Blake Lively- Jason Baldoni and NYT - False Light claims

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'm actually just confused by the ruling and would love an actual lawyer or journalist who covers legal news (not an entertainment reporter) to explain it to me. So the judge rejected the motion to compel but is ordering Lively to drop the emotional distress claims altogether? I don't understand how those two things go together.

DP. Also confused, especially about the last sentence ("For avoidance of doubt, if the claims are not
dismissed, the Court will preclude Lively from offering any evidence of emotional distress.")

He says it's up to Lively and Wayfarer to hammer out whether she's withdrawing her claims with or without prejudice, and even leaves her the option to file a motion to make it without prejudice... but then isn't that last sentence essentially dismissing it with prejudice, in so many words, since she can never offer any evidence to support the claims? Did he mean to write NOT preclude?

No, his language makes perfectsense when you consider why he isn’t ruling on the motion to compel — she asserted she isn’t providing documents because she is not perusing the claim. And yes, he is telling her that’s a dismissal without prejudice.

I get the first part, but on the bolded is there some technical reason he would not just say that? Is it because Wayfarer didn't file an actual MTD?

The opposite, no? He’s saying ‘you two decide whether it’s WOP or WP’ and btw, if you can’t, either way I Won’t be allowing evidence of emotional distress in’

Yes, this is precisely why we're confused.

If he's telling them to decide whether it's being dismissed with or without prejudice, it seems like that will dictate whether evidence could be allowed in later. If they agree to dismiss without prejudice (this won't happen, but say weirdly it did) then normally that would mean that later they could re-introduce it and introduce evidence on it. That's what without prejudice means.

But it sounds like he's saying that no matter what they decide. Lively cannot introduce any evidence of emotional distress. Which effectively means he's dismissing it with prejudice. If that's the case, why does he also say that the parties should decide between themselves if it's with or without prejudice?

I mean Blake loses either way to my eyes but it's annoying me that it's not clear and making me wonder if I'm not understanding something.

[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.

You said that this was a win for Baldoni because Lively would need to withdraw her claims with prejudice or be barred from producing any evidence about emotional distress. That isn't correct.

I think the judge is basically saying that Lively will be precluded from producing evidence about emotional distress in the current case. If she withdraws her claims either with or without prejudice, her emotional distress won't be relevant. I also think the other poster is right that the judge's last sentence means that since Lively isn't producing evidence of her emotional distress, she is precluded from testifying about her emotional distress at trial. And the judge is taking her at her word that she means to withdraw these claims.

But whether or not she talks about her emotional distress at trial has absolutely nothing to do with whether her claims are withdrawn with or without prejudice. She doesn't get to talk about her emotional distress if she dismisses with prejudice. That makes no sense.

I think this might be a loss for Lively ONLY if her team wasn't fully committed that they weren't going to produce her medical records, whether they were getting dismissed with or without prejudice. There is still (to me) good reason to believe that if they move to dismiss without prejudice, the judge may do so and they ostensibly could raise these claims another day, especially if other lawyers are involved. But they're rolling the dice and dismissal may be with prejudice. But maybe Baldoni supporters are correct that the judge has removed the possibility that, if the parties are unable to agree on how the claims will be dismissed (with or without), that Lively could change her mind and keep the claims in and ultimately discuss emotional distress at trial.

That said, I think that now that Gottlieb etc. fully understand the lay of the land with Freedman, there was no way they were going to produce Lively's sensitive medical records to that man, AEO or no AEO, with or without prejudice, and I really don't blame them. Not sure I'd want to be producing such records for Baldoni, either, tbh.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'm actually just confused by the ruling and would love an actual lawyer or journalist who covers legal news (not an entertainment reporter) to explain it to me. So the judge rejected the motion to compel but is ordering Lively to drop the emotional distress claims altogether? I don't understand how those two things go together.

DP. Also confused, especially about the last sentence ("For avoidance of doubt, if the claims are not
dismissed, the Court will preclude Lively from offering any evidence of emotional distress.")

He says it's up to Lively and Wayfarer to hammer out whether she's withdrawing her claims with or without prejudice, and even leaves her the option to file a motion to make it without prejudice... but then isn't that last sentence essentially dismissing it with prejudice, in so many words, since she can never offer any evidence to support the claims? Did he mean to write NOT preclude?

No, his language makes perfectsense when you consider why he isn’t ruling on the motion to compel — she asserted she isn’t providing documents because she is not perusing the claim. And yes, he is telling her that’s a dismissal without prejudice.

I get the first part, but on the bolded is there some technical reason he would not just say that? Is it because Wayfarer didn't file an actual MTD?

The opposite, no? He’s saying ‘you two decide whether it’s WOP or WP’ and btw, if you can’t, either way I Won’t be allowing evidence of emotional distress in’

Yes, this is precisely why we're confused.

If he's telling them to decide whether it's being dismissed with or without prejudice, it seems like that will dictate whether evidence could be allowed in later. If they agree to dismiss without prejudice (this won't happen, but say weirdly it did) then normally that would mean that later they could re-introduce it and introduce evidence on it. That's what without prejudice means.

But it sounds like he's saying that no matter what they decide. Lively cannot introduce any evidence of emotional distress. Which effectively means he's dismissing it with prejudice. If that's the case, why does he also say that the parties should decide between themselves if it's with or without prejudice?

I mean Blake loses either way to my eyes but it's annoying me that it's not clear and making me wonder if I'm not understanding something.

In a case with more collaboration between the parties, they might negotiate a stipulation that Blake has until x date to renew her claims, and in such case, she agrees to provide all responsive documents concerning that claim x days thereafter. No shot in hell that happens here.

[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.

You said that this was a win for Baldoni because Lively would need to withdraw her claims with prejudice or be barred from producing any evidence about emotional distress. That isn't correct.

I think the judge is basically saying that Lively will be precluded from producing evidence about emotional distress in the current case. If she withdraws her claims either with or without prejudice, her emotional distress won't be relevant. I also think the other poster is right that the judge's last sentence means that since Lively isn't producing evidence of her emotional distress, she is precluded from testifying about her emotional distress at trial. And the judge is taking her at her word that she means to withdraw these claims.

But whether or not she talks about her emotional distress at trial has absolutely nothing to do with whether her claims are withdrawn with or without prejudice. She doesn't get to talk about her emotional distress if she dismisses with prejudice. That makes no sense.

I think this might be a loss for Lively ONLY if her team wasn't fully committed that they weren't going to produce her medical records, whether they were getting dismissed with or without prejudice. There is still (to me) good reason to believe that if they move to dismiss without prejudice, the judge may do so and they ostensibly could raise these claims another day, especially if other lawyers are involved. But they're rolling the dice and dismissal may be with prejudice. But maybe Baldoni supporters are correct that the judge has removed the possibility that, if the parties are unable to agree on how the claims will be dismissed (with or without), that Lively could change her mind and keep the claims in and ultimately discuss emotional distress at trial.

That said, I think that now that Gottlieb etc. fully understand the lay of the land with Freedman, there was no way they were going to produce Lively's sensitive medical records to that man, AEO or no AEO, with or without prejudice, and I really don't blame them. Not sure I'd want to be producing such records for Baldoni, either, tbh.

And you would be wrong again. The judge made no mistakes with his language.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

You said that this was a win for Baldoni because Lively would need to withdraw her claims with prejudice or be barred from producing any evidence about emotional distress. That isn't correct.

I think the judge is basically saying that Lively will be precluded from producing evidence about emotional distress in the current case. If she withdraws her claims either with or without prejudice, her emotional distress won't be relevant. I also think the other poster is right that the judge's last sentence means that since Lively isn't producing evidence of her emotional distress, she is precluded from testifying about her emotional distress at trial. And the judge is taking her at her word that she means to withdraw these claims.

But whether or not she talks about her emotional distress at trial has absolutely nothing to do with whether her claims are withdrawn with or without prejudice. She doesn't get to talk about her emotional distress if she dismisses with prejudice. That makes no sense.

I think this might be a loss for Lively ONLY if her team wasn't fully committed that they weren't going to produce her medical records, whether they were getting dismissed with or without prejudice. There is still (to me) good reason to believe that if they move to dismiss without prejudice, the judge may do so and they ostensibly could raise these claims another day, especially if other lawyers are involved. But they're rolling the dice and dismissal may be with prejudice. But maybe Baldoni supporters are correct that the judge has removed the possibility that, if the parties are unable to agree on how the claims will be dismissed (with or without), that Lively could change her mind and keep the claims in and ultimately discuss emotional distress at trial.

That said, I think that now that Gottlieb etc. fully understand the lay of the land with Freedman, there was no way they were going to produce Lively's sensitive medical records to that man, AEO or no AEO, with or without prejudice, and I really don't blame them. Not sure I'd want to be producing such records for Baldoni, either, tbh.

And you would be wrong again. The judge made no mistakes with his language.

Where did I say that? I said the other poster was right to take the judge's language at face value to mean that she can't testify about emotional distress at trial, even if the claims are not dismissed (since she won't be producing any docs about it).

[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.

You said that this was a win for Baldoni because Lively would need to withdraw her claims with prejudice or be barred from producing any evidence about emotional distress. That isn't correct.

I think the judge is basically saying that Lively will be precluded from producing evidence about emotional distress in the current case. If she withdraws her claims either with or without prejudice, her emotional distress won't be relevant. I also think the other poster is right that the judge's last sentence means that since Lively isn't producing evidence of her emotional distress, she is precluded from testifying about her emotional distress at trial. And the judge is taking her at her word that she means to withdraw these claims.

But whether or not she talks about her emotional distress at trial has absolutely nothing to do with whether her claims are withdrawn with or without prejudice. She doesn't get to talk about her emotional distress if she dismisses with prejudice. That makes no sense.

I think this might be a loss for Lively ONLY if her team wasn't fully committed that they weren't going to produce her medical records, whether they were getting dismissed with or without prejudice. There is still (to me) good reason to believe that if they move to dismiss without prejudice, the judge may do so and they ostensibly could raise these claims another day, especially if other lawyers are involved. But they're rolling the dice and dismissal may be with prejudice. But maybe Baldoni supporters are correct that the judge has removed the possibility that, if the parties are unable to agree on how the claims will be dismissed (with or without), that Lively could change her mind and keep the claims in and ultimately discuss emotional distress at trial.

That said, I think that now that Gottlieb etc. fully understand the lay of the land with Freedman, there was no way they were going to produce Lively's sensitive medical records to that man, AEO or no AEO, with or without prejudice, and I really don't blame them. Not sure I'd want to be producing such records for Baldoni, either, tbh.

I thought you said you were leaving so you could discuss this case solely with other Blake supporters?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'm actually just confused by the ruling and would love an actual lawyer or journalist who covers legal news (not an entertainment reporter) to explain it to me. So the judge rejected the motion to compel but is ordering Lively to drop the emotional distress claims altogether? I don't understand how those two things go together.

DP. Also confused, especially about the last sentence ("For avoidance of doubt, if the claims are not
dismissed, the Court will preclude Lively from offering any evidence of emotional distress.")

He says it's up to Lively and Wayfarer to hammer out whether she's withdrawing her claims with or without prejudice, and even leaves her the option to file a motion to make it without prejudice... but then isn't that last sentence essentially dismissing it with prejudice, in so many words, since she can never offer any evidence to support the claims? Did he mean to write NOT preclude?

No, his language makes perfectsense when you consider why he isn’t ruling on the motion to compel — she asserted she isn’t providing documents because she is not perusing the claim. And yes, he is telling her that’s a dismissal without prejudice.

I get the first part, but on the bolded is there some technical reason he would not just say that? Is it because Wayfarer didn't file an actual MTD?

The opposite, no? He’s saying ‘you two decide whether it’s WOP or WP’ and btw, if you can’t, either way I Won’t be allowing evidence of emotional distress in’

Yes, this is precisely why we're confused.

If he's telling them to decide whether it's being dismissed with or without prejudice, it seems like that will dictate whether evidence could be allowed in later. If they agree to dismiss without prejudice (this won't happen, but say weirdly it did) then normally that would mean that later they could re-introduce it and introduce evidence on it. That's what without prejudice means.

But it sounds like he's saying that no matter what they decide. Lively cannot introduce any evidence of emotional distress. Which effectively means he's dismissing it with prejudice. If that's the case, why does he also say that the parties should decide between themselves if it's with or without prejudice?

I mean Blake loses either way to my eyes but it's annoying me that it's not clear and making me wonder if I'm not understanding something.

In a case with more collaboration between the parties, they might negotiate a stipulation that Blake has until x date to renew her claims, and in such case, she agrees to provide all responsive documents concerning that claim x days thereafter. No shot in hell that happens here.

That's a good point. That would presumably be a stipulation of dismissal without prejudice until the renewal date in question. But, yeah, Freedman absolutely isn't agreeing to that. He would really like to see those records imho.

[Anonymous]

Sara Nathan filed a motion to quash a subpoena from Sloane.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'm actually just confused by the ruling and would love an actual lawyer or journalist who covers legal news (not an entertainment reporter) to explain it to me. So the judge rejected the motion to compel but is ordering Lively to drop the emotional distress claims altogether? I don't understand how those two things go together.

DP. Also confused, especially about the last sentence ("For avoidance of doubt, if the claims are not
dismissed, the Court will preclude Lively from offering any evidence of emotional distress.")

He says it's up to Lively and Wayfarer to hammer out whether she's withdrawing her claims with or without prejudice, and even leaves her the option to file a motion to make it without prejudice... but then isn't that last sentence essentially dismissing it with prejudice, in so many words, since she can never offer any evidence to support the claims? Did he mean to write NOT preclude?

No, his language makes perfectsense when you consider why he isn’t ruling on the motion to compel — she asserted she isn’t providing documents because she is not perusing the claim. And yes, he is telling her that’s a dismissal without prejudice.

I get the first part, but on the bolded is there some technical reason he would not just say that? Is it because Wayfarer didn't file an actual MTD?

The opposite, no? He’s saying ‘you two decide whether it’s WOP or WP’ and btw, if you can’t, either way I Won’t be allowing evidence of emotional distress in’

Yes, this is precisely why we're confused.

If he's telling them to decide whether it's being dismissed with or without prejudice, it seems like that will dictate whether evidence could be allowed in later. If they agree to dismiss without prejudice (this won't happen, but say weirdly it did) then normally that would mean that later they could re-introduce it and introduce evidence on it. That's what without prejudice means.

But it sounds like he's saying that no matter what they decide. Lively cannot introduce any evidence of emotional distress. Which effectively means he's dismissing it with prejudice. If that's the case, why does he also say that the parties should decide between themselves if it's with or without prejudice?

I mean Blake loses either way to my eyes but it's annoying me that it's not clear and making me wonder if I'm not understanding something.

In a case with more collaboration between the parties, they might negotiate a stipulation that Blake has until x date to renew her claims, and in such case, she agrees to provide all responsive documents concerning that claim x days thereafter. No shot in hell that happens here.

That's a good point. That would presumably be a stipulation of dismissal without prejudice until the renewal date in question. But, yeah, Freedman absolutely isn't agreeing to that. He would really like to see those records imho.

Why should he allow her to waffle on claims she’s bringing when she is refusing to produce documents necessary to support those claims? Also you’re implying freedman is after her records for some prurient reason rather than it just being standard to produce these documents in connection with emotional distress claims?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'm actually just confused by the ruling and would love an actual lawyer or journalist who covers legal news (not an entertainment reporter) to explain it to me. So the judge rejected the motion to compel but is ordering Lively to drop the emotional distress claims altogether? I don't understand how those two things go together.

DP. Also confused, especially about the last sentence ("For avoidance of doubt, if the claims are not
dismissed, the Court will preclude Lively from offering any evidence of emotional distress.")

He says it's up to Lively and Wayfarer to hammer out whether she's withdrawing her claims with or without prejudice, and even leaves her the option to file a motion to make it without prejudice... but then isn't that last sentence essentially dismissing it with prejudice, in so many words, since she can never offer any evidence to support the claims? Did he mean to write NOT preclude?

No, his language makes perfectsense when you consider why he isn’t ruling on the motion to compel — she asserted she isn’t providing documents because she is not perusing the claim. And yes, he is telling her that’s a dismissal without prejudice.

I get the first part, but on the bolded is there some technical reason he would not just say that? Is it because Wayfarer didn't file an actual MTD?

The opposite, no? He’s saying ‘you two decide whether it’s WOP or WP’ and btw, if you can’t, either way I Won’t be allowing evidence of emotional distress in’

Yes, this is precisely why we're confused.

If he's telling them to decide whether it's being dismissed with or without prejudice, it seems like that will dictate whether evidence could be allowed in later. If they agree to dismiss without prejudice (this won't happen, but say weirdly it did) then normally that would mean that later they could re-introduce it and introduce evidence on it. That's what without prejudice means.

But it sounds like he's saying that no matter what they decide. Lively cannot introduce any evidence of emotional distress. Which effectively means he's dismissing it with prejudice. If that's the case, why does he also say that the parties should decide between themselves if it's with or without prejudice?

I mean Blake loses either way to my eyes but it's annoying me that it's not clear and making me wonder if I'm not understanding something.

In a case with more collaboration between the parties, they might negotiate a stipulation that Blake has until x date to renew her claims, and in such case, she agrees to provide all responsive documents concerning that claim x days thereafter. No shot in hell that happens here.

That's a good point. That would presumably be a stipulation of dismissal without prejudice until the renewal date in question. But, yeah, Freedman absolutely isn't agreeing to that. He would really like to see those records imho.

Maybe there are no records because there was no emotional distress. Ryan and Blake were flying high, confident in their scheme, drawing up scenes to make fun on whiny beeyotch Baldoni for things like wanting an IC on set, and generally on top of the world.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'm actually just confused by the ruling and would love an actual lawyer or journalist who covers legal news (not an entertainment reporter) to explain it to me. So the judge rejected the motion to compel but is ordering Lively to drop the emotional distress claims altogether? I don't understand how those two things go together.

DP. Also confused, especially about the last sentence ("For avoidance of doubt, if the claims are not
dismissed, the Court will preclude Lively from offering any evidence of emotional distress.")

He says it's up to Lively and Wayfarer to hammer out whether she's withdrawing her claims with or without prejudice, and even leaves her the option to file a motion to make it without prejudice... but then isn't that last sentence essentially dismissing it with prejudice, in so many words, since she can never offer any evidence to support the claims? Did he mean to write NOT preclude?

No, his language makes perfectsense when you consider why he isn’t ruling on the motion to compel — she asserted she isn’t providing documents because she is not perusing the claim. And yes, he is telling her that’s a dismissal without prejudice.

There's either no records or whatever records there are suggest other causes, such as ppd or marital strife or something else that Freedman could argue was the true cause of the distress.

I get the first part, but on the bolded is there some technical reason he would not just say that? Is it because Wayfarer didn't file an actual MTD?

The opposite, no? He’s saying ‘you two decide whether it’s WOP or WP’ and btw, if you can’t, either way I Won’t be allowing evidence of emotional distress in’

Yes, this is precisely why we're confused.

If he's telling them to decide whether it's being dismissed with or without prejudice, it seems like that will dictate whether evidence could be allowed in later. If they agree to dismiss without prejudice (this won't happen, but say weirdly it did) then normally that would mean that later they could re-introduce it and introduce evidence on it. That's what without prejudice means.

But it sounds like he's saying that no matter what they decide. Lively cannot introduce any evidence of emotional distress. Which effectively means he's dismissing it with prejudice. If that's the case, why does he also say that the parties should decide between themselves if it's with or without prejudice?

I mean Blake loses either way to my eyes but it's annoying me that it's not clear and making me wonder if I'm not understanding something.

In a case with more collaboration between the parties, they might negotiate a stipulation that Blake has until x date to renew her claims, and in such case, she agrees to provide all responsive documents concerning that claim x days thereafter. No shot in hell that happens here.

That's a good point. That would presumably be a stipulation of dismissal without prejudice until the renewal date in question. But, yeah, Freedman absolutely isn't agreeing to that. He would really like to see those records imho.

Maybe there are no records because there was no emotional distress. Ryan and Blake were flying high, confident in their scheme, drawing up scenes to make fun on whiny beeyotch Baldoni for things like wanting an IC on set, and generally on top of the world.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'm actually just confused by the ruling and would love an actual lawyer or journalist who covers legal news (not an entertainment reporter) to explain it to me. So the judge rejected the motion to compel but is ordering Lively to drop the emotional distress claims altogether? I don't understand how those two things go together.

DP. Also confused, especially about the last sentence ("For avoidance of doubt, if the claims are not
dismissed, the Court will preclude Lively from offering any evidence of emotional distress.")

He says it's up to Lively and Wayfarer to hammer out whether she's withdrawing her claims with or without prejudice, and even leaves her the option to file a motion to make it without prejudice... but then isn't that last sentence essentially dismissing it with prejudice, in so many words, since she can never offer any evidence to support the claims? Did he mean to write NOT preclude?

No, his language makes perfectsense when you consider why he isn’t ruling on the motion to compel — she asserted she isn’t providing documents because she is not perusing the claim. And yes, he is telling her that’s a dismissal without prejudice.

I get the first part, but on the bolded is there some technical reason he would not just say that? Is it because Wayfarer didn't file an actual MTD?

The opposite, no? He’s saying ‘you two decide whether it’s WOP or WP’ and btw, if you can’t, either way I Won’t be allowing evidence of emotional distress in’

Yes, this is precisely why we're confused.

If he's telling them to decide whether it's being dismissed with or without prejudice, it seems like that will dictate whether evidence could be allowed in later. If they agree to dismiss without prejudice (this won't happen, but say weirdly it did) then normally that would mean that later they could re-introduce it and introduce evidence on it. That's what without prejudice means.

But it sounds like he's saying that no matter what they decide. Lively cannot introduce any evidence of emotional distress. Which effectively means he's dismissing it with prejudice. If that's the case, why does he also say that the parties should decide between themselves if it's with or without prejudice?

I mean Blake loses either way to my eyes but it's annoying me that it's not clear and making me wonder if I'm not understanding something.

The judge is saying a couple of things:

1. The motion to compel is unnecessary because Lively is withdrawing her claims.

2. Lively cannot quietly withdraw her claims, which is what Gottlieb was trying to do, because they’re past that stage of litigation. Lively must get a court order to drop her claims.

3. Because Lively needs a court order to drop her claims, the judge is saying that she needs to file a formal motion. But, before filing a formal motion, she needs to see if she and wayfarer can agree on the terms (with or without prejudice). If they agree, the judge will just rubber stamp it. If they can’t agree she can file the motion and let him make the decision. If she does nothing, he’s not allowing her to claim emotional distress if she doesn’t produce discovery.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'm actually just confused by the ruling and would love an actual lawyer or journalist who covers legal news (not an entertainment reporter) to explain it to me. So the judge rejected the motion to compel but is ordering Lively to drop the emotional distress claims altogether? I don't understand how those two things go together.

DP. Also confused, especially about the last sentence ("For avoidance of doubt, if the claims are not
dismissed, the Court will preclude Lively from offering any evidence of emotional distress.")

He says it's up to Lively and Wayfarer to hammer out whether she's withdrawing her claims with or without prejudice, and even leaves her the option to file a motion to make it without prejudice... but then isn't that last sentence essentially dismissing it with prejudice, in so many words, since she can never offer any evidence to support the claims? Did he mean to write NOT preclude?

No, his language makes perfectsense when you consider why he isn’t ruling on the motion to compel — she asserted she isn’t providing documents because she is not perusing the claim. And yes, he is telling her that’s a dismissal without prejudice.

I get the first part, but on the bolded is there some technical reason he would not just say that? Is it because Wayfarer didn't file an actual MTD?

The opposite, no? He’s saying ‘you two decide whether it’s WOP or WP’ and btw, if you can’t, either way I Won’t be allowing evidence of emotional distress in’

Yes, this is precisely why we're confused.

If he's telling them to decide whether it's being dismissed with or without prejudice, it seems like that will dictate whether evidence could be allowed in later. If they agree to dismiss without prejudice (this won't happen, but say weirdly it did) then normally that would mean that later they could re-introduce it and introduce evidence on it. That's what without prejudice means.

But it sounds like he's saying that no matter what they decide. Lively cannot introduce any evidence of emotional distress. Which effectively means he's dismissing it with prejudice. If that's the case, why does he also say that the parties should decide between themselves if it's with or without prejudice?

I mean Blake loses either way to my eyes but it's annoying me that it's not clear and making me wonder if I'm not understanding something.

In a case with more collaboration between the parties, they might negotiate a stipulation that Blake has until x date to renew her claims, and in such case, she agrees to provide all responsive documents concerning that claim x days thereafter. No shot in hell that happens here.

That's a good point. That would presumably be a stipulation of dismissal without prejudice until the renewal date in question. But, yeah, Freedman absolutely isn't agreeing to that. He would really like to see those records imho.

Why should he allow her to waffle on claims she’s bringing when she is refusing to produce documents necessary to support those claims? Also you’re implying freedman is after her records for some prurient reason rather than it just being standard to produce these documents in connection with emotional distress claims?

Because under the Federal Rules you're generally allowed to voluntarily withdraw your claim at this stage and have them dismissed without prejudice, and refile under the SOL at some later date and even in a different court. Freedman hasn't filed a motion to dismiss here (missed his chance on that). It's rich that the guy who says he should be allowed to replead all of his claims after a motion to dismiss is now saying that P here shouldn't be allowed to later replead (in a different lawsuit) her claim when there was never a MTD and the SOL hasn't run. So Baldoni should get to replead everything despite the MTD, but here were there is no MTD Lively should just lose these claims? Absolute hypocrisy, no surprise.

Freedman just really, really, really, really wanted to see the exciting details of her medical records. It's a little sad, really.

(I don't agree with KatOrtega on reddit re the meaning of the last sentence, which Ortega says means only that Lively doesn't need to produce any medical records until the stipulation/dismissal is worked out, and that she could still raise her emotional distress claims in the current litigation under Liman. No, the judge is saying that since she will not have produced any medical records in this case, she won't be allowed to present evidence about her emotional distress at this trial. Can't have this both ways.)

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'm actually just confused by the ruling and would love an actual lawyer or journalist who covers legal news (not an entertainment reporter) to explain it to me. So the judge rejected the motion to compel but is ordering Lively to drop the emotional distress claims altogether? I don't understand how those two things go together.

DP. Also confused, especially about the last sentence ("For avoidance of doubt, if the claims are not
dismissed, the Court will preclude Lively from offering any evidence of emotional distress.")

He says it's up to Lively and Wayfarer to hammer out whether she's withdrawing her claims with or without prejudice, and even leaves her the option to file a motion to make it without prejudice... but then isn't that last sentence essentially dismissing it with prejudice, in so many words, since she can never offer any evidence to support the claims? Did he mean to write NOT preclude?

No, his language makes perfectsense when you consider why he isn’t ruling on the motion to compel — she asserted she isn’t providing documents because she is not perusing the claim. And yes, he is telling her that’s a dismissal without prejudice.

I get the first part, but on the bolded is there some technical reason he would not just say that? Is it because Wayfarer didn't file an actual MTD?

The opposite, no? He’s saying ‘you two decide whether it’s WOP or WP’ and btw, if you can’t, either way I Won’t be allowing evidence of emotional distress in’

Yes, this is precisely why we're confused.

If he's telling them to decide whether it's being dismissed with or without prejudice, it seems like that will dictate whether evidence could be allowed in later. If they agree to dismiss without prejudice (this won't happen, but say weirdly it did) then normally that would mean that later they could re-introduce it and introduce evidence on it. That's what without prejudice means.

But it sounds like he's saying that no matter what they decide. Lively cannot introduce any evidence of emotional distress. Which effectively means he's dismissing it with prejudice. If that's the case, why does he also say that the parties should decide between themselves if it's with or without prejudice?

I mean Blake loses either way to my eyes but it's annoying me that it's not clear and making me wonder if I'm not understanding something.

In a case with more collaboration between the parties, they might negotiate a stipulation that Blake has until x date to renew her claims, and in such case, she agrees to provide all responsive documents concerning that claim x days thereafter. No shot in hell that happens here.

That's a good point. That would presumably be a stipulation of dismissal without prejudice until the renewal date in question. But, yeah, Freedman absolutely isn't agreeing to that. He would really like to see those records imho.

Why should he allow her to waffle on claims she’s bringing when she is refusing to produce documents necessary to support those claims? Also you’re implying freedman is after her records for some prurient reason rather than it just being standard to produce these documents in connection with emotional distress claims?

Because under the Federal Rules you're generally allowed to voluntarily withdraw your claim at this stage and have them dismissed without prejudice, and refile under the SOL at some later date and even in a different court. Freedman hasn't filed a motion to dismiss here (missed his chance on that). It's rich that the guy who says he should be allowed to replead all of his claims after a motion to dismiss is now saying that P here shouldn't be allowed to later replead (in a different lawsuit) her claim when there was never a MTD and the SOL hasn't run. So Baldoni should get to replead everything despite the MTD, but here were there is no MTD Lively should just lose these claims? Absolute hypocrisy, no surprise.

Freedman just really, really, really, really wanted to see the exciting details of her medical records. It's a little sad, really.

(I don't agree with KatOrtega on reddit re the meaning of the last sentence, which Ortega says means only that Lively doesn't need to produce any medical records until the stipulation/dismissal is worked out, and that she could still raise her emotional distress claims in the current litigation under Liman. No, the judge is saying that since she will not have produced any medical records in this case, she won't be allowed to present evidence about her emotional distress at this trial. Can't have this both ways.)

This is wrong. Lively missed her window to voluntary withdraw her claims without prejudice unless she gets court approval, and the other side can oppose and also ask for attorneys fees. The second thing you got wrong is this idea that lively should be able to dismiss without prejudice just because Wayfarer didn’t file an MTD. Wayfarer has wasted time and money defending against these claims. Additionally, the claims lively seeks to dismiss rely on evidence wholly within her possession. She either has evidence of emotional distress or she doesn’t. This is not something she needs discovery to figure out. There would be no justification to dismiss without prejudice.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'm actually just confused by the ruling and would love an actual lawyer or journalist who covers legal news (not an entertainment reporter) to explain it to me. So the judge rejected the motion to compel but is ordering Lively to drop the emotional distress claims altogether? I don't understand how those two things go together.

DP. Also confused, especially about the last sentence ("For avoidance of doubt, if the claims are not
dismissed, the Court will preclude Lively from offering any evidence of emotional distress.")

He says it's up to Lively and Wayfarer to hammer out whether she's withdrawing her claims with or without prejudice, and even leaves her the option to file a motion to make it without prejudice... but then isn't that last sentence essentially dismissing it with prejudice, in so many words, since she can never offer any evidence to support the claims? Did he mean to write NOT preclude?

No, his language makes perfectsense when you consider why he isn’t ruling on the motion to compel — she asserted she isn’t providing documents because she is not perusing the claim. And yes, he is telling her that’s a dismissal without prejudice.

I get the first part, but on the bolded is there some technical reason he would not just say that? Is it because Wayfarer didn't file an actual MTD?

The opposite, no? He’s saying ‘you two decide whether it’s WOP or WP’ and btw, if you can’t, either way I Won’t be allowing evidence of emotional distress in’

Yes, this is precisely why we're confused.

If he's telling them to decide whether it's being dismissed with or without prejudice, it seems like that will dictate whether evidence could be allowed in later. If they agree to dismiss without prejudice (this won't happen, but say weirdly it did) then normally that would mean that later they could re-introduce it and introduce evidence on it. That's what without prejudice means.

But it sounds like he's saying that no matter what they decide. Lively cannot introduce any evidence of emotional distress. Which effectively means he's dismissing it with prejudice. If that's the case, why does he also say that the parties should decide between themselves if it's with or without prejudice?

I mean Blake loses either way to my eyes but it's annoying me that it's not clear and making me wonder if I'm not understanding something.

The judge is saying a couple of things:

1. The motion to compel is unnecessary because Lively is withdrawing her claims.

2. Lively cannot quietly withdraw her claims, which is what Gottlieb was trying to do, because they’re past that stage of litigation. Lively must get a court order to drop her claims.

3. Because Lively needs a court order to drop her claims, the judge is saying that she needs to file a formal motion. But, before filing a formal motion, she needs to see if she and wayfarer can agree on the terms (with or without prejudice). If they agree, the judge will just rubber stamp it. If they can’t agree she can file the motion and let him make the decision. If she does nothing, he’s not allowing her to claim emotional distress if she doesn’t produce discovery.

This seems...fair. Especially point 3. Was she not advised that if she filed a claim for emotional distress she would have to back it up in some way? I dont get this reversal. (Lawyer but don't even want to claim it as its been 30 years since learning about this stuff.)