Blake Lively- Jason Baldoni and NYT - False Light claims

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

His attorney is famous and he is not being named as a defendant. Here you go again.

[Anonymous]

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This was before Justin sued Blake tho, so there’s one big point she makes that’s outdated (that it was smart for Justin to sue the NYTimes instead of Blake because she’s considered the victim)

Thanks! She’s definitely not an expert in this area, but she does a decent job of laying out a few of the issues. She gets some basic things wrong though. She claims the salacious headline isn’t an issue bc the writers don’t choose it. That’s not always true, they typically have a hand in it, especially for a piece like this to ensure it tracks the story in a safe way, and even if they didn’t write it, it doesn’t really change anything. Someone at the NYT wrote it, and the NYT is the primary deep pocket here. The NYT will indemnify the writers and any staff in these situations. (Eg step in to defend them as a joint defense, even when they are named personally and typically even if the writer or other staff is freelance and not an official employee). They know they need to have a consistent defense without people turning against each other in these situations.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Dp

It doesn’t matter if people know his name. They’ll hear she pulled another snowflake move, and that’s a poor angle for her right now

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Well that’s not true.

[Anonymous]

You can’t just join people in a lawsuit with no legal basis.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

His attorney is famous and he is not being named as a defendant. Here you go again.

Who do you think it will be?

(And please, to you and every other person who does this, I beg you to try not to add the insult part to the end of every post. Why do that? It’s so unnecessary.)

[Anonymous]

And further I have NEVER heard of a family law attorney being joined into a lawsuit. This person is holding them out to be a legal authority and is absolutely not. They are repeatedly misleading people as to the law and facts of this case. It is worrisome because lay people don’t realize that.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

His attorney is famous and he is not being named as a defendant. Here you go again.

Who do you think it will be?

(And please, to you and every other person who does this, I beg you to try not to add the insult part to the end of every post. Why do that? It’s so unnecessary.)

+1 on the snide comments. It makes the thread tedious to read because then people respond and there's a back and forth that has nothing to do with the thread.

I'm a DP but I think it will be Jed Wallace because I know they are looking to depose him and their advantages if he's a party to the lawsuit (can be more aggressive, easier to get him to produce documents and other evidence via discovery).

[Anonymous]

^ there are advantages, not their -- my phone is dumb

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:And further I have NEVER heard of a family law attorney being joined into a lawsuit. This person is holding them out to be a legal authority and is absolutely not. They are repeatedly misleading people as to the law and facts of this case. It is worrisome because lay people don’t realize that.

Freedman isn't a family law attorney? He specializes in these kinds of high profile entertainment disputes.

Not saying this to say I think he's likely to be added or not, just pointing out he's not some small time family law attorney. His past client list includes Megyn Kelly, Don Lemon, Tucker Carlson, etc.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:You can’t just join people in a lawsuit with no legal basis.

I think the legal basis would be that they will claim defamation based on the character statements Freedman's made in the press. If he's saying "she's a liar, she's manipulative."

I don't actually know what he's said on this front, I just assume that would be the argument.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Not getting anything you asked the Judge for and paying your lawyers $bank$ = bad day in court for Blake.

Winning the venue battle matters.

I don't think Reynolds and Lively care that much about lawyer costs.

Freedman did this to move the case along faster. What are you talking about winning a battle???

There was a story someone posted up thread about why Freedman wanted the case in California. Even if he did it to expedite, it's still a loss. It means Freedman has to travel to NY for all the hearings and will lose certain advantages to being in a familiar court.

You’re cute. It’s a 250M case. I’m sure he’s fine traveling for hearings as there won’t be that many, and he can still do all the heavy lifting from CA. And the judge might even allow virtual hearings here and there.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Well that’s not true.

No one outside a fairly narrow group had heard of him before this case. If I asked any member of my extended family who necessary by showing his name and photo, they would have no idea. Kids, adults, my mom, my cousins. They read stuff like US Weekly but they aren't tracking lawyer commentary on this case. They know who the famous actors are, but not the lawyers.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:You can’t just join people in a lawsuit with no legal basis.

I think the legal basis would be that they will claim defamation based on the character statements Freedman's made in the press. If he's saying "she's a liar, she's manipulative."

I don't actually know what he's said on this front, I just assume that would be the argument.

Ditto.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Well that’s not true.

No one outside a fairly narrow group had heard of him before this case. If I asked any member of my extended family who necessary by showing his name and photo, they would have no idea. Kids, adults, my mom, my cousins. They read stuff like US Weekly but they aren't tracking lawyer commentary on this case. They know who the famous actors are, but not the lawyers.

DP. It doesn’t matter. Most people had never heard of justin before this case. The headline will be that she wanted yet another non standard prima Donna accommodation.