Forum Index
»
Entertainment and Pop Culture
Blake Lively- Jason Baldoni and NYT - False Light claims
![[Post New]](/jforum/templates/default/images/icon_minipost_new.gif){kind=icon}
Anonymous
Here: https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.nysd.634304/gov.uscourts.nysd.634304.295.1.pdf All the other attachments under seal. |
Anonymous
Thank you. After reading these I think the motion to compel was premature. In the last two emails, WD repeatedly suggest ways to limit the definitions and say they are open to further options/discussions to narrow. And agree with the suggestion above, they are agreeing to the sharing of password credentials as a criteria because they didn’t do that. |
Anonymous
| I feel bad for the judge. |
Anonymous
Just noting that these interrogatories were submitted 3 months ago. The window for obtaining relevant documents from others bases on useful responses to them begins to close next month in July when document production is supposed to be substandially complete. Seems like Freedman's team is just DARVO'ing the rogs, honestly. |
Anonymous
Let's do a lineup, shall we? LIST OF 19 INDIVIDUALS AND ORGANIZATIONS INVOLVED IN FILING AMICUS BRIEFS SUPPORTING BLAKE LIVELY: Brief #1: Elyse Dorsey: A former federal employee who previously sued former George Mason School of Law professor Joshua Wright for sexual harassment and who was sued by him for defamation. Dorsey filed an amicus brief describing being sued for defamation by Wright in VA (which does not have strong laws protecting victims as CA) after speaking out and emphasizing the importance of California's new law. PURPOSE OF AMICUS BRIEF (per language of brief): "Ms. Dorsey provides a unique perspective on retaliatory lawsuits as a victim of one herself, and she also speaks to how Virginia’s anti-SLAPP statute failed to protect her from such retaliation. As part of her advocacy, Ms. Dorsey can also speak to how state legislatures can protect a survivor’s right to come forward and tell her story without facing the chilling effects of retaliatory litigation from their harasser. Ms. Dorsey’s proposed brief thus offers valuable additional perspective, beyond that submitted by the parties, on the importance of protecting survivors from abuses of the legal process for retaliation. Further, Ms. Dorsey’s proposed brief describes how this case is not unique, but a common retaliation tactic used by harassers to chill speech and silence their victims. Therefore, Ms. Dorsey’s proposed brief provides a unique perspective from a survivor who was not afforded the same protection against retaliatory lawsuits that Ms. Lively seeks to invoke in this lawsuit, thereby supplying “unique information” which may further assist the Court." Brief #2: Equal Rights Advocates: A San Francisco-based legal nonprofit focused on gender equity and workplace protections. They have supported Lively's invocation of California's new law (Assembly Bill 933), designed to protect individuals who speak out about sexual harassment and misconduct from retaliatory defamation suits. California Employment Lawyers Association: An organization that advocates for workers' rights in California, including protections against workplace harassment and discrimination. California Women's Law Center: An organization dedicated to advancing the rights of women and girls in California through various legal and advocacy efforts. PURPOSE OF THE AMICUS BRIEF (per language of brief): "Consistent with their work to champion the passage of AB 933 and the rights of California workers, including victims of sexual harassment and assault, Amici are invested in the interpretation and enforcement of California Civil Code § 47.1 in this case. Amici share a special interest in ensuring that courts apply the intended legal approach to this new statute, to ensure that all Californians—particularly low- and middle-income individuals who cannot afford legal defense for speaking out about harassment and abuse—enjoy the full and robust protection that state lawmakers intended." Brief #3: Child USA: A nonprofit organization focused on preventing child abuse. PURPOSE OF THE AMICUS BRIEF (per language of brief): "CHILD USA offers this brief to demonstrate that California Civil Code §47.1 is both constitutionally sound and essential to protect the rights of survivors of sexual violence, safeguard public discourse, and ensure equitable access to justice. CHILD USA’s proposed brief offers a distinct perspective beyond that of the parties, highlighting the broader implications this case holds for shaping the legal landscape for survivors nationwide. It also addresses how the outcome may advance—or undermine—compelling state interests in deterring abuse, preventing future harm, and protecting public safety." Brief #4: Sanctuary for Families: An organization dedicated to assisting survivors of domestic violence and related forms of gender violence. National Organization for Women (NOW): A prominent women's rights organization that has consistently advocated for policies and practices that promote equality and combat discrimination. National Organization for Women - NYC Chapter: NYC chapter of above national NOW organization. Women's Justice NOW: An organization that champions women's rights and equality. New York Cyber Abuse Task Force: A volunteer coalition of advocates, attorneys, and survivors, fighting for better safety outcomes for victims of tech abuse at the intersection of intimate partner and gender-based violence. Herunivercity Inc.: A survivor-led group focused on empowering young women through holistic development and which is especially concerned about the negative impact of retaliatory DARVO tactic used to disempower and silence young survivors of sexual violence. Women’s Equal Justice: Provides direct advocacy services to sexual assault survivors as they navigate the criminal justice process, partnering with survivors to reform the justice system’s response to sexual assault. New York City Alliance Against Sexual Assault (The Alliance): An organization working to prevent sexual violence and reduce the harm it causes through education, prevention programming, advocacy for survivors, and the pursuit of legal and policy changes. The Alliance was founded in 1999 by rape crisis centers in New York City in order to advocate for the needs of survivors and the organizations that serve them. Coalition Against Trafficking in Women: An international non-governmental organization working to eliminate sex trafficking and all forms of sexual exploitation. National Network to End Domestic Violence: Organization for survivors of domestic violence focused on working to create a social, political, and economic environment to end violence against women. Esperanza United: A group mobilizing Latinas and Latin@ communities to end genderbased violence. New York State Anti-Trafficking Coalition: A group of New York State individuals and organizations joining forces to increase public awareness of human trafficking in New York communities, enact anti-trafficking laws, improve law enforcement response and increase social services to help victims escape trafficking and rebuild their lives. Her Justice: Organization dedicated to helping women living in poverty in New York City, many of whom are survivors of gender-based violence, by offering them legal services designed to foster equal access to justice. Urban Resource Institute: Group focused on transforming the lives of domestic violence survivors and homeless families, with a focus on communities of color and other vulnerable populations. Currently the largest provider of domestic violence shelter services in the United States. PURPOSE OF THE AMICUS BRIEF (per language of brief): "Amici wish to advise this Court of the manner in which highly-publicized defamation lawsuits brought in response to a plaintiff’s allegations of sexual harassment or other sexual violence creates a chilling effect on other victims of sexual violence seeking to protect themselves, report abusers, and raise awareness with the public. Amici also wish to provide helpful background to the Court on how Section 47.1 of the California Civil Code was meant to protect victims speaking out about sexual violence from retaliatory defamation claims," particularly (as described in detail in the brief) those using DARVO tactics. LIST OF ONE INDIVIDUAL OR ORGANIZATION INVOLVED IN FILING AMICUS BRIEF SUPPORTING JUSTIN BALDONI etc: [Name Withheld for now, though she published this in her Youtube content]: Former Lecturer of English at Texas Christian University and current podcaster who has "taken graduate courses in relevant fields." PURPOSE OF THE AMICUS BRIEF (per language of brief): Proponent submits the brief to inform the Court that "Amicus hosts a podcast and has a strong social media presence by which she has been able to speak with and [sic] many ordinary women, gauging their reactions to the various MeToo cases over the years." Amicus explains that "[n]ever in her many years of monitoring public sentiment has amicus seen such outrage from so many everyday women at what they perceive as a miscarriage of justice; that is to say that women from all backgrounds and walks of life do not believe Blake Lively's allegations against Justin Baldoni and Wayfarer and moreover believe that her defamatory actions hurt real victims of abuse, similarly to what the vast majority of women felt about how Amber Heard defamed Johnny Depp and hurt real assault victims and so many other women." Among the points raised in this brief are: "[I]s it not reasonable to assume that the type of man accused of harassment who is most likely to file a defamation claims would be one who is in fact innocent and for that reason he is willing to take drastic steps to remedy the injustice? There is some research and anecdotal information to back up this hypothesis. (See cited studies in notes.)" |
Anonymous
My guess is he tells them to continue to try to work it out with a few lines of guidance. |
Anonymous
Honestly, I think Lively’s team is being unreasonable. Too many terms are extremely broad and they aren’t showing any real willingness to narrow them. This was the problem with their subpoenas to third parties that got quashed. The deadlines will be extended. We’ll be lucky if Liman rules on the MTD by the end of the year. |
Anonymous
| I wonder whether the judge is going to shuffle some of these discovery disputes off to a magistrate. I don't know whether Liman usually does that. But the disputes are piling up at a faster rate than Liman is sending out orders. |
Anonymous
That would make sense, he seems to busy to deal with Gottkieb’s workflow. |
Anonymous
FTFY. |
Anonymous
|
Let's compare:
Lively parties negotiate in good faith for 3 months over ROG responses with Baldoni parties, still don't get reasonable responses and get more and more delays, and finally submit their MTC to the judge, whereupon Baldoni supporters say further negotiation was needed. Baldoni parties held a meet and confer with Lively parties on Wednesday, May 28 to discuss Lively's failure to provide the name of medical providers; two days later on Friday, Lively parties told Baldoni Lively was dropping her emotional distress claims and thereupon ensued the drama between dismissing with and without prejudice. Freedman emailed Gottlieb at 11:30 pm Saturday and 1am Sunday to resolve, and Gottlieb emailed back at 9:30 pm Sunday to say without prejudice and if you have problems let's resolve during our 4:30pm Monday meet and confer. During which Freedman didn't raise the issue at all, and immediately after which he filed his own Motion to Compel, which Baldoni supporters thought was pretty reasonable. (Freedman's motion was denied.) Seems like folks are applying a double standard here, but ymmv. |
Anonymous
All of these requests went out around the same time, which means Lively’s team had been dragging their feet on the medical records for three months before it all finally came to a head. Blake’s lawyers just write in a much more whiney woe is me kind of way because they’ve taken on the personality of their client but they haven’t turned over much either. BF said as much in replying to a past MTC. |
Anonymous
Nah, Freedman was the only one turning ROG responses in late, if you will recall (as per prior letter motions filed complaining about it). Remember when Freedman asked for an extension on their ROG and RFP responses so they would be due in mid-May instead of April 14th, and the judge said no way, you haven't shown good cause? (See 4/10/25 order.) And then remember when, in late April, the Lively parties filed multiple MTC's because Freedman's team responded to the ROGs with absolute non-answers, like "In light of the foregoing objections, Responding Party will not respond to this Interrogatory at this time" but were willing to meet and confer, lol? Benson filed those Responses (late) on 4/18 and within 2 weeks after further unsuccessful meet and confer, Gottlieb filed their MTC on them by the end of the month. There is no evidence in the record that Lively's ROG or RFP responses have been late or so deliriously non-responsive. And if Lively's team answered the RFP for medical records documents with a flat no as Summer's letter indicates, why on earth did it take Freedman's team more than an entire month longer to complain about it, in late May instead of late April like Gottlieb managed? Seems like that's mismanagement on Freedman. I can see how Freedman's delay tactics of "we'll give you a little bit more but no where near what you're entitled to" might tend to make negotiations seem possible and therefore could lead lawyers to keep negotiating until, like here, Gottlieb's team just gives up. But if Gottlieb gave a flat no to the medical records as indicated, then Freedman's team sat on that info for a month before forcing a quick weekend turnaround and ignored the subject altogether on the M&C call, seems like Freedman is operating in bad faith and for the media as per usual. |
Anonymous
Lively hasn’t been negotiating in good faith. They started with overbroad definitions and have refused to meaningfully narrow them. |
Anonymous
That’s not true. Freedman explicitly called out in a prior motion that, despite their complaining about WF, lively hadn’t given them anything. |