Blake Lively- Jason Baldoni and NYT - False Light claims

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Meanwhile, JB supporters on reddit are combing FamilyTreeNow profiles for Lively's attorneys trying to find a connection to Liman as part of a conspiracy theory that Liman is in the tank for Lively.

Now THAT is how you stalk a lawyer, not by idly noting they seem busy with their caseload because they have a lot of high profile clients.

Lol.

They hate Liman so much that they really need to find some way to GET HIM OUT.

I think Liman is basically just hard-line judge. Remember when he wouldn’t give Lively more than one extra day on her complaint and Baldoni supporters were saying that meant he hated her? No, he is just a stickler. I don’t really think he hates Baldoni or Freedman either, tbh. If Freedman had filed a MTD, I think he might have gotten something, though Gottlieb’s complaint was honestly much more clearly supported by facts directly relating to the underlying claims.

This can also be rough on Lively if/when they go to trial. But I think Willkie and Manatt are up to speed on him now (and Gottlieb has been before him before so likely already knew).

I agree with this analysis, at least in part. I also think that it would have not mattered if Freedman amended, this judge was always going to read the litigation and fair use protections broadly.

A motion to dismiss against Lively would have been unsuccessful. The judge has to accept all her allegations as true, and she pled enough. Summary judgment, however, may be a different story, and I think that may be something Freedman pursues.

Although, can I just say that it would be A M A Z I N G if Freedman did NOT file for summary judgement, and instead issued a statement that he didn’t want to provide Lively with a roadmap for trial, and ended with something about sending Gottlieb to JoAnn Fabrics for cheese?

I think Baldoni supporters still would not revolt, but I don’t know, there are some that are actually starting to get antsy now.

One problem for the JB supporters is that Freedman has intentionally exploited their lack of legal knowledge. Many of them were fully convinced that Blake would be put on trial for stealing the movie, that Taylor Swift would be a central witness in that trial, and that Baldoni would of course prevail because look at all this celeb gossip about Blake being a mean girl who "takes over" the films she's in. If you tried to impose any kind of legal framework on that, they'd freak out and tell you that you didn't know anything, even if you just presented information about how the legal system works in a neutral, FYI way intended to inform and not to argue for Lively's side.

So as Freedman encounters these legal stumbling blocks, JB's supporters are confused because their support for JB was based on a totally false understanding of the case. For those of us who understood from the get-go that JB's claims against Lively and NYT were mostly totally untenable and largely filed for PR reasons, this doesn't really change much. This case was always really about Lively's SH/retaliation claims, it's still about that, the whole "she stole the movie" narrative was largely invented by Freedman to keep people from talking about or focusing on the SH/retaliation claims. And it worked for a while. But now we are back to where we started. But for JB supporters who genuinely believed this whole thing was really about how Lively stole a movie (that she did not steal, that still belongs to Wayfarer, and that JB and others have made a ton of money off of), it feels like the rug has been pulled out from under them. But this is the same rug we've all been standing on since Lively filed her CRD! Literally nothing has changed. But now we will actually get to discuss the SH/retaliation case and can set aside these distractions that never had much of any legal basis to begin with.

You are way overthinking this. People simply read the New York Times article and her complaint on December 21 or whenever, and then 10 days later went on the website and read Justin‘s side. After that, they just wanted fairness. Would there be repercussions for Blake taking over so much of the movie little by little, bit by bit, having her lawyer send threatening emails every two weeks, threatening to walk off the film, Stealing a PGA credit that she didn’t deserve, running up the budget, and then taking over the marketing and doing a real disservice to the themes of the story through marketing she and her husband‘s alcohol lines and her frivolous hair business that was going to flop before it even got off the ground regardless of this mess.

The threads on this website are a little different because there are so many lawyers in the DC metro area that are weighing in, but 99% of the public aren’t arguing back-and-forth legal arguments. People just want justice. And as much as people don’t like Blake if she was sexually harassed, most would want justice for her too.

If people in the public were impressed by Brian Freedman, they were impressed by the way he bought Justin‘s story forward. He did do a good job of making a compelling narrative that was easy to understand and laid out the timeline really well.

Bringing Taylor in by redacting every name but hers was genius and perhaps the biggest win anyone will get from this case. The deteriorating relationship and her not supporting Blake is devastating for Blake and Ryan. Regardless of what happens in this case, that has been a huge blow to their public image.

This is an excellent analysis. And to see it, it is mind boggling that this case that started off with Blake bringing a claim and blasting Justin in the NYT to the world shifting so dramatically that Blake is the subject of multiple serious claims (even if they’re not won) by multiple parties, and 95 percent of the world thinking she’s a phony liar. And her BFF, the most famous woman in the world, has dropped her very publicly. All in a few months. Gotta give credit where it’s due. The freedman side is impressive, even if none of his claims survive. The weird poster droning on about 4 claims or 2 blah blah is delusional. Justin won. Blake has lost. No one will ever trust her again.

So is Freedman an attorney or a PR guru?

[Anonymous]

The judge ordered the other day that Lively's team should inform the court on the status of the subpoenas of various Wayfarer employees. Lively had filed a MTC on those on May 9th. Gottlieb has now responded that they still have not received anything since their first request in March and Wayfarer is promising they'll have it by July 1. Those subpoenas might get some interesting discovery as they request anything relating to the parties in the case plus any documents related to hiring Freedman and any communications with Flaa.

I'm actually thinking Liman could order them to turn it over sooner than July 1, the way things have been going.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:If it's so not a big deal that Justin's claims were dismissed, I wonder why Daily Mail has a story today about the judge's brother's connection to Lively, per "online attention" and "social media buzz." Totally organic of course. DM was simply monitoring social media and came upon this important and newsworthy story.

Of course it’s a big deal. But it’s also not unexpected. When very powerful wealthy people take on a much smaller less powerful person this happens so I don’t think we’re really surprised. The David and Goliath references have been made since the beginning of this thread.

I think what you are not getting is that we are impressed that BF was able to help Justin tell his story, craft the timeline, and get out video footage before Lively’s team squashed it all. The website BF put up spawned 1 billion TikTok‘s and hundreds of longform podcasts explaining step-by-step, text by text, email by email, interaction by interaction, justin’s side. if this happened 10-15 years ago it would’ve looked very different for Justin. Brian Freedman, if nothing else, took advantage of the modern media landscape in a way Blake has not been able to do.

Maybe it’s possible Justin could have gotten a lawyer who could walk and chew gum and do PR and better lawyering, I have no idea, but if he had to pick one, I think putting out his narrative has helped him more than anything.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If it's so not a big deal that Justin's claims were dismissed, I wonder why Daily Mail has a story today about the judge's brother's connection to Lively, per "online attention" and "social media buzz." Totally organic of course. DM was simply monitoring social media and came upon this important and newsworthy story.

Of course it’s a big deal. But it’s also not unexpected. When very powerful wealthy people take on a much smaller less powerful person this happens so I don’t think we’re really surprised. The David and Goliath references have been made since the beginning of this thread.

I think what you are not getting is that we are impressed that BF was able to help Justin tell his story, craft the timeline, and get out video footage before Lively’s team squashed it all. The website BF put up spawned 1 billion TikTok‘s and hundreds of longform podcasts explaining step-by-step, text by text, email by email, interaction by interaction, justin’s side. if this happened 10-15 years ago it would’ve looked very different for Justin. Brian Freedman, if nothing else, took advantage of the modern media landscape in a way Blake has not been able to do.

Maybe it’s possible Justin could have gotten a lawyer who could walk and chew gum and do PR and better lawyering, I have no idea, but if he had to pick one, I think putting out his narrative has helped him more than anything.

PP. From the anti-Baldoni side (not pro-Lively), most of this is actually what I've been saying all along, that the suits were filed to get his side of the story out effectively, and were not strong legal claims (and I also think to the extent any claims could have been workable, Freedman didn't do a good job pleading them). I actually don't disagree with this except the David and Goliath part. Baldoni has a billionaire backer and a whole team behind him that is still seeding stories to this day.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If it's so not a big deal that Justin's claims were dismissed, I wonder why Daily Mail has a story today about the judge's brother's connection to Lively, per "online attention" and "social media buzz." Totally organic of course. DM was simply monitoring social media and came upon this important and newsworthy story.

Of course it’s a big deal. But it’s also not unexpected. When very powerful wealthy people take on a much smaller less powerful person this happens so I don’t think we’re really surprised. The David and Goliath references have been made since the beginning of this thread.

I think what you are not getting is that we are impressed that BF was able to help Justin tell his story, craft the timeline, and get out video footage before Lively’s team squashed it all. The website BF put up spawned 1 billion TikTok‘s and hundreds of longform podcasts explaining step-by-step, text by text, email by email, interaction by interaction, justin’s side. if this happened 10-15 years ago it would’ve looked very different for Justin. Brian Freedman, if nothing else, took advantage of the modern media landscape in a way Blake has not been able to do.

Maybe it’s possible Justin could have gotten a lawyer who could walk and chew gum and do PR and better lawyering, I have no idea, but if he had to pick one, I think putting out his narrative has helped him more than anything.

ved Justin

I agree, I also don’t think there has been bad lawyering. For all the talk by the lively bots, the much derided Exhibit A was never struck. The extortion and defamation claims were long shots, no one ever denied that.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If it's so not a big deal that Justin's claims were dismissed, I wonder why Daily Mail has a story today about the judge's brother's connection to Lively, per "online attention" and "social media buzz." Totally organic of course. DM was simply monitoring social media and came upon this important and newsworthy story.

Of course it’s a big deal. But it’s also not unexpected. When very powerful wealthy people take on a much smaller less powerful person this happens so I don’t think we’re really surprised. The David and Goliath references have been made since the beginning of this thread.

I think what you are not getting is that we are impressed that BF was able to help Justin tell his story, craft the timeline, and get out video footage before Lively’s team squashed it all. The website BF put up spawned 1 billion TikTok‘s and hundreds of longform podcasts explaining step-by-step, text by text, email by email, interaction by interaction, justin’s side. if this happened 10-15 years ago it would’ve looked very different for Justin. Brian Freedman, if nothing else, took advantage of the modern media landscape in a way Blake has not been able to do.

Maybe it’s possible Justin could have gotten a lawyer who could walk and chew gum and do PR and better lawyering, I have no idea, but if he had to pick one, I think putting out his narrative has helped him more than anything.

ved Justin

I agree, I also don’t think there has been bad lawyering. For all the talk by the lively bots, the much derided Exhibit A was never struck. The extortion and defamation claims were long shots, no one ever denied that.

Adding that in 2 out of 3 courts, I think they get another shot at defamation. Lively got very lucky when Liman was assigned to the case. Not because I think he is partial but because he runs a tight ship.

[Anonymous]

So there was no sexual abuse in this case?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If it's so not a big deal that Justin's claims were dismissed, I wonder why Daily Mail has a story today about the judge's brother's connection to Lively, per "online attention" and "social media buzz." Totally organic of course. DM was simply monitoring social media and came upon this important and newsworthy story.

Of course it’s a big deal. But it’s also not unexpected. When very powerful wealthy people take on a much smaller less powerful person this happens so I don’t think we’re really surprised. The David and Goliath references have been made since the beginning of this thread.

I think what you are not getting is that we are impressed that BF was able to help Justin tell his story, craft the timeline, and get out video footage before Lively’s team squashed it all. The website BF put up spawned 1 billion TikTok‘s and hundreds of longform podcasts explaining step-by-step, text by text, email by email, interaction by interaction, justin’s side. if this happened 10-15 years ago it would’ve looked very different for Justin. Brian Freedman, if nothing else, took advantage of the modern media landscape in a way Blake has not been able to do.

Maybe it’s possible Justin could have gotten a lawyer who could walk and chew gum and do PR and better lawyering, I have no idea, but if he had to pick one, I think putting out his narrative has helped him more than anything.

Agree! I’ve seen only a few lawyers who are good at shaping a legal narrative with PR, and I’ll say that freedman is far and away, the best. He found a way to pretty much vindicate his client in mere days. Pretty amazing.

Although I think the defamation claims had some merit that a legal expert in this area could have assisted with to survive a MTD.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If it's so not a big deal that Justin's claims were dismissed, I wonder why Daily Mail has a story today about the judge's brother's connection to Lively, per "online attention" and "social media buzz." Totally organic of course. DM was simply monitoring social media and came upon this important and newsworthy story.

Of course it’s a big deal. But it’s also not unexpected. When very powerful wealthy people take on a much smaller less powerful person this happens so I don’t think we’re really surprised. The David and Goliath references have been made since the beginning of this thread.

I think what you are not getting is that we are impressed that BF was able to help Justin tell his story, craft the timeline, and get out video footage before Lively’s team squashed it all. The website BF put up spawned 1 billion TikTok‘s and hundreds of longform podcasts explaining step-by-step, text by text, email by email, interaction by interaction, justin’s side. if this happened 10-15 years ago it would’ve looked very different for Justin. Brian Freedman, if nothing else, took advantage of the modern media landscape in a way Blake has not been able to do.

Maybe it’s possible Justin could have gotten a lawyer who could walk and chew gum and do PR and better lawyering, I have no idea, but if he had to pick one, I think putting out his narrative has helped him more than anything.

ved Justin

I agree, I also don’t think there has been bad lawyering. For all the talk by the lively bots, the much derided Exhibit A was never struck. The extortion and defamation claims were long shots, no one ever denied that.

Adding that in 2 out of 3 courts, I think they get another shot at defamation. Lively got very lucky when Liman was assigned to the case. Not because I think he is partial but because he runs a tight ship.

What courts?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:So there was no sexual abuse in this case?

Sex abuse? It wasn’t ever alleged. Sexual harassment? Most people think no

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If it's so not a big deal that Justin's claims were dismissed, I wonder why Daily Mail has a story today about the judge's brother's connection to Lively, per "online attention" and "social media buzz." Totally organic of course. DM was simply monitoring social media and came upon this important and newsworthy story.

Of course it’s a big deal. But it’s also not unexpected. When very powerful wealthy people take on a much smaller less powerful person this happens so I don’t think we’re really surprised. The David and Goliath references have been made since the beginning of this thread.

I think what you are not getting is that we are impressed that BF was able to help Justin tell his story, craft the timeline, and get out video footage before Lively’s team squashed it all. The website BF put up spawned 1 billion TikTok‘s and hundreds of longform podcasts explaining step-by-step, text by text, email by email, interaction by interaction, justin’s side. if this happened 10-15 years ago it would’ve looked very different for Justin. Brian Freedman, if nothing else, took advantage of the modern media landscape in a way Blake has not been able to do.

Maybe it’s possible Justin could have gotten a lawyer who could walk and chew gum and do PR and better lawyering, I have no idea, but if he had to pick one, I think putting out his narrative has helped him more than anything.

Agree! I’ve seen only a few lawyers who are good at shaping a legal narrative with PR, and I’ll say that freedman is far and away, the best. He found a way to pretty much vindicate his client in mere days. Pretty amazing.

Although I think the defamation claims had some merit that a legal expert in this area could have assisted with to survive a MTD.

Yea, I’ll concede that, particularly with the briefing.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If it's so not a big deal that Justin's claims were dismissed, I wonder why Daily Mail has a story today about the judge's brother's connection to Lively, per "online attention" and "social media buzz." Totally organic of course. DM was simply monitoring social media and came upon this important and newsworthy story.

Of course it’s a big deal. But it’s also not unexpected. When very powerful wealthy people take on a much smaller less powerful person this happens so I don’t think we’re really surprised. The David and Goliath references have been made since the beginning of this thread.

I think what you are not getting is that we are impressed that BF was able to help Justin tell his story, craft the timeline, and get out video footage before Lively’s team squashed it all. The website BF put up spawned 1 billion TikTok‘s and hundreds of longform podcasts explaining step-by-step, text by text, email by email, interaction by interaction, justin’s side. if this happened 10-15 years ago it would’ve looked very different for Justin. Brian Freedman, if nothing else, took advantage of the modern media landscape in a way Blake has not been able to do.

Maybe it’s possible Justin could have gotten a lawyer who could walk and chew gum and do PR and better lawyering, I have no idea, but if he had to pick one, I think putting out his narrative has helped him more than anything.

Agree! I’ve seen only a few lawyers who are good at shaping a legal narrative with PR, and I’ll say that freedman is far and away, the best. He found a way to pretty much vindicate his client in mere days. Pretty amazing.

Although I think the defamation claims had some merit that a legal expert in this area could have assisted with to survive a MTD.

I'm still so interested in the defamation aspect of his case, and think the NYT was embarrassingly sloppy. Do you have any idea as to how his claims could've been written differently in order to survive an MTD?

[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: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.

You are incorrect (and extremely rude, as usual). Anyway, this lawyer went through the comparing and there are indeed four., but so closely related in nature, that it is two causes of action. You can watch, if you liike, but the don’t want to waste my time typing it all out for you. https://www.tiktok.com/t/ZP8MwAhm2/

I have watched this video and she is totally wrong, for the reasons I said above. She's including the negligent and intentional interference with prospective economic advantage claims as claims that he can still bring, and he can't. And her reason why she thinks he can still bring them are looking wistfully in the air and saying that she thinks they weren't mentioned in the order. No. Total waste of time. Extremely wrong.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If it's so not a big deal that Justin's claims were dismissed, I wonder why Daily Mail has a story today about the judge's brother's connection to Lively, per "online attention" and "social media buzz." Totally organic of course. DM was simply monitoring social media and came upon this important and newsworthy story.

Of course it’s a big deal. But it’s also not unexpected. When very powerful wealthy people take on a much smaller less powerful person this happens so I don’t think we’re really surprised. The David and Goliath references have been made since the beginning of this thread.

I think what you are not getting is that we are impressed that BF was able to help Justin tell his story, craft the timeline, and get out video footage before Lively’s team squashed it all. The website BF put up spawned 1 billion TikTok‘s and hundreds of longform podcasts explaining step-by-step, text by text, email by email, interaction by interaction, justin’s side. if this happened 10-15 years ago it would’ve looked very different for Justin. Brian Freedman, if nothing else, took advantage of the modern media landscape in a way Blake has not been able to do.

Maybe it’s possible Justin could have gotten a lawyer who could walk and chew gum and do PR and better lawyering, I have no idea, but if he had to pick one, I think putting out his narrative has helped him more than anything.

Agree! I’ve seen only a few lawyers who are good at shaping a legal narrative with PR, and I’ll say that freedman is far and away, the best. He found a way to pretty much vindicate his client in mere days. Pretty amazing.

Although I think the defamation claims had some merit that a legal expert in this area could have assisted with to survive a MTD.

I'm still so interested in the defamation aspect of his case, and think the NYT was embarrassingly sloppy. Do you have any idea as to how his claims could've been written differently in order to survive an MTD?

DP but I do not think it would be possible for the claims against the NYT to survive no matter how well written (though they did not help themselves).

I think the defamation claim against Reynolds was strongest, and if they had more clearly linked Reynold's comments to William Morris agents about Baldoni to losing their agency representation as well as just negative industry perception of Baldoni and Wayfarer, I think they could have gotten past the MTD stage. Liman dismissed this claim because he concluded that there was no way to find "actual malice" in Reynold's comments. He found that Reynolds' statements were based on Lively's claims to Reynolds about her experience on the set, and the statements were made with the belief that Lively was telling the truth, which makes actual malice impossible to find. This is also the reasoning in Reynold's motion to dismiss, so Liman adopted that reasoning in his decision.

However, I think there's a valid argument that in Reynold's case, the determination of actual malice is a question of fact for the jury, because we simply do not know what Reynold's believed at the time. A jury could listen to testimony and reach a factual conclusion about whether these statement met the standard of actual malice or not. Reynold's was not covered by either litigation privilege or fair report, so the defamation claim against him was strongest. He also could not claim 47.1 coverage because he is not the accuser in the SH litigation.

But because of the group pleading problem in the complaint, and because of how weakly Freedman addressed these issues in the MTD briefing (IMO -- I think the Lively parties MTD briefs were very well composed and clearly designed to work in concert, and the responses were weak and messy), Liman found otherwise. I think it's the weakest part of his decision and the one they most likely could have avoided with better briefing (and an amended complaint to address the group pleading issue).

[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: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.

You are incorrect (and extremely rude, as usual). Anyway, this lawyer went through the comparing and there are indeed four., but so closely related in nature, that it is two causes of action. You can watch, if you liike, but the don’t want to waste my time typing it all out for you. https://www.tiktok.com/t/ZP8MwAhm2/

I have watched this video and she is totally wrong, for the reasons I said above. She's including the negligent and intentional interference with prospective economic advantage claims as claims that he can still bring, and he can't. And her reason why she thinks he can still bring them are looking wistfully in the air and saying that she thinks they weren't mentioned in the order. No. Total waste of time. Extremely wrong.

+1, the Tik Tok lawyers are just getting this incorrect. They are not reading Liman's full decision which makes it clear. They are making the same wishful thinking error Freedman was making in his comments to TMZ.

The irony for me is that the news coverage of Liman's decision on Monday actually got this right, despite the length of Liman's memo. You have to read both the order and his conclusions in his opinion to fully understand what is dismissed with and without prejudice (which is admittedly annoying -- Liman can sometimes be a bit sloppy in his decisions IMO) and I'm actually surprised that by and large the media did this and got it right, even the celebrity media. I listened to a TMZ podcast on Monday evening covering the decision and they nailed it, so the fact that Freedman was still not quite reading it clearly the next day is pretty embarrassing.