Blake Lively- Jason Baldoni and NYT - False Light claims
![[Post New]](/jforum/templates/default/images/icon_minipost_new.gif){kind=icon}
Anonymous
Looks like she did answer your question 
|
Anonymous
I see what you're saying in citing to 1.C. If you actually look at the docket entries, though, it's clear that the Governski's letter was not filed as a motion. All the prior letter motions by Lively actually say LETTER MOTION in the title and not just letter, and the letters themselves are clearly styled as motions that will require a response. The docket link also lists the corresponding doc as a MOTION. 43 Jan 27, 2025 LETTER MOTION for Conference RE: Mr. Freedman's Extrajudicial Conduct addressed to Judge Lewis J. Liman from Michael J. Gottlieb dated 1/27/2025. 190 Apr 30, 2025 LETTER MOTION to Compel Wayfarer Parties to respond to interrogatories 3, 4, 5, and 7 and request for production no. 32 addressed to Judge Lewis J. Liman from Sigrid S. McCawley dated April 30, 2025. 200 May 9, 2025 LETTER MOTION to Compel Wayfarer Studios LLC and Tera Hanks, Mitz Toskovic, Ahmed Musiol, Ashmi Elizabeth Dang, Shekinah Reese, Jariesse Blackmon, AJ Marbory, Dion Suleman, and Jennifer Benson to produce relevant, non-privileged material in response to subpoenas, addressed to Judge Lewis J. Liman from Esra A. Hudson dated May 9, 2025. Document filed by Blake Lively. But Governski's letter re the DC case is simply entered as a LETTER, not a motion, and the docket provides a link to a letter and not a motion. You are correct that Governski cites to 4.C (perhaps to permit a response), but the letter is not styled as a motion (as the others above are) and does not seek any relief or action from the judge. The docket entry itself properly identified the doc for what it was, which was not in any way a motion: 213 May 13, 2025 LETTER addressed to Judge Lewis J. Liman from Meryl C. Governski dated 5/13/2025 re: Wayfarer Parties' Subpoena to Venable LLP. Document filed by Blake Lively, Ryan Reynolds..(Governski, Meryl) (Entered: 05/13/2025) Main Document: Letter [PDF] I understand what you're saying about 4.C and how it could have caused confusion here, though. But the docket entries themselves are clear, as is the styling and the substance of this letter, and Governski clearly was not in any way asking Liman to insert himself into the D.D.C. dispute. |
Anonymous
| 1.C not 4.C, sorry |
Anonymous
|
Have we talked about the following footnote addressing Freedman in each of the safe harbor letters? Maybe this is what set Freedman off. This footnote doesn’t make it into the motion for sanctions itself, just the letters, but it’s basically a brutal personal attack (and imho likely does completely betray Freedman’s very real MO):
“We are concerned that you are [harassing Ms. Lively] in an attempt to bolster your own career and reputation at Ms. Lively’s expense. Debusmann Jr., Who Is Bryan Freedman, the Lawyer Who Represents Don Lemon and Tucker Carlson?, BBC (Apr, 27, 2023) (“What I realized is that if I wanted to be an entertainment lawyer, I had to sue entertainers. No one would hire you until you built a reputation … So I started to focus on going after entertainers, and defeating established entertainment litigators … in things that were high profile so that someone would write something about it.”). Freedman’s rep is based on his prior success in bullying entertainers into settlements. Lively is undergoing a pain cave right now, but if she can make it through to the other side, it could disrupt bottom feeders like Freedman in a way that helps others moving forward. |
Anonymous
| Additional motion for sanctions against the same parties for the same claims as brought against Ryan Reynolds just dropped. Filed by Gottlieb. The motion noted Freedman’s tendency to file complaints first and seek the facts to back them up from discovery later. |
Anonymous
| Re: The NAG discussion here. I don't think she's out of her depth. I just think she's willing to offer predictions compared to other content creators, which is fun for us, but riskier and makes her more vulnerable to her audience when she gets those things wrong. If she were to just stick to explaining why judges made certain decisions after the fact, she wouldn't appear unknowledgeable. |
Anonymous
I remember seeing that quote or something like it very early in this whole thing as I was becoming aware of who Bryan Freedman is. Interesting seeing it used here in letters to Freedman's clients. Last week when Freedman filed that letter and affidavit, and I was scooping my jaw up off the ground because I've never seen an allegation like that (with no real proof, literally just "I heard this third hand from someone") leveled by one attorney against another in federal court, I wondered if Freedman runs moves like that past his clients and if they understand the implications. I'm sure Freedman feels confident in his methods and it does seem like they work often enough that you can't totally discount his strategy. But some of what Freedman does would bother me as a client because there's risk. Both risk in court and risk in the public eye. Like I'm not so sure that letter last week was effective, even if his only goal was to dominate a news cycle with focus on the Blake/Taylor relationship. The judge's response was so swift and harsh, and the media seems to have picked up on that pretty quickly. I personally think he wound up looking, if not bad, then weak. At first you could see outlets seizing his narrative and there was a round of "omg Blake's been blackmailing Taylor" headlines. But they were very quickly replaced by "...allegedly" and then replaced by "wow freedman got bench slapped." And now the only people I see who actually think Freedman was telling the truth are the die hards for JB. Everyone else, including Taylor fans and people who are paying only loose attention to this drama, now view the blackmail/threat allegations as fake news. Which not only means Freedman lost the news cycle, it may impact how news outlets and audiences view future claims coming from him. I think Freedman has been really savvy and good thus far but I feel like in the last couple weeks he may be out over his skis and headed for a crash and burn if he doesn't reign it in. |
Anonymous
Her predictions don't bother me. I just find it weird when she says things that don't really make sense for someone who supposedly litigates in federal court regularly. Her reaction to the Lively "courtesy letter" was really weird to me. That's a really standard thing when you have cases involving diversity jurisdiction because it's not uncommon to have subpoenas out in other jurisdictions and to want to keep the judge apprised. So when NAG acted like this was a really unorthodox thing for Lively's lawyers to do, it just set off my spidey sense like hmm, this person might be pretending to more authority than she really as. The thing is, she's right about a lot of the law and procedure, so if she's faking experience in federal court she's actually doing a pretty good job. But if the actual situation is that she has a different kind of experience or maybe is a more recent law grad or something, I wish she'd just say that and be honest. It's okay to say "I'm basing this off my read of the FRCP, not personal experience" or to acknowledge that you may not know how common a certain practice is. But NAG has presented herself as an experienced litigator in fed court and I'm not sure that's the case. |
Anonymous
Opposing Counsel is going to look at the substance of what was actually served, not a docket entry, If Governski intended a letter of notice, she filed it under the wrong rules. It was her error, not Freedman’s. |
Anonymous
I think you're either KatOrtega or you're parroting the arguments she's posted on Reddit. |
Anonymous
I’m an experienced litigator and it is obvious to me that NAG is as well. You, on the other hand, . . . |
Anonymous
| I thought NAG was in house. |
Anonymous
And the substance of what was actually served was a document that was not styled as a motion, did not call itself a motion, did not seek any kind of relief or other action from Liman, and to any seasoned litigator read like one of hundreds of letters filed to notify the court of related proceedings in another jurisdiction requiring no action. I grant you the one thing you are slightly right about is the 1.C citation, so thank you for actually explaining wtf you were on about. But the letter clearly isn’t a letter motion. And Freedman didn’t cite to Governski’s citation to 1.C in his Friday response to the motion to strike, which also might have at least explained to Judge Liman why he responded. Governski filed a corrected version of the letter shortly after the first one, which on CourtListener just shows up as the same letter afaict, so I wonder whether her correction fixed the 1.C issue and it just isn’t reflected on Court listener. But any seasoned litigator reading the Governski letter knows what it is and that it requires no response. |
Anonymous
Are you seeing a licensed therapist? Your answer will let all of us know whether you are receiving the professional aid you so transparently need. |
Anonymous
Disagree, the letter invoked the motion rules and set out the substance of their arguments. It went far beyond a “notification.” |