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.

This is just not true. Clerks have very little relationship with people who clerked for the same SCJ in a different year. The same year, sure. Tight knit bunch sometimes. (Even not at the SC level.) Even then, no recusal. Different years? A good chunk of the DC bar would be excluded from any given case. SCCs can even argue in front of their own judge after a 2 year moratorium.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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?

Thank you, you've just summed up why I'm pro-Lively in this mess. I think Gottlieb took the case on specifically because the retaliation case is so strong and, with discovery (especially of the Jed Wallace activity), could pull the curtain back on how internet smear campaigns work and how I sidious they are. Gottlieb has previous repped regular people who were subject to these kinds of campaigns -- GA poll workers who became the subject of an online conspiracy theory about voter fraud thanks to Rudy Giuliani, and Comet Ping Pong, the pizza joint in DC that somewhat inexplicably became the subject of a huge online conspiracy about Hillary Clinton and sex trafficking. I think once Gottlieb saw the texts from Abel's phone, and realized that TAG and Jed Wallace were involved, he signed in very willingly for the chance to be able to dig into how this works from the PR side.

And the fact that the smear campaign is tied to SH allegations is a bonus, because of 47.1 and also because this is a rising problem. People accused of harassment or abuse sue for defamation over the allegation, deterring not only their accusers but other victims from coming forward. Being able to help set early precedent in that law, and potentially influence future policy making on this issue, was probably irresistable. I'm Team Gottlieb all the way in that, and while the facts in this case aren't perfect (it probably would be easier if the SH allegations were more egregious, like if Baldoni had hit on Lively or there was assault), they are enough. In some ways, the idea that Baldoni and Wayfarer were willing to try and destroy Lively's rep (the star of their own film!) over the fear that these relatively minor SH allegations would come to light, shows the degree to which online smear campaigns have become normalized. Oh a former employer might say something negative about her experience working for me? No worries, we'll hire Jed Wallace to seed social media with reports that she's a mean girl. Ex is demanding joint custody of kids? Not a problem, we'll hire Jed Wallace to seed stories of the ex being linked to drug use. Ex starts talking about being a survivor of DV publicly in a way that is making people look at your drinking and violent behavior with too much scrutiny? Sue her for defamation and hire TAG and Wallace to fill the internet with rumors about how she's a melodramatic liar with a personality disorder.

Team Gottlieb/Hudson/Lively.

[Anonymous]

Just twisting in the wind, talking to herself.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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?

I don't believe for a second Lively is doing this for anyone but herself, but I also can't see how you could write the things Abel and Nathan did and not expect to get sued if someone saw that. They were hyper aware of that, because they were concerned it could fall into the wrong hands, despite Abel coordinating on her work phone while in an adversarial position with her employer.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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?

Thank you, you've just summed up why I'm pro-Lively in this mess. I think Gottlieb took the case on specifically because the retaliation case is so strong and, with discovery (especially of the Jed Wallace activity), could pull the curtain back on how internet smear campaigns work and how I sidious they are. Gottlieb has previous repped regular people who were subject to these kinds of campaigns -- GA poll workers who became the subject of an online conspiracy theory about voter fraud thanks to Rudy Giuliani, and Comet Ping Pong, the pizza joint in DC that somewhat inexplicably became the subject of a huge online conspiracy about Hillary Clinton and sex trafficking. I think once Gottlieb saw the texts from Abel's phone, and realized that TAG and Jed Wallace were involved, he signed in very willingly for the chance to be able to dig into how this works from the PR side.

And the fact that the smear campaign is tied to SH allegations is a bonus, because of 47.1 and also because this is a rising problem. People accused of harassment or abuse sue for defamation over the allegation, deterring not only their accusers but other victims from coming forward. Being able to help set early precedent in that law, and potentially influence future policy making on this issue, was probably irresistable. I'm Team Gottlieb all the way in that, and while the facts in this case aren't perfect (it probably would be easier if the SH allegations were more egregious, like if Baldoni had hit on Lively or there was assault), they are enough. In some ways, the idea that Baldoni and Wayfarer were willing to try and destroy Lively's rep (the star of their own film!) over the fear that these relatively minor SH allegations would come to light, shows the degree to which online smear campaigns have become normalized. Oh a former employer might say something negative about her experience working for me? No worries, we'll hire Jed Wallace to seed social media with reports that she's a mean girl. Ex is demanding joint custody of kids? Not a problem, we'll hire Jed Wallace to seed stories of the ex being linked to drug use. Ex starts talking about being a survivor of DV publicly in a way that is making people look at your drinking and violent behavior with too much scrutiny? Sue her for defamation and hire TAG and Wallace to fill the internet with rumors about how she's a melodramatic liar with a personality disorder.

Team Gottlieb/Hudson/Lively.

+1

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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?

Thank you, you've just summed up why I'm pro-Lively in this mess. I think Gottlieb took the case on specifically because the retaliation case is so strong and, with discovery (especially of the Jed Wallace activity), could pull the curtain back on how internet smear campaigns work and how I sidious they are. Gottlieb has previous repped regular people who were subject to these kinds of campaigns -- GA poll workers who became the subject of an online conspiracy theory about voter fraud thanks to Rudy Giuliani, and Comet Ping Pong, the pizza joint in DC that somewhat inexplicably became the subject of a huge online conspiracy about Hillary Clinton and sex trafficking. I think once Gottlieb saw the texts from Abel's phone, and realized that TAG and Jed Wallace were involved, he signed in very willingly for the chance to be able to dig into how this works from the PR side.

And the fact that the smear campaign is tied to SH allegations is a bonus, because of 47.1 and also because this is a rising problem. People accused of harassment or abuse sue for defamation over the allegation, deterring not only their accusers but other victims from coming forward. Being able to help set early precedent in that law, and potentially influence future policy making on this issue, was probably irresistable. I'm Team Gottlieb all the way in that, and while the facts in this case aren't perfect (it probably would be easier if the SH allegations were more egregious, like if Baldoni had hit on Lively or there was assault), they are enough. In some ways, the idea that Baldoni and Wayfarer were willing to try and destroy Lively's rep (the star of their own film!) over the fear that these relatively minor SH allegations would come to light, shows the degree to which online smear campaigns have become normalized. Oh a former employer might say something negative about her experience working for me? No worries, we'll hire Jed Wallace to seed social media with reports that she's a mean girl. Ex is demanding joint custody of kids? Not a problem, we'll hire Jed Wallace to seed stories of the ex being linked to drug use. Ex starts talking about being a survivor of DV publicly in a way that is making people look at your drinking and violent behavior with too much scrutiny? Sue her for defamation and hire TAG and Wallace to fill the internet with rumors about how she's a melodramatic liar with a personality disorder.

Team Gottlieb/Hudson/Lively.

+1

+2 and great comment! (PP from 11:18 and 11:23.)

[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."

PP never got back to me with their thoughts on this devastating footnote lol, but Gottlieb and Hudson join me in remonstrating with Freedman that he only has two teeny tiny claims left to replead and not four: "In a statement to Newsweek on Wednesday, Lively's lawyers, Hudson and Gottlieb, pushed back against Freedman's remarks: 'The Court dismissed the entire Wayfarer complaint. Their lawsuit against Blake Lively, Ryan Reynolds, The New York Times and Leslie Sloane is gone,' they said. 'The Court's ruling also clearly stated that there are only two minor claims that the Wayfarer Parties can amend. No amount of spin, bluster, or creative accounting from Baldoni's legal team will change the embarrassing reality staring them in the face: the plan to sue Blake Lively and her family into oblivion has been a complete and total failure.'"

I enjoy that they don't tell Freedman which two counts those are. I'm curious whether Freedman will correctly identify them by deadline of Monday 6/23.https://www.newsweek.com/blake-lively-lawyers-hit-back-justin-baldoni-court-hope-2084376

Freedman reminds me a little of one of those pyramid scheme guys, who keeps bluffing that they have more than they really have because they have found that it generally works for them and people give in. (Remember that slave contract stunt on tv where the paper was from an unrelated case?) But when people start resisting and the everything starts caving in on itself, that can lead to problems for them. Given that we have already seen that Freedman was exchanging texts with journalist James Vituscka, the PR reps, and Jed Wallace, I'm really curious whether discovery will turn anything up on Freedman.

Hudson and Gottlieb also suggest they fully intend to invoke 47.1 as their next step in the litigation, noting they look forward to seeking attorney's fees, treble damages, and punitive damages against Baldoni etc. due to their filing of the abusive litigation that was just dismissed with prejudice.

[Anonymous]

Talking’ to myself

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:And the hits just keep coming:

Liman denies Jed Wallace's requested stay on discovery: Burden on him is light (he will need to produce docs etc wherever jurisdiction is ultimately found) but prejudice to Lively would be significant given upcoming depositions etc. https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.nysd.635145/gov.uscourts.nysd.635145.309.0.pdf

On Lively's motion to compel all the documents regarding Wayfarer's internal investigation of Lively's complaints about Baldoni and the Wayfarer production etc, Liman says that Wayfarer protests production of the docs saying that it doesn't have possession, and says that that is not correct because parties are presumed to have control of documents possessed by their counsel and also because there at at least a minimum of documents that Wayfarer would possess, such as engagement letters, etc. Liman requires Wayfarer to show cause by Thursday by 5pm (2 days) why it should not be required to produce all related documents, including those over which it says are privileged. https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.nysd.634304/gov.uscourts.nysd.634304.310.0.pdf

Not a hit, but a recent filing: Esra Hudson also files a letter asking for clarification on what evidence of emotional distress Lively will be allowed to produce for remaining claims if she agrees to dismiss her specific counts for negligent and intentional infliction of emotional distress claims with prejudice. https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.nysd.634304/gov.uscourts.nysd.634304.308.0.pdf

I’m a Baldoni supporter and I think Esra’s understanding of the emotional distress ruling is correct - no evidence of any kind premised on medical experts or records, but she can testify herself. Not actually sure about other witnesses.

I think the order regarding the internal investigation can be satisfied by completing the privilege log.

The Wallace ruling is similar to the Jones one earlier in the case.

I agree with you re the emotional distress letter.

I think the priv issues on the investigation will be a little more involved. Hudson’s earlier reply specifies that the investigator already produced a bulk priv log by type of doc but not by individual doc, which they deem insufficient to judge priv doc by doc. At the same time, Wayfarer said none of the docs were within its control, though the judge’s letter is saying that a client is deemed to possess the docs from an investigation since it can demand they be turned over to them.

So I think Wayfarer may be required to obtain these investigation docs from the investigator and make a determination on whether they are really priv or not, and do a better log/turn over the rest.

Baldoni filed a response on whether or not the documents involving the law firm "investigation" of the SH complaints should be turned over, and I don't think it's a very good response. The law firm has now been conducting an investigation on these issues since January 2025, so ... 6 months? This appears to be some combo "investigation" of SH complaints as required by California law, but also, Baldoni attorneys now say, also work being completed for trial. So it sounds like they are conducting witness interviews and/or witness preparation of people who were on set who can speak at trial, but under the guise of it being part of the official neutral SH investigation performed by Wayfarer's HR. Honestly, I do not think you are allowed to combine the official neutral investigation as required by law AND separate trial prep in that way. Are you?

Moreover, Liman's order asking Baldoni to respond by yesterday basically told them that as the law firm in charge of the other law firm, they were deemed to have control of the documents in the possession of the other law firm. But Baldoni is still saying they don't have possession of those docs and is not doing anything to seek possession of the docs. They way it is because they don't want to affect the course of the investigation, which has now been going on for 6 months. Seems to me like they just specifically want to keep the docs out of Lively's hands.

Just as troubling, Baldoni is also saying that while he does have possession of SOME of the docs in question, such as the engagement letter for the law firm handling the investigation/trial prep, those documents do not "substantively" discuss the investigation and so are not responsive. This suggests to me that Baldoni is taking an extremely narrow view of what is responsive to these document requests, since the engagement letter would certainly be relevant to the question of wtf that law firm is even doing, which is part of the huge question at issue here.

And finally, Baldoni just resubmits in its letter the investigating law firm's six entry "bulk" priv log, which is a wholly insufficient log that does not provide an entry for every document (unless the parties agree in advance such bulk logs are sufficient, which they do not appear to have done here). So again, what's going on? Baldoni doesn't seem to be taking this seriously afaict.

One thing Baldoni does in it's letter to the judge is cite back two cases Liman decided where Liman held that , as though to show that the judge is prejudiced against them if he does not rule in their favor here. I'm not the cases they're citing involve the same stage of investigation. My understanding is that usually an actual "neutral" investigation of SH complaint will take a few weeks, maybe 6 weeks at most, and then the result can be issued to both sides. But by drawing things out and having this investigation/trial prep go on for months with no determination, Baldoni is attempting to keep the "neutral investigation" results to himself forever.

Baldoni/Wayfarer is now the subject of five or six Motions to Compel docs (there's another new one about third party docs involving one of the PR firms) and they are withholding docs even now that substantial production is supposed to be completed by July 1, and deps are starting in June. Deny, defend, delay.

Anyway, Baldoni response is here: https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.nysd.634304/gov.uscourts.nysd.634304.320.0.pdf
Investigator's affidavit is here:
https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.nysd.634304/gov.uscourts.nysd.634304.320.1_1.pdf

[Anonymous]

Here's Gottlieb's new Motion to Compel production of docs from 2 individuals who work/used to work for the PR firm TAG: https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.nysd.634304/gov.uscourts.nysd.634304.321.0.pdf

Declaration in support of motion: https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.nysd.634304/gov.uscourts.nysd.634304.322.0.pdf

They've been trying to work out production specifics for the last two months, with Lively agreeing to pay the costs of production through a vendor (that she would not have access to besides the production itself obvs), but the 2 third parties keep finding new things to object to -- now it's the production of communications involving early 2025 after the suit was filed but before their subpoenas were served. Lively also notes the delay caused by representations that the Wayfarer parties would themselves be producing documents that were to and from these TAG third parties, thus relieving the third parties of having to produce them themselves -- and as Lively says Wayfarer has produced no such documents. (This again raises the question, to me, of whether Wayfarer is being to narrow in its interpretation of what is responsive under the doc requests.)

In general it seems like Wayfarer etc is delaying producing docs and not producing all of what is required by the requests, while the clock keeps ticking down.

[Anonymous]

Still talking to myself.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Here's Gottlieb's new Motion to Compel production of docs from 2 individuals who work/used to work for the PR firm TAG: https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.nysd.634304/gov.uscourts.nysd.634304.321.0.pdf

Declaration in support of motion: https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.nysd.634304/gov.uscourts.nysd.634304.322.0.pdf

They've been trying to work out production specifics for the last two months, with Lively agreeing to pay the costs of production through a vendor (that she would not have access to besides the production itself obvs), but the 2 third parties keep finding new things to object to -- now it's the production of communications involving early 2025 after the suit was filed but before their subpoenas were served. Lively also notes the delay caused by representations that the Wayfarer parties would themselves be producing documents that were to and from these TAG third parties, thus relieving the third parties of having to produce them themselves -- and as Lively says Wayfarer has produced no such documents. (This again raises the question, to me, of whether Wayfarer is being to narrow in its interpretation of what is responsive under the doc requests.)

In general it seems like Wayfarer etc is delaying producing docs and not producing all of what is required by the requests, while the clock keeps ticking down.

Judge Liman just set out a schedule requiring the two third parties from TAG PR (named Case and Koslow) to respond to this MTC by Wednesday 6/16, and is also allowing Gottlieb to file a Reply brief (not usually allowed if not permitted specifically by the judge in these letter motions but seems that here Judge Liman expects issues to be raised in the Opposition that may benefit from a response). He's also permitting Case and Koslow more than the normal 2 days to respond in such letter motions.

[Anonymous]

I for one appreciate the case updates.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I for one appreciate the case updates.

+1, I don't have much to add to these summaries but I appreciate reading them. Thanks for writing them!

[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.

This TikTok guy isn't fooled by Baldoni fwiw: https://www.tiktok.com/@abbysfilmclub/video/7514101149990014238