Blake Lively- Jason Baldoni and NYT - False Light claims

[Anonymous]

My thoughts on the spoilation/threats. If there is a letter from Venable chiding Gottlieb for threatening Swift and/or texts from Blake encouraging spoilation, Taylor’s testimony is likely not needed. Perhaps her lawyer is willing to testify in such a proceeding, which likely would be in chambers and not in an courtroom anyway given the explosive nature of the charges. I doubt Taylor was present for the call with Gottlieb anyway.

As for the extortion claims, they may have obtained some sworn testimony from Taylor, perhaps in the form of an affidavit. Here, more important for Blake to know she can’t claim Taylor supported the use of her name in her threats. I think that message pretty clearly sent, but my guess is that they have something they could use at trial or summary judgment to impeach Blake.

[Anonymous]

IMO, if Swift offered any kind of statements or affidavits, that makes her much more likely to be called. The other side would want to depose her to examine those statements. They wouldn't just let those damning statements stand.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So Candace Owens says it was Taylor's dad that contacted Justin. Dailymail article has the same but I don't necessarily believe DM. I do believe Candace though

It should be the reverse. DM is very trashy and salacious, but they actually do interview people.

It's DM UK who is "reporting" it though. They are trash. So is CO. That no one else has picked this up is a big red flag. If it were true, Taylor's camp would have confirmed to a preferred outlet by now.

Oh please. In what world is Taylor’s team going to, or needs to, come out and say that Scott went to the lawyers? What would they gain by doing that? Ridiculous.

Because otherwise it looks like he did this without Taylor's go ahead, and it looks reckless. If they confirm it through a friendly outlet, they can put a more positive spin on it. This makes him look both stupid (leaking this time Freedman makes her more likely to be called as a witness, not less) and obsessive (why on earth would Scott be deciding all this on his own, this should be handled by the very highly paid attorneys).

Disagree. They don’t have to engage anymore. They are now done with this and done with Blake. People speculate about Taylor all the time and she doesn’t get in the mud. Why would she here? The suit no longer even involves someone she is friends with so she can be done and put it behind her.

IF Scott provided evidence that Blake or her lawyer tried to threaten/extort Taylor, Taylor is now a material witness to a witness tampering charge.

So if this actually happened, Taylor is now more involved from a legal perspective than before. It doesn't matter if she's friends with Blake or not.

Which is why I don't believe the CO or DM UK report. Taylor's contention all along has been she doesn't want to be involved. So she's not going to have her dad disclose info she might have to testify to later. She will have her very highly paid lawyers work out a deal that extracts her from the whole mess with no loose ends.

I think they can keep Taylor out of this. For one, if they gave BF what he needed, the case will settle before trial because that evidence is too damaging for Blake to move forward. She’ll try to wait until after MTDs are ruled on, as many of us have said, but she will settle. If she’s crazy enough to go to trial, the Venable source can read the email into evidence, since apparently the threat was documented, so they don’t need Taylor.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think Freedman committed some overreach with the allegations against Lively and Gottlieb making threats or trying to get messages deleted. It wasn't a total failure but it didn't go as well as he'd hoped. They got a couple rounds of unfavorable headlines against Blake and they successfully focused attention the apparent Blake/Taylor falling out, which is a win.

BUT the judge struck the letter and affidavit in a very decisive and critical way, the media reported on that extensively, and key groups (most notably Swifts in general, but also even many of the tabloids) saw through it and remained very skeptical that Freedman's allegations were true. Even TMZ and other tabloids are reporting on that very carefully this week. So while Freedman might have won a battle or two with those subpoenas and his letter and affidavit, it has not been a long term benefit and may serve to undermine his rep with both the judge AND the press (the latter being more important to him).

So he had to clean it up a bit this week. He made a deal with Venable and Taylor that he'd drop both subpoenas if Venable agreed to drop their motion to quash (a meaningless formality if the subpoena had been withdrawn). Perhaps Taylor provided something to Freedman but likely just interrogatory responses or an affidavit that basically back up what she said in her statement last week -- she wasn't involved in the movie, she has nothing to do with the matters involved in the lawsuit. That way they can claim they received "info" from Taylor, but I don't believe it was anything substantive. And in any case, it is Freedman/Baldoni who have been trying to claim Taylor's involvement from the start -- Lively's attorneys and statements have always contended that the focus on Taylor was just a PR stunt by Freedman, which it looks like it was.

Sure, Lively said in some interviews that Taylor was "with her" in making the movie, but then, Baldoni also claimed Taylor helped cast Ferrer. It sounds like everyone in the movie sort of opportunistically pumped up Taylor's involvement because it's a good way to get press for the movie ("Taylor Swift intimately involved in casting of It Ends With Us!" "Read about Taylor's behind-the-scenes support for Blake Lively on the It Ends with Us"). It helps sell movie tickets and Lively and Baldoni both did it, so it's a wash.

Basically I think everyone who has paid attention this for the last two weeks (myself included) has wasted our time and our breath. It's a net neutral, with Blake taking a hit to her rep with all the tabloid gossip on her falling out with Taylor (which definitely seems to be a real thing and not good for Blake) but Freedman also going out on a limb with these wild allegations of witness tampering and extortion against not only Blake but her lawyer, and getting pretty firmly smacked down with nothing really to show for it.

As usual in this whole mess, ESH.

I disagree. I don't think any reasonable person can say it's been a wash and that the TS portion wasn't incredibly damning (putting aside the extortion claims, TS didn't stand up for her friend and has done nothing to correct the record if indeed Freedman is overstating... although I have appreciated the attempt to fill the space with a counter narrative of filings and motions for sanctions. I commend the efforts. Now we just have to see what happens next. I think we can assume none of the MTD will be successful, even the NYT (that headline is going to get them, for one) and then we'll see when settlement talks start.

I know Blake will have to settle at some point, but my greater curiosity is if the NYT will. They are in a pickle with NYT v. Sullivan... and lawyers who know the law in this area are pointing out that fair report is unlikely to save them given the facts that have come out already (and there might be more). If they get lucky, a lot of Baldoni's complaint will be dismissed on FR, but some will stand (again the headline), but now I am leaning to much of the complaint standing.

If you are suggesting that the NYT will even dream of settling? You are out of your mind and obviously not a lawyer. There is no pickle. I think the case against them is likely to be dismissed. If it isn't, they will 100% fight it and win. This is some absolutely delusional thinking.

Are you following industry chatter on this? Many don’t agree.

https://www.reddit.com/r/ItEndsWithLawsuits/comments/1j1dlxc/baldoni_v_nyt_as_someone_whos_been_on_all_sides/

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think Freedman committed some overreach with the allegations against Lively and Gottlieb making threats or trying to get messages deleted. It wasn't a total failure but it didn't go as well as he'd hoped. They got a couple rounds of unfavorable headlines against Blake and they successfully focused attention the apparent Blake/Taylor falling out, which is a win.

BUT the judge struck the letter and affidavit in a very decisive and critical way, the media reported on that extensively, and key groups (most notably Swifts in general, but also even many of the tabloids) saw through it and remained very skeptical that Freedman's allegations were true. Even TMZ and other tabloids are reporting on that very carefully this week. So while Freedman might have won a battle or two with those subpoenas and his letter and affidavit, it has not been a long term benefit and may serve to undermine his rep with both the judge AND the press (the latter being more important to him).

So he had to clean it up a bit this week. He made a deal with Venable and Taylor that he'd drop both subpoenas if Venable agreed to drop their motion to quash (a meaningless formality if the subpoena had been withdrawn). Perhaps Taylor provided something to Freedman but likely just interrogatory responses or an affidavit that basically back up what she said in her statement last week -- she wasn't involved in the movie, she has nothing to do with the matters involved in the lawsuit. That way they can claim they received "info" from Taylor, but I don't believe it was anything substantive. And in any case, it is Freedman/Baldoni who have been trying to claim Taylor's involvement from the start -- Lively's attorneys and statements have always contended that the focus on Taylor was just a PR stunt by Freedman, which it looks like it was.

Sure, Lively said in some interviews that Taylor was "with her" in making the movie, but then, Baldoni also claimed Taylor helped cast Ferrer. It sounds like everyone in the movie sort of opportunistically pumped up Taylor's involvement because it's a good way to get press for the movie ("Taylor Swift intimately involved in casting of It Ends With Us!" "Read about Taylor's behind-the-scenes support for Blake Lively on the It Ends with Us"). It helps sell movie tickets and Lively and Baldoni both did it, so it's a wash.

Basically I think everyone who has paid attention this for the last two weeks (myself included) has wasted our time and our breath. It's a net neutral, with Blake taking a hit to her rep with all the tabloid gossip on her falling out with Taylor (which definitely seems to be a real thing and not good for Blake) but Freedman also going out on a limb with these wild allegations of witness tampering and extortion against not only Blake but her lawyer, and getting pretty firmly smacked down with nothing really to show for it.

As usual in this whole mess, ESH.

I disagree. I don't think any reasonable person can say it's been a wash and that the TS portion wasn't incredibly damning (putting aside the extortion claims, TS didn't stand up for her friend and has done nothing to correct the record if indeed Freedman is overstating... although I have appreciated the attempt to fill the space with a counter narrative of filings and motions for sanctions. I commend the efforts. Now we just have to see what happens next. I think we can assume none of the MTD will be successful, even the NYT (that headline is going to get them, for one) and then we'll see when settlement talks start.

I know Blake will have to settle at some point, but my greater curiosity is if the NYT will. They are in a pickle with NYT v. Sullivan... and lawyers who know the law in this area are pointing out that fair report is unlikely to save them given the facts that have come out already (and there might be more). If they get lucky, a lot of Baldoni's complaint will be dismissed on FR, but some will stand (again the headline), but now I am leaning to much of the complaint standing.

If you are suggesting that the NYT will even dream of settling? You are out of your mind and obviously not a lawyer. There is no pickle. I think the case against them is likely to be dismissed. If it isn't, they will 100% fight it and win. This is some absolutely delusional thinking.

Are you following industry chatter on this? Many don’t agree.

https://www.reddit.com/r/ItEndsWithLawsuits/comments/1j1dlxc/baldoni_v_nyt_as_someone_whos_been_on_all_sides/

And this
https://www.reddit.com/r/ItEndsWithLawsuits/comments/1k7qk99/nytimes_settlement/

[Anonymous]

Have we ever seen the CCRD’s “response” to Blake lively. I know she’s shown evidence that she filed a complaint, but have we ever seen their response. Asking b/c I was reading the legal subreddit and someone said they called the CCRD and they only accept complaints from W2 employees. Is it possible the CCRD response to Blake was a simple “sorry we don’t have jurisdiction.” If so, I’m pretty sure Blake’s fancy lawyers knew this all along and were just filing it to give cover for the nyt. They’ve played a lot of “strategic games” in this case and that was probably one.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think Freedman committed some overreach with the allegations against Lively and Gottlieb making threats or trying to get messages deleted. It wasn't a total failure but it didn't go as well as he'd hoped. They got a couple rounds of unfavorable headlines against Blake and they successfully focused attention the apparent Blake/Taylor falling out, which is a win.

BUT the judge struck the letter and affidavit in a very decisive and critical way, the media reported on that extensively, and key groups (most notably Swifts in general, but also even many of the tabloids) saw through it and remained very skeptical that Freedman's allegations were true. Even TMZ and other tabloids are reporting on that very carefully this week. So while Freedman might have won a battle or two with those subpoenas and his letter and affidavit, it has not been a long term benefit and may serve to undermine his rep with both the judge AND the press (the latter being more important to him).

So he had to clean it up a bit this week. He made a deal with Venable and Taylor that he'd drop both subpoenas if Venable agreed to drop their motion to quash (a meaningless formality if the subpoena had been withdrawn). Perhaps Taylor provided something to Freedman but likely just interrogatory responses or an affidavit that basically back up what she said in her statement last week -- she wasn't involved in the movie, she has nothing to do with the matters involved in the lawsuit. That way they can claim they received "info" from Taylor, but I don't believe it was anything substantive. And in any case, it is Freedman/Baldoni who have been trying to claim Taylor's involvement from the start -- Lively's attorneys and statements have always contended that the focus on Taylor was just a PR stunt by Freedman, which it looks like it was.

Sure, Lively said in some interviews that Taylor was "with her" in making the movie, but then, Baldoni also claimed Taylor helped cast Ferrer. It sounds like everyone in the movie sort of opportunistically pumped up Taylor's involvement because it's a good way to get press for the movie ("Taylor Swift intimately involved in casting of It Ends With Us!" "Read about Taylor's behind-the-scenes support for Blake Lively on the It Ends with Us"). It helps sell movie tickets and Lively and Baldoni both did it, so it's a wash.

Basically I think everyone who has paid attention this for the last two weeks (myself included) has wasted our time and our breath. It's a net neutral, with Blake taking a hit to her rep with all the tabloid gossip on her falling out with Taylor (which definitely seems to be a real thing and not good for Blake) but Freedman also going out on a limb with these wild allegations of witness tampering and extortion against not only Blake but her lawyer, and getting pretty firmly smacked down with nothing really to show for it.

As usual in this whole mess, ESH.

I disagree. I don't think any reasonable person can say it's been a wash and that the TS portion wasn't incredibly damning (putting aside the extortion claims, TS didn't stand up for her friend and has done nothing to correct the record if indeed Freedman is overstating... although I have appreciated the attempt to fill the space with a counter narrative of filings and motions for sanctions. I commend the efforts. Now we just have to see what happens next. I think we can assume none of the MTD will be successful, even the NYT (that headline is going to get them, for one) and then we'll see when settlement talks start.

I know Blake will have to settle at some point, but my greater curiosity is if the NYT will. They are in a pickle with NYT v. Sullivan... and lawyers who know the law in this area are pointing out that fair report is unlikely to save them given the facts that have come out already (and there might be more). If they get lucky, a lot of Baldoni's complaint will be dismissed on FR, but some will stand (again the headline), but now I am leaning to much of the complaint standing.

If you are suggesting that the NYT will even dream of settling? You are out of your mind and obviously not a lawyer. There is no pickle. I think the case against them is likely to be dismissed. If it isn't, they will 100% fight it and win. This is some absolutely delusional thinking.

Are you following industry chatter on this? Many don’t agree.

https://www.reddit.com/r/ItEndsWithLawsuits/comments/1j1dlxc/baldoni_v_nyt_as_someone_whos_been_on_all_sides/

This is a journalist saying she thinks the NYT was highly unethical (agreed) and that they *should* settle because of how brazenly awful they were at actually vetting the story. That is very different from journalists saying they think the NYT will settle based on precedent, their own experiences with newspapers getting sued and how they've reacted, etc. Just to be clear, I hope the Times gets taken to the cleaners. But I don't think they're going to want to settle, especially with Twohey doubling down.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think Freedman committed some overreach with the allegations against Lively and Gottlieb making threats or trying to get messages deleted. It wasn't a total failure but it didn't go as well as he'd hoped. They got a couple rounds of unfavorable headlines against Blake and they successfully focused attention the apparent Blake/Taylor falling out, which is a win.

BUT the judge struck the letter and affidavit in a very decisive and critical way, the media reported on that extensively, and key groups (most notably Swifts in general, but also even many of the tabloids) saw through it and remained very skeptical that Freedman's allegations were true. Even TMZ and other tabloids are reporting on that very carefully this week. So while Freedman might have won a battle or two with those subpoenas and his letter and affidavit, it has not been a long term benefit and may serve to undermine his rep with both the judge AND the press (the latter being more important to him).

So he had to clean it up a bit this week. He made a deal with Venable and Taylor that he'd drop both subpoenas if Venable agreed to drop their motion to quash (a meaningless formality if the subpoena had been withdrawn). Perhaps Taylor provided something to Freedman but likely just interrogatory responses or an affidavit that basically back up what she said in her statement last week -- she wasn't involved in the movie, she has nothing to do with the matters involved in the lawsuit. That way they can claim they received "info" from Taylor, but I don't believe it was anything substantive. And in any case, it is Freedman/Baldoni who have been trying to claim Taylor's involvement from the start -- Lively's attorneys and statements have always contended that the focus on Taylor was just a PR stunt by Freedman, which it looks like it was.

Sure, Lively said in some interviews that Taylor was "with her" in making the movie, but then, Baldoni also claimed Taylor helped cast Ferrer. It sounds like everyone in the movie sort of opportunistically pumped up Taylor's involvement because it's a good way to get press for the movie ("Taylor Swift intimately involved in casting of It Ends With Us!" "Read about Taylor's behind-the-scenes support for Blake Lively on the It Ends with Us"). It helps sell movie tickets and Lively and Baldoni both did it, so it's a wash.

Basically I think everyone who has paid attention this for the last two weeks (myself included) has wasted our time and our breath. It's a net neutral, with Blake taking a hit to her rep with all the tabloid gossip on her falling out with Taylor (which definitely seems to be a real thing and not good for Blake) but Freedman also going out on a limb with these wild allegations of witness tampering and extortion against not only Blake but her lawyer, and getting pretty firmly smacked down with nothing really to show for it.

As usual in this whole mess, ESH.

I disagree. I don't think any reasonable person can say it's been a wash and that the TS portion wasn't incredibly damning (putting aside the extortion claims, TS didn't stand up for her friend and has done nothing to correct the record if indeed Freedman is overstating... although I have appreciated the attempt to fill the space with a counter narrative of filings and motions for sanctions. I commend the efforts. Now we just have to see what happens next. I think we can assume none of the MTD will be successful, even the NYT (that headline is going to get them, for one) and then we'll see when settlement talks start.

I know Blake will have to settle at some point, but my greater curiosity is if the NYT will. They are in a pickle with NYT v. Sullivan... and lawyers who know the law in this area are pointing out that fair report is unlikely to save them given the facts that have come out already (and there might be more). If they get lucky, a lot of Baldoni's complaint will be dismissed on FR, but some will stand (again the headline), but now I am leaning to much of the complaint standing.

If you are suggesting that the NYT will even dream of settling? You are out of your mind and obviously not a lawyer. There is no pickle. I think the case against them is likely to be dismissed. If it isn't, they will 100% fight it and win. This is some absolutely delusional thinking.

Are you following industry chatter on this? Many don’t agree.

https://www.reddit.com/r/ItEndsWithLawsuits/comments/1j1dlxc/baldoni_v_nyt_as_someone_whos_been_on_all_sides/

And this
https://www.reddit.com/r/ItEndsWithLawsuits/comments/1k7qk99/nytimes_settlement/

lol, posting links to “it ends with lawsuits” subreddit here seriously as if that’s not just pro-Baldoni nonsense at this point. Come on.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Have we ever seen the CCRD’s “response” to Blake lively. I know she’s shown evidence that she filed a complaint, but have we ever seen their response. Asking b/c I was reading the legal subreddit and someone said they called the CCRD and they only accept complaints from W2 employees. Is it possible the CCRD response to Blake was a simple “sorry we don’t have jurisdiction.” If so, I’m pretty sure Blake’s fancy lawyers knew this all along and were just filing it to give cover for the nyt. They’ve played a lot of “strategic games” in this case and that was probably one.

I haven’t seen a response but I believe they have a year to investigate.

But I would not be surprised if it was filed as cover. Did the NYT know this? Should their Pulitzer award winning journalist have seen this as a red flag? I know people disagree, but I truly think they’re screwed in this case, and ultimately it matters a lot more than just this dumb article. They’ve put the legal standard that allows publishers to do the work they do at risk.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think Freedman committed some overreach with the allegations against Lively and Gottlieb making threats or trying to get messages deleted. It wasn't a total failure but it didn't go as well as he'd hoped. They got a couple rounds of unfavorable headlines against Blake and they successfully focused attention the apparent Blake/Taylor falling out, which is a win.

BUT the judge struck the letter and affidavit in a very decisive and critical way, the media reported on that extensively, and key groups (most notably Swifts in general, but also even many of the tabloids) saw through it and remained very skeptical that Freedman's allegations were true. Even TMZ and other tabloids are reporting on that very carefully this week. So while Freedman might have won a battle or two with those subpoenas and his letter and affidavit, it has not been a long term benefit and may serve to undermine his rep with both the judge AND the press (the latter being more important to him).

So he had to clean it up a bit this week. He made a deal with Venable and Taylor that he'd drop both subpoenas if Venable agreed to drop their motion to quash (a meaningless formality if the subpoena had been withdrawn). Perhaps Taylor provided something to Freedman but likely just interrogatory responses or an affidavit that basically back up what she said in her statement last week -- she wasn't involved in the movie, she has nothing to do with the matters involved in the lawsuit. That way they can claim they received "info" from Taylor, but I don't believe it was anything substantive. And in any case, it is Freedman/Baldoni who have been trying to claim Taylor's involvement from the start -- Lively's attorneys and statements have always contended that the focus on Taylor was just a PR stunt by Freedman, which it looks like it was.

Sure, Lively said in some interviews that Taylor was "with her" in making the movie, but then, Baldoni also claimed Taylor helped cast Ferrer. It sounds like everyone in the movie sort of opportunistically pumped up Taylor's involvement because it's a good way to get press for the movie ("Taylor Swift intimately involved in casting of It Ends With Us!" "Read about Taylor's behind-the-scenes support for Blake Lively on the It Ends with Us"). It helps sell movie tickets and Lively and Baldoni both did it, so it's a wash.

Basically I think everyone who has paid attention this for the last two weeks (myself included) has wasted our time and our breath. It's a net neutral, with Blake taking a hit to her rep with all the tabloid gossip on her falling out with Taylor (which definitely seems to be a real thing and not good for Blake) but Freedman also going out on a limb with these wild allegations of witness tampering and extortion against not only Blake but her lawyer, and getting pretty firmly smacked down with nothing really to show for it.

As usual in this whole mess, ESH.

I disagree. I don't think any reasonable person can say it's been a wash and that the TS portion wasn't incredibly damning (putting aside the extortion claims, TS didn't stand up for her friend and has done nothing to correct the record if indeed Freedman is overstating... although I have appreciated the attempt to fill the space with a counter narrative of filings and motions for sanctions. I commend the efforts. Now we just have to see what happens next. I think we can assume none of the MTD will be successful, even the NYT (that headline is going to get them, for one) and then we'll see when settlement talks start.

I know Blake will have to settle at some point, but my greater curiosity is if the NYT will. They are in a pickle with NYT v. Sullivan... and lawyers who know the law in this area are pointing out that fair report is unlikely to save them given the facts that have come out already (and there might be more). If they get lucky, a lot of Baldoni's complaint will be dismissed on FR, but some will stand (again the headline), but now I am leaning to much of the complaint standing.

If you are suggesting that the NYT will even dream of settling? You are out of your mind and obviously not a lawyer. There is no pickle. I think the case against them is likely to be dismissed. If it isn't, they will 100% fight it and win. This is some absolutely delusional thinking.

Are you following industry chatter on this? Many don’t agree.

https://www.reddit.com/r/ItEndsWithLawsuits/comments/1j1dlxc/baldoni_v_nyt_as_someone_whos_been_on_all_sides/

And this
https://www.reddit.com/r/ItEndsWithLawsuits/comments/1k7qk99/nytimes_settlement/

lol, posting links to “it ends with lawsuits” subreddit here seriously as if that’s not just pro-Baldoni nonsense at this point. Come on.

Yeah, let's post more commentary from unbiased source KatOrtega. I would love to hear more about her Brian Freedman obsession.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Have we ever seen the CCRD’s “response” to Blake lively. I know she’s shown evidence that she filed a complaint, but have we ever seen their response. Asking b/c I was reading the legal subreddit and someone said they called the CCRD and they only accept complaints from W2 employees. Is it possible the CCRD response to Blake was a simple “sorry we don’t have jurisdiction.” If so, I’m pretty sure Blake’s fancy lawyers knew this all along and were just filing it to give cover for the nyt. They’ve played a lot of “strategic games” in this case and that was probably one.

I haven’t seen a response but I believe they have a year to investigate.

But I would not be surprised if it was filed as cover. Did the NYT know this? Should their Pulitzer award winning journalist have seen this as a red flag? I know people disagree, but I truly think they’re screwed in this case, and ultimately it matters a lot more than just this dumb article. They’ve put the legal standard that allows publishers to do the work they do at risk.

I wonder what it means for the Times legally if it's discovered they were the ones who recommended Blake file a complaint to give them cover, and if it makes a difference over whether it was an overt suggestion vs. a mild one. I really want notactuallygolden to do more NYT videos.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think Freedman committed some overreach with the allegations against Lively and Gottlieb making threats or trying to get messages deleted. It wasn't a total failure but it didn't go as well as he'd hoped. They got a couple rounds of unfavorable headlines against Blake and they successfully focused attention the apparent Blake/Taylor falling out, which is a win.

BUT the judge struck the letter and affidavit in a very decisive and critical way, the media reported on that extensively, and key groups (most notably Swifts in general, but also even many of the tabloids) saw through it and remained very skeptical that Freedman's allegations were true. Even TMZ and other tabloids are reporting on that very carefully this week. So while Freedman might have won a battle or two with those subpoenas and his letter and affidavit, it has not been a long term benefit and may serve to undermine his rep with both the judge AND the press (the latter being more important to him).

So he had to clean it up a bit this week. He made a deal with Venable and Taylor that he'd drop both subpoenas if Venable agreed to drop their motion to quash (a meaningless formality if the subpoena had been withdrawn). Perhaps Taylor provided something to Freedman but likely just interrogatory responses or an affidavit that basically back up what she said in her statement last week -- she wasn't involved in the movie, she has nothing to do with the matters involved in the lawsuit. That way they can claim they received "info" from Taylor, but I don't believe it was anything substantive. And in any case, it is Freedman/Baldoni who have been trying to claim Taylor's involvement from the start -- Lively's attorneys and statements have always contended that the focus on Taylor was just a PR stunt by Freedman, which it looks like it was.

Sure, Lively said in some interviews that Taylor was "with her" in making the movie, but then, Baldoni also claimed Taylor helped cast Ferrer. It sounds like everyone in the movie sort of opportunistically pumped up Taylor's involvement because it's a good way to get press for the movie ("Taylor Swift intimately involved in casting of It Ends With Us!" "Read about Taylor's behind-the-scenes support for Blake Lively on the It Ends with Us"). It helps sell movie tickets and Lively and Baldoni both did it, so it's a wash.

Basically I think everyone who has paid attention this for the last two weeks (myself included) has wasted our time and our breath. It's a net neutral, with Blake taking a hit to her rep with all the tabloid gossip on her falling out with Taylor (which definitely seems to be a real thing and not good for Blake) but Freedman also going out on a limb with these wild allegations of witness tampering and extortion against not only Blake but her lawyer, and getting pretty firmly smacked down with nothing really to show for it.

As usual in this whole mess, ESH.

I disagree. I don't think any reasonable person can say it's been a wash and that the TS portion wasn't incredibly damning (putting aside the extortion claims, TS didn't stand up for her friend and has done nothing to correct the record if indeed Freedman is overstating... although I have appreciated the attempt to fill the space with a counter narrative of filings and motions for sanctions. I commend the efforts. Now we just have to see what happens next. I think we can assume none of the MTD will be successful, even the NYT (that headline is going to get them, for one) and then we'll see when settlement talks start.

I know Blake will have to settle at some point, but my greater curiosity is if the NYT will. They are in a pickle with NYT v. Sullivan... and lawyers who know the law in this area are pointing out that fair report is unlikely to save them given the facts that have come out already (and there might be more). If they get lucky, a lot of Baldoni's complaint will be dismissed on FR, but some will stand (again the headline), but now I am leaning to much of the complaint standing.

If you are suggesting that the NYT will even dream of settling? You are out of your mind and obviously not a lawyer. There is no pickle. I think the case against them is likely to be dismissed. If it isn't, they will 100% fight it and win. This is some absolutely delusional thinking.

Are you following industry chatter on this? Many don’t agree.

https://www.reddit.com/r/ItEndsWithLawsuits/comments/1j1dlxc/baldoni_v_nyt_as_someone_whos_been_on_all_sides/

This is a journalist saying she thinks the NYT was highly unethical (agreed) and that they *should* settle because of how brazenly awful they were at actually vetting the story. That is very different from journalists saying they think the NYT will settle based on precedent, their own experiences with newspapers getting sued and how they've reacted, etc. Just to be clear, I hope the Times gets taken to the cleaners. But I don't think they're going to want to settle, especially with Twohey doubling down.

.

Well look at the comments. And do the analysis. The point is there were red flags and they were ignored. This = actual malice.

They’re in a bind. That’s the interesting piece. They don’t settle, but not settling is a huge risk given the state of media today and what the Supreme Court looks like.

This may not just be a freedman case either. There are a number of activist types who would love to get a crack at taking down the NYT and this is a great opportunity (who do you think funded Sara Palins multi year litigation? Think about it).

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Have we ever seen the CCRD’s “response” to Blake lively. I know she’s shown evidence that she filed a complaint, but have we ever seen their response. Asking b/c I was reading the legal subreddit and someone said they called the CCRD and they only accept complaints from W2 employees. Is it possible the CCRD response to Blake was a simple “sorry we don’t have jurisdiction.” If so, I’m pretty sure Blake’s fancy lawyers knew this all along and were just filing it to give cover for the nyt. They’ve played a lot of “strategic games” in this case and that was probably one.

I haven’t seen a response but I believe they have a year to investigate.

But I would not be surprised if it was filed as cover. Did the NYT know this? Should their Pulitzer award winning journalist have seen this as a red flag? I know people disagree, but I truly think they’re screwed in this case, and ultimately it matters a lot more than just this dumb article. They’ve put the legal standard that allows publishers to do the work they do at risk.

I wonder what it means for the Times legally if it's discovered they were the ones who recommended Blake file a complaint to give them cover, and if it makes a difference over whether it was an overt suggestion vs. a mild one. I really want notactuallygolden to do more NYT videos.

Pp. I like NAG but this area is far outside her area of expertise from what I can tell. From 100 feet up, it looks like it could be simple (fair report blah blah) but it’s not. And as I said above, my bet is that activist types would love to get involved to help take down the NYT and potentially the legal standard in Sullivan.

Someone helped fund that crappy Palin case for years.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think Freedman committed some overreach with the allegations against Lively and Gottlieb making threats or trying to get messages deleted. It wasn't a total failure but it didn't go as well as he'd hoped. They got a couple rounds of unfavorable headlines against Blake and they successfully focused attention the apparent Blake/Taylor falling out, which is a win.

BUT the judge struck the letter and affidavit in a very decisive and critical way, the media reported on that extensively, and key groups (most notably Swifts in general, but also even many of the tabloids) saw through it and remained very skeptical that Freedman's allegations were true. Even TMZ and other tabloids are reporting on that very carefully this week. So while Freedman might have won a battle or two with those subpoenas and his letter and affidavit, it has not been a long term benefit and may serve to undermine his rep with both the judge AND the press (the latter being more important to him).

So he had to clean it up a bit this week. He made a deal with Venable and Taylor that he'd drop both subpoenas if Venable agreed to drop their motion to quash (a meaningless formality if the subpoena had been withdrawn). Perhaps Taylor provided something to Freedman but likely just interrogatory responses or an affidavit that basically back up what she said in her statement last week -- she wasn't involved in the movie, she has nothing to do with the matters involved in the lawsuit. That way they can claim they received "info" from Taylor, but I don't believe it was anything substantive. And in any case, it is Freedman/Baldoni who have been trying to claim Taylor's involvement from the start -- Lively's attorneys and statements have always contended that the focus on Taylor was just a PR stunt by Freedman, which it looks like it was.

Sure, Lively said in some interviews that Taylor was "with her" in making the movie, but then, Baldoni also claimed Taylor helped cast Ferrer. It sounds like everyone in the movie sort of opportunistically pumped up Taylor's involvement because it's a good way to get press for the movie ("Taylor Swift intimately involved in casting of It Ends With Us!" "Read about Taylor's behind-the-scenes support for Blake Lively on the It Ends with Us"). It helps sell movie tickets and Lively and Baldoni both did it, so it's a wash.

Basically I think everyone who has paid attention this for the last two weeks (myself included) has wasted our time and our breath. It's a net neutral, with Blake taking a hit to her rep with all the tabloid gossip on her falling out with Taylor (which definitely seems to be a real thing and not good for Blake) but Freedman also going out on a limb with these wild allegations of witness tampering and extortion against not only Blake but her lawyer, and getting pretty firmly smacked down with nothing really to show for it.

As usual in this whole mess, ESH.

I disagree. I don't think any reasonable person can say it's been a wash and that the TS portion wasn't incredibly damning (putting aside the extortion claims, TS didn't stand up for her friend and has done nothing to correct the record if indeed Freedman is overstating... although I have appreciated the attempt to fill the space with a counter narrative of filings and motions for sanctions. I commend the efforts. Now we just have to see what happens next. I think we can assume none of the MTD will be successful, even the NYT (that headline is going to get them, for one) and then we'll see when settlement talks start.

I know Blake will have to settle at some point, but my greater curiosity is if the NYT will. They are in a pickle with NYT v. Sullivan... and lawyers who know the law in this area are pointing out that fair report is unlikely to save them given the facts that have come out already (and there might be more). If they get lucky, a lot of Baldoni's complaint will be dismissed on FR, but some will stand (again the headline), but now I am leaning to much of the complaint standing.

If you are suggesting that the NYT will even dream of settling? You are out of your mind and obviously not a lawyer. There is no pickle. I think the case against them is likely to be dismissed. If it isn't, they will 100% fight it and win. This is some absolutely delusional thinking.

Are you following industry chatter on this? Many don’t agree.

https://www.reddit.com/r/ItEndsWithLawsuits/comments/1j1dlxc/baldoni_v_nyt_as_someone_whos_been_on_all_sides/

And this
https://www.reddit.com/r/ItEndsWithLawsuits/comments/1k7qk99/nytimes_settlement/

lol, posting links to “it ends with lawsuits” subreddit here seriously as if that’s not just pro-Baldoni nonsense at this point. Come on.

Well there are journalists and lawyers posting there. I’m PP and I’m not team Baldoni. I’m more interested in the NYT case that people are less focused on because it’s ultimately a much bigger case imo.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Have we ever seen the CCRD’s “response” to Blake lively. I know she’s shown evidence that she filed a complaint, but have we ever seen their response. Asking b/c I was reading the legal subreddit and someone said they called the CCRD and they only accept complaints from W2 employees. Is it possible the CCRD response to Blake was a simple “sorry we don’t have jurisdiction.” If so, I’m pretty sure Blake’s fancy lawyers knew this all along and were just filing it to give cover for the nyt. They’ve played a lot of “strategic games” in this case and that was probably one.

I haven’t seen a response but I believe they have a year to investigate.

But I would not be surprised if it was filed as cover. Did the NYT know this? Should their Pulitzer award winning journalist have seen this as a red flag? I know people disagree, but I truly think they’re screwed in this case, and ultimately it matters a lot more than just this dumb article. They’ve put the legal standard that allows publishers to do the work they do at risk.

I wonder what it means for the Times legally if it's discovered they were the ones who recommended Blake file a complaint to give them cover, and if it makes a difference over whether it was an overt suggestion vs. a mild one. I really want notactuallygolden to do more NYT videos.

If they did this, they are toast. But I don’t think they would tbh. They were super sloppy here (I’m still trying to figure out why - holiday staffing issues?? I really can’t figure it out) but that would be a huge line to cross. I think Blake’s lawyers knew how to give the NYT cover so that’s what they did.