Huh. Is this lawyer Dana Bolger who signed one of these briefs related to one of the NYT lively side defense attorneys? That would be quite a coincidence!!
I think different. NYT atty is Katherine Mary Bolger at Davis Wright. Amicus is Dana Victoria Bolger from Katz Banks Kumin.
Anonymous wrote:Women’s groups now taking position against male feminist Justin Baldoni’s weaponization of defamation claims, but sure, he is just a poor widdle victim here.
This is not going to appeal to this particular judge. Very bad strategic choice.
Wow, I think you are so wrong. I’m not saying he welcomes more briefs to read with open arms but one of these briefs takes a close look at application of California state law, which if he chooses to apply CA law I think he will look at. Briefs like this that dissect the law in matter of fact language without making wild, dumb accusations against the parties are generally going to be accepted by judges, including Liman.
Agreed. I clerked for a federal judge and a well written amicus brief on an issue like this was generally welcomed because it facilitated our internal analysis of the law. There may be amicus briefs arguing the other side of this specific issue as well (application of the CA law that protects SH accusers from defamation claims), and that could greatly reduce the work for Liman and his staff. Of course they will do their own research of the relevant law and precedents, but well composed amicus briefs are generally welcome. They focus on the law and not the parties. It's helpful.
Anonymous wrote:Women’s groups now taking position against male feminist Justin Baldoni’s weaponization of defamation claims, but sure, he is just a poor widdle victim here.
When you don’t have facts on your side, you pull stunts like this. Liman won’t like it, more clutter on his docket to go with those wildly inappropriate Rule 11 motions.
lol, no. Wait, did they file triple hearsay declarations claiming an opposing attorney committed extortion? No??? If not I bet he will accept these amicus briefs.
How is it triple hearsay? And it wasn’t being used as evidence at trial. So it’s not relevant if it’s hearsay . But of course you know that
Freedman wasn’t attesting to actions Lively or her attorney took that he has first hand knowledge of. He was told by someone else. So Freedman is testifying about something he heard from a third party.
The person who told him also apparently did not appear to have firsthand knowledge of the info in the affidavit. That person was not included in any text from Lively to Swift, and does not appear to have attended the call between Gottlieb and Baldridge. So the third party that Freedman received info from that he put in his affidavit themselves did not hear the information directly, but got it from yet another party who heard/made the statement.
Triple hearsay is exactly this: when a witness provides info about something they heard from a third party, who in turn heard it from a second party, who originally made/heard the statement.
Anonymous wrote:Women’s groups now taking position against male feminist Justin Baldoni’s weaponization of defamation claims, but sure, he is just a poor widdle victim here.
This is not going to appeal to this particular judge. Very bad strategic choice.
Wow, I think you are so wrong. I’m not saying he welcomes more briefs to read with open arms but one of these briefs takes a close look at application of California state law, which if he chooses to apply CA law I think he will look at. Briefs like this that dissect the law in matter of fact language without making wild, dumb accusations against the parties are generally going to be accepted by judges, including Liman.
Agreed. I clerked for a federal judge and a well written amicus brief on an issue like this was generally welcomed because it facilitated our internal analysis of the law. There may be amicus briefs arguing the other side of this specific issue as well (application of the CA law that protects SH accusers from defamation claims), and that could greatly reduce the work for Liman and his staff. Of course they will do their own research of the relevant law and precedents, but well composed amicus briefs are generally welcome. They focus on the law and not the parties. It's helpful.
Who even would be the advocacy groups against this? Men's rights advocates? Free speech groups?
Speculating about the sexuality of an actor just because you don't like him or his wife is a very special brand of homophobia. Just stop. You can dislike Ryan, and Blake, without turning it into "oh he must be gay." Because guess what, if he is gay, it doesn't matter. And if he isn't gay, it also doesn't matter. If he and Blake are both bi and have an open relationship... it also doesn't matter. If they are both asexual and don't actually have sex with anyone and all their kids were IVF... it also doesn't matter.
A person's sexuality is a private matter that is none of your business and is not relevant to whether you side for or against them in a lawsuit or like them as a person. Is Baldoni secretly gay? Jamey Heath? Sarowitz? It truly does not matter, it has zero bearing on anything, leave it alone.
It matters if their open marriage played a role in the dynamics between them and Justin. Pretending that these arrangements don’t exist is actually more homophobic in my opinion because we’re treating it as too taboo to talk about.
+1. Not just the open marriage part, the part where this D-list nobody who can’t act still has this totally undeserved career at nearly 40 years old, seemingly only because she’s married to this guy. And then she has him risking his own reputation and all of his Hollywood clout defending her hoax. It feels like a mutually assured destruction situation.
The amount of fantasy and speculation in this comment... you are inventing these scenarios in your head.
Did you know it's possible to defend Baldoni and reject Blake's narrative while sticking to known facts in the legal pleadings, or things that are accepted public knowledge? Why not just do that?
It actually undermines your argument when you go off on these speculative tangents like "oh Blake was in love with Baldoni and Ryan found out and flew into a jealous rage and that's why they did this" or "oh Ryan is actually a closet homosexual and this is a marriage of convenience and now he's going to divorce her and hook up with Hugh Jackman," you don't convince anyone of anything. You just sound crazy.
DP
Blake to Justin “ if you knew me (in person) longer you’d have a sense of how flirty and yummy the ball busting will play. It’s my love language. Spicy and playfully bold, never with teeth.” Justin responds by reminding her he has a wife “sorry was just crying my eyes out, wife and kids are leaving again for 5 weeks.”
Blake to Justin “I’m just pumping in my trailer if you want to come run lines”. Justin deflects again “eating with the crew.”
We see a similar pattern during the dance scene where JB brings up his wife to put some distance between them.
My husband would flip if I was texting these kinds of things to another man, but that’s because we’re not in an open marriage.
The way some of you are putting your heads in the sand is what’s crazy.
You are taking your narrow personal experience and imposing it on people who lead very different kinds of lives from you. Blake was talking about a scene where she and Baldoni are portraying two people falling in love. She's not discussing TPS reports. Their job involves simulating sex on camera and kissing each other. It's a different setting than whatever you do for a living.
There is nothing sexual about pumping milk, it's like the least sexy thing a woman can do unless you have a cow fetish.
Justin repeatedly told Blake he could commune with her dead dad. That also super weird and inappropriately personal, but I don't think it means he was hitting in her. I think he's just a woo woo Hollywood type and that's how he talks to people.
You guys just like reading into things but that doesn't make it true.
We’ll have to agree to disagree because I think a lot of her texts and comments to him were inappropriate, especially given how she portrays herself now in her complaint where every little thing is offensive to her. Even the pumping, a more appropriate text would’ve been “Do you want to run some lines in my trailer? Just a heads up that I’m pumping. Hope that’s ok?” Why was she assuming he’d be ok with that?
Obviously telling someone you are pumping is notice that you... are pumping. If he doesn't feel comfortable with that, he doesn't have to come. But also you can pump fully clothed -- I used to pump at work all the time and it was not a boobs out situation at all (as I would not have felt comfortable with that even in my office with the door closed). I wore a cover and did it discreetly. It's just not a come on at all.
I also don't get how the email with "never with teeth" is a come on either, to be honest. She's obviously talking about how she would play the scene in character, and discussing her strengths as an actor. She's referring to how she wants the scene to play for an audience, not how she wants the scene to make Justin feel. And she's telling him he will be happy with her performance, as a director. She's using bawdy language but that's incredibly common among performers -- I have friends who work in theater and film/tv and this is just how many of them talk. I would feel differently if she were referencing her own body or his, but she's just using figurative language to describe how she wants the scene to play for an audience.
If that’s how she talks, how do you square that with some of the things in her complaint like her being offended that he called her outfit sexy or that Heath showed her a video of a woman giving birth. It simply doesn’t make sense.
DP (who also disagrees with you). Lovely’s language was never personal. You don’t see her texting him that he’s so hot, or is so attractive, or that he was so hot in that scene it really got to her personally etc. Her language was bawdy but not personal. That’s why when his language WAS personal, it threw her off. Maybe he misunderstood and thought that any woman who used language like that was of course going to be “loose” and want a come on from him, or to be told she was sexy and smelled good etc. But while Lively uses bawdy language as a kind of joke, to express herself in a funny way, she is actually pretty prudish about how much closeness and personal sharing she actually wants from other people like Baldoni. She doesn’t want to hear about or see their porn. She doesn’t want them sharing with the crew her own non-exposure to porn like it’s something to be made fun of. She doesn’t want you talking about her dead dad.
Baldoni misunderstood Lively’s bawdy language as intimacy, and it was not, it was just humor. She was joking, and wanted him at arms length, whereas he kept trying to relate to her personally, which she didn’t want.
PP again, and honestly her language and Reynolds’s is very Deadpool. Talk about something using sex metaphors to be funny, but that doesn’t mean they want to have sex with everything the at moves. They have both lived that movie’s humor for the last decade; Reynolds’s co-wrote it and Lively had some input, too. Some of you here haven’t seen Deadpool or don’t like that humor and that’s fine. But I like those movies and that’s part of why I’m not shocked by her language, but also don’t see it as a come on. Baldoni is Bahai and seems like the kind of conservative person who would actually misunderstand and get the wrong idea from this language.
I would never write to a mail co-worker and talk about intimacy "but never with teeth" because it is an inappropriate sexual innuendo. Are you suggesting that Baldoni should go along with Hee inappropriate sexual innuendo in honor of "Deadpool"?
No. What he’s not allowed to do in response to “never with teeth” used as a metaphor is to actually talk to her about his porn, or to tell her all normal women rip their clothes off during childbirth and then try to make her shoot a birth scene with bared breasts without notice.
See how there’s a difference between what she uses her language to say and what he uses his power to do?
Again misrepresenting the facts. None of that actually happened. Where are the receipts proving this scandalous take? Where are the witnesses? The only person so far who’s had witnesses come out and corroborate their take on the birthing scene is Justin. And as we covered over and over again, Blake initiated the porn conversation.
This is where I said her language can’t be used to justify his harassment. And one of you said she didn’t allege this harassment. And then I posted the language from her complaint backing these SH allegations, which I guess you hadn’t read or don’t believe. But she alleged them. You think her bawdy language means she is someone who should take his porn discussions and unannounced on screen nudity in stride. I disagree. That’s harassment. It’s not justified by her email language.
There was no unannounced nudity. She was allegedly asked to perform the birth scene without a nightgown, and refused. Her refusal, if in fact the request was actually made, was honored. That isn’t sexual harassment. And for the record, she wore briefs, a pregnancy suit and a hospital night gown that day, far from nude.
Actually, that can be sexual harassment. Pressuring an actress to appear nude in a scene where there is no nudity in the scrips can be SH. He wanted her to be topless! For birth scene in stirrups! She still did more nudity than she was comfortable with. Then he kept bothering her about it even after the scene was shot. I think that’s SH, especially in combo with the other stuff. That’s why she made the 17 point list. Her email language is no excuse for him as a director trying to get her topless in a birth scene, or trying to add sex scenes to the script where she would simulate climaxing on screen, or trying to get the actress who plays the underage Lily to simulate climaxing on screen, or Baldoni talking to Lively about how Baldoni and his wife climax simultaneously and do she and Reynolds do that, or telling the crew that Lively has never seen pron.
Lively’s email language did not invite, and neither did it excuse, that kind of harassing behavior from her director.
Stick to the point, it isn’t harassment to ask a person to remove a piece of clothing in a scene if their refusal is honored.
The behavior I noted above, taken as a whole, is certainly harassment imo and could be taken as such by a jury. It’s not just one incident. It’s his pattern of behavior.
Nope. You are reaching again. Intentionally to feed the flames. Please stop. You’ve said this every 25 pages or so.
In response to your “Nuh-uh!” I say simply, “Yuh-huh.”
Anonymous wrote:Women’s groups now taking position against male feminist Justin Baldoni’s weaponization of defamation claims, but sure, he is just a poor widdle victim here.
When you don’t have facts on your side, you pull stunts like this. Liman won’t like it, more clutter on his docket to go with those wildly inappropriate Rule 11 motions.
lol, no. Wait, did they file triple hearsay declarations claiming an opposing attorney committed extortion? No??? If not I bet he will accept these amicus briefs.
How is it triple hearsay? And it wasn’t being used as evidence at trial. So it’s not relevant if it’s hearsay . But of course you know that
Freedman wasn’t attesting to actions Lively or her attorney took that he has first hand knowledge of. He was told by someone else. So Freedman is testifying about something he heard from a third party.
The person who told him also apparently did not appear to have firsthand knowledge of the info in the affidavit. That person was not included in any text from Lively to Swift, and does not appear to have attended the call between Gottlieb and Baldridge. So the third party that Freedman received info from that he put in his affidavit themselves did not hear the information directly, but got it from yet another party who heard/made the statement.
Triple hearsay is exactly this: when a witness provides info about something they heard from a third party, who in turn heard it from a second party, who originally made/heard the statement.
Well, I don’t think we necessarily know that. But in any event, this wasn’t being introduced as evidence at trial. So why does it matter?
And I’m sure you realize that if it were a lie, it would have come out as incorrect by one of the many swift parties who have direct lines to various Media
Anonymous wrote:Women’s groups now taking position against male feminist Justin Baldoni’s weaponization of defamation claims, but sure, he is just a poor widdle victim here.
This is not going to appeal to this particular judge. Very bad strategic choice.
Wow, I think you are so wrong. I’m not saying he welcomes more briefs to read with open arms but one of these briefs takes a close look at application of California state law, which if he chooses to apply CA law I think he will look at. Briefs like this that dissect the law in matter of fact language without making wild, dumb accusations against the parties are generally going to be accepted by judges, including Liman.
Agreed. I clerked for a federal judge and a well written amicus brief on an issue like this was generally welcomed because it facilitated our internal analysis of the law. There may be amicus briefs arguing the other side of this specific issue as well (application of the CA law that protects SH accusers from defamation claims), and that could greatly reduce the work for Liman and his staff. Of course they will do their own research of the relevant law and precedents, but well composed amicus briefs are generally welcome. They focus on the law and not the parties. It's helpful.
Dp. I don’t necessarily disagree but with the pile of motions filed recently I can’t imagine he’s not irritated with this mess
Anonymous wrote:Women’s groups now taking position against male feminist Justin Baldoni’s weaponization of defamation claims, but sure, he is just a poor widdle victim here.
This is not going to appeal to this particular judge. Very bad strategic choice.
Wow, I think you are so wrong. I’m not saying he welcomes more briefs to read with open arms but one of these briefs takes a close look at application of California state law, which if he chooses to apply CA law I think he will look at. Briefs like this that dissect the law in matter of fact language without making wild, dumb accusations against the parties are generally going to be accepted by judges, including Liman.
Agreed. I clerked for a federal judge and a well written amicus brief on an issue like this was generally welcomed because it facilitated our internal analysis of the law. There may be amicus briefs arguing the other side of this specific issue as well (application of the CA law that protects SH accusers from defamation claims), and that could greatly reduce the work for Liman and his staff. Of course they will do their own research of the relevant law and precedents, but well composed amicus briefs are generally welcome. They focus on the law and not the parties. It's helpful.
Who even would be the advocacy groups against this? Men's rights advocates? Free speech groups?
lol, that’s true and I wonder whether we will see men’s rights groups filing amicus briefs on Baldoni’s behalf. It will clarify for people what he’s really arguing here, I guess.
Anonymous wrote:What percentage chance do you think Justin's case against the NYT beats the motion to dismiss?
DP. I think he’s got a good shot. I’d like to hear from actual publishing industry lawyers for their analyses though. Not lawyers who practice in other areas and know defamation/media law 101.
I’ll add that from what I can see there hasn’t been much public chatter on this case from the defense bar.
Anonymous wrote:Women’s groups now taking position against male feminist Justin Baldoni’s weaponization of defamation claims, but sure, he is just a poor widdle victim here.
This is not going to appeal to this particular judge. Very bad strategic choice.
I doubt he would encourage that.
Wow, I think you are so wrong. I’m not saying he welcomes more briefs to read with open arms but one of these briefs takes a close look at application of California state law, which if he chooses to apply CA law I think he will look at. Briefs like this that dissect the law in matter of fact language without making wild, dumb accusations against the parties are generally going to be accepted by judges, including Liman.
Agreed. I clerked for a federal judge and a well written amicus brief on an issue like this was generally welcomed because it facilitated our internal analysis of the law. There may be amicus briefs arguing the other side of this specific issue as well (application of the CA law that protects SH accusers from defamation claims), and that could greatly reduce the work for Liman and his staff. Of course they will do their own research of the relevant law and precedents, but well composed amicus briefs are generally welcome. They focus on the law and not the parties. It's helpful.
Who even would be the advocacy groups against this? Men's rights advocates? Free speech groups?
lol, that’s true and I wonder whether we will see men’s rights groups filing amicus briefs on Baldoni’s behalf. It will clarify for people what he’s really arguing here, I guess.
Anonymous wrote:Women’s groups now taking position against male feminist Justin Baldoni’s weaponization of defamation claims, but sure, he is just a poor widdle victim here.
This is not going to appeal to this particular judge. Very bad strategic choice.
I doubt he would encourage that.
Wow, I think you are so wrong. I’m not saying he welcomes more briefs to read with open arms but one of these briefs takes a close look at application of California state law, which if he chooses to apply CA law I think he will look at. Briefs like this that dissect the law in matter of fact language without making wild, dumb accusations against the parties are generally going to be accepted by judges, including Liman.
Agreed. I clerked for a federal judge and a well written amicus brief on an issue like this was generally welcomed because it facilitated our internal analysis of the law. There may be amicus briefs arguing the other side of this specific issue as well (application of the CA law that protects SH accusers from defamation claims), and that could greatly reduce the work for Liman and his staff. Of course they will do their own research of the relevant law and precedents, but well composed amicus briefs are generally welcome. They focus on the law and not the parties. It's helpful.
Who even would be the advocacy groups against this? Men's rights advocates? Free speech groups?
lol, that’s true and I wonder whether we will see men’s rights groups filing amicus briefs on Baldoni’s behalf. It will clarify for people what he’s really arguing here, I guess.
I doubt he would encourage that. You may not like him, but there’s really no evidence he’s a jerk
Anonymous wrote:Women’s groups now taking position against male feminist Justin Baldoni’s weaponization of defamation claims, but sure, he is just a poor widdle victim here.
This is not going to appeal to this particular judge. Very bad strategic choice.
I doubt he would encourage that.
Wow, I think you are so wrong. I’m not saying he welcomes more briefs to read with open arms but one of these briefs takes a close look at application of California state law, which if he chooses to apply CA law I think he will look at. Briefs like this that dissect the law in matter of fact language without making wild, dumb accusations against the parties are generally going to be accepted by judges, including Liman.
Agreed. I clerked for a federal judge and a well written amicus brief on an issue like this was generally welcomed because it facilitated our internal analysis of the law. There may be amicus briefs arguing the other side of this specific issue as well (application of the CA law that protects SH accusers from defamation claims), and that could greatly reduce the work for Liman and his staff. Of course they will do their own research of the relevant law and precedents, but well composed amicus briefs are generally welcome. They focus on the law and not the parties. It's helpful.
Who even would be the advocacy groups against this? Men's rights advocates? Free speech groups?
lol, that’s true and I wonder whether we will see men’s rights groups filing amicus briefs on Baldoni’s behalf. It will clarify for people what he’s really arguing here, I guess.
I doubt he would encourage that. You may not like him, but there’s really no evidence he’s a jerk
Wut? Agree to disagree as I think there is plenty of evidence that he is a jerk.
Anonymous wrote:Women’s groups now taking position against male feminist Justin Baldoni’s weaponization of defamation claims, but sure, he is just a poor widdle victim here.
This is not going to appeal to this particular judge. Very bad strategic choice.
I doubt he would encourage that.
Wow, I think you are so wrong. I’m not saying he welcomes more briefs to read with open arms but one of these briefs takes a close look at application of California state law, which if he chooses to apply CA law I think he will look at. Briefs like this that dissect the law in matter of fact language without making wild, dumb accusations against the parties are generally going to be accepted by judges, including Liman.
Agreed. I clerked for a federal judge and a well written amicus brief on an issue like this was generally welcomed because it facilitated our internal analysis of the law. There may be amicus briefs arguing the other side of this specific issue as well (application of the CA law that protects SH accusers from defamation claims), and that could greatly reduce the work for Liman and his staff. Of course they will do their own research of the relevant law and precedents, but well composed amicus briefs are generally welcome. They focus on the law and not the parties. It's helpful.
Who even would be the advocacy groups against this? Men's rights advocates? Free speech groups?
lol, that’s true and I wonder whether we will see men’s rights groups filing amicus briefs on Baldoni’s behalf. It will clarify for people what he’s really arguing here, I guess.
I doubt he would encourage that. You may not like him, but there’s really no evidence he’s a jerk
Wut? Agree to disagree as I think there is plenty of evidence that he is a jerk.
![[Post New]](/jforum/templates/default/images/icon_minipost_new.gif){kind=icon}