could agree on the matter, they requested the court to weigh in on Monday. “I don’t think you’re going to be the one who chooses who takes Ms. Lively’s deposition,” Judge Liman told Lively’s lawyers on Monday.

https://www.usmagazine.com/celebrity-news/news/blake-lively-and-justin-baldonis-trial-may-be-moved-up-judge-warns

People are confusing what is being asked here.

Freedman has asked to depose Lively *immediately.* He made the argument that Lively should make herself available to be deposed now, even though normally depositions wouldn't start until after answers had been filed to both complaints and a plan for discovery had been agreed to (likely in a couple months).

Lively objected to this and said she doesn't want to be deposed now and it can happen when discovery happens.

The judge actually agreed with Lively on this and rejected Freedman's request to depose Lively now ahead of discovery.

I don't think Lively ever requested that she not be deposed by Freedman at all. I think that was essentially a rumor that got started by non-lawyers looking at legal pleadings and misunderstanding them.

You are incorrect, the request was definitely made.

Only in the context of Baldon's request. It went like this:

Baldoni's lawyer: We want to depose Lively immediately.
Lively's lawyer: No, and based on how Baldoni's lawyer is behaving in the press, we don't think he should get to depose Lively at all.
Judge: No you may not depose Lively. But also btw Lively doesn't get to decide who the lawyer is who deposes her if/when that happens. Which is not now because I am rejecting the request to depose her now.

I have seen numerous reports that totally leave out the context of Baldoni requesting to depose Lively and reporting this as Lively randomly insisting that Freedman not depose her. Which is totally misleading. Lively didn't make a distinct request here -- her team was just responding to Baldoni's request for a deposition, which was denied.

I suspect that Lively's lawyers used this as an other opportunity to criticize how Freedman is conducting himself in the press. But to characterize that as Lively just randomly saying "I don't want this guy deposing me" is a total misrepresentation. It's not what happened.

What are you prattling on about? She made the request by letter last week.