Blake Lively- Jason Baldoni and NYT - False Light claims
![[Post New]](/jforum/templates/default/images/icon_minipost_new.gif){kind=icon}
Anonymous
Thank you! I've been posting the updates. The "talking to myself" posts are not me but presumably by some Baldoni supporter who wants me to shut up; I'm not mad if folks don't have anything to add ha. |
Anonymous
We know, some people can “listen”to themselves all day. Living proof. |
Anonymous
| Interestingly, Blake always talks over others as well. Loves the sound of her own voice. |
Anonymous
+3! (pp from page 14 that keeps coming back on occasion) |
Anonymous
There is another explanation. The lawyers matter. Lively has great lawyers who own things at this stage of the proceedings. Baldoni does not have serious lawyers. He has showboaters who will do what he wants. His lawyers are subpar for what is going on now. |
Anonymous
Yeah, DP, and I had a similar reaction here also. I don’t necessarily disagree with what PP is saying above, but all this motions practice briefing and seeing the MTD order point out the deficiencies in the Complaint itself really shows what a terrible legal writer and thinker Freedman is, imo. He can bully people into submission like a pro but his pleadings suck and he isn’t filing things he should be filing (like filing his own MTD, filing a new complaint before the deadline, filing a MTD on the vanzan subpoena or a filing on alleged impropriety re same, etc etc etc). It’s like he doesn’t know what to do in court, only what to say on TMZ (and even there he gets the legal part wrong). I’m sure the tides may turn again, but right now he is doing awful, having gotten his high value claims kicked, risking treble damages and punitive from his defamation claim, facing down like 5 MTCs and a passel of sanctions motions. He is having a time. |
Anonymous
Exhibit A https://www.tiktok.com/t/ZP8rdfRso/ |
Anonymous
I appreciate this because he's just going through and reading the judge's opinion and summarizing it in layman's terms. I wish people saying the decision was unfair or that the judge must be corrupt would watch/read analysis like this and really force themselves to give it a fair read. Like they are alleging all these contract torts but they don't even identify the contract OR a single contract provision that was violated, by anyway. Not by Lively, not WM, no one. But I don't think it's going to do anything. People have bought into this narrative that she's some kind of evil mastermind (Blake Lively! who honestly doesn't seem that smart and who, from what I can tell, at least genuinely *believes* that she was the victim here, regardless of whether legally that's the case) and nothing anyone says will break through. To me that's actually the biggest proof of a smear campaign -- the fact that so many people are willing to ignore the law and logic to believe a story that doesn't pass the sniff test, and that paints Lively in this cartoonishly villainous way. |
Anonymous
PP and haha, that's ridiculous someone is adding those posts. All it did was bump the thread to the top of the Recent Topics list which is why I saw your posts. So, thanks to you too, random Baldoni supporter! You helped me get some good info on what is going on with the case yesterday and today! |
Anonymous
|
Hudson taking a big swing by asking for a protective order for Swift materials to be produced from Lively, I think at least until Freedman produces to them whatever Venable gave them, possibly to see if Seift materials are even still relevant given dismissal? But I could be wrong, haven’t read it all:
https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.nysd.634304/gov.uscourts.nysd.634304.325.0.pdf |
Anonymous
So this is a Motion seeking permission to be relieved of Lively's duty to produce her communications with Taylor Swift under Wayfarer's doc requests 108 and 109, basically calling Freedman's bluff, for better or for worse, on his statements about what he received from Swift. Hudson says that Wayfarer's claims involving Taylor Swift have been dismissed, and Lively's complaint doesn't mention Taylor Swift at all. Lively's attorneys have attempted to obtain any materials received by Freedman from Swift since late May with basically no response, even though Freedman has a duty to promptly produce to Lively any materials they have received through subpoena via a third party, through mutual agreement, as in most litigation. So either Freedman received nothing and was just bluffing, or received something while failing to produce it back to Lively despite repeated requests. Hudson also makes much of the fact that Freedman made several statements to the press that he had obtained "everything he needed" from Swift, which Hudson uses as further ammunition that (1) Freedman was just playing to the press the whole time; and (2) Freedman doesn't require further Swift communications from Lively. Also interesting that in the email of communications about the Swift materials, the Lively attorney notes that Freedman so far as of Monday, June 9th, had made "only three small productions" and that third party materials were not contained in any of them. This adds further to the idea that Freedman isn't keeping up with his production obligations and that, unless he intends to make a huge production on July 1, he will likely not have substantially produced by then. I can see one way where Freedman may be trying sort of his best here, in that if Swift provided him with evidence that Gottlieb had tried to extort Swift, he might feel he was not obligated to re-produce that to Gottlieb/Lively. At the same time, though, I don't think he's allowed to sit on that evidence at his leisure, while at the same time asking Lively to produce every communication she has had with Swift about IEWU, which seemingly has no relevance anymore. Maybe Freedman will say such communications are relevant because they can indicate that evidence was destroyed by Lively? But that is not currently an issue in any of the complaints, and if Freedman wants to make it an issue it is his job to file pleadings to make it so. Here again is Hudson's motion: https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.nysd.634304/gov.uscourts.nysd.634304.325.0.pdf Here is the declaration re the history of communications: https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.nysd.634304/gov.uscourts.nysd.634304.327.0.pdf Here is the email showing the parties written communications on the issue: https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.nysd.634304/gov.uscourts.nysd.634304.327.2.pdf |
Anonymous
| Also, in the "that's got to hurt" category, Kristen Bender at Willkie emailed Freedman et al roughly three hours after Judge Liman's order dismissing all Baldoni's claims was issued, saying hey, you guys haven't bothered to respond to our last communication on this Swift issue for two whole weeks, and you also haven't produced anything relevant, so, essentially, put up or shut up: "We have yet to receive any response to the email below [requesting production of Swift documents/communications received from Venable], which we sent more than two weeks ago. To date you have made three small productions, none of which includes any materials that you received from third parties, including in connection with the decision to withdraw the Venable and Swift subpoenas. We can only conclude that no such materials exist and that the purpose of subpoenaing Venable and Swift was not to procure any relevant discovery but rather to generate a public relations stunt. Either way, given that Mr. Freedman has publicly confirmed that the Wayfarer parties 'dropped the request for the subpoena' because 'they got exactly what they were seeking[,]' we understand that you will withdraw RFPs 108-109 that you served on Ms. Lively and RFPs 106-107 that you served on Mr. Reynolds (to the extent they still are operative considering he is no longer a party—Mr. Reynolds reserves all rights on that regard)." https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.nysd.634304/gov.uscourts.nysd.634304.327.2.pdf |
Anonymous
I may have left out the best part, which is that on May 22nd, Swift's attorney at Venable emailed the parties saying Venable was dropping their motion to quash and noting specifically that: "No documents are being produced and no deposition is being scheduled." So Freedman received no documents from Venable! Several gossip magazines had reported that some email existed confirming that Gottlieb had threatened Swift with extortion as a written record of that threat and that Freedman must have received that -- but, no. I guess Freedman could have been told something by the Venable attorney (e.g., that the threats were true, or even that they were false) -- in which case, what if any duty would you have to report that communication in the same way you produce third party documents to other parties? Even if there is no duty to provide oral communications with third parties to opposing parties, it seems like the value of that communication would be minimal, since you would essentially have no proof of it. Okay I really am talking to myself now, ha, will give it a rest for a bit. |
Anonymous
| Dp from above, I said when this happened I thought BF got nothing but the statements in the press that she had nothing to do with it. That would be what I'd expect from a withdrawn subpoena. |
Anonymous
| So Bryan Freedman lied. Hmmm. |