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:Reading through Liman's Opinion dismissing Wayfarer etc's claims, here were a few excerpts from the Extortion claim section that I enjoyed:

Demanding harassment free working conditions /= extortion: "Even if they turn out to be unneeded, an employee can insist on protections at workplace for sexual harassment without being accused of extortion. If an employer accedes, it cannot later claim to be a victim of the employee’s wrongful threats."

Hoist by his own petard: "Although the Wayfarer Parties allege that they did not believe Lively deserved a producer credit or p.g.a. mark, Dkt. No. 50 ¶¶ 153–155, they also allege that Lively took over significant production responsibilities, see id. ¶ 296 (stating that Lively used baseless sexual harassment allegations “to assert unilateral control over every aspect of the production”); id. ¶ 344 (alleging that Lively seized creative control over the production and the Wayfarer Parties “were deprived of the opportunity to produce, edit, and market a film”); cf. United States v. Jackson, 180 F.3d 55, 70–72 (2d Cir.), on reh’g, 196 F.3d 383 (2d Cir. 1999) (suggesting that a threat is not wrongful if it has a “nexus to a plausible claim of right”)."

Hard bargaining /= extortion: "The fact that a plaintiff decides it is more financially beneficial to acquiesce to a demand than to sue does not mean the plaintiff lacks an adequate remedy in damages. Having made their decision, the Wayfarer Parties cannot now seek to recover in damages for what they would have obtained had they not agreed and had Lively promoted some different version of the film more consistent with the Wayfarer Parties’ artistic vision."

I also thought it was interesting in the TMZ clip that Freedman said he was given leave by the judge to file an amended complaint for the 4 following claims, because Judge Liman specifically forbids Freedman from amending for two of these lol:

1. Intentional interference of a contractual agreement (a/g Lively and Reynolds);
2. Intentional interference with prospective economic advantage (a/g Lively and Reynolds);
3. Negligent interference with prospective economic advantage (a/g Lively and Reynolds? not sure);
4. Breach of implied duty of covenant and good faith and fair dealing (only a/g Lively).

When you look at the opinion itself, Liman explicitly says in two places that he grants Wayfarer etc leave to amend only for the following two claims: tortious interference with contract and breach of implied contract.

And footnote 66 p.130 specifically lays out that the court will not permit amendment for the following claims (some of which appear on Freedman's list):
* False light
* Breach of implied covenant;
* Intentional or negligent interference with prospective economic relations;
* Promissory fraud.

If you specifically go back to Wayfarer's Amended Complaint and look at the counts, you can track that Judge Liman means to allow Wayfarer to amend ONLY for the following:

1. Liman says "Tortious interference with contract" which tracks to Count 5 in the amended complaint: Intentional Interference with Contractual Relations (involving the WME interference);
2. Liman says "Breach of implied contract" which tracks to Count 4 in the amended complaint: Breach of Implied Covenant of Good Faith and Fair Dealing (involving the contract, if it exists, between Lively and Wayfarer).

Freedman says that he is going to include negligent and intentional interference with prospective economic advantage in the amended complaint, which tracks to counts 7 and 6 of the amended complaint involving the WME contract. However, Liman explicitly forbids Freedman for amending these interference with prospective economic advantage claims due to futility! He explains that the failure of the defamation claim against Reynolds is fatal to these economic advantage claims, since interference needs to be through a wrongful act and Liman found Reynolds statement could not be considered as such.

So, a day later and Freedman is already spouting wild nonsense and either does not understand Judge Liman's opinion better than me, who looked at this for 20 minutes, or alternatively Freedman has decided to explicitly ignore it. A++ as usual Mssr. Freedman.

This is excellent, thank you for putting it together.

Freedman looks very out of the loop on this -- no reply until Tuesday and then his response seems to have factual errors that will come back to bite him. Either he'll finally read the decision closely enough to understand they cannot replead everything he says he's going to, OR he'll replead it all and get bench slapped for violating the judge's order.

Dp and I don’t post much on here but isn’t freedman Baldonis lawyer? How is he ‘out of the loop’ for not responding to a court decision from Monday on… Tuesday… ? Or do you mean something else? Because that seems pretty timely to me!!

DP but in this high profile cases it's typical for the lawyers to comment immediately in the articles that come out in the hours after the decision drops, even if it's just to say they plan to appeal. So yes I think it's unusual that Freedman waited a day, and then in addition, isn't reading the decision correctly according to PP, even with that extra time.

Dp. I’m a litigator and have worked with crisis PR for some high profile litigations, and I don’t agree. We would never want to completely rush a statement without taking a beat to pause and gather our thoughts. As long as a statement came out around the same news cycle, it would be fine and perfectly industry typical (not that there’s a hard and fast rule as this Pp seems to want to think - lol).

As far as not reading the decision ‘correctly’, that only matters when they file! It seems that the point they wants to make is that they plan to continue, and that’s really the only message that matters. Totally standard stuff ime.

I can see taking more than 4 hours to respond because it’s a longer decision.

But if, as you say, you need to “gather your thoughts,” that extra time should really ensure that your lead attorney does not then turn around and get the claims you are refiling wrong. You would not see Manatt or Willkie making this stupid mistake tbh. You don’t overstate what you’re going to come back fighting on, either to your client (who Freedman should have consulted with before going public on TMZ lol) or to the public.

This just emphasizes to me how Freedman is absolutely obsessed with PR to the point where him being on TV is more important than what he is actually saying. Wtf is wrong with this dude? He took a whole day and didn’t figure out his remaining claims properly, which I did in 20 minutes? Remember Succession? This is sh!t show at the clown factory stuff.

I don’t think anyone really cares about the details, just the overall message.

Do you know these lawyers personally? Are you a lawyer? I’ve heard of freedman because he represents famous clients, but I would never normally see the names of lawyers in PR statements and I think 99.99 percent of people don’t know or care either way. My colleagues and I laugh bc when one of our cases makes it in the news, it’s so very rare to see lawyer names mentioned. People don’t notice or care. But you seem to.

It seems very personal to you.

I am a lawyer (I wouldn’t expect a non-lawyer to figure the claim tracing I did above out, except maybe a very good paralegal) and while my firm never goes on TMZ, we do get quoted in news articles, especially legal pubs. If we made a mistake like this about the remaining claims we had in a lawsuit in one of those, it would mean an immediate client call to do damage control. Whoever’s mistake it was would get reprimanded. People woukd “care about the details” lolol.

But Freedman is in charge of this sh!t show so maybe when he makes mistakes — like this or like not ever filing an amended complaint so that nearly all of Baldoni’s claims get dismissed *poof* — maybe the client doesn’t know how to reprimand him. Since he handled the PR so brilliantly! But on the legal part of being a lawyer, he is sucking pretty hard, turns out.

Well, I’m not entirely sure it was a mistake but in any event, the crisis PR I worked with would never suggest going out with some other statement like you’re suggesting. ‘Oh we said we’d re file 4 claims, but we actually meant 3’. It’s really silly to think anyone would care. It’s not like PR statements are written guarantees!

He should definitely say that. That would be wrong, also, so very on brand for him. He only has 2 remaining claims.

He’s not wrong. There are four claims that fall under the rubric of the two causes of actions the judge said he could replead. It’s just a difference in semantics.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Reading through Liman's Opinion dismissing Wayfarer etc's claims, here were a few excerpts from the Extortion claim section that I enjoyed:

Demanding harassment free working conditions /= extortion: "Even if they turn out to be unneeded, an employee can insist on protections at workplace for sexual harassment without being accused of extortion. If an employer accedes, it cannot later claim to be a victim of the employee’s wrongful threats."

Hoist by his own petard: "Although the Wayfarer Parties allege that they did not believe Lively deserved a producer credit or p.g.a. mark, Dkt. No. 50 ¶¶ 153–155, they also allege that Lively took over significant production responsibilities, see id. ¶ 296 (stating that Lively used baseless sexual harassment allegations “to assert unilateral control over every aspect of the production”); id. ¶ 344 (alleging that Lively seized creative control over the production and the Wayfarer Parties “were deprived of the opportunity to produce, edit, and market a film”); cf. United States v. Jackson, 180 F.3d 55, 70–72 (2d Cir.), on reh’g, 196 F.3d 383 (2d Cir. 1999) (suggesting that a threat is not wrongful if it has a “nexus to a plausible claim of right”)."

Hard bargaining /= extortion: "The fact that a plaintiff decides it is more financially beneficial to acquiesce to a demand than to sue does not mean the plaintiff lacks an adequate remedy in damages. Having made their decision, the Wayfarer Parties cannot now seek to recover in damages for what they would have obtained had they not agreed and had Lively promoted some different version of the film more consistent with the Wayfarer Parties’ artistic vision."

I also thought it was interesting in the TMZ clip that Freedman said he was given leave by the judge to file an amended complaint for the 4 following claims, because Judge Liman specifically forbids Freedman from amending for two of these lol:

1. Intentional interference of a contractual agreement (a/g Lively and Reynolds);
2. Intentional interference with prospective economic advantage (a/g Lively and Reynolds);
3. Negligent interference with prospective economic advantage (a/g Lively and Reynolds? not sure);
4. Breach of implied duty of covenant and good faith and fair dealing (only a/g Lively).

When you look at the opinion itself, Liman explicitly says in two places that he grants Wayfarer etc leave to amend only for the following two claims: tortious interference with contract and breach of implied contract.

And footnote 66 p.130 specifically lays out that the court will not permit amendment for the following claims (some of which appear on Freedman's list):
* False light
* Breach of implied covenant;
* Intentional or negligent interference with prospective economic relations;
* Promissory fraud.

If you specifically go back to Wayfarer's Amended Complaint and look at the counts, you can track that Judge Liman means to allow Wayfarer to amend ONLY for the following:

1. Liman says "Tortious interference with contract" which tracks to Count 5 in the amended complaint: Intentional Interference with Contractual Relations (involving the WME interference);
2. Liman says "Breach of implied contract" which tracks to Count 4 in the amended complaint: Breach of Implied Covenant of Good Faith and Fair Dealing (involving the contract, if it exists, between Lively and Wayfarer).

Freedman says that he is going to include negligent and intentional interference with prospective economic advantage in the amended complaint, which tracks to counts 7 and 6 of the amended complaint involving the WME contract. However, Liman explicitly forbids Freedman for amending these interference with prospective economic advantage claims due to futility! He explains that the failure of the defamation claim against Reynolds is fatal to these economic advantage claims, since interference needs to be through a wrongful act and Liman found Reynolds statement could not be considered as such.

So, a day later and Freedman is already spouting wild nonsense and either does not understand Judge Liman's opinion better than me, who looked at this for 20 minutes, or alternatively Freedman has decided to explicitly ignore it. A++ as usual Mssr. Freedman.

This is excellent, thank you for putting it together.

Freedman looks very out of the loop on this -- no reply until Tuesday and then his response seems to have factual errors that will come back to bite him. Either he'll finally read the decision closely enough to understand they cannot replead everything he says he's going to, OR he'll replead it all and get bench slapped for violating the judge's order.

Dp and I don’t post much on here but isn’t freedman Baldonis lawyer? How is he ‘out of the loop’ for not responding to a court decision from Monday on… Tuesday… ? Or do you mean something else? Because that seems pretty timely to me!!

DP but in this high profile cases it's typical for the lawyers to comment immediately in the articles that come out in the hours after the decision drops, even if it's just to say they plan to appeal. So yes I think it's unusual that Freedman waited a day, and then in addition, isn't reading the decision correctly according to PP, even with that extra time.

Dp. I’m a litigator and have worked with crisis PR for some high profile litigations, and I don’t agree. We would never want to completely rush a statement without taking a beat to pause and gather our thoughts. As long as a statement came out around the same news cycle, it would be fine and perfectly industry typical (not that there’s a hard and fast rule as this Pp seems to want to think - lol).

As far as not reading the decision ‘correctly’, that only matters when they file! It seems that the point they wants to make is that they plan to continue, and that’s really the only message that matters. Totally standard stuff ime.

I can see taking more than 4 hours to respond because it’s a longer decision.

But if, as you say, you need to “gather your thoughts,” that extra time should really ensure that your lead attorney does not then turn around and get the claims you are refiling wrong. You would not see Manatt or Willkie making this stupid mistake tbh. You don’t overstate what you’re going to come back fighting on, either to your client (who Freedman should have consulted with before going public on TMZ lol) or to the public.

This just emphasizes to me how Freedman is absolutely obsessed with PR to the point where him being on TV is more important than what he is actually saying. Wtf is wrong with this dude? He took a whole day and didn’t figure out his remaining claims properly, which I did in 20 minutes? Remember Succession? This is sh!t show at the clown factory stuff.

I don’t think anyone really cares about the details, just the overall message.

Do you know these lawyers personally? Are you a lawyer? I’ve heard of freedman because he represents famous clients, but I would never normally see the names of lawyers in PR statements and I think 99.99 percent of people don’t know or care either way. My colleagues and I laugh bc when one of our cases makes it in the news, it’s so very rare to see lawyer names mentioned. People don’t notice or care. But you seem to.

It seems very personal to you.

I am a lawyer (I wouldn’t expect a non-lawyer to figure the claim tracing I did above out, except maybe a very good paralegal) and while my firm never goes on TMZ, we do get quoted in news articles, especially legal pubs. If we made a mistake like this about the remaining claims we had in a lawsuit in one of those, it would mean an immediate client call to do damage control. Whoever’s mistake it was would get reprimanded. People woukd “care about the details” lolol.

But Freedman is in charge of this sh!t show so maybe when he makes mistakes — like this or like not ever filing an amended complaint so that nearly all of Baldoni’s claims get dismissed *poof* — maybe the client doesn’t know how to reprimand him. Since he handled the PR so brilliantly! But on the legal part of being a lawyer, he is sucking pretty hard, turns out.

Well, I’m not entirely sure it was a mistake but in any event, the crisis PR I worked with would never suggest going out with some other statement like you’re suggesting. ‘Oh we said we’d re file 4 claims, but we actually meant 3’. It’s really silly to think anyone would care. It’s not like PR statements are written guarantees!

He should definitely say that. That would be wrong, also, so very on brand for him. He only has 2 remaining claims.

He’s not wrong. There are four claims that fall under the rubric of the two causes of actions the judge said he could replead. It’s just a difference in semantics.

lol no! Nice try! He went on tv to say he has 4 claims remaking and will include in his amended complaint, and specifically named two of those four claims as (1) intentional interference with prospective economic advantage and (2) negligent interference with prospective economic advantage. Which is a problem because the judge specifically told him in the order that those claims are dismissed with prejudice and he cannot refile.

Keep up.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:When he went on TMZ, he had the 4 claims he was going to amend written down in a notebook lol! He wasn't pulling it from nowhere; he planned those 4 claims, and two of them are claims the judge specifically told him not to replead.

He also had to consult his notebook to remember Jen Abel's name and her firm. Does he even know who he's representing here? If I were her I might be wondering about another lawyer.

I've seen murmurs on Reddit about how active Freedman's current caseload is and that he has several other cases in very critical stages of litigation (I know one is the FKA Twigs trial, and he's representing Vin Diesel in that harassment case that just came up). Freedman's handled plenty of high profile cases before but, like, insider LA high profile. Not this. I bet he's drowning in work right now and his firm is not large and he doesn't have a true #2 on this case, someone whose profile is close to as high as his who can speak authoritatively to the press or handle major issues as they arise. Gottlieb has Esra Hudson, but Freedman's NY counsel is much lower profile and Ellyn Garafolo is a trial specialist who usually doesn't handle this aspect of the case (and has her own full schedule).

Interesting that you're so personally invested, you're cyber-stalking and spamming this matter across multiple web outlets. Nobody in a right state of mind is doing such a thing for free. So which is it, you're all being paid or you're all in the same nuthouse?

Whoa there are a bunch of people here on both sides of the debate who also follow this case on Reddit -- people have posted links to both pro-JB and pro-BL stuff here.

I get that you are still upset about the ruling earlier this week but you don't have to name call. This is still just a discussion thread about the case. Dial it down or I will start reporting these to Jeff for deletion.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:One question I have. If this case goes forward and we find out that Blake loses, there was no sexual harassment or retaliation, then Justin has no recourse? I guess I don’t understand what’s being set up here. I get that if she wins the case he shouldn’t be able to sue her for defamation and things, but if she loses, everyone’s totes OK with that?

Guess I don’t understand how this is a win for women. We’re just willing to sacrifice a few bad apples for the cause? Never mind we’re also talking about women who lose their sons and husbands do these kinds of accusations.

To be fair, I don’t think false accusations are common. These kinds of accusations in this case worry me because they are so nuanced and it seems more like workplace disputes and frankly even creative differences than sexual harassment. It’s kind of setting up if any woman is asked to do something on set by a male all of a sudden it’s mansplaining and harassment. Even if it’s a director who’s hired to give her direction or that she signs up to do intimate love scenes and if there’s something that she doesn’t agree with…boom SH rather than being able to talk it through it and then like not having to any scene she was uncomfortable with which is exactly what happened.

What if the accusations aren't false?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I don’t understand why Baldoni supporters thought are NOT obsessed with Freedman’s lack of legal skills. He’s effing over your guy! At this point I hope he stays in and remains in charge of everything because he is pretty clearly outmatched by Willkie and Manatt. And I can post all his dumb mistakes in here.

They can't turn on Freedman because he's the whole reason they support Baldoni. To admit that Freedman is all BS and bluster and is not actually a skilled lawyer, just a very skilled con man, would be to open he door to the idea that maybe, just maybe, Justin Baldoni is not an innocent victim in this whole thing.

But that's not allowed, so they have to stick to Freedman. This is also likely why Baldoni will stick with him, too. When you know that you actually might be wrong, you can't ever admit it out loud. It would break the spell.

Honestly, yes, I think this is basically true. He has pulled the strings since August and the PR is great! So maybe even if they lose their case, they still win.

The other thing I kind of wonder about is Freedman’s own potential involvement in the smear, given that we are already seeing text strings where Freedman is texting reporters like Vituscka or messaging Jed Wallace. They can’t really get rid of Freedman because he knows where the bodies are buried and maybe knows how to bury any other bodies that need burying. Maybe everything falls apart.

I don’t really know if Freedman is involved in THIS level of deception, which is, like, disbarment level, but if so it would be delicious.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I’m confused by the lively supporters. Is freedom a really bad lawyer who botched the case or did Justin not have a case to begin with? I feel like you’re talking out of both sides of your mouth. You are talking about how badly BF botched this, but that wouldn’t imply he screwed things up and actually has a point in suing Blake and Ryan.

I’m not a lawyer, I think the PR of this is way more important than the case. At the end of the day I don’t think anybody will lose a ton of money and I don’t tho I Baldoni will take much of a hit to his career. He’s gained followers, still has Sonys support, and is still developing films.

Hes very smart to lay low. Blake should do more of the same, but she seems to be taking her own expert advice.

Regarding the bolded: why not both?

In all seriousness, I think Freedman is good at a specific kind of legal practice, especially using the media to push the other side into settlement negotiations. He's good at making it painful for the other side. That's a valuable skill. However, I think he overplayed his hand here with their complaint, which was a PR stunt and never had much legal basis, with the assumption that if they came after Lively really hard, she'd fold and settle and it would all be over. I think this was a misread of Lively and her legal team. The case is not settling and looks like it won't any time soon, and he's put himself in a bad position with his early legal moves -- the judge is clearly pretty fed up with Freedman's stunts. I was somewhat surprised to see the judge dismissed the entire complaint, as I thought the defamation claim against Reynolds and the contract claims might survive MTDs (though I do think they will ultimately lose anyway). I wonder if Freedman's stunt with Taylor Swift, combined with Freedman's broad assumption that he would be given leave to amend the whole thing after MTDs (even though Liman specifically encouraged him to amend by the deadline), made Liman less inclined to give Freedman the benefit of the doubt.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:One question I have. If this case goes forward and we find out that Blake loses, there was no sexual harassment or retaliation, then Justin has no recourse? I guess I don’t understand what’s being set up here. I get that if she wins the case he shouldn’t be able to sue her for defamation and things, but if she loses, everyone’s totes OK with that?

Guess I don’t understand how this is a win for women. We’re just willing to sacrifice a few bad apples for the cause? Never mind we’re also talking about women who lose their sons and husbands do these kinds of accusations.

To be fair, I don’t think false accusations are common. These kinds of accusations in this case worry me because they are so nuanced and it seems more like workplace disputes and frankly even creative differences than sexual harassment. It’s kind of setting up if any woman is asked to do something on set by a male all of a sudden it’s mansplaining and harassment. Even if it’s a director who’s hired to give her direction or that she signs up to do intimate love scenes and if there’s something that she doesn’t agree with…boom SH rather than being able to talk it through it and then like not having to any scene she was uncomfortable with which is exactly what happened.

What if the accusations aren't false?

If the accusations aren’t false, and he has found guilty than he should not be able to sue.

But he still has is day in court right? We haven’t concluded that he sexually harassed and retaliated right? Or does he not even deserve a trial. Because Blake is pretty and she married a famous guy who makes us laugh when he dresses in a funny costume.

Just trying to understand modern feminism!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I’m confused by the lively supporters. Is freedom a really bad lawyer who botched the case or did Justin not have a case to begin with? I feel like you’re talking out of both sides of your mouth. You are talking about how badly BF botched this, but that wouldn’t imply he screwed things up and actually has a point in suing Blake and Ryan.

I’m not a lawyer, I think the PR of this is way more important than the case. At the end of the day I don’t think anybody will lose a ton of money and I don’t tho I Baldoni will take much of a hit to his career. He’s gained followers, still has Sonys support, and is still developing films.

Hes very smart to lay low. Blake should do more of the same, but she seems to be taking her own expert advice.

Regarding the bolded: why not both?

In all seriousness, I think Freedman is good at a specific kind of legal practice, especially using the media to push the other side into settlement negotiations. He's good at making it painful for the other side. That's a valuable skill. However, I think he overplayed his hand here with their complaint, which was a PR stunt and never had much legal basis, with the assumption that if they came after Lively really hard, she'd fold and settle and it would all be over. I think this was a misread of Lively and her legal team. The case is not settling and looks like it won't any time soon, and he's put himself in a bad position with his early legal moves -- the judge is clearly pretty fed up with Freedman's stunts. I was somewhat surprised to see the judge dismissed the entire complaint, as I thought the defamation claim against Reynolds and the contract claims might survive MTDs (though I do think they will ultimately lose anyway). I wonder if Freedman's stunt with Taylor Swift, combined with Freedman's broad assumption that he would be given leave to amend the whole thing after MTDs (even though Liman specifically encouraged him to amend by the deadline), made Liman less inclined to give Freedman the benefit of the doubt.

I disagree that it was a stunt. Something happened with Taylor or at this point she or her firm would’ve come out and said something. Who knows what went down but something happened and it is absolutely not surprising to me that in desperation, Blake had told her to delete texts or something like that. And maybe even said something that wasn’t meant to be a threat but was like you wouldn’t want our personal texts coming out. It’s pretty clear whatever happened rubbed Taylor the wrong way and there was back-and-forth between the teams.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:One question I have. If this case goes forward and we find out that Blake loses, there was no sexual harassment or retaliation, then Justin has no recourse? I guess I don’t understand what’s being set up here. I get that if she wins the case he shouldn’t be able to sue her for defamation and things, but if she loses, everyone’s totes OK with that?

Guess I don’t understand how this is a win for women. We’re just willing to sacrifice a few bad apples for the cause? Never mind we’re also talking about women who lose their sons and husbands do these kinds of accusations.

To be fair, I don’t think false accusations are common. These kinds of accusations in this case worry me because they are so nuanced and it seems more like workplace disputes and frankly even creative differences than sexual harassment. It’s kind of setting up if any woman is asked to do something on set by a male all of a sudden it’s mansplaining and harassment. Even if it’s a director who’s hired to give her direction or that she signs up to do intimate love scenes and if there’s something that she doesn’t agree with…boom SH rather than being able to talk it through it and then like not having to any scene she was uncomfortable with which is exactly what happened.

What if the accusations aren't false?

What if they are?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I don’t understand why Baldoni supporters thought are NOT obsessed with Freedman’s lack of legal skills. He’s effing over your guy! At this point I hope he stays in and remains in charge of everything because he is pretty clearly outmatched by Willkie and Manatt. And I can post all his dumb mistakes in here.

They can't turn on Freedman because he's the whole reason they support Baldoni. To admit that Freedman is all BS and bluster and is not actually a skilled lawyer, just a very skilled con man, would be to open he door to the idea that maybe, just maybe, Justin Baldoni is not an innocent victim in this whole thing.

But that's not allowed, so they have to stick to Freedman. This is also likely why Baldoni will stick with him, too. When you know that you actually might be wrong, you can't ever admit it out loud. It would break the spell.

Honestly, yes, I think this is basically true. He has pulled the strings since August and the PR is great! So maybe even if they lose their case, they still win.

The other thing I kind of wonder about is Freedman’s own potential involvement in the smear, given that we are already seeing text strings where Freedman is texting reporters like Vituscka or messaging Jed Wallace. They can’t really get rid of Freedman because he knows where the bodies are buried and maybe knows how to bury any other bodies that need burying. Maybe everything falls apart.

I don’t really know if Freedman is involved in THIS level of deception, which is, like, disbarment level, but if so it would be delicious.

If Freedman was involved in the PR campaign last summer, I think that issue might emerge sooner rather than later.

There's this weird debate regarding Lively's deposition, where Freedman claims that Lively asked specifically that Freedman not be the attorney who deposes her. This is just Freedman asserting this, Lively and her lawyers haven't said anything about this. This came out back in February with Freedman wanted to depose Lively immediately, before document production, and Liman said no, they had to wait. But Freedman claimed Lively was trying to keep him from being the one to depose, and Liman said something like "no Lively doesn't get to choose her questioner."

I thought that was weird at the time because of course Lively's attorneys know that they can't demand Freedman not be the one to question Lively. UNLESS... this was actually about Lively's legal team considering including Freedman as a defendant. I wonder if they were debating adding Freedman as a defendant at the time, and said something about how Freedman might not be permitted to depose Lively (at least not on behalf of Baldoni and others because he would not be permitted to represent his co-defendants) and Freedman twisted this to make it sound like Lively was just trying to avoid being deposed by him because she's afraid of him.

Anyway, depositions are now much closer, as document production seems to be drawing to a close, so this issue might come back up, especially if discovery turned up additional, non-privileged communications between Freedman and members of the media. We'll see.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I’m confused by the lively supporters. Is freedom a really bad lawyer who botched the case or did Justin not have a case to begin with? I feel like you’re talking out of both sides of your mouth. You are talking about how badly BF botched this, but that wouldn’t imply he screwed things up and actually has a point in suing Blake and Ryan.

I’m not a lawyer, I think the PR of this is way more important than the case. At the end of the day I don’t think anybody will lose a ton of money and I don’t tho I Baldoni will take much of a hit to his career. He’s gained followers, still has Sonys support, and is still developing films.

Hes very smart to lay low. Blake should do more of the same, but she seems to be taking her own expert advice.

Regarding the bolded: why not both?

In all seriousness, I think Freedman is good at a specific kind of legal practice, especially using the media to push the other side into settlement negotiations. He's good at making it painful for the other side. That's a valuable skill. However, I think he overplayed his hand here with their complaint, which was a PR stunt and never had much legal basis, with the assumption that if they came after Lively really hard, she'd fold and settle and it would all be over. I think this was a misread of Lively and her legal team. The case is not settling and looks like it won't any time soon, and he's put himself in a bad position with his early legal moves -- the judge is clearly pretty fed up with Freedman's stunts. I was somewhat surprised to see the judge dismissed the entire complaint, as I thought the defamation claim against Reynolds and the contract claims might survive MTDs (though I do think they will ultimately lose anyway). I wonder if Freedman's stunt with Taylor Swift, combined with Freedman's broad assumption that he would be given leave to amend the whole thing after MTDs (even though Liman specifically encouraged him to amend by the deadline), made Liman less inclined to give Freedman the benefit of the doubt.

I disagree that it was a stunt. Something happened with Taylor or at this point she or her firm would’ve come out and said something. Who knows what went down but something happened and it is absolutely not surprising to me that in desperation, Blake had told her to delete texts or something like that. And maybe even said something that wasn’t meant to be a threat but was like you wouldn’t want our personal texts coming out. It’s pretty clear whatever happened rubbed Taylor the wrong way and there was back-and-forth between the teams.

It's clear Liman thought it was a stunt, based on how quickly and forcefully he struck the letter and affidavit from the record. And it's his perception that matters in this situation.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:One question I have. If this case goes forward and we find out that Blake loses, there was no sexual harassment or retaliation, then Justin has no recourse? I guess I don’t understand what’s being set up here. I get that if she wins the case he shouldn’t be able to sue her for defamation and things, but if she loses, everyone’s totes OK with that?

Guess I don’t understand how this is a win for women. We’re just willing to sacrifice a few bad apples for the cause? Never mind we’re also talking about women who lose their sons and husbands do these kinds of accusations.

To be fair, I don’t think false accusations are common. These kinds of accusations in this case worry me because they are so nuanced and it seems more like workplace disputes and frankly even creative differences than sexual harassment. It’s kind of setting up if any woman is asked to do something on set by a male all of a sudden it’s mansplaining and harassment. Even if it’s a director who’s hired to give her direction or that she signs up to do intimate love scenes and if there’s something that she doesn’t agree with…boom SH rather than being able to talk it through it and then like not having to any scene she was uncomfortable with which is exactly what happened.

What if the accusations aren't false?

What if they are?

Then that will come out via the litigation and everyone will know.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:When he went on TMZ, he had the 4 claims he was going to amend written down in a notebook lol! He wasn't pulling it from nowhere; he planned those 4 claims, and two of them are claims the judge specifically told him not to replead.

He also had to consult his notebook to remember Jen Abel's name and her firm. Does he even know who he's representing here? If I were her I might be wondering about another lawyer.

I've seen murmurs on Reddit about how active Freedman's current caseload is and that he has several other cases in very critical stages of litigation (I know one is the FKA Twigs trial, and he's representing Vin Diesel in that harassment case that just came up). Freedman's handled plenty of high profile cases before but, like, insider LA high profile. Not this. I bet he's drowning in work right now and his firm is not large and he doesn't have a true #2 on this case, someone whose profile is close to as high as his who can speak authoritatively to the press or handle major issues as they arise. Gottlieb has Esra Hudson, but Freedman's NY counsel is much lower profile and Ellyn Garafolo is a trial specialist who usually doesn't handle this aspect of the case (and has her own full schedule).

Interesting that you're so personally invested, you're cyber-stalking and spamming this matter across multiple web outlets. Nobody in a right state of mind is doing such a thing for free. So which is it, you're all being paid or you're all in the same nuthouse?

Whoa there are a bunch of people here on both sides of the debate who also follow this case on Reddit -- people have posted links to both pro-JB and pro-BL stuff here.

I get that you are still upset about the ruling earlier this week but you don't have to name call. This is still just a discussion thread about the case. Dial it down or I will start reporting these to Jeff for deletion.

Right? I agree folks are probably still feeling upset by the dismissal, but these antics are silly.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:One question I have. If this case goes forward and we find out that Blake loses, there was no sexual harassment or retaliation, then Justin has no recourse? I guess I don’t understand what’s being set up here. I get that if she wins the case he shouldn’t be able to sue her for defamation and things, but if she loses, everyone’s totes OK with that?

Guess I don’t understand how this is a win for women. We’re just willing to sacrifice a few bad apples for the cause? Never mind we’re also talking about women who lose their sons and husbands do these kinds of accusations.

To be fair, I don’t think false accusations are common. These kinds of accusations in this case worry me because they are so nuanced and it seems more like workplace disputes and frankly even creative differences than sexual harassment. It’s kind of setting up if any woman is asked to do something on set by a male all of a sudden it’s mansplaining and harassment. Even if it’s a director who’s hired to give her direction or that she signs up to do intimate love scenes and if there’s something that she doesn’t agree with…boom SH rather than being able to talk it through it and then like not having to any scene she was uncomfortable with which is exactly what happened.

What if the accusations aren't false?

If the accusations aren’t false, and he has found guilty than he should not be able to sue.

But he still has is day in court right? We haven’t concluded that he sexually harassed and retaliated right? Or does he not even deserve a trial. Because Blake is pretty and she married a famous guy who makes us laugh when he dresses in a funny costume.

Just trying to understand modern feminism!

What are you talking about? Lively wants to have a trial, that's what this is all about. Has anyone suggested that there shouldn't be a trial?

[Anonymous]

I don't use social media, but read normal newspapers like the NYT.


From my vantage point, it seems there was an actress who faced impolite men on set; she made formal complaints; they feared she would retaliate beyond that, and decided to create a social media campaign against her, but it backfired instead.



Also, this thread is nuts.