Blake Lively- Jason Baldoni and NYT - False Light claims

[Anonymous]

They should have settled when it was clear Justin had receipts and a loyal billionaire who was going to help him fight these false claims AND the masses and viral internet sleuthes were fully and organically behind Justin. That was in…January? These lawyers and grifters around Blake and Ryan are just going to bleed them for a fortune each month until they wise up and realize they’re being scammed. Settlement is inevitable. Zesty Ryan will be “consciously uncoupling” compulsive liar plantation Barbie by Christmas.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

I don't disagree with your first sentence; yeah the court will need to bless either the mutual stip or the move to voluntarily dismiss which Freedman can oppose. No brainer. If this happens and the result is the claims are dismissed without prejudice, Lively can file these claims somewhere else. Good luck to Freedman in getting attorney fees here lol.

I disagree with your second point. I guess that Wayfarer has .. answered the complaints and drafted and served interrogatories and doc requests about these claims. Spent part of last week and a bunch of time this weekend thinking about these particular claims. This whole case is about 4 months old. I don't think Freedman has spent a lot of resources on these two claims. And even if medical records are wholly in Lively's possession, since the SOL hasn't run out, Lively mostly gets to decide whether she wants to raise these claims here or elsewhere. It's not like they have been through discovery and there simply isn't evidence to substantiate these claims. It's that she's choosing not to bring them in this suit. That's generally her choice at this stage and that's dismissal without prejudice. But sure, let's see what happens since I don't think the parties will agree on a stip and it will have to go to Liman to decide.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I posted the articles! The media narrative is shifting - articles are calling this a loss for Blake and a win for Justin.

Variety couldn’t be any clearer with their headline!

Another perspective on the various news articles lol: https://www.tiktok.com/@notactuallygolden/video/7511811888322317614

[Anonymous]

There's a new amicus brief but it's not available on court listener yet. Docket no 275. https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/69510553/lively-v-wayfarer-studios-llc/?page=2

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:There's a new amicus brief but it's not available on court listener yet. Docket no 275. https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/69510553/lively-v-wayfarer-studios-llc/?page=2

Thanks for heads up but link just goes to the main docket which is up to 273. Who filed? Another women's rights group?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I posted the articles! The media narrative is shifting - articles are calling this a loss for Blake and a win for Justin.

Variety couldn’t be any clearer with their headline!

Another perspective on the various news articles lol: https://www.tiktok.com/@notactuallygolden/video/7511811888322317614

That's how I felt when I was skimming those articles!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

I don't disagree with your first sentence; yeah the court will need to bless either the mutual stip or the move to voluntarily dismiss which Freedman can oppose. No brainer. If this happens and the result is the claims are dismissed without prejudice, Lively can file these claims somewhere else. Good luck to Freedman in getting attorney fees here lol.

I disagree with your second point. I guess that Wayfarer has .. answered the complaints and drafted and served interrogatories and doc requests about these claims. Spent part of last week and a bunch of time this weekend thinking about these particular claims. This whole case is about 4 months old. I don't think Freedman has spent a lot of resources on these two claims. And even if medical records are wholly in Lively's possession, since the SOL hasn't run out, Lively mostly gets to decide whether she wants to raise these claims here or elsewhere. It's not like they have been through discovery and there simply isn't evidence to substantiate these claims. It's that she's choosing not to bring them in this suit. That's generally her choice at this stage and that's dismissal without prejudice. But sure, let's see what happens since I don't think the parties will agree on a stip and it will have to go to Liman to decide.

Because the evidence for these claims are wholly within Lively’s possession, her choice to voluntarily dismiss them makes it seem like the claims were frivolous from the beginning and bringing them was just a PR stunt. Her lawyers should’ve given her better advice. At this point I think the whole without prejudice thing is more about saving face. Are they really going to try to refile the claims after voluntarily withdrawing them? Likely not. They could’ve saved themselves the embarrassment of the past couple of days by either never bringing the claims in the first place or agreeing to withdraw with prejudice instead of getting into a public fight with Wayfarer about it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I posted the articles! The media narrative is shifting - articles are calling this a loss for Blake and a win for Justin.

Variety couldn’t be any clearer with their headline!

Another perspective on the various news articles lol: https://www.tiktok.com/@notactuallygolden/video/7511811888322317614

Is that you? Oy vey what an insufferable person. Maybe she’s brilliant but I doubt it. I couldn’t make it past 20 seconds.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:There's a new amicus brief but it's not available on court listener yet. Docket no 275. https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/69510553/lively-v-wayfarer-studios-llc/?page=2

Thanks for heads up but link just goes to the main docket which is up to 273. Who filed? Another women's rights group?

The docket numbers are out of order, the newest entries were up about 10 from the bottom last time I looked (bizarre ha). I couldn’t tell who it was from yet.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

I don't disagree with your first sentence; yeah the court will need to bless either the mutual stip or the move to voluntarily dismiss which Freedman can oppose. No brainer. If this happens and the result is the claims are dismissed without prejudice, Lively can file these claims somewhere else. Good luck to Freedman in getting attorney fees here lol.

I disagree with your second point. I guess that Wayfarer has .. answered the complaints and drafted and served interrogatories and doc requests about these claims. Spent part of last week and a bunch of time this weekend thinking about these particular claims. This whole case is about 4 months old. I don't think Freedman has spent a lot of resources on these two claims. And even if medical records are wholly in Lively's possession, since the SOL hasn't run out, Lively mostly gets to decide whether she wants to raise these claims here or elsewhere. It's not like they have been through discovery and there simply isn't evidence to substantiate these claims. It's that she's choosing not to bring them in this suit. That's generally her choice at this stage and that's dismissal without prejudice. But sure, let's see what happens since I don't think the parties will agree on a stip and it will have to go to Liman to decide.

Because the evidence for these claims are wholly within Lively’s possession, her choice to voluntarily dismiss them makes it seem like the claims were frivolous from the beginning and bringing them was just a PR stunt. Her lawyers should’ve given her better advice. At this point I think the whole without prejudice thing is more about saving face. Are they really going to try to refile the claims after voluntarily withdrawing them? Likely not. They could’ve saved themselves the embarrassment of the past couple of days by either never bringing the claims in the first place or agreeing to withdraw with prejudice instead of getting into a public fight with Wayfarer about it.

It's just another example where her lawyers are lawyering (oh, we should preserve the claims to be on the safe side!) and the other side is playing PR chess. They never anticipated he'd make a thing of this and their response is a nice letter and a suggestion that the court may wish to strike and pursue sanctions (ohhh, Freedman is quaking!).

She's obviously not going to bring the claims back if she has no intention of turning over medical records.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

I don't disagree with your first sentence; yeah the court will need to bless either the mutual stip or the move to voluntarily dismiss which Freedman can oppose. No brainer. If this happens and the result is the claims are dismissed without prejudice, Lively can file these claims somewhere else. Good luck to Freedman in getting attorney fees here lol.

I disagree with your second point. I guess that Wayfarer has .. answered the complaints and drafted and served interrogatories and doc requests about these claims. Spent part of last week and a bunch of time this weekend thinking about these particular claims. This whole case is about 4 months old. I don't think Freedman has spent a lot of resources on these two claims. And even if medical records are wholly in Lively's possession, since the SOL hasn't run out, Lively mostly gets to decide whether she wants to raise these claims here or elsewhere. It's not like they have been through discovery and there simply isn't evidence to substantiate these claims. It's that she's choosing not to bring them in this suit. That's generally her choice at this stage and that's dismissal without prejudice. But sure, let's see what happens since I don't think the parties will agree on a stip and it will have to go to Liman to decide.

The claims will be dismissed with prejudice, bank on it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:There's a new amicus brief but it's not available on court listener yet. Docket no 275. https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/69510553/lively-v-wayfarer-studios-llc/?page=2

Thanks for heads up but link just goes to the main docket which is up to 273. Who filed? Another women's rights group?

The docket numbers are out of order, the newest entries were up about 10 from the bottom last time I looked (bizarre ha). I couldn’t tell who it was from yet.

Oh weird! Yes I see what you mean. Cursed docket!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

I don't disagree with your first sentence; yeah the court will need to bless either the mutual stip or the move to voluntarily dismiss which Freedman can oppose. No brainer. If this happens and the result is the claims are dismissed without prejudice, Lively can file these claims somewhere else. Good luck to Freedman in getting attorney fees here lol.

I disagree with your second point. I guess that Wayfarer has .. answered the complaints and drafted and served interrogatories and doc requests about these claims. Spent part of last week and a bunch of time this weekend thinking about these particular claims. This whole case is about 4 months old. I don't think Freedman has spent a lot of resources on these two claims. And even if medical records are wholly in Lively's possession, since the SOL hasn't run out, Lively mostly gets to decide whether she wants to raise these claims here or elsewhere. It's not like they have been through discovery and there simply isn't evidence to substantiate these claims. It's that she's choosing not to bring them in this suit. That's generally her choice at this stage and that's dismissal without prejudice. But sure, let's see what happens since I don't think the parties will agree on a stip and it will have to go to Liman to decide.

Because the evidence for these claims are wholly within Lively’s possession, her choice to voluntarily dismiss them makes it seem like the claims were frivolous from the beginning and bringing them was just a PR stunt. Her lawyers should’ve given her better advice. At this point I think the whole without prejudice thing is more about saving face. Are they really going to try to refile the claims after voluntarily withdrawing them? Likely not. They could’ve saved themselves the embarrassment of the past couple of days by either never bringing the claims in the first place or agreeing to withdraw with prejudice instead of getting into a public fight with Wayfarer about it.

Let’s get real. When Lively filed these claims, a normal working relationship with opposing counsel seemed possible. That’s what Gottlieb usually manages, even in contentious cases. Freedman is a whole other level of contentiousness. Her advice from Wilkie there was fine. You can backseat quarterback this as much as you want but this ish is not normal.

And if Liman did not think dismissing without prejudice was a possibility here, he certainly would not have written the order so as to encourage her to take her chances in moving for such a dismissal. It’s not a certainty but he doesn’t hide his cards about what he might do in his orders.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

I don't disagree with your first sentence; yeah the court will need to bless either the mutual stip or the move to voluntarily dismiss which Freedman can oppose. No brainer. If this happens and the result is the claims are dismissed without prejudice, Lively can file these claims somewhere else. Good luck to Freedman in getting attorney fees here lol.

I disagree with your second point. I guess that Wayfarer has .. answered the complaints and drafted and served interrogatories and doc requests about these claims. Spent part of last week and a bunch of time this weekend thinking about these particular claims. This whole case is about 4 months old. I don't think Freedman has spent a lot of resources on these two claims. And even if medical records are wholly in Lively's possession, since the SOL hasn't run out, Lively mostly gets to decide whether she wants to raise these claims here or elsewhere. It's not like they have been through discovery and there simply isn't evidence to substantiate these claims. It's that she's choosing not to bring them in this suit. That's generally her choice at this stage and that's dismissal without prejudice. But sure, let's see what happens since I don't think the parties will agree on a stip and it will have to go to Liman to decide.

The claims will be dismissed with prejudice, bank on it.

+1. I can't see any other way.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:They should have settled when it was clear Justin had receipts and a loyal billionaire who was going to help him fight these false claims AND the masses and viral internet sleuthes were fully and organically behind Justin. That was in…January? These lawyers and grifters around Blake and Ryan are just going to bleed them for a fortune each month until they wise up and realize they’re being scammed. Settlement is inevitable. Zesty Ryan will be “consciously uncoupling” compulsive liar plantation Barbie by Christmas.

And the lawyers dont particularly care about this but the PR people have been saying this for months. RR and BL apparently think they are too smart for PR (which is HILARIOUS since its been so atrocious for months) and PR will ultimately decide their future more than a suit will. I dont know they'll divorce right now, but I loved the Molly McPherson earlier days podcast on this because it was sort of sympathetic to Blake, but raked Ryan over the coals as a somewhat insider.