Blake Lively- Jason Baldoni and NYT - False Light claims

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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 can’t access this from my phone, but whatever this TikTok person is saying appears to directly contradict what *Baldoni’s lead attorney Bryan Freedman* said yesterday when he specifically named the four distinct claims he would raise, two of which were dismissed with prejudice by the judge.

He’s didn’t say four distinct claims, he said four claims. She went through the complaint and agrees. Sorry you wasted your morning with three pages of rambling posts on a non issue, but that’s what you do, all day, every day.

DP. Lmao 🤣

I signed off and just read through a few pages and this rabid poster was going on and on about freedman (why?? Is she a scorned lover?) and ‘late’ PR statements that were ‘WRONG’!

I mean, really, who cares? The case is still ongoing, and will likely go on for quite awhile with more twists and turns.

But this obsession with a lawyer in a case??? I’ve never seen anything like it!

Is this woman mentally ill or does she think this is some sort of wise PR strategy for Blake? Post on and on about garbled details, obsessively focusing on lawyers and other things 99.99 of the public doesn’t care about?? lol

Aw, you’re hurting my feelings so bad.

It’s okay though because I’ll just repost some of these dismissive comments in two weeks when Freedman files his amended complaint that will either omit these two claims Freedman said they’d have, or will include them, in which case we’ll get to see the judge’s reaction later. I’m sure the judge will not care about these “garbled details”!

Another TikTok lawyer explaining that Baldoni has four claims he can replead. This one is even easier to follow. https://www.tiktok.com/t/ZP8MKSuHw/

This person is also extremely wrong. She specifically says here are still 4 outstanding claims and that 2 of the remaining ones are (1) intentional interference with prospective economic advantage and (2) negligent interference with prospective economic advantage. Liman specifically notes that these are dismissed and can't be replead in footnote 6, and also as I've explained elsewhere, on page 125, where Liman is talking about 3 different claims at once (tortious interference with K plus the intentional and negligent interference claims above, when he writes:

"They also fail to allege that WME was influenced by Reynolds’ statements in any way, aside from conclusory statements that WME “cease[d] performing,” id. ¶ 350, the relationship was “disrupted,” id. ¶ 361, or the Wayfarer parties “were harmed,” id. ¶ 362; see Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555 (“[A] formulaic recitation of the elements of a cause of action will not do.”). This is fatal to all three claims, because there is no claim in the absence of facts showing that the relevant economic relationship existed and was disrupted. Regarding the claims of interference with prospective economic advantage, because the Wayfarer Parties do not allege that Reynolds’ statements were defamatory, they do not allege that they were independently wrongful. See Korea Supply, 63 P.3d at 954 (“[A]n act is independently wrongful if it is unlawful, that is, if it is proscribed by some constitutional, statutory, regulatory, common law, or other determinable legal standard.”)."

Footnote 6 explains that "The failure of the defamation claim against Reynolds is also fatal to the claims for intentional and negligent interference with prospective economic relations, which require interference be through a wrongful act." So while Liman allows Freedman to replead his tortious interference with contractual relations claim, which only requires some intentional act, it would be futile to allow Freedman to replead the interference with prospective economic advantage claims because the Korea Supply case requires such claims to include some independently wrongful act (in the Korea Supply case, the accused engaged in bribery and offered sexual favors for a contract) besides the claimed interference itself. Liman already determined in the defamation section that Reynolds calling Baldoni a sexual predator wasn't a wrongful act, and so those claims must also fail.

So while Liman allows Freedman to replead the tortious interference with contractual relations claim, there's no point in repleading the negligent or intentional interference with prospective economic relations claims because there's no wrongful act and they must fail too.

So much bravado on all sides from the Baldoni camp here, first from these TikTokers getting up and proclaiming this completely wrong stuff. Second, your own in posting this completely untrue and misleading stuff here clearly without even understanding what these people were saying or how it related to the opinion. And third, of Freedman in getting on TMZ of all things and proclaiming this to the masses for them to go forth and spread around, even though he is the lead attorney and usually the lead attorneys know wtf they are talking about.

Turtles all the way down.

[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?

Not sure, but just generally I thought they went beyond fair report - also referred to as ‘neutral report’ - and that a skilled P side defamation attorney could have survived a MTD - the headline, the assertion that they’d done their own independent investigation, that they ‘reviewed hundreds of text messages’, the podcast later where they said something like ‘this is what happened…’. A little out there, but even the user comments below the original hit job article that they kept up and locked (all pretty much bashing Jb and calling him a predator) while not allowing comments on later articles including their post when they succeeded on the MTD… and yes, I know about Section 230 of the CDA.

One might argue they weren’t just neutrally reporting on a case, they were actively shaping the narrative. A false narrative. And that’s before Baldoni was able to do any discovery, so who knows what else he might have found to support his position and get to malice (and only negligence for the others more likely)?

I suspect Baldoni could find experts who would love to assist him in an appeal against the NYT, but as others have suggested, this case could have been more about PR for him than anything, and he might not want to continue. He’s been mostly vindicated.

[Anonymous]

I don't really see how he has been vindicated at all.

[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:

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 can’t access this from my phone, but whatever this TikTok person is saying appears to directly contradict what *Baldoni’s lead attorney Bryan Freedman* said yesterday when he specifically named the four distinct claims he would raise, two of which were dismissed with prejudice by the judge.

He’s didn’t say four distinct claims, he said four claims. She went through the complaint and agrees. Sorry you wasted your morning with three pages of rambling posts on a non issue, but that’s what you do, all day, every day.

DP. Lmao 🤣

I signed off and just read through a few pages and this rabid poster was going on and on about freedman (why?? Is she a scorned lover?) and ‘late’ PR statements that were ‘WRONG’!

I mean, really, who cares? The case is still ongoing, and will likely go on for quite awhile with more twists and turns.

But this obsession with a lawyer in a case??? I’ve never seen anything like it!

Is this woman mentally ill or does she think this is some sort of wise PR strategy for Blake? Post on and on about garbled details, obsessively focusing on lawyers and other things 99.99 of the public doesn’t care about?? lol

Aw, you’re hurting my feelings so bad.

It’s okay though because I’ll just repost some of these dismissive comments in two weeks when Freedman files his amended complaint that will either omit these two claims Freedman said they’d have, or will include them, in which case we’ll get to see the judge’s reaction later. I’m sure the judge will not care about these “garbled details”!

Another TikTok lawyer explaining that Baldoni has four claims he can replead. This one is even easier to follow. https://www.tiktok.com/t/ZP8MKSuHw/

This person is also extremely wrong. She specifically says here are still 4 outstanding claims and that 2 of the remaining ones are (1) intentional interference with prospective economic advantage and (2) negligent interference with prospective economic advantage. Liman specifically notes that these are dismissed and can't be replead in footnote 6, and also as I've explained elsewhere, on page 125, where Liman is talking about 3 different claims at once (tortious interference with K plus the intentional and negligent interference claims above, when he writes:

"They also fail to allege that WME was influenced by Reynolds’ statements in any way, aside from conclusory statements that WME “cease[d] performing,” id. ¶ 350, the relationship was “disrupted,” id. ¶ 361, or the Wayfarer parties “were harmed,” id. ¶ 362; see Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555 (“[A] formulaic recitation of the elements of a cause of action will not do.”). This is fatal to all three claims, because there is no claim in the absence of facts showing that the relevant economic relationship existed and was disrupted. Regarding the claims of interference with prospective economic advantage, because the Wayfarer Parties do not allege that Reynolds’ statements were defamatory, they do not allege that they were independently wrongful. See Korea Supply, 63 P.3d at 954 (“[A]n act is independently wrongful if it is unlawful, that is, if it is proscribed by some constitutional, statutory, regulatory, common law, or other determinable legal standard.”)."

Footnote 6 explains that "The failure of the defamation claim against Reynolds is also fatal to the claims for intentional and negligent interference with prospective economic relations, which require interference be through a wrongful act." So while Liman allows Freedman to replead his tortious interference with contractual relations claim, which only requires some intentional act, it would be futile to allow Freedman to replead the interference with prospective economic advantage claims because the Korea Supply case requires such claims to include some independently wrongful act (in the Korea Supply case, the accused engaged in bribery and offered sexual favors for a contract) besides the claimed interference itself. Liman already determined in the defamation section that Reynolds calling Baldoni a sexual predator wasn't a wrongful act, and so those claims must also fail.

So while Liman allows Freedman to replead the tortious interference with contractual relations claim, there's no point in repleading the negligent or intentional interference with prospective economic relations claims because there's no wrongful act and they must fail too.

So much bravado on all sides from the Baldoni camp here, first from these TikTokers getting up and proclaiming this completely wrong stuff. Second, your own in posting this completely untrue and misleading stuff here clearly without even understanding what these people were saying or how it related to the opinion. And third, of Freedman in getting on TMZ of all things and proclaiming this to the masses for them to go forth and spread around, even though he is the lead attorney and usually the lead attorneys know wtf they are talking about.

Turtles all the way down.

I don’t find your argument convincing, they could still plead another independent wrongful act besides defamation. Only defamation and extortion were dismissed with prejudice. Nothing prevents them from adding factual allegations that weren’t in the first complaint.

[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.

I really just see this differently, and see Freedman's whole countersuit as a bullying attempt to shut Lively up and scare her away from pursuing her lawsuit. I don't disagree with you that Freedman did a great job in figuring out what Baldoni's side of the story should be, and how to put it together and get it out to people. I am all on board with him releasing the video footage showing his side of the story I guess, although maybe technically he's not supposed to do that.

What I'm really not on board with is the whole $400M defamation suit filed against her, where defamation suits are tools that abusers use to shut up women who have accused men of sexual harassment. And now that suit has been absolutely demolished at the dismissal stage, along with most of Baldoni's damage claims, and that huge looming price tag that was on there just looks like a big tool that was used to scare and threaten her. Same as Freedman claiming he wanted to depose her in Madison Square Gardens for money, or him trying to scare her now. He's a giant bully who may be great on PR, but part of what makes him great on PR is the fact that he's a bully. And on the legal side of lawyering, it appears to me that he sucks very hard.

Something I read about Freedman a while ago that affected how I perceived him since was the fact that he said that he wanted to be an entertainment lawyer and needed clients, and the only way he could attract the kinds of clients he wanted was by representing people who wanted to sue them until the people he was suing wanted him for their lawyer. That's kind of how it worked out with Travis Flores, the Three Feet Apart kid with CF who hired Freedman to sue Baldoni, then died, and then Baldoni hired Freedman and here we are.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I don't really see how he has been vindicated at all.

Yeah, this is some fantasy world they are living in, I don't know what to tell you.

[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:

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 can’t access this from my phone, but whatever this TikTok person is saying appears to directly contradict what *Baldoni’s lead attorney Bryan Freedman* said yesterday when he specifically named the four distinct claims he would raise, two of which were dismissed with prejudice by the judge.

He’s didn’t say four distinct claims, he said four claims. She went through the complaint and agrees. Sorry you wasted your morning with three pages of rambling posts on a non issue, but that’s what you do, all day, every day.

DP. Lmao 🤣

I signed off and just read through a few pages and this rabid poster was going on and on about freedman (why?? Is she a scorned lover?) and ‘late’ PR statements that were ‘WRONG’!

I mean, really, who cares? The case is still ongoing, and will likely go on for quite awhile with more twists and turns.

But this obsession with a lawyer in a case??? I’ve never seen anything like it!

Is this woman mentally ill or does she think this is some sort of wise PR strategy for Blake? Post on and on about garbled details, obsessively focusing on lawyers and other things 99.99 of the public doesn’t care about?? lol

Aw, you’re hurting my feelings so bad.

It’s okay though because I’ll just repost some of these dismissive comments in two weeks when Freedman files his amended complaint that will either omit these two claims Freedman said they’d have, or will include them, in which case we’ll get to see the judge’s reaction later. I’m sure the judge will not care about these “garbled details”!

Another TikTok lawyer explaining that Baldoni has four claims he can replead. This one is even easier to follow. https://www.tiktok.com/t/ZP8MKSuHw/

This person is also extremely wrong. She specifically says here are still 4 outstanding claims and that 2 of the remaining ones are (1) intentional interference with prospective economic advantage and (2) negligent interference with prospective economic advantage. Liman specifically notes that these are dismissed and can't be replead in footnote 6, and also as I've explained elsewhere, on page 125, where Liman is talking about 3 different claims at once (tortious interference with K plus the intentional and negligent interference claims above, when he writes:

"They also fail to allege that WME was influenced by Reynolds’ statements in any way, aside from conclusory statements that WME “cease[d] performing,” id. ¶ 350, the relationship was “disrupted,” id. ¶ 361, or the Wayfarer parties “were harmed,” id. ¶ 362; see Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555 (“[A] formulaic recitation of the elements of a cause of action will not do.”). This is fatal to all three claims, because there is no claim in the absence of facts showing that the relevant economic relationship existed and was disrupted. Regarding the claims of interference with prospective economic advantage, because the Wayfarer Parties do not allege that Reynolds’ statements were defamatory, they do not allege that they were independently wrongful. See Korea Supply, 63 P.3d at 954 (“[A]n act is independently wrongful if it is unlawful, that is, if it is proscribed by some constitutional, statutory, regulatory, common law, or other determinable legal standard.”)."

Footnote 6 explains that "The failure of the defamation claim against Reynolds is also fatal to the claims for intentional and negligent interference with prospective economic relations, which require interference be through a wrongful act." So while Liman allows Freedman to replead his tortious interference with contractual relations claim, which only requires some intentional act, it would be futile to allow Freedman to replead the interference with prospective economic advantage claims because the Korea Supply case requires such claims to include some independently wrongful act (in the Korea Supply case, the accused engaged in bribery and offered sexual favors for a contract) besides the claimed interference itself. Liman already determined in the defamation section that Reynolds calling Baldoni a sexual predator wasn't a wrongful act, and so those claims must also fail.

So while Liman allows Freedman to replead the tortious interference with contractual relations claim, there's no point in repleading the negligent or intentional interference with prospective economic relations claims because there's no wrongful act and they must fail too.

So much bravado on all sides from the Baldoni camp here, first from these TikTokers getting up and proclaiming this completely wrong stuff. Second, your own in posting this completely untrue and misleading stuff here clearly without even understanding what these people were saying or how it related to the opinion. And third, of Freedman in getting on TMZ of all things and proclaiming this to the masses for them to go forth and spread around, even though he is the lead attorney and usually the lead attorneys know wtf they are talking about.

Turtles all the way down.

I don’t find your argument convincing, they could still plead another independent wrongful act besides defamation. Only defamation and extortion were dismissed with prejudice. Nothing prevents them from adding factual allegations that weren’t in the first complaint.

Nope nope nope. This is very wrong. The judge specifically says those claims are out in footnote 66 (and there are other claims mentioned in FN66 that make your statement that "Only defamation and extortion were dismissed with prejudice extra wrong). And the judge fully explains why they are out in the contracts section on p.125. I mean, Freedman can certainly try your strategy -- oh, please, god, let him try your strategy -- but Judge Liman told him these claims are out, and putting them in is going to make him look like a total wanker, as though he cannot read an interpret a judicial opinion correctly.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I don't really see how he has been vindicated at all.

Yeah, this is some fantasy world they are living in, I don't know what to tell you.

Us and the everyone besides the two of you (joking, but not by much) Read the comments section on any recent article about Blake, nearly all are Justin supporters. Gen Z, in particular, despises Blake. Not good at all for her figure marketability.

[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.

I really just see this differently, and see Freedman's whole countersuit as a bullying attempt to shut Lively up and scare her away from pursuing her lawsuit. I don't disagree with you that Freedman did a great job in figuring out what Baldoni's side of the story should be, and how to put it together and get it out to people. I am all on board with him releasing the video footage showing his side of the story I guess, although maybe technically he's not supposed to do that.

What I'm really not on board with is the whole $400M defamation suit filed against her, where defamation suits are tools that abusers use to shut up women who have accused men of sexual harassment. And now that suit has been absolutely demolished at the dismissal stage, along with most of Baldoni's damage claims, and that huge looming price tag that was on there just looks like a big tool that was used to scare and threaten her. Same as Freedman claiming he wanted to depose her in Madison Square Gardens for money, or him trying to scare her now. He's a giant bully who may be great on PR, but part of what makes him great on PR is the fact that he's a bully. And on the legal side of lawyering, it appears to me that he sucks very hard.

Something I read about Freedman a while ago that affected how I perceived him since was the fact that he said that he wanted to be an entertainment lawyer and needed clients, and the only way he could attract the kinds of clients he wanted was by representing people who wanted to sue them until the people he was suing wanted him for their lawyer. That's kind of how it worked out with Travis Flores, the Three Feet Apart kid with CF who hired Freedman to sue Baldoni, then died, and then Baldoni hired Freedman and here we are.

Filing a defamation suit against someone accusing you of sexual harassment sounds like a "tool" both guilty men and innocent men would use -- who wouldn't, if they perceive that their reputation has been tarnished? I think it's ridiculous to claim that the mere act of filing one is indicative of one's guilt just because other guilty men do it. Is defending one's self a "tool" used by harassers? What are you supposed to do when your name is being dragged through the mud by two powerful Hollywood actors and the New York Times?

[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:

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 can’t access this from my phone, but whatever this TikTok person is saying appears to directly contradict what *Baldoni’s lead attorney Bryan Freedman* said yesterday when he specifically named the four distinct claims he would raise, two of which were dismissed with prejudice by the judge.

He’s didn’t say four distinct claims, he said four claims. She went through the complaint and agrees. Sorry you wasted your morning with three pages of rambling posts on a non issue, but that’s what you do, all day, every day.

DP. Lmao 🤣

I signed off and just read through a few pages and this rabid poster was going on and on about freedman (why?? Is she a scorned lover?) and ‘late’ PR statements that were ‘WRONG’!

I mean, really, who cares? The case is still ongoing, and will likely go on for quite awhile with more twists and turns.

But this obsession with a lawyer in a case??? I’ve never seen anything like it!

Is this woman mentally ill or does she think this is some sort of wise PR strategy for Blake? Post on and on about garbled details, obsessively focusing on lawyers and other things 99.99 of the public doesn’t care about?? lol

Aw, you’re hurting my feelings so bad.

It’s okay though because I’ll just repost some of these dismissive comments in two weeks when Freedman files his amended complaint that will either omit these two claims Freedman said they’d have, or will include them, in which case we’ll get to see the judge’s reaction later. I’m sure the judge will not care about these “garbled details”!

Another TikTok lawyer explaining that Baldoni has four claims he can replead. This one is even easier to follow. https://www.tiktok.com/t/ZP8MKSuHw/

This person is also extremely wrong. She specifically says here are still 4 outstanding claims and that 2 of the remaining ones are (1) intentional interference with prospective economic advantage and (2) negligent interference with prospective economic advantage. Liman specifically notes that these are dismissed and can't be replead in footnote 6, and also as I've explained elsewhere, on page 125, where Liman is talking about 3 different claims at once (tortious interference with K plus the intentional and negligent interference claims above, when he writes:

"They also fail to allege that WME was influenced by Reynolds’ statements in any way, aside from conclusory statements that WME “cease[d] performing,” id. ¶ 350, the relationship was “disrupted,” id. ¶ 361, or the Wayfarer parties “were harmed,” id. ¶ 362; see Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555 (“[A] formulaic recitation of the elements of a cause of action will not do.”). This is fatal to all three claims, because there is no claim in the absence of facts showing that the relevant economic relationship existed and was disrupted. Regarding the claims of interference with prospective economic advantage, because the Wayfarer Parties do not allege that Reynolds’ statements were defamatory, they do not allege that they were independently wrongful. See Korea Supply, 63 P.3d at 954 (“[A]n act is independently wrongful if it is unlawful, that is, if it is proscribed by some constitutional, statutory, regulatory, common law, or other determinable legal standard.”)."

Footnote 6 explains that "The failure of the defamation claim against Reynolds is also fatal to the claims for intentional and negligent interference with prospective economic relations, which require interference be through a wrongful act." So while Liman allows Freedman to replead his tortious interference with contractual relations claim, which only requires some intentional act, it would be futile to allow Freedman to replead the interference with prospective economic advantage claims because the Korea Supply case requires such claims to include some independently wrongful act (in the Korea Supply case, the accused engaged in bribery and offered sexual favors for a contract) besides the claimed interference itself. Liman already determined in the defamation section that Reynolds calling Baldoni a sexual predator wasn't a wrongful act, and so those claims must also fail.

So while Liman allows Freedman to replead the tortious interference with contractual relations claim, there's no point in repleading the negligent or intentional interference with prospective economic relations claims because there's no wrongful act and they must fail too.

So much bravado on all sides from the Baldoni camp here, first from these TikTokers getting up and proclaiming this completely wrong stuff. Second, your own in posting this completely untrue and misleading stuff here clearly without even understanding what these people were saying or how it related to the opinion. And third, of Freedman in getting on TMZ of all things and proclaiming this to the masses for them to go forth and spread around, even though he is the lead attorney and usually the lead attorneys know wtf they are talking about.

Turtles all the way down.

I don’t find your argument convincing, they could still plead another independent wrongful act besides defamation. Only defamation and extortion were dismissed with prejudice. Nothing prevents them from adding factual allegations that weren’t in the first complaint.

Nope nope nope. This is very wrong. The judge specifically says those claims are out in footnote 66 (and there are other claims mentioned in FN66 that make your statement that "Only defamation and extortion were dismissed with prejudice extra wrong). And the judge fully explains why they are out in the contracts section on p.125. I mean, Freedman can certainly try your strategy -- oh, please, god, let him try your strategy -- but Judge Liman told him these claims are out, and putting them in is going to make him look like a total wanker, as though he cannot read an interpret a judicial opinion correctly.

Then you not quoting the correct language because nothing that you quoted supports your contention that the dismissal of this claim was with prejudice . What specific language re you relying on?

[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:

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 can’t access this from my phone, but whatever this TikTok person is saying appears to directly contradict what *Baldoni’s lead attorney Bryan Freedman* said yesterday when he specifically named the four distinct claims he would raise, two of which were dismissed with prejudice by the judge.

He’s didn’t say four distinct claims, he said four claims. She went through the complaint and agrees. Sorry you wasted your morning with three pages of rambling posts on a non issue, but that’s what you do, all day, every day.

DP. Lmao 🤣

I signed off and just read through a few pages and this rabid poster was going on and on about freedman (why?? Is she a scorned lover?) and ‘late’ PR statements that were ‘WRONG’!

I mean, really, who cares? The case is still ongoing, and will likely go on for quite awhile with more twists and turns.

But this obsession with a lawyer in a case??? I’ve never seen anything like it!

Is this woman mentally ill or does she think this is some sort of wise PR strategy for Blake? Post on and on about garbled details, obsessively focusing on lawyers and other things 99.99 of the public doesn’t care about?? lol

Aw, you’re hurting my feelings so bad.

It’s okay though because I’ll just repost some of these dismissive comments in two weeks when Freedman files his amended complaint that will either omit these two claims Freedman said they’d have, or will include them, in which case we’ll get to see the judge’s reaction later. I’m sure the judge will not care about these “garbled details”!

Another TikTok lawyer explaining that Baldoni has four claims he can replead. This one is even easier to follow. https://www.tiktok.com/t/ZP8MKSuHw/

This person is also extremely wrong. She specifically says here are still 4 outstanding claims and that 2 of the remaining ones are (1) intentional interference with prospective economic advantage and (2) negligent interference with prospective economic advantage. Liman specifically notes that these are dismissed and can't be replead in footnote 6, and also as I've explained elsewhere, on page 125, where Liman is talking about 3 different claims at once (tortious interference with K plus the intentional and negligent interference claims above, when he writes:

"They also fail to allege that WME was influenced by Reynolds’ statements in any way, aside from conclusory statements that WME “cease[d] performing,” id. ¶ 350, the relationship was “disrupted,” id. ¶ 361, or the Wayfarer parties “were harmed,” id. ¶ 362; see Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555 (“[A] formulaic recitation of the elements of a cause of action will not do.”). This is fatal to all three claims, because there is no claim in the absence of facts showing that the relevant economic relationship existed and was disrupted. Regarding the claims of interference with prospective economic advantage, because the Wayfarer Parties do not allege that Reynolds’ statements were defamatory, they do not allege that they were independently wrongful. See Korea Supply, 63 P.3d at 954 (“[A]n act is independently wrongful if it is unlawful, that is, if it is proscribed by some constitutional, statutory, regulatory, common law, or other determinable legal standard.”)."

Footnote 6 explains that "The failure of the defamation claim against Reynolds is also fatal to the claims for intentional and negligent interference with prospective economic relations, which require interference be through a wrongful act." So while Liman allows Freedman to replead his tortious interference with contractual relations claim, which only requires some intentional act, it would be futile to allow Freedman to replead the interference with prospective economic advantage claims because the Korea Supply case requires such claims to include some independently wrongful act (in the Korea Supply case, the accused engaged in bribery and offered sexual favors for a contract) besides the claimed interference itself. Liman already determined in the defamation section that Reynolds calling Baldoni a sexual predator wasn't a wrongful act, and so those claims must also fail.

So while Liman allows Freedman to replead the tortious interference with contractual relations claim, there's no point in repleading the negligent or intentional interference with prospective economic relations claims because there's no wrongful act and they must fail too.

So much bravado on all sides from the Baldoni camp here, first from these TikTokers getting up and proclaiming this completely wrong stuff. Second, your own in posting this completely untrue and misleading stuff here clearly without even understanding what these people were saying or how it related to the opinion. And third, of Freedman in getting on TMZ of all things and proclaiming this to the masses for them to go forth and spread around, even though he is the lead attorney and usually the lead attorneys know wtf they are talking about.

Turtles all the way down.

I don’t find your argument convincing, they could still plead another independent wrongful act besides defamation. Only defamation and extortion were dismissed with prejudice. Nothing prevents them from adding factual allegations that weren’t in the first complaint.

Nope nope nope. This is very wrong. The judge specifically says those claims are out in footnote 66 (and there are other claims mentioned in FN66 that make your statement that "Only defamation and extortion were dismissed with prejudice extra wrong). And the judge fully explains why they are out in the contracts section on p.125. I mean, Freedman can certainly try your strategy -- oh, please, god, let him try your strategy -- but Judge Liman told him these claims are out, and putting them in is going to make him look like a total wanker, as though he cannot read an interpret a judicial opinion correctly.

Then you not quoting the correct language because nothing that you quoted supports your contention that the dismissal of this claim was with prejudice . What specific language re you relying on?

Have you even looked at footnote 66 of the opinion which I've been pointing to for like 10 pages and saying Liman dismissed all the counts in this footnote with prejudice, including intentional and negligent interference with prospective economic relations? Here is the full text of that footnote:

FN66: "The Court will also not grant leave to amend the claims for false light, breach of implied covenant, intentional or negligent interference with prospective economic relations, or promissory fraud. The false light claim is essentially duplicative of the defamation claim, and therefore amendment is futile for the same reasons. The failure of the defamation claim against Reynolds is also fatal to the claims for intentional and negligent interference with prospective economic relations, which require interference be through a wrongful act. The breach of implied contract and promissory fraud claims are meritless in any formulation."

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I don't really see how he has been vindicated at all.

Yeah, this is some fantasy world they are living in, I don't know what to tell you.

Us and the everyone besides the two of you (joking, but not by much) Read the comments section on any recent article about Blake, nearly all are Justin supporters. Gen Z, in particular, despises Blake. Not good at all for her figure marketability.

DP, but given the genesis of this entire lawsuit, I find it interesting that everyone despising Blake is considered vindication for Justin.

[Anonymous]

lol who was the anon whining about Freedman doing interviews with TMZ? Gottlieb just did an interview with TMZ: https://www.instagram.com/tmz_tv/reel/DKxtOYxCLqL/

[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:

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 can’t access this from my phone, but whatever this TikTok person is saying appears to directly contradict what *Baldoni’s lead attorney Bryan Freedman* said yesterday when he specifically named the four distinct claims he would raise, two of which were dismissed with prejudice by the judge.

He’s didn’t say four distinct claims, he said four claims. She went through the complaint and agrees. Sorry you wasted your morning with three pages of rambling posts on a non issue, but that’s what you do, all day, every day.

DP. Lmao 🤣

I signed off and just read through a few pages and this rabid poster was going on and on about freedman (why?? Is she a scorned lover?) and ‘late’ PR statements that were ‘WRONG’!

I mean, really, who cares? The case is still ongoing, and will likely go on for quite awhile with more twists and turns.

But this obsession with a lawyer in a case??? I’ve never seen anything like it!

Is this woman mentally ill or does she think this is some sort of wise PR strategy for Blake? Post on and on about garbled details, obsessively focusing on lawyers and other things 99.99 of the public doesn’t care about?? lol

Aw, you’re hurting my feelings so bad.

It’s okay though because I’ll just repost some of these dismissive comments in two weeks when Freedman files his amended complaint that will either omit these two claims Freedman said they’d have, or will include them, in which case we’ll get to see the judge’s reaction later. I’m sure the judge will not care about these “garbled details”!

Another TikTok lawyer explaining that Baldoni has four claims he can replead. This one is even easier to follow. https://www.tiktok.com/t/ZP8MKSuHw/

This person is also extremely wrong. She specifically says here are still 4 outstanding claims and that 2 of the remaining ones are (1) intentional interference with prospective economic advantage and (2) negligent interference with prospective economic advantage. Liman specifically notes that these are dismissed and can't be replead in footnote 6, and also as I've explained elsewhere, on page 125, where Liman is talking about 3 different claims at once (tortious interference with K plus the intentional and negligent interference claims above, when he writes:

"They also fail to allege that WME was influenced by Reynolds’ statements in any way, aside from conclusory statements that WME “cease[d] performing,” id. ¶ 350, the relationship was “disrupted,” id. ¶ 361, or the Wayfarer parties “were harmed,” id. ¶ 362; see Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555 (“[A] formulaic recitation of the elements of a cause of action will not do.”). This is fatal to all three claims, because there is no claim in the absence of facts showing that the relevant economic relationship existed and was disrupted. Regarding the claims of interference with prospective economic advantage, because the Wayfarer Parties do not allege that Reynolds’ statements were defamatory, they do not allege that they were independently wrongful. See Korea Supply, 63 P.3d at 954 (“[A]n act is independently wrongful if it is unlawful, that is, if it is proscribed by some constitutional, statutory, regulatory, common law, or other determinable legal standard.”)."

Footnote 6 explains that "The failure of the defamation claim against Reynolds is also fatal to the claims for intentional and negligent interference with prospective economic relations, which require interference be through a wrongful act." So while Liman allows Freedman to replead his tortious interference with contractual relations claim, which only requires some intentional act, it would be futile to allow Freedman to replead the interference with prospective economic advantage claims because the Korea Supply case requires such claims to include some independently wrongful act (in the Korea Supply case, the accused engaged in bribery and offered sexual favors for a contract) besides the claimed interference itself. Liman already determined in the defamation section that Reynolds calling Baldoni a sexual predator wasn't a wrongful act, and so those claims must also fail.

So while Liman allows Freedman to replead the tortious interference with contractual relations claim, there's no point in repleading the negligent or intentional interference with prospective economic relations claims because there's no wrongful act and they must fail too.

So much bravado on all sides from the Baldoni camp here, first from these TikTokers getting up and proclaiming this completely wrong stuff. Second, your own in posting this completely untrue and misleading stuff here clearly without even understanding what these people were saying or how it related to the opinion. And third, of Freedman in getting on TMZ of all things and proclaiming this to the masses for them to go forth and spread around, even though he is the lead attorney and usually the lead attorneys know wtf they are talking about.

Turtles all the way down.

I don’t find your argument convincing, they could still plead another independent wrongful act besides defamation. Only defamation and extortion were dismissed with prejudice. Nothing prevents them from adding factual allegations that weren’t in the first complaint.

Nope nope nope. This is very wrong. The judge specifically says those claims are out in footnote 66 (and there are other claims mentioned in FN66 that make your statement that "Only defamation and extortion were dismissed with prejudice extra wrong). And the judge fully explains why they are out in the contracts section on p.125. I mean, Freedman can certainly try your strategy -- oh, please, god, let him try your strategy -- but Judge Liman told him these claims are out, and putting them in is going to make him look like a total wanker, as though he cannot read an interpret a judicial opinion correctly.

Then you not quoting the correct language because nothing that you quoted supports your contention that the dismissal of this claim was with prejudice . What specific language re you relying on?

Have you even looked at footnote 66 of the opinion which I've been pointing to for like 10 pages and saying Liman dismissed all the counts in this footnote with prejudice, including intentional and negligent interference with prospective economic relations? Here is the full text of that footnote:

FN66: "The Court will also not grant leave to amend the claims for false light, breach of implied covenant, intentional or negligent interference with prospective economic relations, or promissory fraud. The false light claim is essentially duplicative of the defamation claim, and therefore amendment is futile for the same reasons. The failure of the defamation claim against Reynolds is also fatal to the claims for intentional and negligent interference with prospective economic relations, which require interference be through a wrongful act. The breach of implied contract and promissory fraud claims are meritless in any formulation."

But TikTok! You must be old and can't install it on your phone so you're stuck reading the actual pdf, ugh!

[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.

I really just see this differently, and see Freedman's whole countersuit as a bullying attempt to shut Lively up and scare her away from pursuing her lawsuit. I don't disagree with you that Freedman did a great job in figuring out what Baldoni's side of the story should be, and how to put it together and get it out to people. I am all on board with him releasing the video footage showing his side of the story I guess, although maybe technically he's not supposed to do that.

What I'm really not on board with is the whole $400M defamation suit filed against her, where defamation suits are tools that abusers use to shut up women who have accused men of sexual harassment. And now that suit has been absolutely demolished at the dismissal stage, along with most of Baldoni's damage claims, and that huge looming price tag that was on there just looks like a big tool that was used to scare and threaten her. Same as Freedman claiming he wanted to depose her in Madison Square Gardens for money, or him trying to scare her now. He's a giant bully who may be great on PR, but part of what makes him great on PR is the fact that he's a bully. And on the legal side of lawyering, it appears to me that he sucks very hard.

Something I read about Freedman a while ago that affected how I perceived him since was the fact that he said that he wanted to be an entertainment lawyer and needed clients, and the only way he could attract the kinds of clients he wanted was by representing people who wanted to sue them until the people he was suing wanted him for their lawyer. That's kind of how it worked out with Travis Flores, the Three Feet Apart kid with CF who hired Freedman to sue Baldoni, then died, and then Baldoni hired Freedman and here we are.

Filing a defamation suit against someone accusing you of sexual harassment sounds like a "tool" both guilty men and innocent men would use -- who wouldn't, if they perceive that their reputation has been tarnished? I think it's ridiculous to claim that the mere act of filing one is indicative of one's guilt just because other guilty men do it. Is defending one's self a "tool" used by harassers? What are you supposed to do when your name is being dragged through the mud by two powerful Hollywood actors and the New York Times?

Hmmm, a FOUR HUNDRED MILLION DOLLAR defamation suit? Which has been roundly smacked down to nothing? The sheer enormity of the damages claimed behind this type of suit used by harassers to scare away their accusers which in this case is now show to have been total and absolute puffery -- I guess that doesn't give you any pause about what Freedman was trying to accomplish here.