Blake Lively- Jason Baldoni and NYT - False Light claims

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

To the contrary, your posts are easily recognizable.

[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.

Excuse me but were you in court today? On what basis are you now reciting the record?

[Anonymous]

"Specifically, the Lively Parties’ counsel indicated that they object to Bryan J. Freedman, personally, taking Ms. Lively’s deposition, based upon unspecified statements made by Mr. Freedman," Fritz wrote. In addition, he claimed that "counsel for the Lively Parties declined" to "elaborate on the grounds for their objection," when asked to do so by Baldoni's team.

https://people.com/blake-lively-doesnt-want-justin-baldoni-attorney-bryan-freedman-to-take-her-deposition-8783933

Just stop. You are intentionally misleading people and acting as if you are some legal expert.

[Anonymous]

Its getting really hard to follow what happened without the any documents

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Its getting really hard to follow what happened without the any documents

It really isn’t. Judge refused to grant a gag order and said he saw nothing wrong with Freedman’s conduct to date. Baldoni agreed to NY as venue. Judge refused to allow discovery before answer filed, and did not agree to restrict who would depose Lively. Lively’s lawyer said she would be amending her complaint. He also made some silly statements about Blake protecting her famous friends. The end.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

NP. Ooohhh everyone knows you. You should just join and get a username.

[Anonymous]

For the person who asked whether @notactuallygolden has a video on Justin v NYTimes: https://www.tiktok.com/t/ZP8Y2KN94/

This was before Justin sued Blake tho, so there’s one big point she makes that’s outdated (that it was smart for Justin to sue the NYTimes instead of Blake because she’s considered the victim)

[Anonymous]

Puck suggests that Blake's lawyers might name Freedman himself in their amended lawsuit. 1) Do you guys think that's plausible, and if so why? 2) Will they be able to do so?

"If there’s a headline from the hearing, it’s that Blake Lively plans to add new claims and new defendants. Michael Gottlieb, her lead attorney, didn’t specify who else might be
dragged into the war, although he hinted that the move may scramble Baldoni’s legal representation, which raised my suspicion that Freedman himself could be named."

https://puck.news/newsletter_content/what-im-hearing-emilia-fallout-blake-baldoni-in-court-grammy-chatter-3/

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Puck suggests that Blake's lawyers might name Freedman himself in their amended lawsuit. 1) Do you guys think that's plausible, and if so why? 2) Will they be able to do so?

"If there’s a headline from the hearing, it’s that Blake Lively plans to add new claims and new defendants. Michael Gottlieb, her lead attorney, didn’t specify who else might be
dragged into the war, although he hinted that the move may scramble Baldoni’s legal representation, which raised my suspicion that Freedman himself could be named."

https://puck.news/newsletter_content/what-im-hearing-emilia-fallout-blake-baldoni-in-court-grammy-chatter-3/

A strategy move to try to force other lawyer out for conflict. More often see this with divorces.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Puck suggests that Blake's lawyers might name Freedman himself in their amended lawsuit. 1) Do you guys think that's plausible, and if so why? 2) Will they be able to do so?

"If there’s a headline from the hearing, it’s that Blake Lively plans to add new claims and new defendants. Michael Gottlieb, her lead attorney, didn’t specify who else might be
dragged into the war, although he hinted that the move may scramble Baldoni’s legal representation, which raised my suspicion that Freedman himself could be named."

https://puck.news/newsletter_content/what-im-hearing-emilia-fallout-blake-baldoni-in-court-grammy-chatter-3/

A strategy move to try to force other lawyer out for conflict. More often see this with divorces.

Think it could work?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

It’s also completely irrelevant to everything at hand. People have talked about Lively’s prior bad interviews being part of why she has a rotten reputation, which goes to show that no one actually needed to bury her because she is broadly disliked. PP who keeps pouting about his proposal video is dishonest and seriously dumb.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Puck suggests that Blake's lawyers might name Freedman himself in their amended lawsuit. 1) Do you guys think that's plausible, and if so why? 2) Will they be able to do so?

"If there’s a headline from the hearing, it’s that Blake Lively plans to add new claims and new defendants. Michael Gottlieb, her lead attorney, didn’t specify who else might be
dragged into the war, although he hinted that the move may scramble Baldoni’s legal representation, which raised my suspicion that Freedman himself could be named."

https://puck.news/newsletter_content/what-im-hearing-emilia-fallout-blake-baldoni-in-court-grammy-chatter-3/

If that’s what they’re planning, it’s not going to give her any points with the public. Remove Baldoni from his own movie. Remove Freedman from his own case.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

It’s also completely irrelevant to everything at hand. People have talked about Lively’s prior bad interviews being part of why she has a rotten reputation, which goes to show that no one actually needed to bury her because she is broadly disliked. PP who keeps pouting about his proposal video is dishonest and seriously dumb.

I’m not, tbh, and I don’t need to insult you to feel good about myself. I think the proposal video does not make Baldoni look good. A prior poster said Lively was smug and that comment wasn’t misogynistic because they’d say the same thing about a smug man, so I brought up the proposal video to see if they’d put their money where their mouth was. You can say it’s irrelevant, but that doesn’t make it true, sorry.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

It’s also completely irrelevant to everything at hand. People have talked about Lively’s prior bad interviews being part of why she has a rotten reputation, which goes to show that no one actually needed to bury her because she is broadly disliked. PP who keeps pouting about his proposal video is dishonest and seriously dumb.

I disagree. Both of their personalities are on trial here because they are both alleging bad behavior on set as the original source of conflict. The proposal video is cringey, over the top, and self absorbed. It's easier for me to believe that the guy who made that video did stuff like talking repeatedly about his porn addiction even after a colleague had asked him to stop, or "confess" to a colleague that he'd had nonconsensual sex in the past during a late night car ride, all without realizing how that behavior would be received or how uncomfortable it could make someone.

Last summer, Baldoni told his PR people he wanted to do an interview to talk about his "neuro-divergence" and how it could explain some of his behavior towards Lively. He didn't do this (which was the right call from a PR perspective) but it's interesting to me. That sounds to me like Baldoni has either had issues before with his behavior making others uncomfortable, or that he has some awareness of (but doesn't really take responsibility for) his behavior being problematic.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Puck suggests that Blake's lawyers might name Freedman himself in their amended lawsuit. 1) Do you guys think that's plausible, and if so why? 2) Will they be able to do so?

"If there’s a headline from the hearing, it’s that Blake Lively plans to add new claims and new defendants. Michael Gottlieb, her lead attorney, didn’t specify who else might be
dragged into the war, although he hinted that the move may scramble Baldoni’s legal representation, which raised my suspicion that Freedman himself could be named."

https://puck.news/newsletter_content/what-im-hearing-emilia-fallout-blake-baldoni-in-court-grammy-chatter-3/

If that’s what they’re planning, it’s not going to give her any points with the public. Remove Baldoni from his own movie. Remove Freedman from his own case.

I think the number of people who know the name of Baldoni's lawyer or would care of he was removed from the case is vanishingly small. Most people are not as obsessed with this case as the people on this thread.