Blake Lively- Jason Baldoni and NYT - False Light claims

[Anonymous]

This is a pretty incredible scoop on the new lawyer by a user on Reddit

https://www.reddit.com/r/teamjustinbaldoni/comments/1kse3wa/vanzan_lawsuit_lawyer_wasnt_a_random_pick/

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:This is a pretty incredible scoop on the new lawyer by a user on Reddit

https://www.reddit.com/r/teamjustinbaldoni/comments/1kse3wa/vanzan_lawsuit_lawyer_wasnt_a_random_pick/

Hang on. I'm pretty sure some Baldoni supporters do not support discussions that intrude on the details of firm attorneys and intrusive reddit speculation on same. Just waiting for them to pipe in and complain like they did when I posted a news interview that a firm partner gave. I'm really sure they will be along in a minute. Unless of course it's okay for people to post things about Lively's attorneys but not Baldoni's.

[Anonymous]

I don't like the gossiping about the attorneys on either side and it sounds like that note has absolutely nothing to do with the VanZan subpoena.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:This is a pretty incredible scoop on the new lawyer by a user on Reddit

https://www.reddit.com/r/teamjustinbaldoni/comments/1kse3wa/vanzan_lawsuit_lawyer_wasnt_a_random_pick/

This is bat shit crazy speculation, why am I not surprised, Arlington mom?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:A GQ journalist is pursuing a celeb crisis PR angle.

https://www.reddit.com/r/ItEndsWithLawsuits/comments/1ksdir2/news_on_the_vineupcoming_news_article/

Traditional media is really just struggling for relevancy by writing about the most boring angles.

Media is for sale. Plantation Ken & Barbie throwing good money after bad.

Yawn. It doesn’t move the needle. There’s been 10,000 puff pieces from People and the like since this story hit, Blake still hasn’t booked a film and her product lines are stalled. You can go to the comment section of any of these articles and see it’s not helping.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I don't think almost any of Baldoni's claims in his complaint "pass the smell test."

- His defamation claims against the NYT are incredibly unlikely given that they were reporting on pending litigation and he is a public person.
- Likewise, his defamation claims against Lively, which depend on the NYT article, are likely to fail for the same reason.
- He has yet to even identify things Leslie Sloane did, at all, and in these recent interrogatories doubled down on that by saying he needs discovery to even identify a single defaming statement she made. I think this one is for sure gone.
- The extortion claims are really poorly pled, as they can't identify any benefit other than the p.g.a. credit that Lively received which has no monetary value and also cost Wayfarer nothing to give up.
- Likewise they have conspiracy claims but no evidence of conspiracy, unless that's popping up in discovery, this is just very weak.

The one Baldoni claim I could see surviving at this point is the defamation claim against Reynolds for the "sexual predator" statements. There at least they've identified a statement, and the person who said it, and there are witnesses. Maybe Lively gets included in that if the arguments they are making about Reynolds acting as her agent fly. I think the tortious interference claims attached to this will fail though because I don't think they can prove WME dropped Baldoni or Wayfarer due to Reynold's statements. They haven't produced a contract with WME either, and that's usually critical to a tortious interference claim. So I think it's just defamation here.

I think Lively's claims are going to go to trial. I don't think they'll get dismissed at SJ because there are enough issues of fact there, and I don't think they'll settle -- I think we are getting further and further from settlement daily (I would have put it at 50% likelihood a month or two ago and now I'd put it at like 10% barring some surprise that goes really poorly for either side).

I know people on this thread generally think either Baldoni is definitely guilty of the SH/retaliation or definitely innocent, but I think both of those positions are wrong. There's enough evidence there that a jury could find for Lively, but also it will come down to witness creditability and the stories each side tells (and also the stories the judge allows them to tell -- a lot of what is floated around now via PR will not be permitted as an argument in court and the jury will never here). I truly think it's a toss up and either side could prevail, and I also think that the side that wins in court will also ultimately win in the public eye.

I don't think Lively is lying about her claims as some argue. I think she's telling the truth and believes she was wronged. The bigger issue is if what she's alleging adds up to a guilty verdict for Baldoni. That's very much up in the air. Discovery is really critical here, though in a case like this it will really come down to witness testimony, including from the parties. It's a he said/she said, classically so.

I had an old tab with this comment open and wanted to recirculate it — note that it appears that the Lively side attorneys seem (to me) to clearly be working to get Baldoni’s weakest claims get kicked out before Freedman has the chance to pull his normal routine of using discovery itself to support claims he didn’t initially have any evidence for. I think the Lively side has been working on this and setting the stage for months — starting early in meet and confers to get Baldoni to produce records etc he didn’t want to reflecting his lack of evidence on Sloane’s defamation, for example, and now filing this motion to compel on the Daily Mail reporter. The sanctions motions, even if they don’t succeed in monetary sanctions themselves, also focus on the lack of evidence on team Baldoni’s weakest claims, all with a higher strategy in mind.

Lively’s attorney team is aiming toward getting the judge to see that when he dismisses these claims, it should be with prejudice. They are doing the long, hard slog of the work that real attorneys do to prep for dismissal, depositions, SJ, and trial. Meanwhile Freedman is, I dunno, inadequately responding, sitting on whatever affirmative thing he plans to do about the subpoena for 8 weeks, annoying the judge with hearsay extortion allegations re opposing counsel, and trying really really hard to rope Taylor Swift into everything so he can depose her too, I guess. What a worm.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This is a pretty incredible scoop on the new lawyer by a user on Reddit

https://www.reddit.com/r/teamjustinbaldoni/comments/1kse3wa/vanzan_lawsuit_lawyer_wasnt_a_random_pick/

This is bat shit crazy speculation, why am I not surprised, Arlington mom?

I haven’t fully read this, but fwiw, yeah it looks like we basically all agree that this is speculative, gossipy nonsense! Wow, a consensus on this divided board! — arlington mom

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I don't think almost any of Baldoni's claims in his complaint "pass the smell test."

- His defamation claims against the NYT are incredibly unlikely given that they were reporting on pending litigation and he is a public person.
- Likewise, his defamation claims against Lively, which depend on the NYT article, are likely to fail for the same reason.
- He has yet to even identify things Leslie Sloane did, at all, and in these recent interrogatories doubled down on that by saying he needs discovery to even identify a single defaming statement she made. I think this one is for sure gone.
- The extortion claims are really poorly pled, as they can't identify any benefit other than the p.g.a. credit that Lively received which has no monetary value and also cost Wayfarer nothing to give up.
- Likewise they have conspiracy claims but no evidence of conspiracy, unless that's popping up in discovery, this is just very weak.

The one Baldoni claim I could see surviving at this point is the defamation claim against Reynolds for the "sexual predator" statements. There at least they've identified a statement, and the person who said it, and there are witnesses. Maybe Lively gets included in that if the arguments they are making about Reynolds acting as her agent fly. I think the tortious interference claims attached to this will fail though because I don't think they can prove WME dropped Baldoni or Wayfarer due to Reynold's statements. They haven't produced a contract with WME either, and that's usually critical to a tortious interference claim. So I think it's just defamation here.

I think Lively's claims are going to go to trial. I don't think they'll get dismissed at SJ because there are enough issues of fact there, and I don't think they'll settle -- I think we are getting further and further from settlement daily (I would have put it at 50% likelihood a month or two ago and now I'd put it at like 10% barring some surprise that goes really poorly for either side).

I know people on this thread generally think either Baldoni is definitely guilty of the SH/retaliation or definitely innocent, but I think both of those positions are wrong. There's enough evidence there that a jury could find for Lively, but also it will come down to witness creditability and the stories each side tells (and also the stories the judge allows them to tell -- a lot of what is floated around now via PR will not be permitted as an argument in court and the jury will never here). I truly think it's a toss up and either side could prevail, and I also think that the side that wins in court will also ultimately win in the public eye.

I don't think Lively is lying about her claims as some argue. I think she's telling the truth and believes she was wronged. The bigger issue is if what she's alleging adds up to a guilty verdict for Baldoni. That's very much up in the air. Discovery is really critical here, though in a case like this it will really come down to witness testimony, including from the parties. It's a he said/she said, classically so.

I had an old tab with this comment open and wanted to recirculate it — note that it appears that the Lively side attorneys seem (to me) to clearly be working to get Baldoni’s weakest claims get kicked out before Freedman has the chance to pull his normal routine of using discovery itself to support claims he didn’t initially have any evidence for. I think the Lively side has been working on this and setting the stage for months — starting early in meet and confers to get Baldoni to produce records etc he didn’t want to reflecting his lack of evidence on Sloane’s defamation, for example, and now filing this motion to compel on the Daily Mail reporter. The sanctions motions, even if they don’t succeed in monetary sanctions themselves, also focus on the lack of evidence on team Baldoni’s weakest claims, all with a higher strategy in mind.

Lively’s attorney team is aiming toward getting the judge to see that when he dismisses these claims, it should be with prejudice. They are doing the long, hard slog of the work that real attorneys do to prep for dismissal, depositions, SJ, and trial. Meanwhile Freedman is, I dunno, inadequately responding, sitting on whatever affirmative thing he plans to do about the subpoena for 8 weeks, annoying the judge with hearsay extortion allegations re opposing counsel, and trying really really hard to rope Taylor Swift into everything so he can depose her too, I guess. What a worm.

I wrote the post you are quoting and just reread it and pretty much stand by the whole thing. I think the Taylor Swift stuff is a distraction. Same with the VanZan stuff. And while the MTDs and discovery conflicts carry some strategic and procedural interest for me, I feel like I mostly know how that's going to turn out, give or take a few claims, so the suspense isn't there.

The case is getting tedious for me because I am genuinely interested in seeing how the competing fact claims regarding Lively's SH and retaliation claims shake out. I'm curious about the tactics each side is going to take in crafting the narrative, and I'm particularly enthusiastic that this case is increasingly looking like it's going to trial and that all principles will testify. For a trial nerd, that's exciting because I'm really curious to see how both direct and cross will work with these witnesses, and how what I view as two incredibly risky witnesses (Lively and Baldoni -- both highly emotional, both struggle to communicate directly and stay on topic, both have personality issues that could easily be off-putting to jurors) will perform in these circumstances.

If the trial happens, that's about as cinematic as real life courtrooms get, IMO. Especially in a civil case. The celebrity gossip and the Team Blake/Team Justin crap we're looking at now is so boring. I'm not that invested in either of these people. But it's such an interesting legal conflict with a lot of built in drama. I look forward to getting back to that.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I don't think almost any of Baldoni's claims in his complaint "pass the smell test."

- His defamation claims against the NYT are incredibly unlikely given that they were reporting on pending litigation and he is a public person.
- Likewise, his defamation claims against Lively, which depend on the NYT article, are likely to fail for the same reason.
- He has yet to even identify things Leslie Sloane did, at all, and in these recent interrogatories doubled down on that by saying he needs discovery to even identify a single defaming statement she made. I think this one is for sure gone.
- The extortion claims are really poorly pled, as they can't identify any benefit other than the p.g.a. credit that Lively received which has no monetary value and also cost Wayfarer nothing to give up.
- Likewise they have conspiracy claims but no evidence of conspiracy, unless that's popping up in discovery, this is just very weak.

The one Baldoni claim I could see surviving at this point is the defamation claim against Reynolds for the "sexual predator" statements. There at least they've identified a statement, and the person who said it, and there are witnesses. Maybe Lively gets included in that if the arguments they are making about Reynolds acting as her agent fly. I think the tortious interference claims attached to this will fail though because I don't think they can prove WME dropped Baldoni or Wayfarer due to Reynold's statements. They haven't produced a contract with WME either, and that's usually critical to a tortious interference claim. So I think it's just defamation here.

I think Lively's claims are going to go to trial. I don't think they'll get dismissed at SJ because there are enough issues of fact there, and I don't think they'll settle -- I think we are getting further and further from settlement daily (I would have put it at 50% likelihood a month or two ago and now I'd put it at like 10% barring some surprise that goes really poorly for either side).

I know people on this thread generally think either Baldoni is definitely guilty of the SH/retaliation or definitely innocent, but I think both of those positions are wrong. There's enough evidence there that a jury could find for Lively, but also it will come down to witness creditability and the stories each side tells (and also the stories the judge allows them to tell -- a lot of what is floated around now via PR will not be permitted as an argument in court and the jury will never here). I truly think it's a toss up and either side could prevail, and I also think that the side that wins in court will also ultimately win in the public eye.

I don't think Lively is lying about her claims as some argue. I think she's telling the truth and believes she was wronged. The bigger issue is if what she's alleging adds up to a guilty verdict for Baldoni. That's very much up in the air. Discovery is really critical here, though in a case like this it will really come down to witness testimony, including from the parties. It's a he said/she said, classically so.

I had an old tab with this comment open and wanted to recirculate it — note that it appears that the Lively side attorneys seem (to me) to clearly be working to get Baldoni’s weakest claims get kicked out before Freedman has the chance to pull his normal routine of using discovery itself to support claims he didn’t initially have any evidence for. I think the Lively side has been working on this and setting the stage for months — starting early in meet and confers to get Baldoni to produce records etc he didn’t want to reflecting his lack of evidence on Sloane’s defamation, for example, and now filing this motion to compel on the Daily Mail reporter. The sanctions motions, even if they don’t succeed in monetary sanctions themselves, also focus on the lack of evidence on team Baldoni’s weakest claims, all with a higher strategy in mind.

Lively’s attorney team is aiming toward getting the judge to see that when he dismisses these claims, it should be with prejudice. They are doing the long, hard slog of the work that real attorneys do to prep for dismissal, depositions, SJ, and trial. Meanwhile Freedman is, I dunno, inadequately responding, sitting on whatever affirmative thing he plans to do about the subpoena for 8 weeks, annoying the judge with hearsay extortion allegations re opposing counsel, and trying really really hard to rope Taylor Swift into everything so he can depose her too, I guess. What a worm.

Nothing normal about filing sham litigation or Rule 11 motions.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I don't think almost any of Baldoni's claims in his complaint "pass the smell test."

- His defamation claims against the NYT are incredibly unlikely given that they were reporting on pending litigation and he is a public person.
- Likewise, his defamation claims against Lively, which depend on the NYT article, are likely to fail for the same reason.
- He has yet to even identify things Leslie Sloane did, at all, and in these recent interrogatories doubled down on that by saying he needs discovery to even identify a single defaming statement she made. I think this one is for sure gone.
- The extortion claims are really poorly pled, as they can't identify any benefit other than the p.g.a. credit that Lively received which has no monetary value and also cost Wayfarer nothing to give up.
- Likewise they have conspiracy claims but no evidence of conspiracy, unless that's popping up in discovery, this is just very weak.

The one Baldoni claim I could see surviving at this point is the defamation claim against Reynolds for the "sexual predator" statements. There at least they've identified a statement, and the person who said it, and there are witnesses. Maybe Lively gets included in that if the arguments they are making about Reynolds acting as her agent fly. I think the tortious interference claims attached to this will fail though because I don't think they can prove WME dropped Baldoni or Wayfarer due to Reynold's statements. They haven't produced a contract with WME either, and that's usually critical to a tortious interference claim. So I think it's just defamation here.

I think Lively's claims are going to go to trial. I don't think they'll get dismissed at SJ because there are enough issues of fact there, and I don't think they'll settle -- I think we are getting further and further from settlement daily (I would have put it at 50% likelihood a month or two ago and now I'd put it at like 10% barring some surprise that goes really poorly for either side).

I know people on this thread generally think either Baldoni is definitely guilty of the SH/retaliation or definitely innocent, but I think both of those positions are wrong. There's enough evidence there that a jury could find for Lively, but also it will come down to witness creditability and the stories each side tells (and also the stories the judge allows them to tell -- a lot of what is floated around now via PR will not be permitted as an argument in court and the jury will never here). I truly think it's a toss up and either side could prevail, and I also think that the side that wins in court will also ultimately win in the public eye.

I don't think Lively is lying about her claims as some argue. I think she's telling the truth and believes she was wronged. The bigger issue is if what she's alleging adds up to a guilty verdict for Baldoni. That's very much up in the air. Discovery is really critical here, though in a case like this it will really come down to witness testimony, including from the parties. It's a he said/she said, classically so.

I had an old tab with this comment open and wanted to recirculate it — note that it appears that the Lively side attorneys seem (to me) to clearly be working to get Baldoni’s weakest claims get kicked out before Freedman has the chance to pull his normal routine of using discovery itself to support claims he didn’t initially have any evidence for. I think the Lively side has been working on this and setting the stage for months — starting early in meet and confers to get Baldoni to produce records etc he didn’t want to reflecting his lack of evidence on Sloane’s defamation, for example, and now filing this motion to compel on the Daily Mail reporter. The sanctions motions, even if they don’t succeed in monetary sanctions themselves, also focus on the lack of evidence on team Baldoni’s weakest claims, all with a higher strategy in mind.

Lively’s attorney team is aiming toward getting the judge to see that when he dismisses these claims, it should be with prejudice. They are doing the long, hard slog of the work that real attorneys do to prep for dismissal, depositions, SJ, and trial. Meanwhile Freedman is, I dunno, inadequately responding, sitting on whatever affirmative thing he plans to do about the subpoena for 8 weeks, annoying the judge with hearsay extortion allegations re opposing counsel, and trying really really hard to rope Taylor Swift into everything so he can depose her too, I guess. What a worm.

I wrote the post you are quoting and just reread it and pretty much stand by the whole thing. I think the Taylor Swift stuff is a distraction. Same with the VanZan stuff. And while the MTDs and discovery conflicts carry some strategic and procedural interest for me, I feel like I mostly know how that's going to turn out, give or take a few claims, so the suspense isn't there.

The case is getting tedious for me because I am genuinely interested in seeing how the competing fact claims regarding Lively's SH and retaliation claims shake out. I'm curious about the tactics each side is going to take in crafting the narrative, and I'm particularly enthusiastic that this case is increasingly looking like it's going to trial and that all principles will testify. For a trial nerd, that's exciting because I'm really curious to see how both direct and cross will work with these witnesses, and how what I view as two incredibly risky witnesses (Lively and Baldoni -- both highly emotional, both struggle to communicate directly and stay on topic, both have personality issues that could easily be off-putting to jurors) will perform in these circumstances.

If the trial happens, that's about as cinematic as real life courtrooms get, IMO. Especially in a civil case. The celebrity gossip and the Team Blake/Team Justin crap we're looking at now is so boring. I'm not that invested in either of these people. But it's such an interesting legal conflict with a lot of built in drama. I look forward to getting back to that.

Cool! I’m PP that reposted it and appreciate your perspective! I still think it was the best analysis of the existing claims. Do you think Gottlieb is etc. is filing the sanctions motions to push the judge to dismiss with prejudice? I’ve also seen it suggested that they might be pushing to skip depositions entirely and go directly to trial to do an end run on press interference and tainting the jury pool, though I don’t actually think they’d want to do that.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I don't think almost any of Baldoni's claims in his complaint "pass the smell test."

- His defamation claims against the NYT are incredibly unlikely given that they were reporting on pending litigation and he is a public person.
- Likewise, his defamation claims against Lively, which depend on the NYT article, are likely to fail for the same reason.
- He has yet to even identify things Leslie Sloane did, at all, and in these recent interrogatories doubled down on that by saying he needs discovery to even identify a single defaming statement she made. I think this one is for sure gone.
- The extortion claims are really poorly pled, as they can't identify any benefit other than the p.g.a. credit that Lively received which has no monetary value and also cost Wayfarer nothing to give up.
- Likewise they have conspiracy claims but no evidence of conspiracy, unless that's popping up in discovery, this is just very weak.

The one Baldoni claim I could see surviving at this point is the defamation claim against Reynolds for the "sexual predator" statements. There at least they've identified a statement, and the person who said it, and there are witnesses. Maybe Lively gets included in that if the arguments they are making about Reynolds acting as her agent fly. I think the tortious interference claims attached to this will fail though because I don't think they can prove WME dropped Baldoni or Wayfarer due to Reynold's statements. They haven't produced a contract with WME either, and that's usually critical to a tortious interference claim. So I think it's just defamation here.

I think Lively's claims are going to go to trial. I don't think they'll get dismissed at SJ because there are enough issues of fact there, and I don't think they'll settle -- I think we are getting further and further from settlement daily (I would have put it at 50% likelihood a month or two ago and now I'd put it at like 10% barring some surprise that goes really poorly for either side).

I know people on this thread generally think either Baldoni is definitely guilty of the SH/retaliation or definitely innocent, but I think both of those positions are wrong. There's enough evidence there that a jury could find for Lively, but also it will come down to witness creditability and the stories each side tells (and also the stories the judge allows them to tell -- a lot of what is floated around now via PR will not be permitted as an argument in court and the jury will never here). I truly think it's a toss up and either side could prevail, and I also think that the side that wins in court will also ultimately win in the public eye.

I don't think Lively is lying about her claims as some argue. I think she's telling the truth and believes she was wronged. The bigger issue is if what she's alleging adds up to a guilty verdict for Baldoni. That's very much up in the air. Discovery is really critical here, though in a case like this it will really come down to witness testimony, including from the parties. It's a he said/she said, classically so.

I had an old tab with this comment open and wanted to recirculate it — note that it appears that the Lively side attorneys seem (to me) to clearly be working to get Baldoni’s weakest claims get kicked out before Freedman has the chance to pull his normal routine of using discovery itself to support claims he didn’t initially have any evidence for. I think the Lively side has been working on this and setting the stage for months — starting early in meet and confers to get Baldoni to produce records etc he didn’t want to reflecting his lack of evidence on Sloane’s defamation, for example, and now filing this motion to compel on the Daily Mail reporter. The sanctions motions, even if they don’t succeed in monetary sanctions themselves, also focus on the lack of evidence on team Baldoni’s weakest claims, all with a higher strategy in mind.

Lively’s attorney team is aiming toward getting the judge to see that when he dismisses these claims, it should be with prejudice. They are doing the long, hard slog of the work that real attorneys do to prep for dismissal, depositions, SJ, and trial. Meanwhile Freedman is, I dunno, inadequately responding, sitting on whatever affirmative thing he plans to do about the subpoena for 8 weeks, annoying the judge with hearsay extortion allegations re opposing counsel, and trying really really hard to rope Taylor Swift into everything so he can depose her too, I guess. What a worm.

I wrote the post you are quoting and just reread it and pretty much stand by the whole thing. I think the Taylor Swift stuff is a distraction. Same with the VanZan stuff. And while the MTDs and discovery conflicts carry some strategic and procedural interest for me, I feel like I mostly know how that's going to turn out, give or take a few claims, so the suspense isn't there.

The case is getting tedious for me because I am genuinely interested in seeing how the competing fact claims regarding Lively's SH and retaliation claims shake out. I'm curious about the tactics each side is going to take in crafting the narrative, and I'm particularly enthusiastic that this case is increasingly looking like it's going to trial and that all principles will testify. For a trial nerd, that's exciting because I'm really curious to see how both direct and cross will work with these witnesses, and how what I view as two incredibly risky witnesses (Lively and Baldoni -- both highly emotional, both struggle to communicate directly and stay on topic, both have personality issues that could easily be off-putting to jurors) will perform in these circumstances.

If the trial happens, that's about as cinematic as real life courtrooms get, IMO. Especially in a civil case. The celebrity gossip and the Team Blake/Team Justin crap we're looking at now is so boring. I'm not that invested in either of these people. But it's such an interesting legal conflict with a lot of built in drama. I look forward to getting back to that.

Cool! I’m PP that reposted it and appreciate your perspective! I still think it was the best analysis of the existing claims. Do you think Gottlieb is etc. is filing the sanctions motions to push the judge to dismiss with prejudice? I’ve also seen it suggested that they might be pushing to skip depositions entirely and go directly to trial to do an end run on press interference and tainting the jury pool, though I don’t actually think they’d want to do that.

What? Skipping depositions is not a thing. These pro-Lively arguments get stupider by the day.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I don't think almost any of Baldoni's claims in his complaint "pass the smell test."

- His defamation claims against the NYT are incredibly unlikely given that they were reporting on pending litigation and he is a public person.
- Likewise, his defamation claims against Lively, which depend on the NYT article, are likely to fail for the same reason.
- He has yet to even identify things Leslie Sloane did, at all, and in these recent interrogatories doubled down on that by saying he needs discovery to even identify a single defaming statement she made. I think this one is for sure gone.
- The extortion claims are really poorly pled, as they can't identify any benefit other than the p.g.a. credit that Lively received which has no monetary value and also cost Wayfarer nothing to give up.
- Likewise they have conspiracy claims but no evidence of conspiracy, unless that's popping up in discovery, this is just very weak.

The one Baldoni claim I could see surviving at this point is the defamation claim against Reynolds for the "sexual predator" statements. There at least they've identified a statement, and the person who said it, and there are witnesses. Maybe Lively gets included in that if the arguments they are making about Reynolds acting as her agent fly. I think the tortious interference claims attached to this will fail though because I don't think they can prove WME dropped Baldoni or Wayfarer due to Reynold's statements. They haven't produced a contract with WME either, and that's usually critical to a tortious interference claim. So I think it's just defamation here.

I think Lively's claims are going to go to trial. I don't think they'll get dismissed at SJ because there are enough issues of fact there, and I don't think they'll settle -- I think we are getting further and further from settlement daily (I would have put it at 50% likelihood a month or two ago and now I'd put it at like 10% barring some surprise that goes really poorly for either side).

I know people on this thread generally think either Baldoni is definitely guilty of the SH/retaliation or definitely innocent, but I think both of those positions are wrong. There's enough evidence there that a jury could find for Lively, but also it will come down to witness creditability and the stories each side tells (and also the stories the judge allows them to tell -- a lot of what is floated around now via PR will not be permitted as an argument in court and the jury will never here). I truly think it's a toss up and either side could prevail, and I also think that the side that wins in court will also ultimately win in the public eye.

I don't think Lively is lying about her claims as some argue. I think she's telling the truth and believes she was wronged. The bigger issue is if what she's alleging adds up to a guilty verdict for Baldoni. That's very much up in the air. Discovery is really critical here, though in a case like this it will really come down to witness testimony, including from the parties. It's a he said/she said, classically so.

I had an old tab with this comment open and wanted to recirculate it — note that it appears that the Lively side attorneys seem (to me) to clearly be working to get Baldoni’s weakest claims get kicked out before Freedman has the chance to pull his normal routine of using discovery itself to support claims he didn’t initially have any evidence for. I think the Lively side has been working on this and setting the stage for months — starting early in meet and confers to get Baldoni to produce records etc he didn’t want to reflecting his lack of evidence on Sloane’s defamation, for example, and now filing this motion to compel on the Daily Mail reporter. The sanctions motions, even if they don’t succeed in monetary sanctions themselves, also focus on the lack of evidence on team Baldoni’s weakest claims, all with a higher strategy in mind.

Lively’s attorney team is aiming toward getting the judge to see that when he dismisses these claims, it should be with prejudice. They are doing the long, hard slog of the work that real attorneys do to prep for dismissal, depositions, SJ, and trial. Meanwhile Freedman is, I dunno, inadequately responding, sitting on whatever affirmative thing he plans to do about the subpoena for 8 weeks, annoying the judge with hearsay extortion allegations re opposing counsel, and trying really really hard to rope Taylor Swift into everything so he can depose her too, I guess. What a worm.

I wrote the post you are quoting and just reread it and pretty much stand by the whole thing. I think the Taylor Swift stuff is a distraction. Same with the VanZan stuff. And while the MTDs and discovery conflicts carry some strategic and procedural interest for me, I feel like I mostly know how that's going to turn out, give or take a few claims, so the suspense isn't there.

The case is getting tedious for me because I am genuinely interested in seeing how the competing fact claims regarding Lively's SH and retaliation claims shake out. I'm curious about the tactics each side is going to take in crafting the narrative, and I'm particularly enthusiastic that this case is increasingly looking like it's going to trial and that all principles will testify. For a trial nerd, that's exciting because I'm really curious to see how both direct and cross will work with these witnesses, and how what I view as two incredibly risky witnesses (Lively and Baldoni -- both highly emotional, both struggle to communicate directly and stay on topic, both have personality issues that could easily be off-putting to jurors) will perform in these circumstances.

If the trial happens, that's about as cinematic as real life courtrooms get, IMO. Especially in a civil case. The celebrity gossip and the Team Blake/Team Justin crap we're looking at now is so boring. I'm not that invested in either of these people. But it's such an interesting legal conflict with a lot of built in drama. I look forward to getting back to that.

Cool! I’m PP that reposted it and appreciate your perspective! I still think it was the best analysis of the existing claims. Do you think Gottlieb is etc. is filing the sanctions motions to push the judge to dismiss with prejudice? I’ve also seen it suggested that they might be pushing to skip depositions entirely and go directly to trial to do an end run on press interference and tainting the jury pool, though I don’t actually think they’d want to do that.

PP here. I think Gottlieb filed the Rule 11 motions to get some of Freedman's more egregious behavior on the court record and to get an extra stab at illustrating why they think these particular claims are baseless. I doubt he expects the Rule 11 motions to be granted (they virtually never are) but I can see the strategy there because there are so many MTDs and things are getting muddy with discovery so this is a chance to just refocus the court a bit on "hey, just a reminder that the following claims have zero basis identified in the complaint." I'm not sure I'd go about it the same way but I don't think it's a bad idea. And getting some of those Freedman quotes into a motion is smart, especially in this particular moment where Liman is scrutinizing Freedman's PR strategy more critically because of the stunt he pulled last week.

No I don't think anyone is trying to skip depositions, that would be dumb. Depositions are critical to trial prep and essential to SJ motions as well. Also you actually want your client and key witnesses doing depos generally -- it's good practice for them for the courtroom and it forces them to start prepping testimony early so that it's really solid and they don't get flustered when it counts. Depositions are hard but essential, I can't imagine trying to get out of them.

The public is only going to get transcripts of depositions, anyway. And might not even get all of them, as some things might be sealed for various reasons. Truthfully, if depositions go very badly for either side, it will greatly increase likelihood of settlement, which could prevent them from ever seeing the light of day. I think if we get through demos and a trial is still in the offing, the depositions are not likely to be a huge win for either side.

[Anonymous]

Recent posters seem to be losing sight of why Blake filed this suit. It was about 90% nose dive in her hair and alcohol products. She thought that the blowback from the it ends with us marketing events and bad press around it had tarnished her reputation. She needs her reputation to book roles and sell product.

The problem is this lawsuit has cost her millions in followers and has tarnished her reputation. Palling around with Taylor Swift will move hair and alcohol products. Palling around with Salma Hayek will not.

That’s the bottom line here.

If Blake is truly seeking what she perceives as justice and wants to, after March 2026, move to her Bedford home and raise her for kids in a quiet life of anonymity, perhaps that could happen. But that is not what she wants. She wants red carpets, she wants to go on panels about being a bossbabe biz owner, she wants followers and likes. No matter what happens in March 2026 she’s not likely to get that back.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Recent posters seem to be losing sight of why Blake filed this suit. It was about 90% nose dive in her hair and alcohol products. She thought that the blowback from the it ends with us marketing events and bad press around it had tarnished her reputation. She needs her reputation to book roles and sell product.

The problem is this lawsuit has cost her millions in followers and has tarnished her reputation. Palling around with Taylor Swift will move hair and alcohol products. Palling around with Salma Hayek will not.

That’s the bottom line here.

If Blake is truly seeking what she perceives as justice and wants to, after March 2026, move to her Bedford home and raise her for kids in a quiet life of anonymity, perhaps that could happen. But that is not what she wants. She wants red carpets, she wants to go on panels about being a bossbabe biz owner, she wants followers and likes. No matter what happens in March 2026 she’s not likely to get that back.

I would actually not bet against Blake and Ryan figuring out how to navigate this so they can still sell movies and product. I know a popular opinion on this board is that they are total morons, and I would agree that they probably know next to nothing about anything that actually matters to me (politics, literature, art, philosophy). But just observationally, they seem to be really, really good at marketing and being celebs. Despite middling talent as actors and having what appear to be grating personalities.

So I would actually defer to them on what is going to "move product." I'm not a branding expert so I truly don't know. They have both shown themselves to be surprisingly great at it, so I wouldn't count them out.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Recent posters seem to be losing sight of why Blake filed this suit. It was about 90% nose dive in her hair and alcohol products. She thought that the blowback from the it ends with us marketing events and bad press around it had tarnished her reputation. She needs her reputation to book roles and sell product.

The problem is this lawsuit has cost her millions in followers and has tarnished her reputation. Palling around with Taylor Swift will move hair and alcohol products. Palling around with Salma Hayek will not.

That’s the bottom line here.

If Blake is truly seeking what she perceives as justice and wants to, after March 2026, move to her Bedford home and raise her for kids in a quiet life of anonymity, perhaps that could happen. But that is not what she wants. She wants red carpets, she wants to go on panels about being a bossbabe biz owner, she wants followers and likes. No matter what happens in March 2026 she’s not likely to get that back.

I would actually not bet against Blake and Ryan figuring out how to navigate this so they can still sell movies and product. I know a popular opinion on this board is that they are total morons, and I would agree that they probably know next to nothing about anything that actually matters to me (politics, literature, art, philosophy). But just observationally, they seem to be really, really good at marketing and being celebs. Despite middling talent as actors and having what appear to be grating personalities.

So I would actually defer to them on what is going to "move product." I'm not a branding expert so I truly don't know. They have both shown themselves to be surprisingly great at it, so I wouldn't count them out.

You’ll notice I didn’t say Ryan. Absolutely agree he will be largely untouched by this. But Blake will not be asked to front any more brands and do a lot of movies. Frankly, that would probably be true without this lawsuit.