Blake Lively- Jason Baldoni and NYT - False Light claims

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Also adding a note here that once again, none of the Baldoni supporters are looking at this loss and saying, huh, I was wrong. Sure one person said “I’ll admit this was a tough day” and another said “the defamation loss hurts” and immediately went into appeal mode lol.

But no Baldoni supporter has said Freedman’s strategy, looking back, was poor. Or that they themselves were wrong to argue that amendment was liberally granted and would clearly be granted here, even when Lively kept presenting scores and scores of evidence of the futility of such amendment.

In fact, Baldoni supporters went on lecture Lively in how to proceed with her claims and how settlement was clearly going to be the best option, as always for them, but now a settlement for basically no money for each side although Lively’s claims are clearly worth tens of millions more than Baldoni’s now.

Freedman made a lot of unforced errors here. We have been telling you for a while but you wouldn’t listen and apparently you still won’t.

There were so many signs! The judge denying Baldoni's request for an extension out til after the MTD ruling but also clearly encouraging amendment beforehand! The judge granting NYT's stay request saying there was clear evidence for dismissal! All the collected evidence of insufficient facts in the sanctions motions! But no, the lawyers here (who kept telling Lively supporters that they couldn't possibly be lawyers lol) kept saying it was silly to think significant claims might get dismissed with prejudice, even though Lively/Reynolds were citing 2nd Circuit cases showing cases where dismissal was affirmed where granting leave to amend would have been futile.

How stupid you have got to feel right now. I mean, I hope you do for all the many, many insults that you sent toward us. I hope you feel humbled. Of course you never really can tell what a judge will do. But you all were so very sure, and yet so very, very wrong.

.

Are you insecure? Because you spend literally pages gloating after every Lively win. It’s quite off putting which is probably why you spend all your time online. No other options.

DP but I think it's funny that you resort to calling anonymous strangers off-putting and criticizing their internet activity that *you also share* rather than just admit you were wrong about this case. But I don't find it off-putting, just funny. Keep it up! I love a good laugh.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Also adding a note here that once again, none of the Baldoni supporters are looking at this loss and saying, huh, I was wrong. Sure one person said “I’ll admit this was a tough day” and another said “the defamation loss hurts” and immediately went into appeal mode lol.

But no Baldoni supporter has said Freedman’s strategy, looking back, was poor. Or that they themselves were wrong to argue that amendment was liberally granted and would clearly be granted here, even when Lively kept presenting scores and scores of evidence of the futility of such amendment.

In fact, Baldoni supporters went on lecture Lively in how to proceed with her claims and how settlement was clearly going to be the best option, as always for them, but now a settlement for basically no money for each side although Lively’s claims are clearly worth tens of millions more than Baldoni’s now.

Freedman made a lot of unforced errors here. We have been telling you for a while but you wouldn’t listen and apparently you still won’t.

There were so many signs! The judge denying Baldoni's request for an extension out til after the MTD ruling but also clearly encouraging amendment beforehand! The judge granting NYT's stay request saying there was clear evidence for dismissal! All the collected evidence of insufficient facts in the sanctions motions! But no, the lawyers here (who kept telling Lively supporters that they couldn't possibly be lawyers lol) kept saying it was silly to think significant claims might get dismissed with prejudice, even though Lively/Reynolds were citing 2nd Circuit cases showing cases where dismissal was affirmed where granting leave to amend would have been futile.

How stupid you have got to feel right now. I mean, I hope you do for all the many, many insults that you sent toward us. I hope you feel humbled. Of course you never really can tell what a judge will do. But you all were so very sure, and yet so very, very wrong.

.

Are you insecure? Because you spend literally pages gloating after every Lively win. It’s quite off putting which is probably why you spend all your time online. No other options.

You guys have literally spent hundreds of pages insulting us, telling us we can’t possibly be lawyers, telling us we must be the same person, and must be paid shills. Now ur mad about the gloating when the judge said you and your $400M claims have been ridiculous and wrong from the get go? With prejudice?

Oh, do you find it offputting? lol

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Also adding a note here that once again, none of the Baldoni supporters are looking at this loss and saying, huh, I was wrong. Sure one person said “I’ll admit this was a tough day” and another said “the defamation loss hurts” and immediately went into appeal mode lol.

But no Baldoni supporter has said Freedman’s strategy, looking back, was poor. Or that they themselves were wrong to argue that amendment was liberally granted and would clearly be granted here, even when Lively kept presenting scores and scores of evidence of the futility of such amendment.

In fact, Baldoni supporters went on lecture Lively in how to proceed with her claims and how settlement was clearly going to be the best option, as always for them, but now a settlement for basically no money for each side although Lively’s claims are clearly worth tens of millions more than Baldoni’s now.

Freedman made a lot of unforced errors here. We have been telling you for a while but you wouldn’t listen and apparently you still won’t.

There were so many signs! The judge denying Baldoni's request for an extension out til after the MTD ruling but also clearly encouraging amendment beforehand! The judge granting NYT's stay request saying there was clear evidence for dismissal! All the collected evidence of insufficient facts in the sanctions motions! But no, the lawyers here (who kept telling Lively supporters that they couldn't possibly be lawyers lol) kept saying it was silly to think significant claims might get dismissed with prejudice, even though Lively/Reynolds were citing 2nd Circuit cases showing cases where dismissal was affirmed where granting leave to amend would have been futile.

How stupid you have got to feel right now. I mean, I hope you do for all the many, many insults that you sent toward us. I hope you feel humbled. Of course you never really can tell what a judge will do. But you all were so very sure, and yet so very, very wrong.

.

Are you insecure? Because you spend literally pages gloating after every Lively win. It’s quite off putting which is probably why you spend all your time online. No other options.

DP but I think it's funny that you resort to calling anonymous strangers off-putting and criticizing their internet activity that *you also share* rather than just admit you were wrong about this case. But I don't find it off-putting, just funny. Keep it up! I love a good laugh.

Nope, neither the time I spend here or the tone of my responses are anything close to yours.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Where have all the lawyers who abused and dismissed us gone, now that the judge has ruled that they were very much and extremely wrong? Please explain yourselves and the absolute sh!tposting you have dumped out here in the past, insisting Freedman was being strategic and we were terrible lawyers, when the bulk of Baldoni’s high value claims are now dismissed with prejudice?

Whoa. You seem absolutely unhinged. I’m a lawyer and think this was a good day for Lively and have seen others say that as well. You seem NUTS

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Its true. She'll never fully repair her reputation. Those texts messages were badly and it makes sense why Taylor and others distanced themselves. It wasnt the lawsuit but her own words.

The khaleesi quote will live in infamy - it’s just so cringe.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Where have all the lawyers who abused and dismissed us gone, now that the judge has ruled that they were very much and extremely wrong? Please explain yourselves and the absolute sh!tposting you have dumped out here in the past, insisting Freedman was being strategic and we were terrible lawyers, when the bulk of Baldoni’s high value claims are now dismissed with prejudice?

Good point. Especially interested to hear from the "litigators" who repeatedly said I was wrong that the extortion claims had zero basis in the complaint, or that the judge was likely to agree the statements in both the CRD and in the NYT article quoting or referring to the CRD, were covered by litigation and fair report privilege.

You were so confident. Where did you go?

🔥 🔥 🔥

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Its true. She'll never fully repair her reputation. Those texts messages were badly and it makes sense why Taylor and others distanced themselves. It wasnt the lawsuit but her own words.

The khaleesi quote will live in infamy - it’s just so cringe.

That Khaleesi exchange was hilarious, and I feel like it's something to enjoy for neutral bystanders just observing this conflict. Unfortunately, the crazed BL supporters have to make everything so serious and attack everyone who derives amusement for it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Where have all the lawyers who abused and dismissed us gone, now that the judge has ruled that they were very much and extremely wrong? Please explain yourselves and the absolute sh!tposting you have dumped out here in the past, insisting Freedman was being strategic and we were terrible lawyers, when the bulk of Baldoni’s high value claims are now dismissed with prejudice?

Good point. Especially interested to hear from the "litigators" who repeatedly said I was wrong that the extortion claims had zero basis in the complaint, or that the judge was likely to agree the statements in both the CRD and in the NYT article quoting or referring to the CRD, were covered by litigation and fair report privilege.

You were so confident. Where did you go?

🔥 🔥 🔥

I'm very confused by this. From the start, people (including JB supporters) said Justin's claims against the NYT were a huge longshot. I even asked one of the people here who thought it *might* survive to give me some odds, and they said maybe it had a 20% chance. When it comes to JB's claims against Blake Lively, I don't think anyone said they were going to survive for sure. most JB-supporters have been talking about the lack of Blake's credibility.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:But surely what Gottlieb really regrets now is that he has provided Freedman a roadmap for his remaining two claims instead of refraining to file any MTD at all. So I guess he sent them to the grocery store for milk, or the hardware store for nails, or something like that, and surely has deep regrets because although Gottlieb was able to obtain nearly everything on his list, now Freedman knows what’s on his list, or something like that.

’
Is this sarcastic? I think this was a good day for Lively but I think overall this case has been horrible for her, and I think a trial would be a big mistake. I think the Lively people on here will snark, but I objectively think this would be a great opportunity for her to push for a settlement and try to end this mess that she shouldn’t have started. And no, I’m not saying for 400 million. Maybe that each agree to withdraw claims and release a joint statement and donate a sum to some NFP. Unfortunately I wonder if her team is giving her smart guidance though

Someone said, in response to my comment, WHERE did anyone here say Lively should settle now for basically nothing even though her remaining claims are worth more, and here is one of several comments where Baldoni supporters take it upon themselves to advise Lively to settle now ASAP, with this one saying she should basically settle for no money and donate money together to non-profits.

I wrote that post and frankly you seem unwell. Your posts are rabidly immature. And nowhere did I say ‘settle ASAP!!! But I didn’t realize Livelys case was about money for her. I thought it was about women and her reputation. Personally I think she had some fairly significant liability she could be facing the way she handled this bc I think it’s pretty clear she wasn’t SH under any legal theory. I think today was a win for her and if I were her lawyers I would personally advise her to try to shut this mess down and take this victory lap. But I realize you don’t agree bc you don’t seem to be able to be objective at all

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Where have all the lawyers who abused and dismissed us gone, now that the judge has ruled that they were very much and extremely wrong? Please explain yourselves and the absolute sh!tposting you have dumped out here in the past, insisting Freedman was being strategic and we were terrible lawyers, when the bulk of Baldoni’s high value claims are now dismissed with prejudice?

Good point. Especially interested to hear from the "litigators" who repeatedly said I was wrong that the extortion claims had zero basis in the complaint, or that the judge was likely to agree the statements in both the CRD and in the NYT article quoting or referring to the CRD, were covered by litigation and fair report privilege.

You were so confident. Where did you go?

🔥 🔥 🔥

I'm very confused by this. From the start, people (including JB supporters) said Justin's claims against the NYT were a huge longshot. I even asked one of the people here who thought it *might* survive to give me some odds, and they said maybe it had a 20% chance. When it comes to JB's claims against Blake Lively, I don't think anyone said they were going to survive for sure. most JB-supporters have been talking about the lack of Blake's credibility.

Exactly, literally nothing that happened today is a judgment on Blake’s claims. Going to bow out for the day, and let the professionals enjoy their win on Baldoni’a claims.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Its true. She'll never fully repair her reputation. Those texts messages were badly and it makes sense why Taylor and others distanced themselves. It wasnt the lawsuit but her own words.

Agree. So damaging.

[Anonymous]

Sorry if I missed, but could someone actually explain what this means? Is it game over case closed, Justin has no recourse? Is it likely Blake will now settle or is it more likely now it will go to court?

[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:In court, will the NYTimes have to reveal when they started working on the article? What other specific things can we expect to come to light?

If justin’s case survives a MTD, yes, they will. I suspect that the NYT might file an anti SLAPP motion, but I’m not sure. My guess is justin’s case will survive those early motions and discovery will begin. And yes, the NYT will have to show timing and the internal process that led to the story being published, what they did to corroborate her story, what they did and didn’t do and said about seeking the other side’s perspective, etc.

I’m fairly alone on this thread on thinking that Justin has a real case against the NYT. This was an explosive story. I don’t think it will be hard to show they had a real confirmation bias going in to this story, their MeToo journalist wanted to fit this into another metoo framework with a PR twist, and they ignored proper journalism standards… and there was significant harm to people, including people who are arguably private figures.

But it’s also been a very wise PR move as well, and I’m sure it’s unsettled the Times and that reporter.

I don’t disagree that this will beat a MTD unless the judge has a very restrictive take on the showing needed for actual malice. but “confirmation bias” isn’t a grounds to show actual bias, and it’s not clear that “proper journalism standards” even exist such to show that they were recklessly or intentionally violated.

Yes, there are journalistic standards that publications like the Times follow. They certainly have internal rules of the road that they are supposed to follow. The Times even used to have a ‘standards’ editor as a separate role. Things like getting comment, how many sources to use and what sort of info is needed to verify statements, whether they can run a story with only off the record sources, that sort of thing. I suspect they relaxed them here, hoping they could hide behind this being a published complaint (and therefore a ‘fair report’ which gives them some protections). That’s why they came out hard and fast in a statement to respond to the allegation that they had the complaint early and that this was collaborative with BL.

These aren’t legal standards, of course. But if this gets to a jury, the Plaintiffs will introduce evidence showing how sloppy and different from usual standards this journalistic process was, how they might have willfully ignored red flags in pursuit of a juicy angle, etc. All of this will be used to show state of mind- eg whether they were negligent or showed a reckless disregard for the truth.

it would take a LOT to prove those are hard & fast standards that the Times violated here, such that it constitutes recklessness. Because a) there are no clear standards on things like how long to give for comment and b) it’s not even clear the Times would have violated that.

The law makes this very hard for a good reason. If journalists can be sued by public figures too easily then their ability to report (and make mistakes) would be severely curtailed and the public would suffer.

It really wouldn’t be that hard to show…

of course it would be hard to show. It would be extremely hard to show and even if Baldoni puts 10 journalism professors on the record, there would still be a mountain of contradictory evidence. I’m not even sure he beats MTD on actual malice (although I have not combed through the latest.)

It really really won’t be that hard and this is to a jury. They aren’t super precise. And the NYT will likely have written parameters and there will likely be drafts, emails and other materials they are forced to turn over with questions or concerns set out. These are writers and media people- they tend to communicate and that can work against them in these types of cases. See the Fox Old Dominion case where texts sunk them to close to a billion dollar settlement. Fox also claimed that they were protected, they were going to fight it all the way, they were just reporting on a matter of public concern, blah blah.

this case is NOTHING like the Fox Dominion case. there’s zero evidence even alleged that is similar. I don’t know how much background you have in journalism or 1A but you really are off base. That of course doesn’t mean a jury could make a crazy decision but I’m not sure the verdict would stand and I’m not even sure this passes MTD.

Rolling my eyes hard at your repeated reference to ‘1A’. Sorry, no insider uses that expression which is showing me you don’t have nearly the knowledge base in this area of the law you think you do. OF COURSE this case isn’t exactly like the Fox case- in some ways, the Fox case was *better* for Fox- at the beginning at least bc voter fraud and the veracity of the election was clearly a significant matter of public interest for them to report on, including what other people were claiming about a matter of great import. Yet Old Dominion survived a MTD. Can’t really say that about a petty onset scrap between a B list actress and an unknown director. Why the heck was the Times reporting on this crap in the first place? It’s off brand, other than making it into a bigger metoo story.

But my point was that discovery can sink cases for media Defendants bc there tends to be a decent amount of written materials and chatter and internal debate on stories like this, and it typically doesn’t help defendants, especially when used by a crafty Ps attorney, which Bryan Freedman is showing himself to be.

So let’s play this out, and let’s say the jury decides for Ps- a ‘crazy decision’ as you said (which I don’t agree with necessarily but whatever). You think the NYT wants to appeal based on NYT v Sullivan and see what happens there? Have you not noticed the recent strange media settlements? Think about it. It’s a very weird time for the media, and because of some of these factors, including how skilled Bryan Freedman seems to be and how much PR and coverage there is, my belief is that this case has a decent chance.

True the first amendment has nothing to do with defamation lol.

Obviously the legal and media landscape are changing quickly but you keep on acting like there is likely to be ANYTHING similar to what Fox did - and I do not believe it has been alleged and nor will it come out in discovery.

The defamation defense bar does not refer to themselves as ‘1A’ attorneys. Thats my point. It is a fairly small world, which you clearly do not know well, yet you keep chiming in like you’re an expert.

And I never said Fox and the NYT are the same, rather that discovery often gets messy and risky for media defendants because they tend to WRITE everything down.

true, Floyd Abrams never discussed the First Amendment 🤡

anyway I never said I was a defamation defense attorney? I don’t believe you are either. If you are I invite you to write a long post showing how Baldoni will show the same types of facts as alleged in the Dominion cases. “maybe he will dig up a red flag that the jury maybe will construe against the NYT” is not really persuasive.

Sigh. You’re hopeless in digging in when you don’t know, and then trying to twist my words. Floyd Abrams hasn’t been on the defense scene in any real way for years. I get that you took a law class and know his name. Besides, I was making fun of your short hand, 1A. It’s just not an acronym that’s used.

true, only a member of the very small “defense scene” can competently analyze the case; and using an acronym you dislike shows that my opinion is worthless. Mmm hmm.

still waiting for your actual analysis of the dominion v Baldoni complaints. I don’t think Baldoni has even alleged enough to get to discovery.

Defense BAR. Not defense ‘scene’. And yes, your use of strange acronyms and reference to non practicing attorneys leads me to believe you don’t know this area of the law very well. Which is fine. I don’t know the SH side of things that well. The difference is that most people admit what they don’t know. You are amusing in that you act like you are an expert when you’re clearly not.

I think B will get discovery, but sure, let’s wait and see.

This turned out to be not a thing: Argument that claims against NYT will survive MTD and go on to discovery. Lots of insults from the Baldoni supporter and claims that person argued with (neither of these are me) is hopeless and mocking them for not having the correct "knowledge base" when they were properly predicting case would not survive MTD while pedigreed insider was saying it would go to jury. Okay.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Sorry if I missed, but could someone actually explain what this means? Is it game over case closed, Justin has no recourse? Is it likely Blake will now settle or is it more likely now it will go to court?

In the past, these have been troll requests.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Where have all the lawyers who abused and dismissed us gone, now that the judge has ruled that they were very much and extremely wrong? Please explain yourselves and the absolute sh!tposting you have dumped out here in the past, insisting Freedman was being strategic and we were terrible lawyers, when the bulk of Baldoni’s high value claims are now dismissed with prejudice?

Sorry, what? You think you were ‘abused’? You’ve been a total psycho so many times on this thread. No one abused you.