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:

Anonymous wrote: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.

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.

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.

That’s not true. Freedman explicitly called out in a prior motion that, despite their complaining about WF, lively hadn’t given them anything.

But that was before the parties agreed on the ESI protocol. At the time, Lively's side was trying to get Freedman to agree to the protocol because they wanted all parties to begin producing documents and were also trying to get Freedman to agree to a proposed date of all parties first production, which he also would not due. While Lively had not begun producing docs before the ESI protocol was agreed to, and while I don't know for sure because I can't see the correspondence, the record strongly suggests to me that the Lively parties began producing around the date of the first production date they had teed up and tried to get Freedman to agree to (was it end of April? Early May? I can't remember). That's because they are building a record to complain about later given Freedman's lack of production, and will be comparing their own production against Baldoni's etc.

As you said, you don’t know. The fact is that from the beginning the lively parties have been more aggressive in filing motions, including frivolous ones like their motions for sanctions against everyone except Baldoni for daring to sue them. That doesn’t mean they’ve been more cooperative.

I'm just telling you what I'm seeing from the clues in the party email communications as someone who deals with discovery disputes all the time. Lively wouldn't have been trying to get Freedman to agree to a production date if they weren't going to be ready to produce themselves; they would have let Freedman draw it out. Gottlieb etc. have been acting like they're carefully building a record that they can reference when they complain about it later. That's my prediction here -- that at some point in early July or so we'll see another MTC complaining that Freedman hasn't provided the requisite documents responsive to the requests as required by the CMO.

I'm not sure Freedman's team of a few lawyers is really keeping up with Lively's on getting the ROG/RFP responses in on time, having them actually be responsive, reviewing Lively's responses to same, and actually providing the agreed upon materials. Lively's team probably has dozens of associates and partners working on this between all the firms, but Freedman seems to just have four or five; I'm sure Freedman has far fewer lawyers (and they only have the Freedman firm and Meister Seelig) and yet they have just as much if not more to do. I suspect they're not keeping up.

To me the purpose of the sanctions motions are to emphasize the paucity of evidence on the claims at issue, emphasize Freedman hasn't amended the complaint as promised, and so build the record that dismissal of the claims at issue in those motions should be granted with prejudice. We'll see if it pans out or not, but it does give the judge a full record to work with.

Oh fascinating. /s

Is this litigator mom? Or Yale Law mom? Or just little old Arlington mom? Or maybe you’re fact checker to multiple publications mom?

When is your contract up?

Last time y’all tried to figure out who was who over here we lured out your “they’re tracking our IP addresses!” lady. I’d worry about what other oddballs you’ve got over there, personally.

Recap of this week:

1. Lively drops her emotional distress claims. Lively can’t claim those monetary damages, but also Freedman doesn’t get to use her doctors to say she has various mental health issues as happened with Amber Heard. Freedman’s motion to compel these records is denied.

2. Two additional amicus briefs supporting Lively are filed including one on the constitutionality of 47.1 and another on DARVO tactics used by abusers (consistent with filing harassing defamation claims).

3. Vituscka files declaration clarifying Sloane didn’t say Baldoni sexually assaulted or harassed Lively, potentially killing Baldoni’s defamation claims against her. Also agrees to fork over 6 months of communications with Freedman. It’s like a Reverse Swift, without the struck pleadings!

4. Jed Wallace asks again if he can please just take his ball and go home. 🙏 Decision pending.

5. Liman says Jones gets to keep her tech investigation team’s communications privileged and his footnote makes clear that he has seen Freedman’s argument that the subpoena creates a crime fraud exemption and rejects it here.

6. Baldoni finally gets an amicus! Oh wait -

That was sarcastic. We know who’s over here.

And you were the one who set up the ‘Baldoni fans are nuts and think we’re tracking them!’ by pretending to be a pro JB poster who was crazy. Sometimes you like to be neutral too ‘I’ve never been a fan of BL but…’ sometimes you like to be a pro JB over the top misogynist, so your partner can then chime in’ ‘how can you support someone who has supporters like this??!’

By now, the regulars on here all can you tell the Lively posters style, so just stop.

Some paranoid delusional person on here though their location was being tracked by Blake Lively supporters on an anonymous message board, and you're like "hold my beer" -- what if that the whole thing is a conspiracy against JB supporters and a Lively supporter is impersonating a paranoid delusional JB supporter to make all JB supporters look bad?

It's turtles all the way down, folks.

I enjoy the wit of this comment, and also most of all how it ultimately shows PP to be the new paranoid delusional person, just really proving the "turtles all the way down" is baked in. And then when new paranoid delusional PP posted the turtles all the way down question in DCUM Off-Topic to show that nobody else possibly could have known what "turtles all the way down" meant -- it's just a beautiful moment in this thread. I am bookmarking.

Seriously, for entertainment value, this thread just keeps on giving. Thank you, DCUM.

Isn’t the theory that whenever a true Baldoni supporter does something showing their craziness, other Baldoni supporters should turn on them and say they were a Lively supporter all along? So by this theory: Some paranoid delusional person on here though their location was being tracked by Blake Lively supporters on an anonymous message board, and PP was like "hold my beer" -- what if that the whole thing is a conspiracy against JB supporters and a Lively supporter is impersonating a paranoid delusional JB supporter to make all JB supporters look bad? And NOW some other JB supporter should say that paranoid delusional “hold my beer” guy was actually a Lively supporter all along just trying to make JB supporters look bad, until another JB supporter comes in to say THAT is crazy ….

So turtles all the way down continues.

Also noting that this is kind of great for Lively supporters. All Lively needs to do is NOT SETTLE and eventually we kind of pull everyone in by one means or another, whether we want them or not, ha.

Not sure I follow. I think a trial would be devastating for her

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:What do you make of Justin’s position that these laws to protect victims should be declared unconstitutional? It certainly seems to add to the theory that her team never thought it would go this far.

Clearly they understood that for a claim like this you were ultimately going to have to make arguments that were going to absolutely flatten his male feminist schtick. So if they never wanted to make those arguments, is the thinking that Lively would settle well behind this point?

No. I don’t think he’s a male feminist. His focus has been on men. What kind of man he wants to be. What kind of son he wants to raise. Oversimplifying his brand to male feminist is something Blake’s team keeps saying to make him look like a hypocrite. He’s a male feminist so of course he should let Blake lie on him, ruin his reputation and not fight back. Fighting back would be misogynistic.

This is actually getting embarrassing for women. We don’t need crazy laws to protect us and we also need to be accountable for our own behavior. This is going to backfire and there’s going to be a backlash against women’s rights as a result.

BF just got half a case dismissed against Vin Diesel from a woman suing him for an incident she claims happened 15 years ago. I think normally the statute of limitations would’ve run but states keep making laws granting exceptions to the statute of limitations. The problem is how can you prove a case from 15 years ago. In most cases the evidence is gone and witness memories are unreliable, which is why the statute of limitations exists. It’s leading to a lot more grift where women are suing to put public pressure on these celebrities for settlements and in some cases it’s completely fabricated.

[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: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.

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.

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.

That’s not true. Freedman explicitly called out in a prior motion that, despite their complaining about WF, lively hadn’t given them anything.

But that was before the parties agreed on the ESI protocol. At the time, Lively's side was trying to get Freedman to agree to the protocol because they wanted all parties to begin producing documents and were also trying to get Freedman to agree to a proposed date of all parties first production, which he also would not due. While Lively had not begun producing docs before the ESI protocol was agreed to, and while I don't know for sure because I can't see the correspondence, the record strongly suggests to me that the Lively parties began producing around the date of the first production date they had teed up and tried to get Freedman to agree to (was it end of April? Early May? I can't remember). That's because they are building a record to complain about later given Freedman's lack of production, and will be comparing their own production against Baldoni's etc.

As you said, you don’t know. The fact is that from the beginning the lively parties have been more aggressive in filing motions, including frivolous ones like their motions for sanctions against everyone except Baldoni for daring to sue them. That doesn’t mean they’ve been more cooperative.

I'm just telling you what I'm seeing from the clues in the party email communications as someone who deals with discovery disputes all the time. Lively wouldn't have been trying to get Freedman to agree to a production date if they weren't going to be ready to produce themselves; they would have let Freedman draw it out. Gottlieb etc. have been acting like they're carefully building a record that they can reference when they complain about it later. That's my prediction here -- that at some point in early July or so we'll see another MTC complaining that Freedman hasn't provided the requisite documents responsive to the requests as required by the CMO.

I'm not sure Freedman's team of a few lawyers is really keeping up with Lively's on getting the ROG/RFP responses in on time, having them actually be responsive, reviewing Lively's responses to same, and actually providing the agreed upon materials. Lively's team probably has dozens of associates and partners working on this between all the firms, but Freedman seems to just have four or five; I'm sure Freedman has far fewer lawyers (and they only have the Freedman firm and Meister Seelig) and yet they have just as much if not more to do. I suspect they're not keeping up.

To me the purpose of the sanctions motions are to emphasize the paucity of evidence on the claims at issue, emphasize Freedman hasn't amended the complaint as promised, and so build the record that dismissal of the claims at issue in those motions should be granted with prejudice. We'll see if it pans out or not, but it does give the judge a full record to work with.

Oh fascinating. /s

Is this litigator mom? Or Yale Law mom? Or just little old Arlington mom? Or maybe you’re fact checker to multiple publications mom?

When is your contract up?

Last time y’all tried to figure out who was who over here we lured out your “they’re tracking our IP addresses!” lady. I’d worry about what other oddballs you’ve got over there, personally.

Recap of this week:

1. Lively drops her emotional distress claims. Lively can’t claim those monetary damages, but also Freedman doesn’t get to use her doctors to say she has various mental health issues as happened with Amber Heard. Freedman’s motion to compel these records is denied.

2. Two additional amicus briefs supporting Lively are filed including one on the constitutionality of 47.1 and another on DARVO tactics used by abusers (consistent with filing harassing defamation claims).

3. Vituscka files declaration clarifying Sloane didn’t say Baldoni sexually assaulted or harassed Lively, potentially killing Baldoni’s defamation claims against her. Also agrees to fork over 6 months of communications with Freedman. It’s like a Reverse Swift, without the struck pleadings!

4. Jed Wallace asks again if he can please just take his ball and go home. 🙏 Decision pending.

5. Liman says Jones gets to keep her tech investigation team’s communications privileged and his footnote makes clear that he has seen Freedman’s argument that the subpoena creates a crime fraud exemption and rejects it here.

6. Baldoni finally gets an amicus! Oh wait -

That was sarcastic. We know who’s over here.

And you were the one who set up the ‘Baldoni fans are nuts and think we’re tracking them!’ by pretending to be a pro JB poster who was crazy. Sometimes you like to be neutral too ‘I’ve never been a fan of BL but…’ sometimes you like to be a pro JB over the top misogynist, so your partner can then chime in’ ‘how can you support someone who has supporters like this??!’

By now, the regulars on here all can you tell the Lively posters style, so just stop.

Some paranoid delusional person on here though their location was being tracked by Blake Lively supporters on an anonymous message board, and you're like "hold my beer" -- what if that the whole thing is a conspiracy against JB supporters and a Lively supporter is impersonating a paranoid delusional JB supporter to make all JB supporters look bad?

It's turtles all the way down, folks.

Not really. It’s clear there are pro BL shills on here who take on different personas from wash mom to dc mom to whatever point they’re trying to prove at that moment. Someone challenging their legal theories, they’re suddenly a lawyer or a litigator or even a Yale grad. Someone challenging their take on the NYT... they’re suddenly a news journalist or seasoned fact checker. Someone challenges the cred of the amicus SH victim lawyer … and they’re suddenly a seasoned dv advocate.

Yet interestingly, the writing and posting cadence and style is often very similar.

So yes, it’s entirely possible they occasionally pose as pro JB posters, especially ones they can make look bad. It tracks.

This! It’s so transparent!

DP and I also agree. This post was apparently so triggering that it generated two pages worth of weird denials.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What do you make of Justin’s position that these laws to protect victims should be declared unconstitutional? It certainly seems to add to the theory that her team never thought it would go this far.

Clearly they understood that for a claim like this you were ultimately going to have to make arguments that were going to absolutely flatten his male feminist schtick. So if they never wanted to make those arguments, is the thinking that Lively would settle well behind this point?

No. I don’t think he’s a male feminist. His focus has been on men. What kind of man he wants to be. What kind of son he wants to raise. Oversimplifying his brand to male feminist is something Blake’s team keeps saying to make him look like a hypocrite. He’s a male feminist so of course he should let Blake lie on him, ruin his reputation and not fight back. Fighting back would be misogynistic.

This is actually getting embarrassing for women. We don’t need crazy laws to protect us and we also need to be accountable for our own behavior. This is going to backfire and there’s going to be a backlash against women’s rights as a result.

BF just got half a case dismissed against Vin Diesel from a woman suing him for an incident she claims happened 15 years ago. I think normally the statute of limitations would’ve run but states keep making laws granting exceptions to the statute of limitations. The problem is how can you prove a case from 15 years ago. In most cases the evidence is gone and witness memories are unreliable, which is why the statute of limitations exists. It’s leading to a lot more grift where women are suing to put public pressure on these celebrities for settlements and in some cases it’s completely fabricated.

DP. This. I posted a few days ago about having worked around DV issues and orgs like Sanctuary for Families, and it’s well known that overboard and vague laws to try to help victims can often back fire. That’s why I was surprised they filed an amicus here as this is not a great case for women/ victims.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What do you make of Justin’s position that these laws to protect victims should be declared unconstitutional? It certainly seems to add to the theory that her team never thought it would go this far.

Clearly they understood that for a claim like this you were ultimately going to have to make arguments that were going to absolutely flatten his male feminist schtick. So if they never wanted to make those arguments, is the thinking that Lively would settle well behind this point?

No. I don’t think he’s a male feminist. His focus has been on men. What kind of man he wants to be. What kind of son he wants to raise. Oversimplifying his brand to male feminist is something Blake’s team keeps saying to make him look like a hypocrite. He’s a male feminist so of course he should let Blake lie on him, ruin his reputation and not fight back. Fighting back would be misogynistic.

This is actually getting embarrassing for women. We don’t need crazy laws to protect us and we also need to be accountable for our own behavior. This is going to backfire and there’s going to be a backlash against women’s rights as a result.

BF just got half a case dismissed against Vin Diesel from a woman suing him for an incident she claims happened 15 years ago. I think normally the statute of limitations would’ve run but states keep making laws granting exceptions to the statute of limitations. The problem is how can you prove a case from 15 years ago. In most cases the evidence is gone and witness memories are unreliable, which is why the statute of limitations exists. It’s leading to a lot more grift where women are suing to put public pressure on these celebrities for settlements and in some cases it’s completely fabricated.

Can I be a pessimist for a moment? Who do you think is extremely supportive of these laws that extend the SOL for civil SA cases?? Plaintiffs lawyers. These cases are big money for them.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What do you make of Justin’s position that these laws to protect victims should be declared unconstitutional? It certainly seems to add to the theory that her team never thought it would go this far.

Clearly they understood that for a claim like this you were ultimately going to have to make arguments that were going to absolutely flatten his male feminist schtick. So if they never wanted to make those arguments, is the thinking that Lively would settle well behind this point?

No. I don’t think he’s a male feminist. His focus has been on men. What kind of man he wants to be. What kind of son he wants to raise. Oversimplifying his brand to male feminist is something Blake’s team keeps saying to make him look like a hypocrite. He’s a male feminist so of course he should let Blake lie on him, ruin his reputation and not fight back. Fighting back would be misogynistic.

This is actually getting embarrassing for women. We don’t need crazy laws to protect us and we also need to be accountable for our own behavior. This is going to backfire and there’s going to be a backlash against women’s rights as a result.

BF just got half a case dismissed against Vin Diesel from a woman suing him for an incident she claims happened 15 years ago. I think normally the statute of limitations would’ve run but states keep making laws granting exceptions to the statute of limitations. The problem is how can you prove a case from 15 years ago. In most cases the evidence is gone and witness memories are unreliable, which is why the statute of limitations exists. It’s leading to a lot more grift where women are suing to put public pressure on these celebrities for settlements and in some cases it’s completely fabricated.

DP. This. I posted a few days ago about having worked around DV issues and orgs like Sanctuary for Families, and it’s well known that overboard and vague laws to try to help victims can often back fire. That’s why I was surprised they filed an amicus here as this is not a great case for women/ victims.

I am a Baldoni supporter and did a fair amount of pro bono work on domestic violence issues. Very common for men to come in seeking a protective order in retaliation for a woman starting the process against them. I think in nearly all of these cases, the allegations made by the men were false. Further, I had a case where the father made up abuse against the children charges against the wife when she was thinking of leaving him. It took two layers of appeals to overturn. 47.1 would seemingly apply to defamation claims brought by women in such circumstances.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What do you make of Justin’s position that these laws to protect victims should be declared unconstitutional? It certainly seems to add to the theory that her team never thought it would go this far.

Clearly they understood that for a claim like this you were ultimately going to have to make arguments that were going to absolutely flatten his male feminist schtick. So if they never wanted to make those arguments, is the thinking that Lively would settle well behind this point?

No. I don’t think he’s a male feminist. His focus has been on men. What kind of man he wants to be. What kind of son he wants to raise. Oversimplifying his brand to male feminist is something Blake’s team keeps saying to make him look like a hypocrite. He’s a male feminist so of course he should let Blake lie on him, ruin his reputation and not fight back. Fighting back would be misogynistic.

This is actually getting embarrassing for women. We don’t need crazy laws to protect us and we also need to be accountable for our own behavior. This is going to backfire and there’s going to be a backlash against women’s rights as a result.

BF just got half a case dismissed against Vin Diesel from a woman suing him for an incident she claims happened 15 years ago. I think normally the statute of limitations would’ve run but states keep making laws granting exceptions to the statute of limitations. The problem is how can you prove a case from 15 years ago. In most cases the evidence is gone and witness memories are unreliable, which is why the statute of limitations exists. It’s leading to a lot more grift where women are suing to put public pressure on these celebrities for settlements and in some cases it’s completely fabricated.

Can I be a pessimist for a moment? Who do you think is extremely supportive of these laws that extend the SOL for civil SA cases?? Plaintiffs lawyers. These cases are big money for them.

That's true but this case doesn't involve a statute of limitations issue. To the contrary, the law at issue here is a state law that *eliminates* a cause of action for potential plaintiffs (defamation claims against people alleging SA/SH). Presumably plaintiff's lawyers (like Bryan Freedman) dislike a law that limits their ability to take on additional clients and to charge those clients more money via this sort of counterclaim.

So that cynical argument cuts both ways and in the Lively/Baldoni matter, actually harms Baldoni.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What do you make of Blake withdrawing the emotional distress claims? It certainly seems to add to the theory that her team never thought it would go this far.

Clearly they understood that for a claim like this you would have to produce some medical records. So they never wanted to produce medical records, is the thinking that Justin would settle well behind this point?

It looks like they are retaining elements of emotional distress as part of their damages for other claims, but just getting rid of their independent emotional distress claims.

So they would still ultimately have to produce evidence of emotional distress, but doing it this way may allow them to keep Baldoni from using any information of mental health issues in impeaching Blake's testimony. I think this makes tactical sense even if it might produce a bad headline now. It is very easy to see Freedman et. al. going to a "look, she's crazy" narrative at trial (and in the media prior to trial) so why make it easy for them by making Blake's mental state a central part of the case?

The emotional distress claims are tag along claims anyway -- the central issue of Blake's complaint is and has always been whether or not she was SHed and retaliated against. That has not changed. It's clear her lawyers would like to make the focus of the case on the actions of Baldoni, Heath, and Wayfarer, whereas they would like to flip it and make the focus on whether or not Blake is a bad, mean person. So dropping the emotional distress claims makes sense within their theory of the case, and undermines Freedman's theory of the case.

Again, they will have to produce medical records in order to continue to claim damages for emotional distress/pain and suffering, and her lawyers have indicated they intend to keep those damages claims in. But producing that evidence for damages does not carry the same risk of it being used against her during testimony.

This makes sense to me

I agree with this, too. Also, I think when they filed the lawsuit and even to some extent the amended complaint, Gottlieb may have reasonably expected to have a better and more normal relationship with opposing counsel than has been present here. Or they may ultimately think they will be able to get Freedman out of the case eventually due to involvement int the smear.

Anyway, even if Freedman gets out, I think it’s smart to remove these claims in the long run, given how this info has ultimately been used against people at trial.

Personally I think freedman has been fine, but I understand why lively wouldn’t want her personal therapy notes etc as part of this litigation. Not because freedman is doing anything untoward but because I’d bet they’d show at minimum that she was insecure and sensitive after having her baby, and perhaps even issues with RR.

Exactly. And frankly freedman wouldn’t be doing anything wrong if these issues arose and were part of Baldonis defense against her claims. He’s allowed to defend himself and her state of mind, eg why she felt ‘uncomfortable’ is relevant.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What do you make of Justin’s position that these laws to protect victims should be declared unconstitutional? It certainly seems to add to the theory that her team never thought it would go this far.

Clearly they understood that for a claim like this you were ultimately going to have to make arguments that were going to absolutely flatten his male feminist schtick. So if they never wanted to make those arguments, is the thinking that Lively would settle well behind this point?

No. I don’t think he’s a male feminist. His focus has been on men. What kind of man he wants to be. What kind of son he wants to raise. Oversimplifying his brand to male feminist is something Blake’s team keeps saying to make him look like a hypocrite. He’s a male feminist so of course he should let Blake lie on him, ruin his reputation and not fight back. Fighting back would be misogynistic.

This is actually getting embarrassing for women. We don’t need crazy laws to protect us and we also need to be accountable for our own behavior. This is going to backfire and there’s going to be a backlash against women’s rights as a result.

BF just got half a case dismissed against Vin Diesel from a woman suing him for an incident she claims happened 15 years ago. I think normally the statute of limitations would’ve run but states keep making laws granting exceptions to the statute of limitations. The problem is how can you prove a case from 15 years ago. In most cases the evidence is gone and witness memories are unreliable, which is why the statute of limitations exists. It’s leading to a lot more grift where women are suing to put public pressure on these celebrities for settlements and in some cases it’s completely fabricated.

DP. This. I posted a few days ago about having worked around DV issues and orgs like Sanctuary for Families, and it’s well known that overboard and vague laws to try to help victims can often back fire. That’s why I was surprised they filed an amicus here as this is not a great case for women/ victims.

I am a Baldoni supporter and did a fair amount of pro bono work on domestic violence issues. Very common for men to come in seeking a protective order in retaliation for a woman starting the process against them. I think in nearly all of these cases, the allegations made by the men were false. Further, I had a case where the father made up abuse against the children charges against the wife when she was thinking of leaving him. It took two layers of appeals to overturn. 47.1 would seemingly apply to defamation claims brought by women in such circumstances.

I also work in this area. Protective orders are handed out way too easily. That’s the fix. Ensure there is a prompt fact finding on these motions

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What do you make of Justin’s position that these laws to protect victims should be declared unconstitutional? It certainly seems to add to the theory that her team never thought it would go this far.

Clearly they understood that for a claim like this you were ultimately going to have to make arguments that were going to absolutely flatten his male feminist schtick. So if they never wanted to make those arguments, is the thinking that Lively would settle well behind this point?

No. I don’t think he’s a male feminist. His focus has been on men. What kind of man he wants to be. What kind of son he wants to raise. Oversimplifying his brand to male feminist is something Blake’s team keeps saying to make him look like a hypocrite. He’s a male feminist so of course he should let Blake lie on him, ruin his reputation and not fight back. Fighting back would be misogynistic.

This is actually getting embarrassing for women. We don’t need crazy laws to protect us and we also need to be accountable for our own behavior. This is going to backfire and there’s going to be a backlash against women’s rights as a result.

BF just got half a case dismissed against Vin Diesel from a woman suing him for an incident she claims happened 15 years ago. I think normally the statute of limitations would’ve run but states keep making laws granting exceptions to the statute of limitations. The problem is how can you prove a case from 15 years ago. In most cases the evidence is gone and witness memories are unreliable, which is why the statute of limitations exists. It’s leading to a lot more grift where women are suing to put public pressure on these celebrities for settlements and in some cases it’s completely fabricated.

Can I be a pessimist for a moment? Who do you think is extremely supportive of these laws that extend the SOL for civil SA cases?? Plaintiffs lawyers. These cases are big money for them.

That's true but this case doesn't involve a statute of limitations issue. To the contrary, the law at issue here is a state law that *eliminates* a cause of action for potential plaintiffs (defamation claims against people alleging SA/SH). Presumably plaintiff's lawyers (like Bryan Freedman) dislike a law that limits their ability to take on additional clients and to charge those clients more money via this sort of counterclaim.

So that cynical argument cuts both ways and in the Lively/Baldoni matter, actually harms Baldoni.

I know there’s not an SOL issue here, just making a point about how some of these laws to protect women are overreaching and leading to grift (47.1 being aniother). I think there will be a backlash.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What do you make of Justin’s position that these laws to protect victims should be declared unconstitutional? It certainly seems to add to the theory that her team never thought it would go this far.

Clearly they understood that for a claim like this you were ultimately going to have to make arguments that were going to absolutely flatten his male feminist schtick. So if they never wanted to make those arguments, is the thinking that Lively would settle well behind this point?

No. I don’t think he’s a male feminist. His focus has been on men. What kind of man he wants to be. What kind of son he wants to raise. Oversimplifying his brand to male feminist is something Blake’s team keeps saying to make him look like a hypocrite. He’s a male feminist so of course he should let Blake lie on him, ruin his reputation and not fight back. Fighting back would be misogynistic.

This is actually getting embarrassing for women. We don’t need crazy laws to protect us and we also need to be accountable for our own behavior. This is going to backfire and there’s going to be a backlash against women’s rights as a result.

BF just got half a case dismissed against Vin Diesel from a woman suing him for an incident she claims happened 15 years ago. I think normally the statute of limitations would’ve run but states keep making laws granting exceptions to the statute of limitations. The problem is how can you prove a case from 15 years ago. In most cases the evidence is gone and witness memories are unreliable, which is why the statute of limitations exists. It’s leading to a lot more grift where women are suing to put public pressure on these celebrities for settlements and in some cases it’s completely fabricated.

DP. This. I posted a few days ago about having worked around DV issues and orgs like Sanctuary for Families, and it’s well known that overboard and vague laws to try to help victims can often back fire. That’s why I was surprised they filed an amicus here as this is not a great case for women/ victims.

I am a Baldoni supporter and did a fair amount of pro bono work on domestic violence issues. Very common for men to come in seeking a protective order in retaliation for a woman starting the process against them. I think in nearly all of these cases, the allegations made by the men were false. Further, I had a case where the father made up abuse against the children charges against the wife when she was thinking of leaving him. It took two layers of appeals to overturn. 47.1 would seemingly apply to defamation claims brought by women in such circumstances.

I also work in this area. Protective orders are handed out way too easily. That’s the fix. Ensure there is a prompt fact finding on these motions

My second example has zero to do with protective orders. The broader point is that women can also be the victim of fabricated allegations and in fact, fabricated allegations are often tools used by the abuser. 47.1 ignores that, and would make it more difficult for women in such situations to bring defamation suits.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What do you make of Justin’s position that these laws to protect victims should be declared unconstitutional? It certainly seems to add to the theory that her team never thought it would go this far.

Clearly they understood that for a claim like this you were ultimately going to have to make arguments that were going to absolutely flatten his male feminist schtick. So if they never wanted to make those arguments, is the thinking that Lively would settle well behind this point?

No. I don’t think he’s a male feminist. His focus has been on men. What kind of man he wants to be. What kind of son he wants to raise. Oversimplifying his brand to male feminist is something Blake’s team keeps saying to make him look like a hypocrite. He’s a male feminist so of course he should let Blake lie on him, ruin his reputation and not fight back. Fighting back would be misogynistic.

This is actually getting embarrassing for women. We don’t need crazy laws to protect us and we also need to be accountable for our own behavior. This is going to backfire and there’s going to be a backlash against women’s rights as a result.

BF just got half a case dismissed against Vin Diesel from a woman suing him for an incident she claims happened 15 years ago. I think normally the statute of limitations would’ve run but states keep making laws granting exceptions to the statute of limitations. The problem is how can you prove a case from 15 years ago. In most cases the evidence is gone and witness memories are unreliable, which is why the statute of limitations exists. It’s leading to a lot more grift where women are suing to put public pressure on these celebrities for settlements and in some cases it’s completely fabricated.

Can I be a pessimist for a moment? Who do you think is extremely supportive of these laws that extend the SOL for civil SA cases?? Plaintiffs lawyers. These cases are big money for them.

That's true but this case doesn't involve a statute of limitations issue. To the contrary, the law at issue here is a state law that *eliminates* a cause of action for potential plaintiffs (defamation claims against people alleging SA/SH). Presumably plaintiff's lawyers (like Bryan Freedman) dislike a law that limits their ability to take on additional clients and to charge those clients more money via this sort of counterclaim.

So that cynical argument cuts both ways and in the Lively/Baldoni matter, actually harms Baldoni.

Pp you didn’t understand my point. The point is that these laws that seem well intentioned are sometimes overboard and poorly written and have unintended consequences and there can be other motivations behind them.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What do you make of Justin’s position that these laws to protect victims should be declared unconstitutional? It certainly seems to add to the theory that her team never thought it would go this far.

Clearly they understood that for a claim like this you were ultimately going to have to make arguments that were going to absolutely flatten his male feminist schtick. So if they never wanted to make those arguments, is the thinking that Lively would settle well behind this point?

No. I don’t think he’s a male feminist. His focus has been on men. What kind of man he wants to be. What kind of son he wants to raise. Oversimplifying his brand to male feminist is something Blake’s team keeps saying to make him look like a hypocrite. He’s a male feminist so of course he should let Blake lie on him, ruin his reputation and not fight back. Fighting back would be misogynistic.

This is actually getting embarrassing for women. We don’t need crazy laws to protect us and we also need to be accountable for our own behavior. This is going to backfire and there’s going to be a backlash against women’s rights as a result.

BF just got half a case dismissed against Vin Diesel from a woman suing him for an incident she claims happened 15 years ago. I think normally the statute of limitations would’ve run but states keep making laws granting exceptions to the statute of limitations. The problem is how can you prove a case from 15 years ago. In most cases the evidence is gone and witness memories are unreliable, which is why the statute of limitations exists. It’s leading to a lot more grift where women are suing to put public pressure on these celebrities for settlements and in some cases it’s completely fabricated.

DP. This. I posted a few days ago about having worked around DV issues and orgs like Sanctuary for Families, and it’s well known that overboard and vague laws to try to help victims can often back fire. That’s why I was surprised they filed an amicus here as this is not a great case for women/ victims.

I am a Baldoni supporter and did a fair amount of pro bono work on domestic violence issues. Very common for men to come in seeking a protective order in retaliation for a woman starting the process against them. I think in nearly all of these cases, the allegations made by the men were false. Further, I had a case where the father made up abuse against the children charges against the wife when she was thinking of leaving him. It took two layers of appeals to overturn. 47.1 would seemingly apply to defamation claims brought by women in such circumstances.

I also work in this area. Protective orders are handed out way too easily. That’s the fix. Ensure there is a prompt fact finding on these motions

My second example has zero to do with protective orders. The broader point is that women can also be the victim of fabricated allegations and in fact, fabricated allegations are often tools used by the abuser. 47.1 ignores that, and would make it more difficult for women in such situations to bring defamation suits.

Are these protective orders brought in a family court context? Because if they are, I can assure you no judge outside of that system will want to touch them. Eg they won’t want a defamation claim based on allegations in this context. If you've ever worked in Family court, it is full of lies and exaggerations back and forth and everyone knows that. And although as a woman I tend to support women, I know that women also misuse protective orders in family and custody cases as well. So no, I don’t support the CA law because it could be too easily misused against both men and women, and if the defamation claim is frivolous, there are other means to address it expediently.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What do you make of Justin’s position that these laws to protect victims should be declared unconstitutional? It certainly seems to add to the theory that her team never thought it would go this far.

Clearly they understood that for a claim like this you were ultimately going to have to make arguments that were going to absolutely flatten his male feminist schtick. So if they never wanted to make those arguments, is the thinking that Lively would settle well behind this point?

No. I don’t think he’s a male feminist. His focus has been on men. What kind of man he wants to be. What kind of son he wants to raise. Oversimplifying his brand to male feminist is something Blake’s team keeps saying to make him look like a hypocrite. He’s a male feminist so of course he should let Blake lie on him, ruin his reputation and not fight back. Fighting back would be misogynistic.

This is actually getting embarrassing for women. We don’t need crazy laws to protect us and we also need to be accountable for our own behavior. This is going to backfire and there’s going to be a backlash against women’s rights as a result.

BF just got half a case dismissed against Vin Diesel from a woman suing him for an incident she claims happened 15 years ago. I think normally the statute of limitations would’ve run but states keep making laws granting exceptions to the statute of limitations. The problem is how can you prove a case from 15 years ago. In most cases the evidence is gone and witness memories are unreliable, which is why the statute of limitations exists. It’s leading to a lot more grift where women are suing to put public pressure on these celebrities for settlements and in some cases it’s completely fabricated.

Can I be a pessimist for a moment? Who do you think is extremely supportive of these laws that extend the SOL for civil SA cases?? Plaintiffs lawyers. These cases are big money for them.

That's true but this case doesn't involve a statute of limitations issue. To the contrary, the law at issue here is a state law that *eliminates* a cause of action for potential plaintiffs (defamation claims against people alleging SA/SH). Presumably plaintiff's lawyers (like Bryan Freedman) dislike a law that limits their ability to take on additional clients and to charge those clients more money via this sort of counterclaim.

So that cynical argument cuts both ways and in the Lively/Baldoni matter, actually harms Baldoni.

I know there’s not an SOL issue here, just making a point about how some of these laws to protect women are overreaching and leading to grift (47.1 being aniother). I think there will be a backlash.

Agree.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What do you make of Justin’s position that these laws to protect victims should be declared unconstitutional? It certainly seems to add to the theory that her team never thought it would go this far.

Clearly they understood that for a claim like this you were ultimately going to have to make arguments that were going to absolutely flatten his male feminist schtick. So if they never wanted to make those arguments, is the thinking that Lively would settle well behind this point?

No. I don’t think he’s a male feminist. His focus has been on men. What kind of man he wants to be. What kind of son he wants to raise. Oversimplifying his brand to male feminist is something Blake’s team keeps saying to make him look like a hypocrite. He’s a male feminist so of course he should let Blake lie on him, ruin his reputation and not fight back. Fighting back would be misogynistic.

This is actually getting embarrassing for women. We don’t need crazy laws to protect us and we also need to be accountable for our own behavior. This is going to backfire and there’s going to be a backlash against women’s rights as a result.

BF just got half a case dismissed against Vin Diesel from a woman suing him for an incident she claims happened 15 years ago. I think normally the statute of limitations would’ve run but states keep making laws granting exceptions to the statute of limitations. The problem is how can you prove a case from 15 years ago. In most cases the evidence is gone and witness memories are unreliable, which is why the statute of limitations exists. It’s leading to a lot more grift where women are suing to put public pressure on these celebrities for settlements and in some cases it’s completely fabricated.

DP. This. I posted a few days ago about having worked around DV issues and orgs like Sanctuary for Families, and it’s well known that overboard and vague laws to try to help victims can often back fire. That’s why I was surprised they filed an amicus here as this is not a great case for women/ victims.

I am a Baldoni supporter and did a fair amount of pro bono work on domestic violence issues. Very common for men to come in seeking a protective order in retaliation for a woman starting the process against them. I think in nearly all of these cases, the allegations made by the men were false. Further, I had a case where the father made up abuse against the children charges against the wife when she was thinking of leaving him. It took two layers of appeals to overturn. 47.1 would seemingly apply to defamation claims brought by women in such circumstances.

I also work in this area. Protective orders are handed out way too easily. That’s the fix. Ensure there is a prompt fact finding on these motions

My second example has zero to do with protective orders. The broader point is that women can also be the victim of fabricated allegations and in fact, fabricated allegations are often tools used by the abuser. 47.1 ignores that, and would make it more difficult for women in such situations to bring defamation suits.

Are these protective orders brought in a family court context? Because if they are, I can assure you no judge outside of that system will want to touch them. Eg they won’t want a defamation claim based on allegations in this context. If you've ever worked in Family court, it is full of lies and exaggerations back and forth and everyone knows that. And although as a woman I tend to support women, I know that women also misuse protective orders in family and custody cases as well. So no, I don’t support the CA law because it could be too easily misused against both men and women, and if the defamation claim is frivolous, there are other means to address it expediently.

You must have missed the “zero to do with protective orders” in my first sentence