Blake Lively- Jason Baldoni and NYT - False Light claims

[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.

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."

There won’t be testimony on emotional distress, she is dropping those claims. Emotional damages are different and will require primary testimony from Blake. Please stop cosplaying lawyer.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Justin Baldoni slogans for 2025:

Justin Baldoni: Man Enough to Silence Women's Rights Organizations
Justin Baldoni: If You Force Them, They Will Simulate C*mming for You On Screen (to satisfy your own weird sex hangups)
Justin Baldoni: MFA to MRA in Just Two Years?
Justin Baldoni: Candace Owens Is Right About A Lot of Stuff!
Justin Baldoni: Harassers and Retaliators Can Be Defamed, Too!
Justin Baldoni: Women Should Know Their Place When Male Feminists Speak

Justin Baldoni: I Will Just Hide in Hawaii While You Try to Defend Me!
Justin Baldoni: Is It Bad that My Wife Told Me to Reread My Book About Supporting Women?
Justin Baldoni: I Will Only Smear You If I Really, Really, Really Need to!
Justin Baldoni: Your Dead Father Talks to Me, So Why Won't You?
Justin Baldoni: My ADHD Made Me Say Those Harassing Things to You!
Justin Baldoni: NORMAL WOMEN, Let Me Mansplain You to Yourselves!
Justin Baldoni: My Proposal Video to You Was All About Myself, STARRING ME!!!

Justin Baldoni: Discarding My Male Feminism Even Faster than a Hospital Gown in My Wife's Delivery Room!
Justin Baldoni: I'm Not Even Attracted to You!
Justin Baldoni: Not ANOTHER Women's Org Saying My Defamation Suit is BS!?
Justin Baldoni: Dying People Sue Me For Stealing Their Ideas!
Justin Baldoni: And After They Die I Steal Their Lawyers!
Justin Baldoni: It's Not SH If My Wife's Here!
Justin Baldoni: Is Using Your Mental Health Records To Attack You Consistent With Male Feminism? I Say YES!!!

[Anonymous]

Given the frequency with which some Baldoni supporter(s) bring up “cosplay,” and using the same logic made in their arguments re same, I can only surmise that their interest reflects that one or more Baldoni supporters are furries or similar.

[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.

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."

There won’t be testimony on emotional distress, she is dropping those claims. Emotional damages are different and will require primary testimony from Blake. Please stop cosplaying lawyer.

You’re creating strawmen again. I responded to someone saying clearly Lively had no medical records showing her distress/damages by saying, in part, that wouldn’t matter anyway and is not a real reason to drop the claims, since they could just hire an expert to explain Lively’s emotional distress to the jury. Then you/someone said nuh-uh, real lawyers know parties don’t hire experts for that! Now I have shown that yes people do hire experts for that, and you are saying that doesn’t matter since those emotional distress claims are out. Your nonsense argument has come full circle ⭕️ congrats.

[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:

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.

I’m sure Wayfarer didn’t think the NYT would email them late a night on a holiday weekend and publish a hit piece early the next morning. I’m sure Wayfarer didn’t think Blake’s lawyers would file a sham lawsuit and issue a sham subpoena to obtain their private text messages. I’m sure JB didn’t think Blake would try to serve him in the middle of a historic wildfire. I’m sure Jed Wallace didn’t think Blake’s lawyers would leak his private health information. There’s a lot of nuts in this case if your bar is BF emailing Blake's lawyers on the weekend.

[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.

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."

There won’t be testimony on emotional distress, she is dropping those claims. Emotional damages are different and will require primary testimony from Blake. Please stop cosplaying lawyer.

You’re creating strawmen again. I responded to someone saying clearly Lively had no medical records showing her distress/damages by saying, in part, that wouldn’t matter anyway and is not a real reason to drop the claims, since they could just hire an expert to explain Lively’s emotional distress to the jury. Then you/someone said nuh-uh, real lawyers know parties don’t hire experts for that! Now I have shown that yes people do hire experts for that, and you are saying that doesn’t matter since those emotional distress claims are out. Your nonsense argument has come full circle ⭕️ congrats.

Sweetie, you need medical records to prove emotional distress, it’s required. That is why Blake is dropping the claim. Please try to keep up.

[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:

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."

There won’t be testimony on emotional distress, she is dropping those claims. Emotional damages are different and will require primary testimony from Blake. Please stop cosplaying lawyer.

You’re creating strawmen again. I responded to someone saying clearly Lively had no medical records showing her distress/damages by saying, in part, that wouldn’t matter anyway and is not a real reason to drop the claims, since they could just hire an expert to explain Lively’s emotional distress to the jury. Then you/someone said nuh-uh, real lawyers know parties don’t hire experts for that! Now I have shown that yes people do hire experts for that, and you are saying that doesn’t matter since those emotional distress claims are out. Your nonsense argument has come full circle ⭕️ congrats.

Sweetie, you need medical records to prove emotional distress, it’s required. That is why Blake is dropping the claim. Please try to keep up.

And to further qualify, if an expert is testifying about emotional distress, they are relying on said medical records.

[Anonymous]

This thread is so toxic and mean. Reminds me why I left litigation -- the nature of it is to pit people against each other and bring out the absolute worst in people. It makes me sad. I can imagine a different culture paradigm where the differences between these people could be resolved in an actually productive way but we don't live there. It's too bad.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:This thread is so toxic and mean. Reminds me why I left litigation -- the nature of it is to pit people against each other and bring out the absolute worst in people. It makes me sad. I can imagine a different culture paradigm where the differences between these people could be resolved in an actually productive way but we don't live there. It's too bad.

I am a Lively supporter and my initial participation in this thread was devoid of insults and general upset over the stuff Baldoni supporters said about Lively, and then started saying about posters who supported Lively.

So for several hundred pages it was mostly a one-way insult thread. Maybe that was better? It didn’t feel better.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:This thread is so toxic and mean. Reminds me why I left litigation -- the nature of it is to pit people against each other and bring out the absolute worst in people. It makes me sad. I can imagine a different culture paradigm where the differences between these people could be resolved in an actually productive way but we don't live there. It's too bad.

You mean, like a world where people don’t make up legal claims to get up an upper hand over others? Agree, that would be nice.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This thread is so toxic and mean. Reminds me why I left litigation -- the nature of it is to pit people against each other and bring out the absolute worst in people. It makes me sad. I can imagine a different culture paradigm where the differences between these people could be resolved in an actually productive way but we don't live there. It's too bad.

I am a Lively supporter and my initial participation in this thread was devoid of insults and general upset over the stuff Baldoni supporters said about Lively, and then started saying about posters who supported Lively.

So for several hundred pages it was mostly a one-way insult thread. Maybe that was better? It didn’t feel better.

I don’t know what you are talking about. There are posts on this very page about Baldoni that are offensive. Blake supporters have been throwing around terms like misogyny here since day one.

[Anonymous]

What’s the realistic over/under cash settlement offer? $40 million + NDA and non-disparagement clause? Congrats to Ryan for working on his last super hero movie for free. lol

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Ryan is a catty psychopath. He will absolutely divorce her over this. Even though he’s obviously complicit in the scheme, he will fault the bimbo beard for it all and all of the career and Hollywood stature fallout. He won’t be able to stand her. I would honestly bet they’re already at that point privately.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This thread is so toxic and mean. Reminds me why I left litigation -- the nature of it is to pit people against each other and bring out the absolute worst in people. It makes me sad. I can imagine a different culture paradigm where the differences between these people could be resolved in an actually productive way but we don't live there. It's too bad.

I am a Lively supporter and my initial participation in this thread was devoid of insults and general upset over the stuff Baldoni supporters said about Lively, and then started saying about posters who supported Lively.

So for several hundred pages it was mostly a one-way insult thread. Maybe that was better? It didn’t feel better.

The good old days, when the Lively supporters were constantly trying to get the thread shut down.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:What’s the realistic over/under cash settlement offer? $40 million + NDA and non-disparagement clause? Congrats to Ryan for working on his last super hero movie for free. lol

I think much higher, given The NY Times article was almost career ending.