Blake Lively- Jason Baldoni and NYT - False Light claims

[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?

It's up now. It's a child abuse victim advocacy org.
https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.nysd.634304/gov.uscourts.nysd.634304.275.0.pdf

[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?

It's up now. It's a child abuse victim advocacy org.
https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.nysd.634304/gov.uscourts.nysd.634304.275.0.pdf

Pretty sure Justin Baldoni is going to argue that the court should fully ignore this victim’s group’s brief as well.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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?

It's up now. It's a child abuse victim advocacy org.
https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.nysd.634304/gov.uscourts.nysd.634304.275.0.pdf

Pretty sure Justin Baldoni is going to argue that the court should fully ignore this victim’s group’s brief as well.

This child advocacy organization should be asking why Blake Lively supports pedophiles like Woody Allen.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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?

It's up now. It's a child abuse victim advocacy org.
https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.nysd.634304/gov.uscourts.nysd.634304.275.0.pdf

Pretty sure Justin Baldoni is going to argue that the court should fully ignore this victim’s group’s brief as well.

This child advocacy organization should be asking why Blake Lively supports pedophiles like Woody Allen.

Or why her husband forced her child to repeat sexually explicit epithets over 100 times on set.

[Anonymous]

Taylor Swift’s blunt reaction to Blake Lively’s ‘groveling excuses’ revealed after Justin Baldoni subpoena: report

Taylor Swift has reportedly been ghosting Blake Lively after being dragged into the actress’ messy legal battle with Justin Baldoni.

“Even though Taylor has totally cut ties with her, Blake hasn’t with Taylor,” an insider told the Daily Mail Tuesday.

“She’s been reaching out to her with texts, voicemails and even emails, begging to mend what they once had. Blake isn’t giving up on trying to get her friendship with Taylor back on track.”

According to the source, Swift, 35, “hasn’t responded to any of Blake’s pleas” and has “ignored all her groveling excuses.”

“The missives explain there must be some misunderstanding on Taylor’s part and that she’d never do anything to harm their 10 years of closeness and personal secrets,” the insider claimed.

However, a separate source claimed to People that the duo were trying to get back “on good terms,” though “their friendship isn’t the same as it was before.”

“Taylor is working to trust Blake again but it’s going to take some time,” the insider claimed.

Reps for the “Lover” songstress and Lively, 37, weren’t immediately available to Page Six for comment.

https://pagesix.com/2025/06/03/celebrity-news/taylor-swifts-blunt-reaction-to-blake-livelys-groveling-revealed/

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/tvshowbiz/article-14775835/Blake-Lively-Taylor-Swift-texts-emails-ghosting.html



So now we know why Lively went rogue on Taylor. She thought writing long winded apologies (like she did to Christy Hall) would melt Taylor's heart and let her back in the sanctum. She didn't bite and Blake got pissed. Love all the Lively avengers and Swifties who swore Freedman was lying for notoriety only for Swift to have willingly provided information to Baldoni so she wouldn't be subpoenaed.

[Anonymous]

All the dissertations from the Lively avengers and Swifties about how Taylor and Blake were still close, that it was "strategic" for a public figure like Taylor to say nothing at all. Completely dismissing that Taylor publically supported Kesha and funded her legal bills when going through litigation with Dr. Luke. The sources were correct for months that Lively and Blake were no longer on speaking terms.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:All the dissertations from the Lively avengers and Swifties about how Taylor and Blake were still close, that it was "strategic" for a public figure like Taylor to say nothing at all. Completely dismissing that Taylor publically supported Kesha and funded her legal bills when going through litigation with Dr. Luke. The sources were correct for months that Lively and Blake were no longer on speaking terms.

We knew this was BS but when Travis unfollowed Ryan it went beyond ANY speculation they were taking space to downright aggression. They wanted people to report on that and they did.

[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.

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.

This is what I think. There was no emotional distress and they know they don’t have the evidence to back up their claims that there was.

[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.

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.

This is what I think. There was no emotional distress and they know they don’t have the evidence to back up their claims that there was.

In my opinion, this is strategic and possibly a risk. I don’t think they want to give these records to Freedman. I also suspect they don’t want to offer a tool that could be used to make Lively look mentally unstable. Look what Baldoni supporters say already. Look at how Amber Heard was portrayed.

The judge hasn’t really been willing to impose consequences on Freedman for leaking information to the press before a filing is made or leaking info in other “untraceable” ways.

The view that the records don’t exist so there has been no emotional damage doesn’t account for the fact that Lively could also hire an expert now to testify to her emotional damage, and a good expert would have a field day here.

[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:

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.

The lawyering would be fine for a private person with a lawsuit the public doesn’t care about. Blake needs lawyers that get PR and hers simply don’t. This was bad advice from a PR standpoint. Freedman is wiping the floor with them on that front. It’s not even a fair fight at this point.

[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.

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.

This is what I think. There was no emotional distress and they know they don’t have the evidence to back up their claims that there was.

In my opinion, this is strategic and possibly a risk. I don’t think they want to give these records to Freedman. I also suspect they don’t want to offer a tool that could be used to make Lively look mentally unstable. Look what Baldoni supporters say already. Look at how Amber Heard was portrayed.

The judge hasn’t really been willing to impose consequences on Freedman for leaking information to the press before a filing is made or leaking info in other “untraceable” ways.

The view that the records don’t exist so there has been no emotional damage doesn’t account for the fact that Lively could also hire an expert now to testify to her emotional damage, and a good expert would have a field day here.

I agree with this. Amber Heard got dismantled on the stand because they successfully used her mental health issues against her. It was very frustrating as an advocate for DV survivors because of course someone who has been in an abusive relationship with a person who clearly has addiction issues is going to have mental health issues. But they used her mental vulnerabilities and emotionality to make her look unstable and manipulative, which convinced the jury she was lying despite quite a bit of evidence.

I would not want to hand my opponent details of my mental health state for them to use against me on the stand.

[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.

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.

This is what I think. There was no emotional distress and they know they don’t have the evidence to back up their claims that there was.

Either that or the medical records reveal another source of distress, such as ppd or marital strife, revealing an issue for the defense to exploit at trial.

[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.

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.

This is what I think. There was no emotional distress and they know they don’t have the evidence to back up their claims that there was.

In my opinion, this is strategic and possibly a risk. I don’t think they want to give these records to Freedman. I also suspect they don’t want to offer a tool that could be used to make Lively look mentally unstable. Look what Baldoni supporters say already. Look at how Amber Heard was portrayed.

The judge hasn’t really been willing to impose consequences on Freedman for leaking information to the press before a filing is made or leaking info in other “untraceable” ways.

The view that the records don’t exist so there has been no emotional damage doesn’t account for the fact that Lively could also hire an expert now to testify to her emotional damage, and a good expert would have a field day here.

What? Stop playing lawyer, the person who would testify about emotional damages would be Blake.

[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:

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.

The lawyering would be fine for a private person with a lawsuit the public doesn’t care about. Blake needs lawyers that get PR and hers simply don’t. This was bad advice from a PR standpoint. Freedman is wiping the floor with them on that front. It’s not even a fair fight at this point.

Yes, clearly a good PR lawyer would expect Freedman to email them at 11:30 pm and 1 am on the weekend, then wholly ignore the issue at the arranged meet and confer while making a pre drafted filing the minute after the call was over. This dude is kind of a nutcase.

But in any case, it really doesn’t matter. She is dropping these two claims and that was going to be public info anyway. I can understand the strategy and f it even if you can’t and think it’s smart. At some point we will likely be talking about Baldoni’s mental health providers if this goes to trial, let’s talk more strategy then.

[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.

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.

This is what I think. There was no emotional distress and they know they don’t have the evidence to back up their claims that there was.

In my opinion, this is strategic and possibly a risk. I don’t think they want to give these records to Freedman. I also suspect they don’t want to offer a tool that could be used to make Lively look mentally unstable. Look what Baldoni supporters say already. Look at how Amber Heard was portrayed.

The judge hasn’t really been willing to impose consequences on Freedman for leaking information to the press before a filing is made or leaking info in other “untraceable” ways.

The view that the records don’t exist so there has been no emotional damage doesn’t account for the fact that Lively could also hire an expert now to testify to her emotional damage, and a good expert would have a field day here.

What? Stop playing lawyer, the person who would testify about emotional damages would be Blake.

lol, no. Experts testify about emotional distress all the time. Sure, the plaintiff/defendants do as well, but expert reports and testimony are used to explain this stuff all the time. See below. What kind of law do you do?

Article about negative perception of mental health treatment after experts testified on Heard and Depp's mental health issues in VA trial: https://www.eurekalert.org/news-releases/1043139
Article about how Depp/Heard's experts diagnosed each other with multiple mental health and personality disorders: https://www.psypost.org/watching-expert-testimonies-in-amber-heard-vs-johnny-depp-trial-leads-to-heightened-mental-health-stigma/

I'm sure Freedman was itching to do the same here and is pretty angry that he was foiled and that his MTC was rebuffed by the court. He really wanted that evidence compelled, even though he knew full well they were dropping the claims.

Here's what google's AI said when I ran the search looking for expert testimony on distress in that case: "In the Amber Heard vs. Johnny Depp defamation trial, expert testimonies on emotional distress were a significant part of both sides' arguments. Forensic psychologist Shannon Curry, hired by Depp's legal team, diagnosed Heard with Borderline Personality Disorder (BPD) and Histrionic Personality Disorder (HPD). These diagnoses were used to argue that Heard's personality traits influenced her behavior and contributed to the relationship's dynamics. Conversely, Heard's team presented expert testimony highlighting Heard's experiences of emotional abuse and the potential for PTSD, arguing that her emotional state was a result of the alleged abuse.

Details of Expert Testimony:
Shannon Curry: Dr. Curry, a forensic psychologist, spent 12 hours evaluating Heard and concluded she exhibited symptoms of BPD and HPD. She testified that these disorders could explain Heard's erratic and unpredictable behavior, and her dramatic presentations.
Dawn Hughes: Heard's team presented Dr. Hughes, who testified that Heard's symptoms were consistent with PTSD resulting from intimate partner violence. Hughes argued that Heard displayed clear psychological and traumatic effects from the alleged abuse.
Impact on the Jury: Dr. Curry's testimony was used to paint Heard's actions as stemming from her diagnosed personality disorders. Dr. Hughes' testimony, on the other hand, sought to frame Heard's actions as a direct result of the abuse she experienced."