Blake Lively- Jason Baldoni and NYT - False Light claims

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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

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

Lol.

I will say I was surprised to find out the judge’s brother was Doug Liman, a very famous director who directed the Bourne identity franchise. He had worked with Blake in the past, but it was years ago.

Was it not possible to find a judge who didn’t have a very influential industry connection? Even if legally it was allowed, the optics are not looking good. To the public who thinks the deck is attacked against them it’s just more industry people in bed with each other, and Ryan is very powerful in the industry.

You can laugh all you want, but people are picking this apart for a reason.

I don’t put much weight on bias due to Doug Liman claims. However, both Gottlieb and Liman clerked for Justice Stevens. The former clerks of a Supreme Court Justice is an exclusive and pretty tight knit club.

That can be true, but (1) there's no evidence they are friends or even know each other, and (2) if federal judges were barred for hearing cases where one of the lawyers clerked for the same supreme Court justice, you'd have judges recusing daily. The overlap in resume between federal judges and federal litigators is large -- it would be hard to find judges capable of hearing cases brought by US Attorneys, for instance.

I didn’t say it’s a ground for recusal but I would bet a lot of money they have socialized together. I know maybe slightly more a dozen former Supreme Court clerks, either friends or colleagues and they all know other clerks for the same justices even if decades apart, from social events thrown by or for the Justice.

I think you overstate how common it is, at least at the trial court level. Most Supreme Court clerks become appellate specialists and rarely see the inside of a district court. Plus, it’s a very small group, a decade’s worth of clerks for the entire court is only around 360 people.

Ridiculous. You don’t recuse just because one of the counsel in your case clerked for the same judge. In some districts there would be constant recusals because the counsel and judges all clerked in the same district.

Firstly, I did not mention recusal.

Second, former Supreme Court clerks for the same justice have a different relationship than other clerks. They just do.

My point was only if there were any preference for the Lively team by Liman, this is far more likely to be the cause than a tenuous relationship between Ryan/Blake and Doug Liman. And honestly, Liman’s response to the Swift allegations Is where I thought there might be bias, and then the crime fraud Exception (yes, I know that was Jones, but it also implicates Lively). A good number of judges would have called for an evidentiary hearing in either circumstance.

Struck a chord though as it got multiple responses from the same person.

Can you explain, because I thought the Swift stuff was irrelevant drama and the crime fraud exception was a huge reach (the crimes being false imprisonment sitting in a conference room and cyber crimes for an employer looking at a work phone). I do think Liman took extra digs at Freedman in the Swift thing that weren't necessary.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I’ve never heard of a judge recusing themselves from a case involving an attorney who clerked for the same Supreme Court justice they have. Seriously, has anyone else ever seen that happen?

I wrote this and am different person than PP who responded to the Baldoni supporter above. You’re so bananas.

So bananas that you can’t stop responding, got it.

I think one of you even said it when the Swift stuff came up, Gottlieb wouldn’t do that, look at his background.

If the judge thinks Gottlieb wouldn’t do that because he is the nice guy he met at a Steven’s clerk picnic, that is a problem.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I’ve never heard of a judge recusing themselves from a case involving an attorney who clerked for the same Supreme Court justice they have. Seriously, has anyone else ever seen that happen?

I wrote this and am different person than PP who responded to the Baldoni supporter above. You’re so bananas.

So bananas that you can’t stop responding, got it.

I think one of you even said it when the Swift stuff came up, Gottlieb wouldn’t do that, look at his background.

If the judge thinks Gottlieb wouldn’t do that because he is the nice guy he met at a Steven’s clerk picnic, that is a problem.

I think it's fair to also consider there was no proof of that wrongdoing? Even Freedman's affidavit stated he heard it secondhand. That was why he sought records from Venable, but those motions weren't before Liman.

On that note, if Freedman obtains proof that Lively or Gottlieb extorted Swift or encouraged evidence destruction, what would be the remedy he should seek from Liman?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I’ve never heard of a judge recusing themselves from a case involving an attorney who clerked for the same Supreme Court justice they have. Seriously, has anyone else ever seen that happen?

I wrote this and am different person than PP who responded to the Baldoni supporter above. You’re so bananas.

So bananas that you can’t stop responding, got it.

I think one of you even said it when the Swift stuff came up, Gottlieb wouldn’t do that, look at his background.

If the judge thinks Gottlieb wouldn’t do that because he is the nice guy he met at a Steven’s clerk picnic, that is a problem.

I think it's fair to also consider there was no proof of that wrongdoing? Even Freedman's affidavit stated he heard it secondhand. That was why he sought records from Venable, but those motions weren't before Liman.

On that note, if Freedman obtains proof that Lively or Gottlieb extorted Swift or encouraged evidence destruction, what would be the remedy he should seek from Liman?

Depending on the severity, dismissal of all or some claims or monetary penalties.

I understand that the evidentiary threshold hasn’t been met. But you know who can also collect evidence? The Judge. He can question the lawyers or parties in a hearing or chambers at any time. The failure to do that most questionable with respect to Van Zan subpoena, imo.

[Anonymous]

All I can say on this is, oh hell yes, please please please send Freedman the vibes needed for him to file a recusal motion on Liman. Maybe while Freedman is still figuring out the deets of what claims to put in his amended complaint.

*gets popcorn*

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I’ve never heard of a judge recusing themselves from a case involving an attorney who clerked for the same Supreme Court justice they have. Seriously, has anyone else ever seen that happen?

I wrote this and am different person than PP who responded to the Baldoni supporter above. You’re so bananas.

So bananas that you can’t stop responding, got it.

I think one of you even said it when the Swift stuff came up, Gottlieb wouldn’t do that, look at his background.

If the judge thinks Gottlieb wouldn’t do that because he is the nice guy he met at a Steven’s clerk picnic, that is a problem.

I think it's fair to also consider there was no proof of that wrongdoing? Even Freedman's affidavit stated he heard it secondhand. That was why he sought records from Venable, but those motions weren't before Liman.

On that note, if Freedman obtains proof that Lively or Gottlieb extorted Swift or encouraged evidence destruction, what would be the remedy he should seek from Liman?

Depending on the severity, dismissal of all or some claims or monetary penalties.

I understand that the evidentiary threshold hasn’t been met. But you know who can also collect evidence? The Judge. He can question the lawyers or parties in a hearing or chambers at any time. The failure to do that most questionable with respect to Van Zan subpoena, imo.

PP. I find that Freedman has a very strange way of bringing up these issues. I'm anti-Freedman/Baldoni but also consider VanZan a sham and fraud on the court. But Freedman never brings things up directly. Lively's lawyers bring a lot of motions, often to the point where they sound whiny, but at least their arguments are clear. Freedman randomly brings up really explosive things (crime fraud, VanZan, extortion of Swift) in reply letters and then they just... sit. I don't know that the judge should sua sponte call for an evidentiary hearing based on those random info drops. Freedman loves to say he still hasn't received the VanZan subpoena. He has every right to see that subpoena. He should request it and then file an MTC if it doesn't receive it. That would make more sense than bringing up crime fraud on a reply to a motion to quash. It's just a very bizarre way of handling what should be an important issue, and I can understand why the judge would have little patience with it, irrespective of how he knows Gottlieb. I guess the thinking is Freedman has some strategy where he's eventually going to bring this up, but VanZan was uncovered a while ago now.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I’ve never heard of a judge recusing themselves from a case involving an attorney who clerked for the same Supreme Court justice they have. Seriously, has anyone else ever seen that happen?

I wrote this and am different person than PP who responded to the Baldoni supporter above. You’re so bananas.

So bananas that you can’t stop responding, got it.

I think one of you even said it when the Swift stuff came up, Gottlieb wouldn’t do that, look at his background.

If the judge thinks Gottlieb wouldn’t do that because he is the nice guy he met at a Steven’s clerk picnic, that is a problem.

I think it's fair to also consider there was no proof of that wrongdoing? Even Freedman's affidavit stated he heard it secondhand. That was why he sought records from Venable, but those motions weren't before Liman.

On that note, if Freedman obtains proof that Lively or Gottlieb extorted Swift or encouraged evidence destruction, what would be the remedy he should seek from Liman?

Depending on the severity, dismissal of all or some claims or monetary penalties.

I understand that the evidentiary threshold hasn’t been met. But you know who can also collect evidence? The Judge. He can question the lawyers or parties in a hearing or chambers at any time. The failure to do that most questionable with respect to Van Zan subpoena, imo.

PP. I find that Freedman has a very strange way of bringing up these issues. I'm anti-Freedman/Baldoni but also consider VanZan a sham and fraud on the court. But Freedman never brings things up directly. Lively's lawyers bring a lot of motions, often to the point where they sound whiny, but at least their arguments are clear. Freedman randomly brings up really explosive things (crime fraud, VanZan, extortion of Swift) in reply letters and then they just... sit. I don't know that the judge should sua sponte call for an evidentiary hearing based on those random info drops. Freedman loves to say he still hasn't received the VanZan subpoena. He has every right to see that subpoena. He should request it and then file an MTC if it doesn't receive it. That would make more sense than bringing up crime fraud on a reply to a motion to quash. It's just a very bizarre way of handling what should be an important issue, and I can understand why the judge would have little patience with it, irrespective of how he knows Gottlieb. I guess the thinking is Freedman has some strategy where he's eventually going to bring this up, but VanZan was uncovered a while ago now.

These are all excellent points imo.

But also: The conspiracy theorists are mad that none of their conspiracies have received a proper hearing!

Meanwhile, they hold the attorney that never asked for a hearing in high esteem and don't blame him for filing claims that got dismissed or for holding his hands over his ears when the judge encouraged him to amend the complaint two months ago. la la la la

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I’ve never heard of a judge recusing themselves from a case involving an attorney who clerked for the same Supreme Court justice they have. Seriously, has anyone else ever seen that happen?

I wrote this and am different person than PP who responded to the Baldoni supporter above. You’re so bananas.

So bananas that you can’t stop responding, got it.

I think one of you even said it when the Swift stuff came up, Gottlieb wouldn’t do that, look at his background.

If the judge thinks Gottlieb wouldn’t do that because he is the nice guy he met at a Steven’s clerk picnic, that is a problem.

I think it's fair to also consider there was no proof of that wrongdoing? Even Freedman's affidavit stated he heard it secondhand. That was why he sought records from Venable, but those motions weren't before Liman.

On that note, if Freedman obtains proof that Lively or Gottlieb extorted Swift or encouraged evidence destruction, what would be the remedy he should seek from Liman?

Depending on the severity, dismissal of all or some claims or monetary penalties.

I understand that the evidentiary threshold hasn’t been met. But you know who can also collect evidence? The Judge. He can question the lawyers or parties in a hearing or chambers at any time. The failure to do that most questionable with respect to Van Zan subpoena, imo.

PP. I find that Freedman has a very strange way of bringing up these issues. I'm anti-Freedman/Baldoni but also consider VanZan a sham and fraud on the court. But Freedman never brings things up directly. Lively's lawyers bring a lot of motions, often to the point where they sound whiny, but at least their arguments are clear. Freedman randomly brings up really explosive things (crime fraud, VanZan, extortion of Swift) in reply letters and then they just... sit. I don't know that the judge should sua sponte call for an evidentiary hearing based on those random info drops. Freedman loves to say he still hasn't received the VanZan subpoena. He has every right to see that subpoena. He should request it and then file an MTC if it doesn't receive it. That would make more sense than bringing up crime fraud on a reply to a motion to quash. It's just a very bizarre way of handling what should be an important issue, and I can understand why the judge would have little patience with it, irrespective of how he knows Gottlieb. I guess the thinking is Freedman has some strategy where he's eventually going to bring this up, but VanZan was uncovered a while ago now.

These are all excellent points imo.

But also: The conspiracy theorists are mad that none of their conspiracies have received a proper hearing!

Meanwhile, they hold the attorney that never asked for a hearing in high esteem and don't blame him for filing claims that got dismissed or for holding his hands over his ears when the judge encouraged him to amend the complaint two months ago. la la la la

I know you read the judge’s decision. Given his reasoning, amendment would have been futile.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I’ve never heard of a judge recusing themselves from a case involving an attorney who clerked for the same Supreme Court justice they have. Seriously, has anyone else ever seen that happen?

I wrote this and am different person than PP who responded to the Baldoni supporter above. You’re so bananas.

So bananas that you can’t stop responding, got it.

I think one of you even said it when the Swift stuff came up, Gottlieb wouldn’t do that, look at his background.

If the judge thinks Gottlieb wouldn’t do that because he is the nice guy he met at a Steven’s clerk picnic, that is a problem.

I think it's fair to also consider there was no proof of that wrongdoing? Even Freedman's affidavit stated he heard it secondhand. That was why he sought records from Venable, but those motions weren't before Liman.

On that note, if Freedman obtains proof that Lively or Gottlieb extorted Swift or encouraged evidence destruction, what would be the remedy he should seek from Liman?

Depending on the severity, dismissal of all or some claims or monetary penalties.

I understand that the evidentiary threshold hasn’t been met. But you know who can also collect evidence? The Judge. He can question the lawyers or parties in a hearing or chambers at any time. The failure to do that most questionable with respect to Van Zan subpoena, imo.

PP. I find that Freedman has a very strange way of bringing up these issues. I'm anti-Freedman/Baldoni but also consider VanZan a sham and fraud on the court. But Freedman never brings things up directly. Lively's lawyers bring a lot of motions, often to the point where they sound whiny, but at least their arguments are clear. Freedman randomly brings up really explosive things (crime fraud, VanZan, extortion of Swift) in reply letters and then they just... sit. I don't know that the judge should sua sponte call for an evidentiary hearing based on those random info drops. Freedman loves to say he still hasn't received the VanZan subpoena. He has every right to see that subpoena. He should request it and then file an MTC if it doesn't receive it. That would make more sense than bringing up crime fraud on a reply to a motion to quash. It's just a very bizarre way of handling what should be an important issue, and I can understand why the judge would have little patience with it, irrespective of how he knows Gottlieb. I guess the thinking is Freedman has some strategy where he's eventually going to bring this up, but VanZan was uncovered a while ago now.

I have noticed this as well and my theory is that Freedman does not actually want to litigate these issues. In some instances I think it's because he knows he'd lose, and in other instances I think it's because he just doesn't want to put the effort into briefing and hearings on an issue.

But he does want the PR benefit of raising them so the JB-hive online will go crazy and get mad. So he brings them up in letters or mentions them in other pleadings without asking for relief just to keep them in the conversation, but he has no real interest in adjudicating them.

The VanZan subpoena is a good example. Let's say he got that subpoena thrown out. Okay. Well guess what, everything disclosed in that subpoena is discoverable in the present action. So... it doesn't matter? You can say it gave Lively an edge in filing her case and that's true, but once she was aware of the text messages, she could have filed. Having the texts in hand made it easier for her to put together a strong complaint on the retaliation stuff and it facilitated the NYT article which was a powerful PR benefit. But she could have sued without it and then asked for discovery and she would have gotten it all. So there's just no there there. The texts exist, they are relevant to the case, and there's no argument that they were fabricated or falsified. If they actually litigated that issue, that would be the end result no matter what Liman decided. Once Lively knew the texts existed (which she found out via Jones well before the subpoena, even if she didn't see the texts directly, Leslie Sloane and thus Lively knew of their existence and roughly what they said), they were going to get them one way or another.

So why litigate all that to get to that conclusion which doesn't really advance Baldoni's case, when he can instead just mention it and poke at it and feed the only PR beast without ever having to actually brief the issue or make full arguments? They get more juice with less squeeze this way.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I’ve never heard of a judge recusing themselves from a case involving an attorney who clerked for the same Supreme Court justice they have. Seriously, has anyone else ever seen that happen?

I wrote this and am different person than PP who responded to the Baldoni supporter above. You’re so bananas.

So bananas that you can’t stop responding, got it.

I think one of you even said it when the Swift stuff came up, Gottlieb wouldn’t do that, look at his background.

If the judge thinks Gottlieb wouldn’t do that because he is the nice guy he met at a Steven’s clerk picnic, that is a problem.

I think it's fair to also consider there was no proof of that wrongdoing? Even Freedman's affidavit stated he heard it secondhand. That was why he sought records from Venable, but those motions weren't before Liman.

On that note, if Freedman obtains proof that Lively or Gottlieb extorted Swift or encouraged evidence destruction, what would be the remedy he should seek from Liman?

Depending on the severity, dismissal of all or some claims or monetary penalties.

I understand that the evidentiary threshold hasn’t been met. But you know who can also collect evidence? The Judge. He can question the lawyers or parties in a hearing or chambers at any time. The failure to do that most questionable with respect to Van Zan subpoena, imo.

PP. I find that Freedman has a very strange way of bringing up these issues. I'm anti-Freedman/Baldoni but also consider VanZan a sham and fraud on the court. But Freedman never brings things up directly. Lively's lawyers bring a lot of motions, often to the point where they sound whiny, but at least their arguments are clear. Freedman randomly brings up really explosive things (crime fraud, VanZan, extortion of Swift) in reply letters and then they just... sit. I don't know that the judge should sua sponte call for an evidentiary hearing based on those random info drops. Freedman loves to say he still hasn't received the VanZan subpoena. He has every right to see that subpoena. He should request it and then file an MTC if it doesn't receive it. That would make more sense than bringing up crime fraud on a reply to a motion to quash. It's just a very bizarre way of handling what should be an important issue, and I can understand why the judge would have little patience with it, irrespective of how he knows Gottlieb. I guess the thinking is Freedman has some strategy where he's eventually going to bring this up, but VanZan was uncovered a while ago now.

These are all excellent points imo.

But also: The conspiracy theorists are mad that none of their conspiracies have received a proper hearing!

Meanwhile, they hold the attorney that never asked for a hearing in high esteem and don't blame him for filing claims that got dismissed or for holding his hands over his ears when the judge encouraged him to amend the complaint two months ago. la la la la

I know you read the judge’s decision. Given his reasoning, amendment would have been futile.

If I were a Baldoni supporter, I would certainly blame Freedman for not even trying. It's like not studying for an exam that you know is coming because you expect failure. The judge gave Freedman multiple signs and strongly encouraged him to amend, and Freedman stood on his refusal. Personally, I think he was put off by the enormity of the task and knew he didn't have a bench good enough or deep enough to do the writing. Which is a shame when your clients are certainly depending on you.

You think all these claims would still be gone if they had been written by Willkie or Manatt, or some other respected firm? I don't think they all would, because they would have drilled down to know all the elements of the claim they had to support and would have done their best to specific evidence and details to support them and made it clear which details went with which claims. But maybe, given this complaint as is and for Liner Freedman specifically, amendment here would have been futile.

[Anonymous]

Judge Liman issued an order requiring Baldoni to respond to Gottlieb’s letter re the third party discovery by tomorrow, 6/13. There may be another order as well, it’s not clear yet.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I’ve never heard of a judge recusing themselves from a case involving an attorney who clerked for the same Supreme Court justice they have. Seriously, has anyone else ever seen that happen?

I wrote this and am different person than PP who responded to the Baldoni supporter above. You’re so bananas.

So bananas that you can’t stop responding, got it.

I think one of you even said it when the Swift stuff came up, Gottlieb wouldn’t do that, look at his background.

If the judge thinks Gottlieb wouldn’t do that because he is the nice guy he met at a Steven’s clerk picnic, that is a problem.

I think it's fair to also consider there was no proof of that wrongdoing? Even Freedman's affidavit stated he heard it secondhand. That was why he sought records from Venable, but those motions weren't before Liman.

On that note, if Freedman obtains proof that Lively or Gottlieb extorted Swift or encouraged evidence destruction, what would be the remedy he should seek from Liman?

Depending on the severity, dismissal of all or some claims or monetary penalties.

I understand that the evidentiary threshold hasn’t been met. But you know who can also collect evidence? The Judge. He can question the lawyers or parties in a hearing or chambers at any time. The failure to do that most questionable with respect to Van Zan subpoena, imo.

PP. I find that Freedman has a very strange way of bringing up these issues. I'm anti-Freedman/Baldoni but also consider VanZan a sham and fraud on the court. But Freedman never brings things up directly. Lively's lawyers bring a lot of motions, often to the point where they sound whiny, but at least their arguments are clear. Freedman randomly brings up really explosive things (crime fraud, VanZan, extortion of Swift) in reply letters and then they just... sit. I don't know that the judge should sua sponte call for an evidentiary hearing based on those random info drops. Freedman loves to say he still hasn't received the VanZan subpoena. He has every right to see that subpoena. He should request it and then file an MTC if it doesn't receive it. That would make more sense than bringing up crime fraud on a reply to a motion to quash. It's just a very bizarre way of handling what should be an important issue, and I can understand why the judge would have little patience with it, irrespective of how he knows Gottlieb. I guess the thinking is Freedman has some strategy where he's eventually going to bring this up, but VanZan was uncovered a while ago now.

I have noticed this as well and my theory is that Freedman does not actually want to litigate these issues. In some instances I think it's because he knows he'd lose, and in other instances I think it's because he just doesn't want to put the effort into briefing and hearings on an issue.

But he does want the PR benefit of raising them so the JB-hive online will go crazy and get mad. So he brings them up in letters or mentions them in other pleadings without asking for relief just to keep them in the conversation, but he has no real interest in adjudicating them.

The VanZan subpoena is a good example. Let's say he got that subpoena thrown out. Okay. Well guess what, everything disclosed in that subpoena is discoverable in the present action. So... it doesn't matter? You can say it gave Lively an edge in filing her case and that's true, but once she was aware of the text messages, she could have filed. Having the texts in hand made it easier for her to put together a strong complaint on the retaliation stuff and it facilitated the NYT article which was a powerful PR benefit. But she could have sued without it and then asked for discovery and she would have gotten it all. So there's just no there there. The texts exist, they are relevant to the case, and there's no argument that they were fabricated or falsified. If they actually litigated that issue, that would be the end result no matter what Liman decided. Once Lively knew the texts existed (which she found out via Jones well before the subpoena, even if she didn't see the texts directly, Leslie Sloane and thus Lively knew of their existence and roughly what they said), they were going to get them one way or another.

So why litigate all that to get to that conclusion which doesn't really advance Baldoni's case, when he can instead just mention it and poke at it and feed the only PR beast without ever having to actually brief the issue or make full arguments? They get more juice with less squeeze this way.

Isn’t it also possible that Freedman is just kind of a bad pleadings lawyer, though? You are giving him a lot of credit above for performing some ruthless internal calculus re when pleadings are warranted. I thought most of his best results were achieved through settlement and not through the hard work of motions practice and trial. That matches what he’s done here imo, but I’m not familiar with his other cases.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I’ve never heard of a judge recusing themselves from a case involving an attorney who clerked for the same Supreme Court justice they have. Seriously, has anyone else ever seen that happen?

I wrote this and am different person than PP who responded to the Baldoni supporter above. You’re so bananas.

So bananas that you can’t stop responding, got it.

I think one of you even said it when the Swift stuff came up, Gottlieb wouldn’t do that, look at his background.

If the judge thinks Gottlieb wouldn’t do that because he is the nice guy he met at a Steven’s clerk picnic, that is a problem.

I think it's fair to also consider there was no proof of that wrongdoing? Even Freedman's affidavit stated he heard it secondhand. That was why he sought records from Venable, but those motions weren't before Liman.

On that note, if Freedman obtains proof that Lively or Gottlieb extorted Swift or encouraged evidence destruction, what would be the remedy he should seek from Liman?

Depending on the severity, dismissal of all or some claims or monetary penalties.

I understand that the evidentiary threshold hasn’t been met. But you know who can also collect evidence? The Judge. He can question the lawyers or parties in a hearing or chambers at any time. The failure to do that most questionable with respect to Van Zan subpoena, imo.

PP. I find that Freedman has a very strange way of bringing up these issues. I'm anti-Freedman/Baldoni but also consider VanZan a sham and fraud on the court. But Freedman never brings things up directly. Lively's lawyers bring a lot of motions, often to the point where they sound whiny, but at least their arguments are clear. Freedman randomly brings up really explosive things (crime fraud, VanZan, extortion of Swift) in reply letters and then they just... sit. I don't know that the judge should sua sponte call for an evidentiary hearing based on those random info drops. Freedman loves to say he still hasn't received the VanZan subpoena. He has every right to see that subpoena. He should request it and then file an MTC if it doesn't receive it. That would make more sense than bringing up crime fraud on a reply to a motion to quash. It's just a very bizarre way of handling what should be an important issue, and I can understand why the judge would have little patience with it, irrespective of how he knows Gottlieb. I guess the thinking is Freedman has some strategy where he's eventually going to bring this up, but VanZan was uncovered a while ago now.

I have noticed this as well and my theory is that Freedman does not actually want to litigate these issues. In some instances I think it's because he knows he'd lose, and in other instances I think it's because he just doesn't want to put the effort into briefing and hearings on an issue.

But he does want the PR benefit of raising them so the JB-hive online will go crazy and get mad. So he brings them up in letters or mentions them in other pleadings without asking for relief just to keep them in the conversation, but he has no real interest in adjudicating them.

The VanZan subpoena is a good example. Let's say he got that subpoena thrown out. Okay. Well guess what, everything disclosed in that subpoena is discoverable in the present action. So... it doesn't matter? You can say it gave Lively an edge in filing her case and that's true, but once she was aware of the text messages, she could have filed. Having the texts in hand made it easier for her to put together a strong complaint on the retaliation stuff and it facilitated the NYT article which was a powerful PR benefit. But she could have sued without it and then asked for discovery and she would have gotten it all. So there's just no there there. The texts exist, they are relevant to the case, and there's no argument that they were fabricated or falsified. If they actually litigated that issue, that would be the end result no matter what Liman decided. Once Lively knew the texts existed (which she found out via Jones well before the subpoena, even if she didn't see the texts directly, Leslie Sloane and thus Lively knew of their existence and roughly what they said), they were going to get them one way or another.

So why litigate all that to get to that conclusion which doesn't really advance Baldoni's case, when he can instead just mention it and poke at it and feed the only PR beast without ever having to actually brief the issue or make full arguments? They get more juice with less squeeze this way.

Isn’t it also possible that Freedman is just kind of a bad pleadings lawyer, though? You are giving him a lot of credit above for performing some ruthless internal calculus re when pleadings are warranted. I thought most of his best results were achieved through settlement and not through the hard work of motions practice and trial. That matches what he’s done here imo, but I’m not familiar with his other cases.

Yes, agreed, but I think this goes hand in hand with what I said. Freedman knows that drafting really good pleadings is not his strength. His strength is media manipulation. So why actually litigating stuff like the VanZan subpoena or the crime-fraud allegation (which, to be clear, I think is absolutely absurd), which will require him to do something he's not very good at and make persuasive legal arguments in writing, when he could instead just pepper his letters and comments to the press with references to these things, make PR hay of it, and never actually have to do any lawyering?

He certainly knows his strengths. Though as this case goes on and moves toward trial, his weaknesses are being more and more exposed and for some reason they are not building out the legal team in a way to make up for them (Ellyn Garafolo is a trial specialist, so I don't think her addition to the team is going to help with the pre-trial pleadings or discovery, where they clearly need help).

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

What does this have to do with vindicating him?

Practically no one believes any of her allegations. Outside of the one or two fanatics here.

Call me an optimist, but I still believe that at some point you guys are going to catch up. Not all of you. But some. And other people who aren't involved now will see (I think) her vindication at trial and will grok it as a win for her.

If Gottlieb doesn't feel like they have a good shot of getting through summary judgement and a good shot at trial, this would be a good time to settle. (I've been against settlement until the MTDs, because that complaint was a mess and Lively had nothing to lose at dismissal.) If she doesn't settle, I'd take it as a decent sign they have good evidence and a good shot at trial, and I'd trust Gottlieb a hell of a lot more than Freedman on his representations of that.

Curious why you feel this way? Gottlieb apparently counseled (or failed to counsel against) Blake to bring what was at best a very thin SH case. It was always going to be a thin case (no quid pro quo, very mild ‘hostile environment’ if at all) and apparently didn’t advise her to consider her claims could be discounted by rolling cameras around her, and her own unorthodox text messaging (‘always spicy’). This case has cost her millions and totally destroyed her reputation. Meanwhile Freedman rehabilitated his clients rep in 10 days. I mean, really?? You think Gottlieb is the better lawyer?

Freedman decided to bring the defamation claim, and because of that Sarowitz may be essentially funding all of Lively's attorneys fees for the case, given the treble damages provisions under 47.1. So when you say this has cost her millions, essentially all those costs could move to Baldoni. That's not even considering what she may win at trial, and we now know Baldoni will win basically nothing at trial given his remaining claims are low value (WME K allows no fault divorce; Wayfarer/Lively contract won't yield much $ because the film made millions). Baldoni may work again, if he hasn't burned his bridges with Sarowitz after the expense of this is all over, but what kind of projects/podcast will he be doing, now that he has argued that the CA victims rights bill is unconstitutional and that a bunch of women's rights orgs shouldn't even be heard on the issue, while his only amicus supporter is a person who has also supported, Weinstein, Diddy, and Marilyn Manson? Many normal people outside your bubble find him a hypocrite, and we're not even done yet. I still don't understand your problem with "always spicy" when the tub video at a work lunch was a-okay with you - I think some of this might start to sink in at trial.

So, yes, I'd trust Gottlieb over Freedman every single time.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

What does this have to do with vindicating him?

Practically no one believes any of her allegations. Outside of the one or two fanatics here.

Call me an optimist, but I still believe that at some point you guys are going to catch up. Not all of you. But some. And other people who aren't involved now will see (I think) her vindication at trial and will grok it as a win for her.

If Gottlieb doesn't feel like they have a good shot of getting through summary judgement and a good shot at trial, this would be a good time to settle. (I've been against settlement until the MTDs, because that complaint was a mess and Lively had nothing to lose at dismissal.) If she doesn't settle, I'd take it as a decent sign they have good evidence and a good shot at trial, and I'd trust Gottlieb a hell of a lot more than Freedman on his representations of that.

Curious why you feel this way? Gottlieb apparently counseled (or failed to counsel against) Blake to bring what was at best a very thin SH case. It was always going to be a thin case (no quid pro quo, very mild ‘hostile environment’ if at all) and apparently didn’t advise her to consider her claims could be discounted by rolling cameras around her, and her own unorthodox text messaging (‘always spicy’). This case has cost her millions and totally destroyed her reputation. Meanwhile Freedman rehabilitated his clients rep in 10 days. I mean, really?? You think Gottlieb is the better lawyer?

Freedman decided to bring the defamation claim, and because of that Sarowitz may be essentially funding all of Lively's attorneys fees for the case, given the treble damages provisions under 47.1. So when you say this has cost her millions, essentially all those costs could move to Baldoni. That's not even considering what she may win at trial, and we now know Baldoni will win basically nothing at trial given his remaining claims are low value (WME K allows no fault divorce; Wayfarer/Lively contract won't yield much $ because the film made millions). Baldoni may work again, if he hasn't burned his bridges with Sarowitz after the expense of this is all over, but what kind of projects/podcast will he be doing, now that he has argued that the CA victims rights bill is unconstitutional and that a bunch of women's rights orgs shouldn't even be heard on the issue, while his only amicus supporter is a person who has also supported, Weinstein, Diddy, and Marilyn Manson? Many normal people outside your bubble find him a hypocrite, and we're not even done yet. I still don't understand your problem with "always spicy" when the tub video at a work lunch was a-okay with you - I think some of this might start to sink in at trial.

So, yes, I'd trust Gottlieb over Freedman every single time.

Responding to myself to add, though I know some people will hate this, maybe the most important thing: Gottlieb has a lot of evidence of a smear campaign that usually you would never have, because they have those texts. I cannot imagine another case where you will start off with this much evidence of a smear campaign -- after Baldoni signed a contract promising not to retaliate -- and that provides a map to get more in discovery. After what happened to Amber Heard, where Depp hired the same PR firm and who I also believe was smeared, how can you have all of that and not sue? If you had power and money and all that evidence, wouldn't you feel like it was your duty to sue, to help other women and to raise people's awareness of the problem because most people had no clue?