Blake Lively- Jason Baldoni and NYT - False Light claims
![[Post New]](/jforum/templates/default/images/icon_minipost_new.gif){kind=icon}
Anonymous
They got something in exchange for agreeing not to depose Taylor. Only a fool would think they did not. And you know who could clear this all up but hasn’t? Taylor herself. |
Anonymous
Just like only a fool would have said Baldoni's lawsuit would be dismissed and Blake shouldn't settle until the MTD rulings. They got a media headline out of it. Freedman hasn't even really argued otherwise. |
Anonymous
Gottlieb himself confirmed that he threatened Taylor. He said the conversation “as described” did not happen. It was a clear admission that the conversation had indeed happened and the best he could do was dispute the intent. So there is some there there and only a fool would think there’s not. |
Anonymous
| Is anyone else tired of the BL constant PR spin on here? They’re boring |
Anonymous
Up is down. Down is sideways. Bad weeks are good weeks. etc. etc. okay. Gottlieb has known since late May that Venable didn't produce any documents to Freedman in exchange for him dropping the subpoena. Freedman's whole affirmative case is basically gone, and Swift is no longer relevant to anything, yet even after that happened, as late as this week after the dismissal, Freedman was still bugging Gottlieb for Swift documents. What's up with that? Of all the things to worry about this week, why is that high on his priority list lol? This letter motion is aimed at calling Freedman's bluff and killing the Swift story on their own timeline instead of letting Freedman run it. If there was anytime to do it, it was probably this week. And I love that they bugged Freedman about it like 3 hours after the dismissal came down. Whatever Swift had, it's hardly relevant anymore, and if Freedman thinks it is, he will need to argue that now, on Gottlieb's timeline rather than on his own (while he's still struggling to figure out which two claims he's allowed to replead lol). |
Anonymous
Ah, the good old days, when Baldoni supporters thought getting a $40M settlement from Lively before those MTDs were decided would be too low! It feels so long ago but it was actually only last week lol. |
Anonymous
You’re mischaracterizing. WF has subpoenaed Blake’s communications with Taylor about iewu. They’re still relevant to the case and they will need to turn them over regardless of what happened with Venable. Blake’s entire motion asking for a protective order is just for PR to use Taylor’s name for clickbait b/c she already has a PO. |
Anonymous
Sarowitz is a billionaire with a big B. Sorowitz gives more than 40M to charity each year. It was never about the money. They’ll settle for destroying her in the court of public opinion instead. |
Anonymous
I do believe that's how this lawsuit started. |
Anonymous
I saw that, also! I admit that I generally like NAG as well, she has grown on me, but I don't think they "shared screens" and the Venable attorney showed Freedman the letter that way -- anyone knows you can just screenshot a Teams call, no lawyers is going to do that. NAG's other theory was just that Freedman basically lied and got nothing -- she did say that was one of the two big possibilities. She didn't understand why he'd give up on the subpoena, then, but someone else suggested that Freedman basically got what he wanted from Swift's statement that she had nothing to do with the film, which tended to suggest Lively had been lying about her involvement. And he also got what he wanted because Swift and Lively are estranged. The thing is, if Freedman's story was wrong and misinterpreted, there was really nothing for Freedman to get. Venable could have told him it was wrong, and then there's no point in deposing etc. If the part about Lively asking Swift to delete texts was true, that could explain why Freedman still really, really wants to get communications between Swift and Lively, even if they're not otherwise relevant to the case anymore. But man, did this dismissal ever throw a huge bomb into Freedman's plans if that's the case. Presumably he also would want to raise this issue later this month in Lively's deposition, I'd think, so this motion may be designed to try to take that off the table, as well. |
Anonymous
Right? If they hadn't done the smear, nobody would be talking about this anymore and Baldoni would be directing PacMan. Instead he's out here telling the judge that the wimmenz should be quiet about what the law means, and I'm sure he might get some pointed comments about that directed at him whenever he emerges. I know everyone is anticipating Lively's deposition, but can you imagine what Baldoni's is going to be like? Or Heath's? |
Anonymous
PP. Yeah, I was like - he would have had to fly there in person to look at the letter in that case because obviously they could screenshot. And if they proved the letter existed then it would be crazy for Freedman to not pursue the subpoena and get the actual document (a document like that getting in the wrong hands actually would give Lively a good reason to settle the case!) I don't see why Venable would play games and make shady deals instead of seeing their motion to quash through. Especially since their email indicates that Freedman was withdrawing the subpoena without prejudice, reserving the right to reinstate, which would mean they gave up this supposed information receiving basically nothing in return. |
Anonymous
If she hadn’t done the hit piece in the nyt no one would be talking about this anymore and people would possibly be buying Blake brown (though that’s a long shot). Instead she’s out here losing friends and doing pap walks with fake infants. If this was such a great week for Blake, why is it that literally no one congratulated her except for her D list sisterhood of the traveling pants costar Amber Tamblyn. It was crickets from everyone else in Hollywood. No one under 60 will go near her. |
Anonymous
Right? If the document actually existed, Freedman would be a fool to walk away after having only seen it and not being able to use it. I don't understand how that helps him. I don't want to fool myself into believing there's absolutely no "there" there. Maybe there was something there. I don't know how Liman would decide this one, tbh, as I don't think he wants to sensationalize the case but a PO *was* put in place for specifically this kind of issue and PP Baldoni supporter is probably right that if the docs involve IEWU they may have some relevance. I'll be interested in how Freedman answers this one, for sure. |
Anonymous
| Something very fishy is going on with that IEWU sub. The main mod was extremely pro-Justin but decided to hand it over to someone who is pro-Blake but still apparently somewhat neutral. I'm beginning to think they bought the sub from her. |