Blake Lively- Jason Baldoni and NYT - False Light claims

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Clearly a win for Justin to get his Motion to Compel batted down by Judge Liman almost immediately.

My pet theory is that Freedman just really, really wanted Lively’s medical records to know how much mental anguish he caused her since August 2024 when he became counsel for Baldoni. He could have learned a lot from that re what works and what doesn’t. But realistically, he probably just did it for the headlines. He really could not have thought he would win anything here besides that.

Next try, this was indeed a win for Team Baldoni as Blake is going to have to withdraw her claims with prejudice or be barred from producing any evidence about emotional distress.

[Anonymous]

Seems to have gone under the radar, Wayfarers opposition to Rule 11 sanctions https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.nysd.634304/gov.uscourts.nysd.634304.263.0.pdf

Probably as dry and straightforward a doc as we've seen from them. Regarding his comments about Lively testifying at MSG, simply notes statements outside court should not be considered.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Sounds like Freedman pestered Gottlieb repeatedly over the weekend and Gottlieb sent edits back late Sunday, suggesting they discuss any remaining issues during Monday's scheduled call. During which Freedman didn't raise the issue at all. Then as soon as the call was over, Freedman filed the Motion to Compel. And minutes later the story of the withdrawal of the claims appeared in the tabloids.

This is just bizarre attorney behavior. Gottlieb last night at like 12:15am filed a response to Fritz's motion to compel and is requesting the judge strike it and possibly award sanctions. I don't think the sanctions will fly and not sure about the striking though that's more possible than the sanctions.

I just don't know how the Judge Liman can keep presiding over the case like this when the lawyers are acting like children. After pestering them all weekend, why didn't Freedman raise the issue of the revised withdrawal (withdrawing without prejudice instead of with) on the Monday call? And if Freedman wouldn't, why didn't Gottlieb? If Freedman really did not discuss the issue at all during the meet and confer, this MTC (and subsequent immediate tabloid reporting) just looks bizarre to me.

https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.nysd.634304/gov.uscourts.nysd.634304.262.0.pdf

Can you not read? Gottlieb would not agree that the claims would be dropped with prejudice. Freedman would not consent that they be dropped without prejudice. That’s an impasse.

It was in Freedman’s court to discuss during the meet and confer, but he declined even to raise it and filed his motion as soon as the call ended (having already leaked the story to tabloids). Are you a lawyer and does that sound normal to you? It is not to me.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Clearly a win for Justin to get his Motion to Compel batted down by Judge Liman almost immediately.

My pet theory is that Freedman just really, really wanted Lively’s medical records to know how much mental anguish he caused her since August 2024 when he became counsel for Baldoni. He could have learned a lot from that re what works and what doesn’t. But realistically, he probably just did it for the headlines. He really could not have thought he would win anything here besides that.

Next try, this was indeed a win for Team Baldoni as Blake is going to have to withdraw her claims with prejudice or be barred from producing any evidence about emotional distress.

That’s not what the judge’s order says, but keep relying on randos from Reddit. 👍

[Anonymous]

Poor Brett Douglas McDowell trying ever so desperately to be relevant.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Poor Brett Douglas McDowell trying ever so desperately to be relevant.

Who??

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Clearly a win for Justin to get his Motion to Compel batted down by Judge Liman almost immediately.

My pet theory is that Freedman just really, really wanted Lively’s medical records to know how much mental anguish he caused her since August 2024 when he became counsel for Baldoni. He could have learned a lot from that re what works and what doesn’t. But realistically, he probably just did it for the headlines. He really could not have thought he would win anything here besides that.

Next try, this was indeed a win for Team Baldoni as Blake is going to have to withdraw her claims with prejudice or be barred from producing any evidence about emotional distress.

That’s not what the judge’s order says, but keep relying on randos from Reddit. 👍

Nope, I was going off the judge’s direct language:

For avoidance of doubt, if the claims are not dismissed, the Court will preclude Lively from offering any evidence of emotional distress.

Baldoni won’t agree to dismissal with prejudice and I don’t think the judge will either.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Poor Brett Douglas McDowell trying ever so desperately to be relevant.

Who??

The pro se Dogpool guy filed a letter saying dropping these emotional distress claims makes settlement seem imminent and please rule on my issues before you decide anything.

Dude. Have a seat and take a number. This is going to be a while.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Clearly a win for Justin to get his Motion to Compel batted down by Judge Liman almost immediately.

My pet theory is that Freedman just really, really wanted Lively’s medical records to know how much mental anguish he caused her since August 2024 when he became counsel for Baldoni. He could have learned a lot from that re what works and what doesn’t. But realistically, he probably just did it for the headlines. He really could not have thought he would win anything here besides that.

Next try, this was indeed a win for Team Baldoni as Blake is going to have to withdraw her claims with prejudice or be barred from producing any evidence about emotional distress.

That’s not what the judge’s order says, but keep relying on randos from Reddit. 👍

Nope, I was going off the judge’s direct language:

For avoidance of doubt, if the claims are not dismissed, the Court will preclude Lively from offering any evidence of emotional distress.

Baldoni won’t agree to dismissal with prejudice and I don’t think the judge will either.

Number one, the judge’s order actually says he won’t allow evidence of emotional distress if the claims remain in the case. But I think that’s a typo.

I think the court is saying that whether the claims are dismissed with or without prejudice, the f they are dismissed from this suit either way, he won’t allow in evidence of Lively’s emotional distress.

So I think your statement is wrong.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Clearly a win for Justin to get his Motion to Compel batted down by Judge Liman almost immediately.

My pet theory is that Freedman just really, really wanted Lively’s medical records to know how much mental anguish he caused her since August 2024 when he became counsel for Baldoni. He could have learned a lot from that re what works and what doesn’t. But realistically, he probably just did it for the headlines. He really could not have thought he would win anything here besides that.

Next try, this was indeed a win for Team Baldoni as Blake is going to have to withdraw her claims with prejudice or be barred from producing any evidence about emotional distress.

That’s not what the judge’s order says, but keep relying on randos from Reddit. 👍

Nope, I was going off the judge’s direct language:

For avoidance of doubt, if the claims are not dismissed, the Court will preclude Lively from offering any evidence of emotional distress.

Baldoni won’t agree to dismissal with prejudice and I don’t think the judge will either.

That seems wrong, because if he wasn’t open to considering dismissal without prejudice at this stage, seems like he certainly wouldn’t have invited Luvely to submit a new motion requesting same. He may ultimately reject it, but he’s open to it (and dismissal w/o prejudice is common where SOL hasn’t yet run and no MTD is pending).

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Poor Brett Douglas McDowell trying ever so desperately to be relevant.

Who??

The pro se Dogpool guy filed a letter saying dropping these emotional distress claims makes settlement seem imminent and please rule on my issues before you decide anything.

Dude. Have a seat and take a number. This is going to be a while.

lol he's certainly on the ball, but this is crazy... any whackjob can just add stuff to the docket?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Clearly a win for Justin to get his Motion to Compel batted down by Judge Liman almost immediately.

My pet theory is that Freedman just really, really wanted Lively’s medical records to know how much mental anguish he caused her since August 2024 when he became counsel for Baldoni. He could have learned a lot from that re what works and what doesn’t. But realistically, he probably just did it for the headlines. He really could not have thought he would win anything here besides that.

Next try, this was indeed a win for Team Baldoni as Blake is going to have to withdraw her claims with prejudice or be barred from producing any evidence about emotional distress.

That’s not what the judge’s order says, but keep relying on randos from Reddit. 👍

Nope, I was going off the judge’s direct language:

For avoidance of doubt, if the claims are not dismissed, the Court will preclude Lively from offering any evidence of emotional distress.

Baldoni won’t agree to dismissal with prejudice and I don’t think the judge will either.

That seems wrong, because if he wasn’t open to considering dismissal without prejudice at this stage, seems like he certainly wouldn’t have invited Luvely to submit a new motion requesting same. He may ultimately reject it, but he’s open to it (and dismissal w/o prejudice is common where SOL hasn’t yet run and no MTD is pending).

I disagree, he could have dismissed without prejudice today if he really wanted to stick it to Baldoni. It’s a warning to Gottlieb, either sell Freedman on dismissal with prejudice (ie. By agreeing to certain discovery in advance if claims are brought in future) or risk a dismissal with prejudice from me.

This is not a situation where the claim needs to be repled for clarity, where a dismissal without prejudice would be customary. Lively is refusing to produce certain types of evidence and the normal consequence for that is losing the ability to bring a claim relating to such evidence altogether.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Clearly a win for Justin to get his Motion to Compel batted down by Judge Liman almost immediately.

My pet theory is that Freedman just really, really wanted Lively’s medical records to know how much mental anguish he caused her since August 2024 when he became counsel for Baldoni. He could have learned a lot from that re what works and what doesn’t. But realistically, he probably just did it for the headlines. He really could not have thought he would win anything here besides that.

Next try, this was indeed a win for Team Baldoni as Blake is going to have to withdraw her claims with prejudice or be barred from producing any evidence about emotional distress.

That’s not what the judge’s order says, but keep relying on randos from Reddit. 👍

Nope, I was going off the judge’s direct language:

For avoidance of doubt, if the claims are not dismissed, the Court will preclude Lively from offering any evidence of emotional distress.

Baldoni won’t agree to dismissal with prejudice and I don’t think the judge will either.

Number one, the judge’s order actually says he won’t allow evidence of emotional distress if the claims remain in the case. But I think that’s a typo.

I think the court is saying that whether the claims are dismissed with or without prejudice, the f they are dismissed from this suit either way, he won’t allow in evidence of Lively’s emotional distress.

So I think your statement is wrong.

I think the language is right. He is saying no evidence will be admitted given her refusal to produce evidence concerning such claims.

[Anonymous]

From Daily Mail

Blake Lively has suffered another courtroom blow in her ongoing legal battle with Justin Baldoni after a New York judge threw a curveball in her attempt to withdraw her 'emotional distress' claims against the actor.

Court filings obtained by the Daily Mail reveal the two parties had been slugging it out over the actress's claims that her co-star had caused her emotional distress, with Baldoni's team demanding she provide proof from her medical records.

But Lively's team instead attempted to quietly drop that element from her blockbuster lawsuit on Friday but, critically, without prejudice – meaning the claim could be refiled at a later date.

In a letter filed on Monday, Lively argued that she voluntarily sought to withdraw the claim in 'good faith to streamline the dispute', and filed a motion to block Baldoni's request for her medical records.

Now, the Daily Mail can reveal that Judge Lewis Liman on Tuesday agreed to deny Baldoni's demands for her medical records based on Lively's decision to drop the claims, however, he also ruled that both sides will now have to negotiate whether her emotional distress element will be dismissed from the case permanently.

In another blow, Judge Liman said even if the claims are not dismissed, Lively's team will no longer be able to produce evidence of emotional distress in court.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Poor Brett Douglas McDowell trying ever so desperately to be relevant.

I think he’s just trying to reduce his burden